Talk:Douglas Murray (author)

War in Gaza, interview with Netanyahu

This information was reverted with the following edit summary: "This is still far too vague. He's a pundit. Use WP:IS to indicate why any particular position is significant."

In 2023, he expressed support for Israel's actions in the Gaza Strip during the Israel–Hamas war. On 28 January 2024, Murray interviewed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

References

Murray spent several months in Israel covering the war. His public support for Israel during the Gaza war is a significant event in his life and I think it should be at least briefly mentioned in the "Political views" section. -- Tobby72 (talk) 02:24, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

How long he spent there isn't the issue, and how significant this is should be explained via reliable, independent sources, not from individual editors. This is part of an ongoing issue (see the talk pages archives) with how to properly summarize Murray's activities. After all, he has 'expressed' support and opposition for many, many things. Rhetorically speaking, why is this any different from the rest?

To put it another way, as I've said before, he is a pundit so his opinions are his commercial product. It isn't our job to help him sell his wares, so we need specific reasons to include any of this. Merely mentioning one example of his professional activity, or one example of his opinions, would be arbitrary. We can explain his support of the invasion of Gaza, or his time spent in Israel promoting the Israeli government, but we need to use reliable, independent sources to contextualize this. Without context it doesn't belong. Grayfell (talk) 03:03, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

let's be more careful

@Hemiauchenia: and @Michael Bednarek:: you're making substantive edits but using edit summaries that suggest otherwise. If you don't intend the substantive edits, then great -- please undo them. If you do intend them, then please undo and discuss. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:18, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

@Nomoskedasticity: Did you even read your version before you published it? It has obvious duplication problems that mean that it really couldn't remain in mainspace. [1] Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:22, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

My edit summaries couldn't be any longer or explain more of what I did. The edits may seem substantial, but when half a dozen or more identical citations are re-used, the diff looks that way. I didn't remove a single word from the body of the article. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:27, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

The recent changes should probably be rolled back until there is a consensus regarding the changes. Certainly the current lead which uses a contentious label in the opening sentence would require clear talk page consensus. Springee (talk) 21:31, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

No, it really shouldn't. Overwhelming consensus among high-quality academic sources is that he's described as far-right. And by the way, since when is "far right" considered a contentious label? It's a descriptor of political beliefs, no more, no less. Stop acting as if someone described him as a neo-Nazi. Fred Zepelin (talk) 21:58, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

That appears disputed and per LABEL and BLP concerns this is a change that needs consensus. The question I have is which version of the lead is the stable version we should revert back to. Springee (talk) 22:26, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

According to the editors that have provided reasons for describing Murray as "far-right" (those reasons being, that's how he's described in high-quality sources), the stable version is one that describes him as far-right. I have not seen any reasons offered by any editors that wish to remove this descriptor from the lead, so I don't see an issue with the current version. In any case, the current version is very close to the last stable version before the whitewashing attempts started, so I think it's fine as is. Fred Zepelin (talk) 22:36, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

The version with "far right" in the opening sentence is not the long-term stable version and has been repeatedly been contested. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:45, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Hemiauchenia I think you have rolled back to Fred Zeplin's first edit, rather than to the stable version: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Douglas_Murray_%28author%29&diff=1212495690&oldid=1212360412. Was this intentional? 2A02:C7C:A85E:8500:4D6:6C49:6084:A1D (talk) 07:56, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I didn't notice the other changes to the lead, but I don't think they really are different in substance from the stable version. Anyone else is free to revert deeper if they wish. Hemiauchenia (talk) 08:00, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Springee I suggest reverting back to this edit [[2]] by Michael Bednarek. Is there a good reason to keep any of the changes past this point? Unless I have misunderstood, you do not support them, nor does Peter Gulutzan, nor do I. So I can't see who Fred Zepelin could have got consensus from. It would also fix the uncalled-for rebundling of citations. FirstPrimeOfApophis (talk) 04:19, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

You'll have to do better than WP:IDONTLIKEIT as a rationale for rolling back changes. So far, the editors in favor of the current wording have cited the fact that reliable secondary sources (dozens of them!) describe the subject as "far-right" in his politics. The editors who don't like the wording have cited... nothing. No policy-based reasons at all. This isn't a "count the votes for and against" system. It's a system where reliable secondary sources count the most. Fred Zepelin (talk) 13:03, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Please do not edit war. This is a disputed change and there is not a clear consensus for the changes you have made. Technically IDONTLIKEIT is a bad reason for AFD, not to revert a disputed change. In this case the NOCON is the correct policy to cite. Springee (talk) 13:10, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh sorry. I should have you read Wikipedia:I just don't like it, then. Because that's the sum total of the arguments of editors that don't like "far-right" in the lead, despite the voluminous sourcing. Right now I see @Grayfell:, @Nomoskedasticity:, @Aquillion:, and myself pointing out that "far-right" is supported by dozens of sources. I see other editors saying "so what, we don't like far-right in the lead and so you have to take it out." That's not at all how this works. Fred Zepelin (talk) 13:19, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

