Wikipedia

Talk:Douglas Murray (author)/Archive 3

< Talk:Douglas Murray (author)
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Noteduck in topic Reminder of MOS:LEAD policy
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 7

OVERCITE in lead

Latest comment: 3 years ago18 comments6 people in discussion

@Noteduck:, your recent additions to the lead are not good BLP practice. The lead should be a summary of the article. Adding a long list of citations to the lead describing Murray as "alt-right" is bad practice. Instead, those source should be added to the body of the article, perhaps with a statement like, "Murray has been widely described as alt-right", followed by those citations (or just the 5 strongest, see WP:OVERCITE). In the lead you would just say "he has been described as alt-right without citations since the body of the article would support that content in the lead. Note: I haven't reviewed the sources to see if they are of BLP standards but a quick skim suggests they are. At least some are not as the list includes Op-Eds and disputed sources. Springee (talk) 02:29, 2 January 2021 (UTC) Edit Springee (talk) 03:05, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

the footnotes have been bundled. Given the frequent demands for an extremely high evidentiary standard on this page, I believe the sources should be kept for the time being — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noteduck (talk • contribs) 02:53, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Bundling is a good way to handle that and thumbs up for keeping the statements out of wiki-voice. Again, it's best if the citations are in the body, say where a discussion of why his is considered to be alt-right would be. Then the lead doesn't need any citations. Also, if the body doesn't discuss why people call him alt-right then it really shouldn't be in the lead. It seems like there are plenty of reasons so this shouldn't be an issue. Springee (talk) 03:01, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

@Conan The Librarian, Noteduck, and Nomoskedasticity:, I think it's worth discussing the recently added/removed citations from the lead. Personally I don't see an issue with the attributed "Islamaphobic" statement in the lead. It seems to fit with some of the body content. I think Chetsford's pole below is trying to get at some of that. I would say my answer is D. Anyway, there is an issue with this content [[1]]. First, as I said above if these sources only exist in the lead then there is a problem. With very few exceptions no content or citations should exist solely to support something in the lead. If it doesn't need to be in the article body then it shouldn't be in the lead either. I don't think that is too hard to fix since I suspect many of those sources would be useful in the body. Still, the content is disputed thus the problems should be corrected on the talk page rather than via back and forth editing. Also, just because a source is from an academic source does not mean it can't be removed. That just means we presume it is reliable. That doesn't mean it's DUE, isn't OR or that the edit isn't problematic in some other way. This edit has a number of issues. Going down the list of included sources

  • Black Stwart's work - This one doesn't support the Wiki article claim (at least the included quote doesn't). The quote says Murray's book remodels a much older theory of so-called 'cultural Marxism', which has a long history in far-right thought. That doesn't support that Murray's views or ideology is "proximate to the far-right". That talks about the content of the book, not the person overall. I would agree they likely go hand in hand but as a BLP we should not stretch what a source says to fit what we want the article to say. It would be the same as taking a statement that describes Mr X as being sympathetic with some racist ideas to mean Mr X is a racist.
  • Arun Kundnani - Again this one is being stretched to call Murray far-right. This is simply too far removed from the Wikipedia article statement to be valid.
  • Ed Pertwee - This one lists some authors including Murray then later says "...more recently, Alt-Right-linked figures such as Lauren Southern and Raheem Kassam." It does not say Murray is alt-right in any capacity.
  • Lux and Jordan - This is closer, "Murray’s ideas are not only entangled with the far-right (working class or otherwise), but with wider social connections." However, this still seems to be skirting the issue. This "far-right" association is rather weak for something stuck in the lead of the article.
  • Joel Busher - I'm not sure this is an academic source which means DUE could be an concern. The quote doesn't say "alt-right" so perhaps the activists are "alt-right"? Assuming yes, popular with alt-right doesn't mean the ideas are specifically alt-right, only that the people they are popular with include alt-right. Yet again, this is a weak source on which to hang an alt-right tag in the lead.
  • Jon Bloomfield - Well, it doesn't directly support "alt-right" since this one calls Murray "white nationalist right". So I would say this one doesn't support "alt-right" but rather supports "white nationalist". Do be careful about using a single source to describe, with attribution, Murray as a white nationalist in the lead.
  • Nafeez Ahmed - This is an op-ed article from Middle East Eye. As an op-ed it's absolutely not acceptable for a contentious claim about a living person. Additionally, this one again dances around the label.
  • Alex Kotch - this is the Sludge article which currently sits as WP:NOCON for inclusion. In this case it call PragerU, not Murray far-right. Since the edit associates the label with Murray himself this is not an acceptable source even if Sludge were both RS and DUE.
  • This last one doesn't even make sense as it's several sources but used in a way that we can't tell what source is meant to support the far-right claim. The part that includes an LA Times quote does not support associating Murray with the far right.

