Talk:Douglas Murray (author)

LIKERESUME tag?

David Gerard can you clarify? A list of publications for which the subject writes seems to be common for articles about journalists, e.g. Owen Jones He writes a column for The Guardian and contributes to the New Statesman, Tribune, and The National and was previously a columnist for The Independent or Deborah Ross Her work has appeared regularly in The Independent, the Daily Mail, and The Spectator. She is a columnist and feature writer for The Times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FirstPrimeOfApophis (talk • contribs) 07:46, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

KronosAlight added the cite, thus citing an article in The Sun by Douglas Murray to support a statement that Douglas Murray had written for The Sun. David Gerard removed it mentioning deprecating and WP:NOTRESUME. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:37, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Bit of a confusing one. The citation of a Sun article isn’t dependent upon the veracity of Sun reportage, it just proves that he has written for The Sun (and has written a number of other articles if you click through to his author page). KronosAlight (talk) 17:59, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Lists like this should be referenced to independent RSes to be present in the articles at all, they're very obviously a resume. If the entries are noteworthy, they will have been noted in RSes; if they have not been noted in RSes, but only in a deprecated source talking about itself, then they're not facts we should care about - David Gerard (talk) 20:07, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

David Gerard's edit summary's mention of WP:NOTRESUME was irrelevant since WP:NOTRESUME is actually about how Wikipedia editors should not use the site to tout themselves. I'd favour putting back the cite and removing the tag. But consensus is required. So who else is definitely for or against doing so? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:05, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

This article does have a problem of too many of DM's opinions and stances being self-sourced, but generally speaking, a credit from a publication acknowledging the fact that someone is a regular contributor is considered reliable as to that fact. After all, whatever the Sun's reputation, it presumably is reliable for knowing who works for it! I therefore agree, the tag is not apt and the text should be reinstated. The link is actually to the around 11 pages of articles by DM that the Sun has online, so it verifies the "regular contributor" text.Pincrete (talk) 15:35, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I support Peter Gulutzan's proposal. But can I ask we wait another 24 hours before acting to give David Gerard a chance to respond. FirstPrimeOfApophis (talk) 17:06, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Just added a third-party RS for the claim - David Gerard (talk) 20:49, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I and Pincrete and FirstPrimeOfApophis agreed that the Sun cite should be put back and the tag removed; I'm not sure about KronosAlight. If anyone changes their mind within a few days and decides David Gerard's later addition of a cite to deadline.com is as acceptable, or if someone else thinks so, please say so. Otherwise I'd say we have consensus. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 01:49, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I've been attempting to reduce this article's over-use of primary sources for at least a year, if not more. If the best source you can find for something is a primary tabloid, it's a very good sign that it doesn't belong, yes even if it is ABOUTSELF. Including this kind of thing without context from a reliable source does very much make the article more like a resume. Grayfell (talk) 06:19, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Grayfell, it's now a 3rd party source corroborating DM working for the Sun, not the greatest source, (Deadline article about a Bill Maher programme) but 3rd party. Pincrete (talk) 07:57, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

On one hand that's true (and your edits in that direction were excellent), but on the other hand, if he's a columnist for The Sun, that feels relevant to mention in his biography regardless of secondary coverage. It's not exactly self-serving. In my opinion all the WP:ABOUTSELF criteria are met, and it's worth noting, given how it fits into the main thing he's known for (opinion & commentary). DFlhb (talk) 11:05, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