And other editors have pointed out issues with your sourcing as well as BLP concerns related to this edit. The simple fact is you don't have consensus for this change and NOCON is policy. Springee (talk) 13:34, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Comment: This is about "far-right" in the lead? I'm not sure I've ever seen an article subject that is more solidly described as such by reliable secondary sources than this one. There's literally dozens of sources already in the article. Where's the sourcing that says he's not a far-right political commentator? I don't even see one. Fred Zepelin (talk) 20:08, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Fred Zepelin made a large edit of the article before posting the above statement. I believe the sources now in the first sentence do not sufficiently support far-right. Just looking at the quote parts of the cites ... Cite #8 does not say Mr Murray is far-right, it says Viktor Orbán is on the right and liked Mr Murray's book. Cite #7 does not say Mr Murray is far-right, it says Prager University is far-right and published Mr Murray's video. Cite #6 does not say Mr Murray is far-right, it says he is white nationalist right. Cite #5 does not say Mr Murray is far-right, it says he is among EDL activists. Cite #4 does say Mr Murray's ideas are "entangled" with the far-right, but what that means is an exercise for the reader. Cite #3 has no quote but is probably this which after quoting Adrian Tudway and Douglas Murray says "Both these statements suggest that counter jihadist’ ideologies, through reworking far-right ideology and appropriating official discourse, are able to evade categorisation as a source of far-right violence." -- as if evading categorisation as far far-right proves you are far-right, eh? Cite #2 says Mr Murray's book "remodels a much older theory of so-called 'cultural Marxism', which has long history in far-right thought", which if true would only suggest that the book discusses the theory. Cite #1 has no quote but it's easy to look up the Economic Times article, I didn't find what statement in it is relevant. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 21:08, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

If even some of the sources are describing him as far-right, and the rest of them say he promotes Islamophobia, The Great Replacement Conspiracy Theory, the Cultural Marxism Conspiracy Theory (all basic tenets of today's far-right), and still others say he promotes the work of and admires other far-right figures, it's an open-and-shut case to me. Feel free to start an RfC on the BLP Noitceboard about it. I suspect you'll see 90% of established editors agreeing that "far-right" is the most accurate descriptor. Fred Zepelin (talk) 21:27, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

We might want to bundle that massive list of citations, but yeah, high-quality academic coverage overwhelmingly calls him far-right (and often uses him as a primary example of the modern far-right when discussing it.) --Aquillion (talk) 21:49, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

@Aquillion: is there a handy help article/tutorial on how to bundle citations? I was about to tackle it, thinking the same thing as you, but I cannot find out how to do it. Fred Zepelin (talk) 21:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Never mind, just found it here, thanks to Scopecreep posting that template at the top. Fred Zepelin (talk) 22:12, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand what all the recent edit warring is about. Murray is described in the lead as "linked to far-right political ideologies". What am I missing? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:58, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I moved that to the first sentence and a couple editors didn't like that change. Incidentally, I don't really have a hard position on the cites, just bundled them after Aquillion suggested it. They're technically not needed in the lead anyway, as long as they're in the body. I'm fine with your preference, after the RfC below gets worked out. Fred Zepelin (talk) 14:04, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

That isn't a fair summary of the change. The previous lead said "linked to far-right political ideologies" later in the lead. Your lead put "far-right" in wiki-voice in the opening sentence. That's quite a big change. Springee (talk) 14:20, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Lede

Whats happening with the lede? I left a tag so folk could take notice. Is there somekind of faceoff that led to about a dozen refs in one spot. Its excessive. scope_creep^Talk 22:13, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm actually trying to figure out how to merge those right now, found the link in the template you posted, but I haven't attempted this before. Fred Zepelin (talk) 22:15, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