So in the end we have a 9000+ character edit that tries to pin the "far-right" label on Murray (which may be an appropriate label) but simply doesn't pass any sourcing muster needed to do the job. It's honestly just a mess. This might have been part of the issue Atsme was raising [[2]] in response to Noteduck's BLP in inquiry. While my gut feeling is there are probably RSs that support the attributed alt-right label, this edit should be removed and started over. As is, it's basically unfixable. Springee (talk) 05:44, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@Springee: You have frequently confused the terms "alt-right" and "far-right" in your commentary. Go back through the sources and rephrase your rebuttals please. However, extricating the terms far-right, alt-right, white nationalist and so on is indeed a difficult exercise in the context of this article. It's also true that the extensive academic and journalistic source material linking Murray with these groups should be explored in more detail in the body. In my opinion the body needs to be reordered so I'll create a new subheading to discuss that. The matter with Sludge was settled conclusively even if you disagree with the conclusion[3] Other claims you have made about the Bridge Initiative, SPLC etc being "self-published" were dubious and were comprehensively rebutted by other editors. Again, I would point to the extensive concerns raised about NPOV issues and advocacy on contentious matters by other editors on your talk page[4] and ask you to examine your own biases. Please refrain from removing material from this page absent stronger rebuttals backed by other experienced editorsNoteduck (talk) 06:02, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
How would you feel about changing the lead sentence to this - "Murray's views and ideology have been described as being proximate to the far-right, alt-right or white nationalist right by a number of academic[9] and journalistic[10] sources, and his views have also been described as Islamophobic.[11]"?
Any swapping of far-right vs alt-right was unintentional. There was a lot of text to dig through and it's late. I think the first thing is the lesser sources must go (Sludge, MEE). I think the academic sources are probably fine for what you want to do. Don't say "a number of academic". Also, we have to be careful about "views and ideology". Are those specific terms supported. It might be better to say something about his "statements" or "commentary" (not sure those are perfect words either). Still, I think if you dumped some of the sources and tightened up the language you might be across the finish line. However, you also need to make sure the body of the article really supports this content in the lead. Once of the worst things people do with Wiki articles is find something they want to see in the article so it gets jammed in the lead. In general nothing should be added to the lead unless it already exists in the body. The idea that you are adding a large number of new citations to the lead vs the body means you are probably doing something wrong. Again, this doesn't mean what you want to add to the lead shouldn't be there, instead it means you should think about what body text supports what you want in the lead. It may already be in the body. Take the part about Islamaphobic. Sources that support that statement should be in the body of the article talking about his views on Islam. Ideally there is a section in the body that follows something like:
Commentary on Islam
Paragraph(s) summarizing his views
Paragraph talking about reaction to his views.
In the reaction you could say, "Murray's views on Islam have been described as Islamaphobic". In the lead they you could also include a statement about his views being controversial and described as Islamaphobic. Then if anyone says why is that in the lead, you point to the body. To some extent this follows the good practice of showing the reader and allowing them to reach a conclusion (with help) rather than telling them what to think before showing the evidence. Springee (talk) 06:40, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Noteduck, there has been some back and forth with the citations in the lead as well as the other disputed content. Conan The Librarian removed a large number of your recent changes. I partially support that move. With respect to the body edits discussed/disputed in a previous section, there simply is no consensus that the sourcing is acceptable. That means per policy the edits should be reverted until consensus if established. As for the content in the lead, I've indicated a number of issues above. Again restoring an Op-Ed article to support a contentious claim is not acceptable. That doesn't mean the other sources couldn't be used. I would also note that "proximate" to the far-right is too vague a statement. If he is personally, widely considered "far-right" fine. Proximate is just too wishy-washy. Same with some of the other negative categorizations in the lead. Again, I get back to the best way to handle this is to come to an agreement on the body text then use the lead to summarize it. if we are putting this content in the lead first then we are doing it wrong. Springee (talk) 13:10, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

The wholesale removal of that content was (also?) against policy. Some specific proposals and edits are the way forward here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:23, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Which policy? I think there is salvageable sources in there but that doesn't mean the text as added can't be reverted. Rather NOCON states that is the correct thing to do. Also per ONUS it's really on those who want to make the change to fix things rather than restoring edits that include things like OpEds used to make contentious claims about BLPs. I agree that a compromise is the correct option here. Ideally that means remove the disputed edits, talk it out and then put up new compromise text. That isn't what had been happening here. Springee (talk) 13:33, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
I appreciate the very patient efforts of Springee in looking into the sources above and from what I've seen they generally look like accurate concerns. I removed the mass of them as despite their weakness the labelling is derogatory and with what appears to be activist intent (in the sources if not the edit) to besmirch a mainstream writer as an extremist simply for questioning culture warrior over-reach - there is even reference to him being a white nationalist in there! IANAL but some of it seems borderline libellous and has no place here with so little weight behind the references. I'm surprised that anybody thinks such accusatory material belongs in a biographic article without overwhelming consensus. Conan The Librarian (talk) 14:51, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
I hate to disabuse you, but 10 years ago the UK Conservative party severed relations with Murray and his org because of his incendiary comments about 'immigrants' (a term which appeared to include British-born citizens whose parents or grandparents were born elsewhere). The views included implying that ALL Muslims should be punished for the crimes of any extremists and that if people were critical of UK govt, or NATO, actions around the world, they should be forcefully 'deported', regardless of them having been born British in the UK. The conservative party at that time was kind enough to assume Murray's views were injudiciously phrased and gave him the opportunity to 'recant', which he declined. The conservative home website also pointed out that his ideas were absurd, legally unworkable and contrary to the very 'liberal' and 'Christian' political values - which Murray ostensibly defends, apart of course from alienating large sections of people for no useful purpose. Therefore the idea that THE CENTRAL controversy about Murray is NOT whether and to what extent he is simply a gentrified 'Paki-basher' and an opportunist - an old-Etonian "shock-jock"- is slightly bizarre to me. I don't have a view as to how this should be represented here, nor anything useful to say about the WEIGHT which should be attached to the sources (reliability isn't much of an issue since there is no suggestion that criticism should be put in WP:VOICE), but people thinking he is often incendiary in what he has to say about Muslims/immigrants, possibly intentionally so, is hardly a novel, or marginal, observation. Pincrete (talk) 17:16, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

The volume of discussion here is hard to follow but I agree with Springee that the longer version is a serious case of overcitation in the lead. The lead should summarise the body and if the body doesn't mention "alt-right" etc it shouldn't be in the lead, and leads should not have this level of footnoting in any case. However, I think many of the deleted refs are probably strong enough to include in the body and so moved theere rather than simply deleted. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:45, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Bobfrombrockley. I agree that many of these sources look good. Cutting the lesser sources and primary sources shouldn't be an issue. I'm not sure about the very loose phrasing we are using when adding these labels. I appreciate that they aren't in wiki-voice but "proximate to far-right" and "linked to alt-right" are very weaselly. Those are nebulous terms that could be used to connect Milton Freidman to the alt-right [[5]]. If the linkage is that weak, and some of the sources say it isn't weak, then it shouldn't be in the lead. In that section the "linked to alt-right" is not supported by the single provided source. The sources for "far-right" do support the "proximate to" claim but such a claim shouldn't be in the lead. The sources could be put to better use in the body. Basically there is content with which to work but not all of it is good and it needs to start in the article body. Springee (talk) 18:23, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Springee, let's try to narrow down what your actual complaints are about the lead. Is the Middle East Eye article the sole source that you contest on evidentiary grounds? The Sludge article has been EXTENSIVELY discussed and justified on the Wiki source reliability noticeboard[6] Unless you can produce new evidence against its reliability it looks like mere obstructionism at this point. If Murray's extensively documented links to the far right/alt right/white nationalist right do not belong in the header, then surely the description of him as a "conservative, neocon, critic of Islam" etc also has no place in the header.