This sort of information seems completely due. We have a commentator/columnist. Where their work has been regularly published seems absolutely due. The Sun had published a list of his columns it seems reasonable to use that as proof he has written for the Sun. This is not a contentious claim nor a writer's opinion or analogy about DM. It's a simple fact and completely relevant in a BLP. Given his career is basic boiler plate content. Springee (talk) 10:39, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Peter, I'm sure you've had it pointed out to you previously that a few people can't just assert a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS on a talk page as an end run around a broad general RFC. If you took it to the appropriate venue, WP:RSN, do you think your argument would convince? - David Gerard (talk) 08:46, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Mr Gerard, when possible I'll follow what PAGs say rather than what you say about them. As for WP:RSN I recall that you went to it in March with Reviews from unreliable sources which led to RfC: Entertainment coverage of the New York Post (including Decider and Page Six) where you were part of a minority. However, in this thread I interpret Grayfell's and Pincrete's latest remarks as support or acceptance of the deadline.com cite, so the consensus for reverting your edits is gone. That matters, so they stay for now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter Gulutzan (talk • contribs) 15:17, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Your interpretation of my comment is wrong. Our goal isn't to drop factoids, it's to provide context. A passing mention in a source doesn't provide any context, nor does it in any way demonstrate that this factoid is important enough to be in the lead without being mentioned in the body. Summarize his career in the body and then summarize that in the lead proportionately. Grayfell (talk) 20:08, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Do you have an opinion re: the Sun cite should be put back and the tag removed? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:43, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

The lead should follow the body. Use reliable, independent sources to explain his career as a columnist in the body first (in Douglas Murray (author)#Media career, presumably), and then we can reevaluate how to summarize this in the lead. If necessary, passing mentions, primary sources, and dubious or outright unreliable sources could be considered to fill in basic details in the body, but only if necessary. If the only source for The Sun is the passing mention in Deadline, than this doesn't appear to be significant enough to mention in the lead even if it is mentioned in the body. This standard should be applied to every outlet. If a reliable source doesn't mention Unherd, for example, it doesn't belong at all either, but especially not in the lead. That would be one actionable step towards fixing the long-running resume problem. Grayfell (talk) 03:24, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

We are told that The lead section should summarise with due weight the life and works of the person (MOS:BLPLEAD). It seems evident to me that in summarising the life and works of a journalist, someone who writes articles for publications, we should say what those publications are. WRT due weight, we are only talking about a single sentence. WRT RS, as Pincrete notes, the sources are reliable for the claim being made (that DM wrote articles for the publications in question).

Can somebody opposed to Peter Gulutzan's proposal point to the actual policy indicating that this information is inappropriate for the lead? If not, this would seem to be a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. FirstPrimeOfApophis (talk) 11:51, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

You, yourself already cited MOS:BLPLEAD. Due weight is decided by reliable sources, not individual editors. Proclaiming that this is "evident" is not persuasive in the slightest. Grayfell (talk) 20:23, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

In general terms I agree with Grayfell that this article has a long-term tendency to simply 'echo' DMs punditry, sourced to his own writings. HOWEVER, in this specific instance, as the man is a professional 'commentator/pundit' a short sentence listing the main publications to which he is a regular contributor, seems like basic biog info. As long as it is verifiable, and as long as it is kept brief as we are only listing the main publications, I don't see the problem. Isn't this normal on journalist's articles?Pincrete (talk) 05:12, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Which qualify as "main" and which don't? Passing mentions and primary sources are both bad for determining this. The Times and the Telegraph? Okay, sure. The Free Press, and Unherd? I'm dubious. He is prolific, so indiscriminately mentioning many outlets acts as a subtle form of promotion. We need context and that context should come from WP:IS, same as always. Grayfell (talk) 20:53, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Re actual policy that including is inappropriate. All I've seen is David Gerard's WP:NOTRESUME irrelevance, Grayfell's reference to "due" which presumably is about WP:DUE but it doesn't become undue just because Grayfell says so, and David Gerard's claim that WP:LOCALCONSENSUS applies but the RfC is not policy and anyway was concluding "generally unreliable" which obviously isn't the case here. There might have been allusions to WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY as well but it's just an essay. I'd like to add on our side that WP:WHYCITE says "You also help users find additional information on the subject ..." which applies for citing The Sun since users would indeed find additional information about the writing in The Sun, something which the vague listing-free mention in deadline.com does not provide. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:11, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Again, our goal should be to summarize in the body according to due weight and then briefly summarize that body for the lead. Right now, very few of the many outlets he has written for are mentioned in the body of the article, so their significance cannot be explained. Rhetorically speaking, how often does he write for these outlets? How many of these columns are unique to one outlet and how many are republished by multiple tabloids? To present this information without any context is inviting readers to ask questions that we have not bothered to answer, and it looks like name-dropping to make his output seem more prolific and more impressive, which is a violation of NPOV.