The lead was recently changed in a way that has BLP concerns regarding putting a contentious LABEL in the opening sentence. Absent a clear consensus to make the recent changes it should be rolled back to the last stable version of the lead. Springee (talk) 22:28, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

scope_creep: Read the previous thread = let's be more careful. This appears to be just a continuation of the same topic, if you agree then please change your heading to show that this is a sub-topic. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:32, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I finished consolidating 9 of those refs, so I think we're all set on this topic. Fred Zepelin (talk) 23:41, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Citation bundling: IMO the bundling of citations, as currently presented in the article, is sub-optimal. It leads to a bloat of the "References" section with large swaths of bibliographic material and quotations duplicated because they are also used elsewhere. I suggest to either return to the unbundled state and accept a list of citations in the article, or, more complicated, use the {{harvnb}}/{{sfn}} mechanism and bundle those. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:56, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

You preferred the bloat of numbers 2 thru 12 in the lead itself? The text of the article being bloated, in my opinion, is far worse than the References section being bloated. Fred Zepelin (talk) 13:06, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

On balance, I prefer each citation marked as such on its own. The previous bundled state produced many duplicated references, which is confusing and not conforming with normal citing practice on Wikipedia. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:53, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I bundled using harvnb. I'm hoping this satisfies everyone. Planning to do the same in the body if there's no objection. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:56, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Now done. Someone may want to look into merging the two bundles together. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:16, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 March 2024

Douglas Murray does not belong to the far right, he’s a centrist modern thinker. 2A01:4B00:9E32:2300:38E2:4E92:FAFF:9E8A (talk) 00:41, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable secondary source to support this opinion? Fred Zepelin (talk) 00:54, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. M.Bitton (talk) 12:48, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Request for Comment

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

As the initiator of this RfC, I am withdrawing/closing it due to the actual question being tampered with in this edit. I was not asked about changing the wording, I was not notified, and I did not notice it at the time. As the wording change definitely framed the question in a way that the editor changing thought would help produce his desired outcome, the results are tarnished and there's no point in continuing this. Fred Zepelin (talk) 21:57, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

---

What should the opening sentence of this bio read?
A: "Douglas Murray (born 16 July 1979) is a British far-right author and political commentator."
B: "Douglas Murray (born 16 July 1979) is a British author and conservative political commentator" with links to far-right located later in the article lead.

Fred Zepelin (talk) 13:51, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Responses

• A - There are dozens of reliable secondary sources, already in the article, that either (a) describe Murray outright as a far-right figure, (b) describe Murray's endorsements/promotion of far-right conspiracy theories such as Eurabia, Great Replacement, and Cultural Marxism (all described by Wikipedia as far-right in those articles), and/or (c) describe Murray's positions that align with far-right ideologies. A handful of additional sources were removed in the last reversion. The only documented opposition to this descriptor comes from Murray himself, and of course, that does not count on Wikipedia, as he is a primary source. Fred Zepelin (talk) 14:00, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
• B – Readers can make up their minds about Murray's leanings themselves; the lead alone will allow that. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:03, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
• B - The stable version of the lead already notes link to far-right ideas. Per previous discussions it's not clear that Murray is widely described as primarily "far-right" thus putting this in the opening sentence puts undue weight on that contentious LABEL. That also raises a BLP concern again given the nature of "far-right" and things like it's Neo-nazi associations (per the lead of Far-right). As Michael notes above, it is better to allow the reader to decide rather than beat them over the head with it. Springee (talk) 14:27, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
• B -- I said in the previous "let's be more careful" thread that cites that Fred Zepelin had added "do not sufficiently support far right", and I explained why in some detail. Subsequently I've noticed that someone wrote on substack about use of poor sourcing for an earlier version of this article: Re Wikipedia: The defenestration of Douglas Murray Or how Wikipedia can be gamed. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:31, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

  While I always see substacks as something to be viewed with caution, the claims regarding various sources that have been used here are rather damning. Springee (talk) 15:02, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

"Damning"? Seriously? It's sloppy pseudoscholarship that misrepresents almost every source it cites. Be less credulous if you're going to start endorsing a source on a talk page, please. Grayfell (talk) 19:05, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Can you back up those claims? Note that I said the claims are damning. I haven't done the research to show that the claims are true but if they are, yeah, they are damning of the sources that were discussed. Can you show otherwise? Springee (talk) 19:23, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

As a couple of examples, it's ironic that the blog post spends a "gotcha" paragraph to imply that Ed Pertwee is under-qualified and to tie him the political left, only to then imply in the next paragraph that Wikipedia's use of that source is guilt by association. This article isn't about Pertwee, nor do his political views make his published work inherently less reliable. The only reason to mention Pertwee's social media comments is because the author's presumed audience is already primed to dismiss "leftist" sources. This is both disingenuous and sloppy.