Also, there seems to be a remarkable naivety about Murray and his views among editors here. As Pincrete has mentioned, it is the academic CONSENSUS that Murray has links to the extreme right, which is why the Tories distanced themselves from him in 2007! Please look at the quotes provided from some of the sources that have been added - it's very widely accepted that Murray gives a kind of socially acceptable face to the UK far right - which is why terms like "mainstreaming" and "entryism" [ie to the far right] are often used in association with Murray. The fact that Murray is a highly visible public intellectual but does not make these arguments any less valid. Conan the Librarian I've noticed with some of your edits you seem almost disbelieving that anyone could say such things about Murray - but these are the conclusions most serious scholars have come to when assessing his works. Noteduck (talk) 00:36, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh I have no problem believing people would cast such aspersions, especially in academia; we are well known to be living in an age where anybody critiquing cultural over-reach by idealogues does so at risk of such abuse.Conan The Librarian (talk) 14:35, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Would people support a subheading within "views" called "far right associations" or something like that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noteduck (talk • contribs) 00:37, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
No, you are simply approaching this from the wrong direction. You need to start by saying what the sources say. Then organize it then decide what to call it. Additionally, what label sources choose to apply is far less important than their arguments why that label should be applied. Springee (talk) 03:42, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Noteduck, tiny correction. AFAIK the conservative party distanced themselves from Murray because of HIS views, and because the views were legally unworkable and expressed in ways they thought to be needlessly offensive and because he refused to explicitly distance from his earlier statements AFAIK, his links to any right-wing groups were not an issue at that time for them. Otherwise I agree with your general point. Pincrete (talk) 09:12, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Murray - a 'self-described neoconservative'?

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Given the extensive discussions on this page about the best ideological label to associate Murray with, I thought it would be good to add what Murray himself identifies as politically. Here is one source calling him a "self-described neoconservative":

In March 2018, Hungary’s authoritarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán posted a photo of himself to his official Facebook page holding up a book, titled “The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam”. The title is similar to Sarrazin’s Germany Does Away with Itself mentioned above. The author of The Strange Death of Europe is a self-described neoconservative British journalist, Douglas Murray.

  • Yörükoğlu I. (2020) We Have Never Been Coherent: Integration, Sexual Tolerance, Security. In: Acts of Belonging in Modern Societies. Citizenship, Gender and Diversity. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45172-1_2

Does anyone have any other sources in which Murray or others describe him as a "self-described neoconservative"? Or perhaps he sometimes gives himself a different ideological label? Noteduck (talk) 04:50, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

He certainly considered himself a neo-conservative 15 years ago (after/at the same time as being a Labour supporter); I don't know what he describes himself as now, "classic liberal" is popular with other similar "IDW" types. All are more appropriate than conservative I think; he's clearly distressed at the illiberal over-reach discussed here above. Obviously, he wrote a book on it, and you can find multiple examples of his self-affiliation at the Social Affairs Unit. Example: "Neither I, nor any other neoconservative ever expected David Cameron to proclaim himself a neocon." http://www.socialaffairsunit.org.uk/blog/archives/001104.php And one of his most provocative talks (The Pym Fortuyn speech referenced in the article) is explicit: "My position – the neoconservative position ", etc. Unfortunately, like I said, they are quite old. Conan The Librarian (talk) 16:52, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
the term "neoconservative" isn't that common these days. I've been looking for a recent-ish source in which Murray calls himself a neoconservative but so far haven't found one Noteduck (talk) 00:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

serious NPOV problems

Latest comment: 3 years ago19 comments4 people in discussion

A significant amount of new material and sources has been added to this page in December. Despite extensive referencing and a wealth of source material, much of this new material has been repeatedly deleted from the article. The sources that have been edited out of the article include:

Tags pertaining problems with this page have also been removed[13]. I believe that the only consistent factor in these deleted sources is that they are perceived as being unflattering to Murray, and that they do not accord with his self-identification as a mainstream conservative. It is the mainstream academic view that Murray's work can either be characterized as far-right or having far-right themes[14] and journalistic sources that echo this view should not be unjustly removed from the page.Noteduck (talk) 03:29, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