Citing reliable sources is to help readers understand the topic and to prevent these kinds of petty disputes over what is and is not due weight. As I said, due weight is decided by sources, not by editors. I didn't cite WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY, and dismissing it as an essay smells like wikilawering and ignores the point I was trying to make. If you really insist on a wikilink for this, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section: ... As in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources. Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article. Is any particular tabloid vitally important enough to be a "basic fact"? Clearly, we differ on this, but I do not accept that The Sun, Unherd, etc. are all equally important basic facts that do not require any additional context or explanation. The way to fix this problem would be to explain in the body, per reliable, independent sources, where he has written. After that, a source in the lead won't even be necessary per MOS:LEADCITE. Grayfell (talk) 20:53, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

We differ and you don't accept so I count you as opposing. At this point I believe that opposers are David Gerard + Grayfell, supporters are FirstPrimeOfApophis + Peter Gulutzan + Pincrete + DFlhb + Springee + maybe KronosAlight. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:14, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Please add me to the list of supporters. The tag should be removed and the Sun cite restored. The article does not read like a resume. The subject's writings were evidently regularly published in the Sun. BBQboffin^{grill me} 23:55, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I put back the cite and removed the tag. The proposal has about 3-to-1 support from editors in this thread, plus support from PAGs as mentioned. I think that further edits -- removing David Gerard's insertion of deadline.com, shifting the sentence to the body which seems to be compatible with Grayfell's remarks, undoing other recent changes -- should perhaps also happen, but this change is only what was proposed. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:48, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

It is essential that this dubious statement is supported by a reference, or corrected if necessary.

"In the aftermath of the massacre of Israeli civilians, Murray has travelled to Israel and to Gaza multiple times."

I consider it most unlikely that Mr Murray has ever travelled to Gaza since 7 October 2023 since the Gaza Strip has been sealed off. Yet this sentence reads as though he has travelled there multiple times in the period. Hence I question the validity of this statement, especially since it is unreferenced. Kombo the mzungu (talk) 20:51, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Since it was redundant with a previous paragraph, I have removed the sentence. Murray has been to Gaza at least twice. Once was under the protection and guidance of Israel's Minister Of Foreign Affairs. This appears to have been a publicity stunt with American celebrity Debra Messing, likely sometime in December 2023.[1] Grayfell (talk) 21:22, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Murray's regular partner

Is the mere fact that Murray had an (unnamed) regular partner for 10 years, until 2018 even remotely relevant to anything? Apart from the source seemingly being Murray himself, speaking after the break-up, do we normally record such trivia about a BLP? Pincrete (talk) 17:22, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

We could in-line attribute, e.g. "Murray told The Herald..." per WP:SELFSOURCE. A 10-year domestic partnership isn't "trivia"; if another BLP subject had a decade-long marriage we would chronicle that fact, would we not? BBQboffin^{grill me} 00:29, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

if another BLP subject had a decade-long marriage we would chronicle that fact, would we not?, if the marriage, or relationship, were widely reported and the person named and 'acknowledged', then yes, otherwise no IMO. The parties have chosen it to be a private matter, which they are entitled to do if they wish.Pincrete (talk) 04:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

The single interview does fail the "widely reported" test. I would not object to the removal of the mention of the relationship content at this time, given we have just the one Herald source. But if he blabs to more reporters in the future, it's in. BBQboffin^{grill me} 05:46, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Better citation for 99?

The quote in the article is "is an unstable component on which to base an individual identity and a hideously unstable way to try and base any form of group identity".

page 34 of madness of crowds says “…Foucault himself seems to have recognized that sexual identity was probably not a wise basis on which to build any formal identity”. While that doesn’t capture all the nuance of the sentence as written, it’s a direct quote from his book.

Hope that helps! 104.52.238.113 (talk) 22:50, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

On the same page, he says “ - it would seem that even Foucault noticed what an unstable thing sex or even sexuality is to base an identity on”, adding in the ‘unstable’ claim. 104.52.238.113 (talk) 22:53, 15 September 2024 (UTC)