Per the blog about that same source: The article itself mentions Murray only once and doesn’t accuse him of promoting conspiracies. "Accuse" is loaded language in this context, but the source specifically describes it as "a conspiratorial narrative" in the same paragraph which mentions Murray. Therefor this is factually incorrect.

Elsewhere, the blog attempts to explain Murray's comments about the EDF as being out-of-context. This would only make sense if Murray was somehow completely ignorant of how the EDF originated. It started from the far-right hooligan scene and was always mired in neo-Nazi crap from its very first protest. Murray's support of the EDF is support of the far-right even in context.

It goes on like this. It's a lazy and inconsistent blog post which proves nothing. Grayfell (talk) 20:07, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Why did you pick an example in the middle of the article? Do you feel it was the weakest example provided? Yeah, the evidence that Pertwee is biased is not rock solid in that example but the blog author suggests that the Wiki editors were misusing a Pertwee article to support a claim:

The article itself mentions Murray only once and doesn’t accuse him of promoting conspiracies. Rather, he’s cited with other “conservative writers” as spreading the Eurabia narrative, whose originator Bat Ye’Or is accused in the article of being a “conspiracy theorist”. To conflate writers because they discuss similar themes is lazy and for Wikipedia to say it proves Murray is promoting conspiracies is even lazier.

Thus, by my read, the blogger isn't impressed with Pertwee but, as we might claim here, says the Wiki fact supported by the Pertwee source failed wp:V. I'm not sure your follow up comment is a valid argument either. You are basically suggesting something like a dog whistle context. Perhaps that a group can't be parsed or dissected for finer understanding. You aren't so much showing that the blogger is wrong vs saying "the blogger said context was left out but really even more context was left out". When we have to start making such claims and justifications to prove a contentious label, well perhaps we should back away from the label. The primary concern of the blogger, that the article at the time appeared to be more a hit piece vs an impartial summary looks fair. Springee (talk) 20:26, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

• B, keep it neutral.--Ortizesp (talk) 15:00, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
• B (summoned by bot). Of the numerous citations in this version, I could only see two that directly call him far-right, both from The National: [3] and [4], and both of these use the term in quote marks so it doesn't seem they are using this label in their own voice. The other sources use phrasing such as Murray’s book remodels a much older theory of so-called ‘cultural Marxism’, which has long history in far-right thought([5]), which is a step removed from actually labelling him as far-right. Per WP:LABEL, I do not see sufficient source evidence to demonstrate that the label of far-right is widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 16:08, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
• A -- the sources on this issue are quite obvious, and it's really incredible to see the types of arguments being used to deflect from that core idea. Just follow the sources -- a key pillar. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:25, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
• A -- Sources "link" him to the far-right for a very obvious reason, and being evasive and coy about this isn't more neutral, it's less neutral. We shouldn't be using weasel words. Grayfell (talk) 19:00, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

  We link him to the far-right too, in the lead. But there’s a difference between linking and labelling. Sources link him, but they don’t label him. So following the sources means doing the same. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 20:17, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

• B -- the sources are perfectly adequate for the current links at the end of the lead, but not to WP:LABEL him in wiki voice in the opening sentence. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 12:28, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
• A. Describing Murray as far-right is well-sourced and has been done over the course of at least a decade. "Neutral" doesn't mean "nice", it means describing the subject as RS do. Cortador (talk) 15:19, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
• A There are clearly enough reliable sources labeling the author himself or the views he espouses as "far-right". The label in the lede is appropriate. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:42, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
• B Fred Zeplin has produced a long list of citations to what are (mostly) sources meeting the standard of WP:RS. The problem is, these sources don't say what Fred Zeplin and the "A" supporters are claiming. Sources either don't describe anyone as far right or describe some other person, organisation or idea as "far right" and make a reference to Douglas Murray. Actual descriptions these sources use are as follows:

Stewart (2020) gives no description of Murray, only that he has written a book which "remodels a much older theory of so-called 'cultural Marxism'" and this idea "has long history in far-right thought."

Kundnani (2012) the single reference to Murray is as "Douglas Murray, the associate director of the Henry Jackson Society, which influences the government on national security policy", an example of the "many officials and advisors (reluctant) to recognise (the EDL) as a significant threat"; Kundnani clearly regards Murray as belonging to the mainstream political establishment along with the other example "Adrian Tudway, the police’s National Co‐ordinator for Domestic Extremism". The full article is accessible here (https://www.icct.nl/sites/default/files/2023-01/ICCT-Kundnani-Blind-Spot-June-2012.pdf) and the reference to Murray is on p.16.