No reason to spread this discussion out all over the place. The issue isn't NPOV, it's sourcing requirements for controversial claims about a BLP subject. Just in case it was missed in the discussions above let's review these sources. The Bridge Initiative and the hatewatch claims by SPLC are self published. They can be used in articles if mentioned (ie given weight) by independent RSs. So if the NYT says, "The SLPC says Murray is X" then we can use it. In that case we would cite the NYT and possibly the SPLC as well. We don't go to the SLPC or Bridge Initiative and cite them directly if they haven't been referenced by others. MEE is an opinion article and thus not appropriate for a controversial claim about a BLP. You already opened a RSN discussion regarding Sludge. The Guardian is reliable but the way you want to use it is not appropriate. Essentially this isn't a question of reliable sourcing rather WEIGHT. That person A is admired by "bad person" doesn't mean that "bad person's" admiration is due for inclusion in an article about A. That is a guilt by association logical fallacy. Springee (talk) 03:39, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
if you contend that the Bridge Initiative and the SPLC are "self-published" in this context could you please submit the sources to discussion at[15] or point to where they have previously been discussed. By your standard, absolutely any academic project could be considered "self-published" - would you regard, for example, the Innocent Project as a self-published source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noteduck (talk • contribs) 03:52, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
I would suggest you raise the question. As the editor trying to get consensus for new material it is on you to make the case. Springee (talk) 04:01, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Here are some existing pages that cite the Bridge Initiative[16][17][18][19][20]. I'll be reinstating the majority of my prior edits (with some alterations) soon as a persuasive case has been made for their inclusion Noteduck (talk) 04:21, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
This sort of "other articles do X" is a common on Wikipedia. One must keep in mind that it could simply be a case of other got away with it rather than it was right. If you think the BI should be a RS then raise the question at RSN. The noticeboards are there to answer questions like this. Springee (talk) 04:32, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
If information unfavorable to the subject is consistently removed, that is a NPOV issue.
Many sources discuss the far right themes in Murray's work as well as the admiration of many far-right individuals for him. It's clearly due weight for inclusion in some form. (t · c) buidhe 21:59, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Noteduck is constructing a false dichotomy. My concerns are RS (and WEIGHT related to those sources). Why worry that primary or lesser sources are being disputed when you have shown there are good sources that could be used instead? Springee (talk) 00:31, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Springee, buidhe and myself have produced a wealth of evidence from academic and journalistic sources demonstrating Murray's ideological and personal links to figures acknowledged as far-right. Please indicate if you would object to any of the following, as I'd rather discuss it here than see my edits promptly removed on the main page

  • an amendment of the sentence "Murray has been described as a conservative,[5] a neoconservative[6][7] and a critic of Islam" to "Murray has been described as a conservative,[5] a neoconservative[6][7], far-right[some of the many sources that have been collected on this point] and a critic of Islam"
  • inclusion of mentions of Murray's extensively-discussed PragerU video, including a restoration of the material collected from the Sludge video which you deleted
  • a restoration of the material from the Bridge Initiative discussion of Murray, buttressed by some of the academic sources that support the Initiative's argument
  • at least a passing mention of the frequent accusations of Islamophobia directed at Murray
  • at least a passing mention of the well-documented personal links and mutual personal admiration between Murray and Viktor Orban

I believe all of these points merit inclusion in this article and that your previous deletion of new material was unwarranted Noteduck (talk) 06:49, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

I will object to any restoration of the disputed content that repeats the same sourcing issues. Buidhe provided what look like good alternative sources. The sourcing rules for BLP don't make exceptions for poor sourcing just because it appears to align with quality sources. Springee (talk) 12:43, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

@Noteduck:, you have restored the disputed sources without showing consensus (please see WP:NOCON). On the Sludge RSN discussion Hemiauchenia questioned the reliability of the source for reasons similar to mine. Chetsford felt they may be reliable but DUE was still an unanswered question. I also raised the question of DUE above. MEE, one of the sources you used, is an Op-Ed column. Op-Eds are almost never seen as reliable for contentious material about a BLP subject. On the BLPN, Kyohyi agreed with me that the Bridge Initiative is self published since it isn't published via normal academic journals or press. Grayfell disagreed but that simply means we don't have a consensus. Again, buidhe has provided a long list of what appear to be good sources, why are you trying to use Op-Eds, self published and sources with limited reputation/weight? Springee (talk) 02:47, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

the "limited reputation/weight" claim is spurious. The discussion on the Noticeboard[21] makes it clear that Sludge meets the criteria for RS and as for DUE, I made a very strong argument on this about the reach and relevance of PragerU and received no response from you. Kyohyi claimed that SLUDGE was self-published, not the Bridge Initiative like you contend. The argument about Sludge being a self-published was addressed and then rebutted, as Chetsford acknowledged on the page. The argument that Bridge is self-published is baffling - by your standard, so is the Innocence Project... You're asserting an evidentiary standard that could exclude virtually all academic output. The MEE article is not being cited using Wiki's voice and the caveat "has been described as" is present. The academic sourcesbuidhe kindly provided have been incorporated into the article. Springee, other editors have repeatedly voiced concerns about your potential problems with NPOV and advocacy on controversial issues. Please don't remove edits without good reason [22] Noteduck (talk) 03:06, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Again, there isn't consensus that Sludge is reliable much less that it would have weight for including this content in a BLP. Your comment about academic output is flawed. Most academic output comes in the form of papers published in journals or conference proceedings or in the form of books published by an academic press. What we have here is effectively the same as a think tank. It may be very high quality work but the authoring and publishing of the work is internal to the project. That makes it self published. Beyond all that, you restored other disputed material. The guilt by association content is disputed precisely because it is guilt by association. This is an article about Murray so if someone is a fan of Murray you need to show why that is significant in context of Murray. You have not. And you restored the MEE sourced material which is content sourced to an Op-Ed. It is basically never OK to use an OpEd article to insert contentious material into an article about a BLP. Springee (talk) 03:25, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Suggestion: My comment about DUE/UNDUE at RSN was hypothetical and not in reference to this specific article as I haven't looked at it closely enough to make a determination one way or the other. Perhaps one of you two could open an RfC to help determine what content should be included and what omitted? Based on a very cursory glance I would say it is problematic to cite this [23] to declare his views are proximate to Islamophobia since the source only mentions the word "Islamophobia" once in a quote from Murray himself. I would also say the claim that he is a "critic of Islam" should have better sourcing than a single reference to a source (the Evening Standard) that does not have a reliability consensus despite six attempts to obtain one (WP:RSP). That said, some of the other claims in the parade of horribles that form the lead seem perfectly reliable and well-sourced. Again, this is based on the most cursory of examinations only. Chetsford (talk) 04:05, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
I've offered an example below under the heading "Islamophobic" that I think would help better focus the discussion and make it more comprehensible to those not as invested in this page. This is currently very free-wheeling and hard for a newcomer to digest or comprehend. Chetsford (talk) 04:30, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Noteduck, when restoring this content [[24]] you claim the multitude of issues, including using an Op-Ed to make controversial claims about a BLP subject have been addressed and thus have consensus. Can you tell me which editors support those claims? I'm seeing some mixed support but nothing that would appear to be a consensus. Springee (talk) 05:47, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Noteduck, please self revert this edit [[25]]. Mcrt007 removed it on solid ground, that the lead is a summary of the body. I've said the same thing and support the removal as well. Springee (talk) 02:44, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Springee and Mcrt007, I've added a much-overdue subsection under "views" on Murray's ideological links to the far right,[26] which hopefully should assuage your concerns about the lead not matching the body. Feedback and comments welcome Noteduck (talk) 02:53, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
No, it's a mess and needs to be reverted. Springee (talk) 02:56, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Structure of article and additional categories for Murray's page

Latest comment: 3 years ago21 comments5 people in discussion

There are paragraphs on The Strange Death of Europe and The Madness of Crowds that are somewhat awkwardly integrated into the "views" subheading of Murray's page. I believe they should be moved to the "publications" heading. Any disagreements?

Also, there is a mainstream view in academia (I would say a consensus) and a mainstream view in journalistic sources that Murray can be considered some combination of far-right, alt-right or Islamophobic.[27][28][29][30] Accordingly, appropriate categories for Murray include those related to the far right and Islamophobia in the UK, eg [[31]] [[32]] [[33]]

I realize that these claims are contested - PLEASE address the volume of evidence presented in footnotes 9, 10, 11 and 12 on the Douglas Murray page before rejecting these categorizations outright. "These sources sound biased/POV/etc" is not a weighty response. I am open to discussion about what categories Murray should be added to Noteduck (talk) 08:47, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I think moving specific commentary on his books to the publications section makes sense. The views section should be more general. Also, we shouldn't conflate the contested sourcing (an issue that has not been resolved) with an assumption that sourcing for these statements doesn't exist at all. If we have two good sources and one questionable one that all say the same thing then we should dump the questionable one and simply rely on the good ones. Springee (talk) 13:02, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
MEE cetainly not a source that can be used at WP:BLP --Shrike (talk) 15:51, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Shrike I disagree completely, but let's see how things play out on the reliability noticeboard. I don't understand how a book review from an esteemed Georgetown professor in a respected outlet doesn't belong on the page. If no-one objects to moving the paragraphs about The Strange Death of Europe and The Madness of Crowds from "views" to "publications", I'll do so in the next day or so Noteduck (talk) 02:18, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
I think we can break this down a bit. Let's assume Almond were to publish this review on his confirmed, personal blog. Would we cite it? This isn't like citing the opinion of Alan Dershowitz with regards to a supreme court case. Dershowitz's legal and scholarly resume is such that just about anything he says would be DUE. Almond doesn't appear to rise to that level where his opinion on any book related to Islam and Europe is automatically DUE. That means we would have to rely, at least in part, on the quality of the publication. That is problematic when the publication's reputation is being disputed. I did a search for Almond and Murray and found Almond has published some opinion articles about Murray, one in Aljazeera and one in "Islamic Human Rights Commission". I'm sorry, so far I'm not seeing that either Almond or MEE is earning much in terms of due WEIGHT here. If the use of this source is limited to the book review only and not given more weight than other reviews I think it could be acceptable but certainly not for any claims about the author himself. Springee (talk) 02:51, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I want to untangle your contention here. Which of these are you arguing - or you arguing something else?

  1. Almond's review should be removed because MEE should never be cited as a RS on Wiki for any reason
  2. Almond's review should be removed because a review of Murray's book is not due weight - in which case, the Telegraph, Times, NY Times etc reviews should be removed as well.

Which is it, or is the problem with Almond's review simply how critical it is of Murray? Noteduck (talk) 03:05, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

They don't untangle. If Almond's review were published in the NYT it would be easy to say its due even if we didn't know who Almond was. In essence, the NYT is providing the reputation for us. MEE doesn't have such an established reputation. Rather some sources are saying it is a propaganda outfit (see RSN discussion). That means the weight of this book review would have to rest entirely on Almond's reputation. So far I don't see that Almond is, if you will, the Dershowitz of this field. Springee (talk) 03:25, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I note these extremely contentious claims are still up and more activist material being continuously added with aggressive edit notes. A reminder that these derogatory "far right" claims need overwhelming consensus before being published, not after. I propose they are taken down immediately until their discussion has some resolution. Conan The Librarian (talk) 05:00, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

After several more days, there's still been no consensus so I've removed the content in the lead; I suggest the new stuff in the body (which addition I'm guessing has been encouraged by the other editors not wanting to engage in the blatant edit warring of the instant reversions of any removals of inflammatory material) is removed for the same reasons. Conan The Librarian (talk) 16:21, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

‎Nomoskedasticity, CTL's removal was sound. First, CTL didn't remove any sources since the same list of sources was included in the newly added (yet still questionable) right wing associations section here [[34]]. Second, this means you have restored a lot of poorly edited content. Even if one supports the material in the lead a wholesale restoration (vs fixing it) of badly edited material is something we all should avoid. That section was added as a horse to support the cart that had been already added to the lead. That is not how these things are supposed to work. Currently the far right section is still a mess that needs to be sorted out or split up and integrated into other parts of the article. The "proximal to the far-right" claim is very vague and as such probably shouldn't be in the lead of a BLP (WP:DONOHARM). This and similar content has been opposed/removed by CTL, Shrike and myself. That means there isn't a consensus for it's inclusion. Given the many back and forths we are well into the phase of discuss first then add after consensus is established. Springee (talk) 18:24, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

As per my edit summary: I'm not going along with the removal of numerous high-quality academic sources. The fact that they are already present elsewhere in the article makes it less clear why we should do that. Perfectly happy to discuss alterations to the wording. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:41, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Nomoskedasticity, I don't think I made my point well enough. Conan The LibrarianRemoving that block didn't actually remove any references from the article. When Noteduck added the new section they simply copied all the references. For example, the first ref in your restored block of text (citation 10) is Blake Steward, The Rise of Far-Right Civilizationism. That same source is in Citation 112. Other than the Jon Bloomfield source Citations 10 and 112 appear to be the same. Bloomfield is a repeated in Citation 116. Anyway, there is no removal of sources thus the only question is should the lead contain the specific sentence, "Murray's views and ideology have been described as being proximate to the far-right by a number of academic and journalistic sources and he has been criticized for promoting the Eurabia and Great Replacement conspiracy theories about Muslim immigration to Europe, and of being Islamophobic."? That is then a question of DUE for the lead as well as do the sources reliable support the claims made in that sentence. Given this is a BLP and those are contentious claims about the subject they should be out until a clear consensus for inclusion has been established. At this point I see something like a 50/50 split. Springee (talk) 20:26, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Noteduck, why are you restoring an OpEd article as a source for a contentious claim about a BLP?[[35]] Shrike rightly removed it per WP:RSEDITORIAL, Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. Per WP:BLPPRIMARY a primary source can only be used in a BLP with extreme caution. Using a primary source to support a contentious/disparaging claim about the BLP is not acceptable on Wikipedia. Springee (talk) 21:41, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Springee you have a good grasp of relevant Wiki acronyms. I don't know what you mean by "primary sources" in this context, and other editors have raised problems with your comprehension of this term on your talk page (as have I, though you deleted my material). On whether the Nafeez Ahmed source belongs on the page, let's have a look at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources page. On the subject of material from opinion pages:

When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint.[notes 2] If the statement is not authoritative, attribute the opinion to the author in the text of the article and do not represent it as fact.

The source is not being treated as authoritative - it's not being said in Wiki's voice - and Nafeez Ahmed is a renowned expert on Islam and politics (read the credentials on his website).[36] When you refer to Ahmed's claim about Murray embodying "entryism for the far right" as "disparaging", you are betraying your bias. This is not an "extraordinary claim" but rather encapsulates the mainstream scholarly understanding of Murray's views. As Buidhe pointed out on the Wiki sources reliability noticeboard[37] "far-right entryism" is a good summary of what almost all academic sources say about Murray. Please refrain from deleting this source without justification Noteduck (talk) 23:15, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I understand that as a new editor (less than a month) so many of these things can be hard to understand. That is why I provided links to the guideless and policies in question. Nafeez is not sufficiently notable such that we can use his opinion to label a BLP subject. That is simply a non-starter, especially when the source, MEE, has itself been criticized. Beyond that, you need to understand Wikipedia works on WP:CONSENSUS. When several editors are telling you no, you can't decide that their voices don't count. Shrike and others have disputed the quality of that as a source. Op-Eds are not acceptable sources for contentious claims about BLP subjects. Let's put it a different way, if his particular opinion was significant why wasn't it published in a more reputable site? Springee (talk) 23:40, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
consensus is not unanimity, and you have not established that MEE is not reputable beyond your own personal bias. What point of Buidhe's do you disagree with? Again, I call you to examine your own talk page and consider the repeated contentions of NPOV and advocacy issues there. Please refrain from deleting this source without justification Noteduck (talk) 00:08, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Noteduck, saying someone is an entry to alt right is a contentious claim on wikipedia. If you had consensus 3 editors wouldn't have removed the edit. Why are you so intent on keeping this low quality source given you have similar statements from academic sources? Springee (talk) 00:22, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
the reference is to far-right entryism not alt-right. As with your pushbacks against the Sludge article, we are witnessing a familiar pattern in which you contest every source perceived as unfavorable to Murray by holding it to an impossibly high evidentiary standard. The MEE article in question is just used as one of three journalistic sources to make a point about Murray's links to the far right, and then occupies half a sentence in the "views" subheading - hardly undue weight. If material continues to be removed from this page without justification it may be necessary to escalate to WP:ANI, but we'll see Noteduck (talk) 00:35, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
The fact that it's one of three means it shouldn't be an issue to drop it. The "links" to the far right need to be expressed carefully. There is no evidence presented that Murray is a member of a far right group. Springee (talk) 00:48, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
I have provided multiple references because of your relentless and baseless contestations of every edit I've made to this page. "Multiple journalistic sources" is better served by three sources than two. Murray's proximity to the far right is ideological not physical. Unless you have further rebuttals please refrain from deleting without justification Noteduck (talk) 04:25, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
First, this is a BLP so we don't use a weak source just because we like having three vs two. Second, as I've said before, the correct place to start is the body, not the lead. Springee (talk) 04:43, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

"Islamophobic"

Latest comment: 3 years ago24 comments9 people in discussion

Which, if any, most closely reflect your opinion(s) based on available WP:RS? Please select all that apply, or describe your thoughts if none apply.

  • A: Douglas Murray should not be described, in WP's voice, as "Islamophobic" or variations of that claim (e.g. "views and ideology ... proximate ... to Islamophobic").
  • B: Douglas Murray should not be described, attributed to sources, as "Islamophobic" or variations of that claim (e.g. "views and ideology ... proximate ... to Islamophobic").
  • C: Douglas Murray should be described, in WP's voice, as "Islamophobic" or variations of that claim (e.g. "views and ideology ... proximate ... to Islamophobic").
  • D: Douglas Murray should be described, attributed to sources, as "Islamophobic" or variations of that claim (e.g. "views and ideology ... proximate ... to Islamophobic").
Chetsford (talk) 04:28, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
@Chetsford: I appreciate your input. I may have jumped the gun with my reference to Islamophobia in the lead. Note the "about us" page on the Bridge Initiative website:

"The Bridge Initiative is a multi-year research project on Islamophobia housed in Georgetown University. The Bridge Initiative aims to disseminate original and accessible research, offers engaging analysis and commentary on contemporary issues, and hosts a wide repository of educational resources to inform the general public about Islamophobia."[38]

I have put in the body that " Murray has been extensively profiled by Georgetown University's Bridge Initiative, which aims to document examples of Islamophobia."[39] But yes, you're right that Bridge does not explicitly call Murray an "Islamophobe" at any point. I can find some sources which explicitly call Murray Islamophobic[40][41] or note that activists have addressed him as such[42]. I checked each of these sources and each of them seems to have editorship as well as authorship and no obvious RS red flags. That said, if you think the "Islamophobe" designation doesn't belong in the lead at all let me know Noteduck (talk) 04:56, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Noteduck - this is purely a question for the community and does not represent input of any kind by me. If you could, would you mind properly indenting and clearly indicating your thoughts (bolding a basic summary is often helpful, but not required). My hope is that, by asking a succinct question and obtaining clear and coherently organized responses, we could accurately weigh the sense of the community and refresh the rather nuanced, rambling tête-à-tête above. Here are some examples of how these discussions usually go: [43], [44]. Chetsford (talk) 05:14, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Chetsfordit should be D: Douglas Murray should be described, attributed to sources, as "Islamophobic" or variations of that claim (e.g. "views and ideology ... proximate ... to Islamophobic"). Here is an academic source that describes Murray as Islamophobic [sic] and another that describes him as "Islamophobic" [sic]

Important Islamophobic intellectuals are, among others, Melanie Phillips, Niall Ferguson, Oriana Fallaci (d. 2006), Diana West, Christopher Hitchens (d. 2011), Paul Berman, Frank Gaffney, Nick Cohen, Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Douglas Murray (Kundnani 2012b, 2008; Carr 2006; Gardell 2010).

— Mattias Ekman (2015) Online Islamophobia and the politics of fear: manufacturing the green scare, Ethnic and Racial Studies, 38:11, 1986-2002, DOI: 10.1080/01419870.2015.1021264

In addition, in Busher’s (2015) ethnographic study of EDL activism in the South East, he confirms that – while EDL activists’ ideological sources were largely drawn from ‘esoteric [Counter-Jihad] authors’ – they also ‘extended well beyond this niche’ to include mainstream ‘Islamophobes’ such as Douglas Murray and prominent New Atheists Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins (p. 84), whose characterisation of the Muslim faith as ‘evil’ or ‘mad’ adds grist to the group's Islamophobic cause.

— William Allchorn (2019) Beyond Islamophobia? The role of Englishness and English national identity within English Defence League discourse and politics, National Identities, 21:5, 527-539, DOI: 10.1080/14608944.2018.1531840

Additionally, I think a footnote citing to the Bridge Initiative should be added next to these sources with an adjoining note "Georgetown University's Bridge Initiative, an academic project aimed at documenting Islamophobia, has extensively profiled Murray's views" Noteduck (talk) 05:31, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Noteduck - these types of unformatted, walls of text tend to derail discussions. Have you had a chance to complete the WP:ADVENTURE yet to learn a bit more about how to use Wikipedia? If not, it might be a good idea to check it out. With your permission, as we're the only two who have commented here, I'd like close and archive this thread since it's fairly unreadable at this point and quickly turned into a mirror of the somewhat rambling discussion it was designed to corral. Chetsford (talk) 05:39, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

The wall of text stuff seems to be present in the article as well, regardless of who's responsible. There is far, far too much "detail" on the Islamophobic and absurd far right accusations. I've removed some of it but the whole article needs a clean up with a succinct summary of Murray's critique of Islam, not the meandering war of words present at the moment, especially the nonsense about him being far-right.Conan The Librarian (talk) 14:30, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

If you're going to struggle to engage with academic sources simply because they portray thing in ways you don't like, this might not be the best article for you to work on. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:04, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
I'd support D. Doug Weller talk 17:11, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Of course you would - you forgot to mention though that we just disagreed on one of the related wiki pages. Both of you, please consider your own biases before you imply my own and remember to assume good faith. The references at fault have been discussed ad nauseum above for their flaws and need severe editing before reinstating. Edit: I missed the "D" and assumed you were supporting the tone of the comment you were replying to; if I misread, my apologies.Conan The Librarian (talk) 17:27, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
@Conan The Librarian: it was just a !vote, not a response to the comment. But ignoring the tone, I'm concerned that you either don't understand our sourcing policy or disagree with it - or are perhaps ignoring it, but I can't read your mind. Doug Weller talk 16:56, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Damaging claims based on contested sources were placed in a biographical article without consensus despite repeated objections and so were removed. I disengaged after a couple of reversions due to the edit war policy. Please clarify exactly what I did wrong and future guidance for dealing with edits that seem to have more in common with a political campaign at best and character assassination at worst ("white nationalist" in the references, "far right" in the text). Conan The Librarian (talk) 21:57, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
@Doug Weller: I repeat - please clarify your criticism in the light of my reply above or - better still - take an actual look at the "far right" accusations being made by what appears to be an activist editor who is refusing to move forward with consensus despite repeated objections by multiple editors including myself, and are having the effect of traducing a mainstream (if provocative) cultural critic. Conan The Librarian (talk)
  • A - I am dismayed that we must continuously debate the obvious in light of prior discussions at BLPN that have confirmed we should not. Labeling and name-calling is not encyclopedic. We are obligated to follow WP:PAGs, specifically as they relate in this case to MOS:LABEL, WP:BLP, and WP:INTEXT. Also see prior BLPN discussions in which Jimbo participated, including here & here. Jimbo's statements align with my statement here and at BLPN. Atsme 💬 📧 11:01, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
For such serious accusations, any summary relying on the sort of sources so far suggested would need to be careful in pointing out their weaknesses (political biases of the writer etc), and the tenuousness of the links proposed. Conan The Librarian (talk) 13:40, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
  • A and probably D Clearly we should not put a contentious label in wiki-voice so that makes A all but required. D is depending on sourcing. Looking at the article we have 3 sources used to support that he is called Islamophobic. The Bridge Initiative is listed as a 3rd supporting the claim but, in addition to questions of SPS, it also doesn't actually label him as Islamophobic. I think this is sufficient sourcing for an attributed label in the article body. With just two instances and given the way the sources are listing people rather than talking about Murray specifically and providing examples about Murray I don't think this has sufficient weight to be in the lead. Springee (talk) 18:06, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Slightly pointless exercise on two grounds. Firstly I don't think anyone believes that Murray should be described in WPVOICE as Islamophobic/far right etc. Murray is a controversial figure and the extent to which his views support/coincide with far-right groups or individuals is the question, not whether he IS an acknowledged far-right figure. Secondly, experienced editors are advising a relative newcomer to work FROM the sources to establish what is an accurate, weighted text - but here we are discussing how to represent this issue, without reference to ANY sources! Pincrete (talk) 12:34, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
  • A and B There have so far been no sources presented that are sufficiently strong enough to carry weight backing what are essentially aspersions. Note this especially applies to the "far right" claim, not just the Islamophobic one. Conan The Librarian (talk) 13:21, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
  • A and B I agree with Conan for the most part. In addition to that, not every critic of Islam is an Islamophobe (some major intellectuals, like Gandhi, Vidiadhar Surajprasad Naipaul, Wole Soyinka or Sadegh Hedayat have also criticized, at times harshly, the violent imperialistic expansion of Islam and various of its aspects). Georgetown University's Bridge Initiative, which seems to be quoted 5-6 times in this article and given undue-weight doesn't seem to be a noteworthy source either: their content is not peer reviewed, and seems rather activist in nature, mixing within their "factsheets" genuine Islamophobes (like neo-nazi groups, Pamela Geller and so on) with the smearing of occasional critics (like Tulsi Gabbard) but also reformists including women rights activists Seyran Ateş, Maajid Usman Nawaz, none if which is labelled on Wikipedia as "Islamophobe". Mcrt007 (talk)
  • D. The breadth of sources is plainly enough to show that this description of him is prominent enough and mainstream enough to be worth noting; and the argument that "the sentiments he's expressing are not islamophobic because [reasons]" is head-scratching when applied to attributing opinions - we don't omit attributed statements simply because an editor disagrees with them. --19:11, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Sources

Anyone who thinks "the sources don't justify it" evidently has a severe allergy to the idea of making an effort. To assist, here are two google scholar searches that produce a wealth of material to work with:

FFS, he is discussed in The Routledge International Handbook of Islamophobia. [45]. The sort of anti-expert commentary we are seeing above in this section shows a real weak spot of Wikipedia in dealing with "controversial" topics. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:47, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Murray has made it clear he supports reform of Islam from within, not abolishment of it; his concern is what he sees (rightly or wrongly) as the assumption that Europe must change its ideals to match those of Islam, rather than vice versa. And as I've made clear my biggest problem is with the "far right" labelling. By the way, I'd appreciate it if you would drop the repeated veiled insults against me. Conan The Librarian (talk) 14:58, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
I think the Islamophobic claim is clearly supported by sources published in academic literature. The body of the text should say this label is applied and say why. If the label is due for the lead should be decided after the body is done but my gut feeling is the answer will be yes. I want to make clear that my objections to some of the sources is not a rejection of all of them. Springee (talk) 14:19, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Springee is correct - the sources are sufficient - even if Murray sees himself differently. Doug Weller talk 16:59, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Nomoskedasticity this speaks to the heart of my concerns about the edits and revisions made to this page. It's the academic CONSENSUS that Murray provides a socially acceptable face for Islamophobia and the far right, which is why terms like "entryism" and "mainstreaming" [of the far right] have been applied to him. The fact that Murray himself seems to self-identify as a moderate conservative should not detract from this. Some editors here should keep in mind that NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content. A wealth of high-quality material has been added to this page since December 2020. Unfortunately, every source that does not align with Murray's self-identification as a moderate conservative has had to contend with repeated removals and tendentious editing. I think we all owe it to ourselves to keep a close eye on this page and prevent its quality being affected by partisan attacks Noteduck (talk) 20:29, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Noteduck, we can't claim it's academic consensus because we haven't heard the opinion of a sufficient number of academics. We can say these academics say this about him. Also, if, hypothetically, 5 academics and 1 blog all say the same thing we might conclude that the blog is correct. However, we still cannot cite the blog in a wiki article. A source of questionable reliability that says the same thing as good academic sources is still a questionable source per WP:RS and thus not suitable for contentious claims about BLP subjects. Please review BLP sourcing here [[46]]. Springee (talk) 21:08, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Additionally, I checked a couple of the links in the search results above and it wasn't obvious at all that they reflected a consensus view (even over those results!) that Murray is Islamophobic (or just reflected the bias of the authors). Conan The Librarian (talk) 22:04, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Reminder of MOS:LEAD policy

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Quite a few editors have deleted material from the lead related to controversies involving Murray, in particular the mainstream academic view of Murray that his views are linked to the far-right, Islamophobia, conspiracy theories and so on. A few pointers from the MOS:LEAD policy:

The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies.

All but the shortest articles should start with introductory text (the "lead"), which establishes significance, includes mention of significant criticism or controversies, and make readers want to learn more.

Reliably sourced material about encyclopedically relevant controversies is neither suppressed in the lead nor allowed to overwhelm; the lead must correctly summarize the article as a whole.

At present, there is a single (long) sentence referring to controversies around Murray's controversial views based on more than a dozen academic sources - hardly undue or overkill. Nobody who has reverted the material from the lead has cited MOS:LEAD or challenged any of these sources. I call upon the editors who have made repeated, wholesale reverts of material from the header to be more mindful of Wiki policy when editing this page Noteduck (talk) 23:36, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Douglas_Murray_(author)/Archive_3&oldid=1027641517"