Lux & David Jordan (2019) describes Murray as a "Media pundit, journalist, and conspiracy entrepreneur" (none of which are exactly scholarly terms) and an "'organic intellectual'" and claim his "ideas are not only entangled with the far-right (working class or otherwise), but with wider social connections." Without further clarification what this "entanglement" signifies as part of their argument, any use of this source would only be synthesis.

Busher (2013) lists Murray as one of a number of "Popular commentators and public figures who are [EDL] activists." The article is behind a paywall, so unless whoever added this citation can show which of Busher's actual words they replaced with "EDL" no conclusion can be drawn from this.

Bloomfield, Jon (2020) comes closest, describing Douglas Murray and Roger Scruton as part of the "white nationalist right", but not as far right.

Kotch (2018) describes Prager U as "far-right" and Murray as a "British author" whose video is on the site. Kotch does describe him as "anti-Muslim", "right-wing" and "conservative".

Hussain (2018) describes Murray as a "British political commentator and journalist" a "pop intellectual" and an "ideologue". The title suggests some readers of his books are far-right.

Ahmed (2015) is an op-ed piece (the big clue is "Opinion" at the head of the page) which describes his ideology as "rancid" and heavily implies he lacks expertise as an “expert on Islamist extremism and UK foreign policy”, but does not describe Murray as far right. Again, the full text is here: https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/white-supremacists-heart-whitehall. Please check for yourself.

Pertwee (2020) describes him as "conservative"

Kumar (2020) describes him as "conservative"

Mughal (2014) describes him as "neoconservative"

FirstPrimeOfApophis (talk) 19:29, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• B - Conservative (or neoconservative: he wrote a book on that) is how he's "commonly described" in the mainstream media and per WP:BLPSTYLE we should use that language. When there's cites for Reuters, AP, BBC, NYT, WaPo, etc. all labeling him "far-right" then we can (and should) say that in Wikivoice. BBQboffin^{grill me} 21:24, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  @BBQboffin the problem I have with "neoconservative" is that its meaning has changed over time. It seems to have meant one thing in the 1970s when Irving Kristol used the term, something else in the Bush years when Murray wrote his book, and something else again now, when self-styled "traditionalist conservatives" use it as a pejorative e.g. https://europeanconservative.com/articles/commentary/nikki-haley-and-the-neocon-kingmakers/. FirstPrimeOfApophis (talk) 21:35, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  It's not nearly as pejorative as far-right, which the WP page lede photo visually depicts as a Nazi flag-bearer, flanked by two guys carrying Confederate flags. If we're going to label any BLP subject that we need to be damn sure we get it right, or we risk bringing the project into disrepute. BBQboffin^{grill me} 22:55, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• B - Conservative is how he's "commonly described" in the mainstream media and per WP:BLPSTYLE we should use that language. When there's cites for Reuters, AP, BBC, NYT, WaPo, etc. all labeling him "far-right" then we can (and should) say that in Wikivoice. per BBQBoffin. That Murray frequently echoes and rehashes far-right views/theories doesn't alter the fact that he is not generally described thus.Pincrete (talk) 06:26, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
• B - Conservative, per the excellent arguments of @BBQboffin, @FirstPrimeOfApophis, @Barnards.tar.gz. Currently the lead is already non-neutral and not in Wikivoice, unlike the leads of some controversially racist and conspiracy-theorist public figures, for example George Galloway who has repeatedly been exposed as such by reliable sources. Mcrt007 (talk) 22:18, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
• B — Let the reader decide for themselves is he is a far-right ideologue or not. Simply stating he is an author an political commentator is most neutral and appropriate. SpicyHabaneros (talk) 05:19, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
• B -- There are sources to be found that describe him as either conservative or right-wing and to my mind in today's hyper-politicised environment the two often have very little difference. Conducting a quick google search I could only find one reliable source which explicitly calls him far-right (there was another story from a different source owned by the same parent company). Are the culture wars his brand of "conservative" engage in off-colour and dangerous? In my opinion yes, but that doesn't necessarily make him far-right. TarnishedPath^talk 10:56, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

• Comment to better align with the stable lead I noted that far-right was part of the long term lead. Springee (talk) 14:23, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion of Murray's connection with far right ideas has indeed long been part of the lead, but the inclusion of describing him as "far right" in the opening sentence has not. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:25, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Discussion regarding RfC close

@Fred Zepelin:, I don't agree with closing this as withdrawn. A number of editors have replied so it should be left open. Please self revert. Springee (talk) 22:33, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

A number of editors replied to an RfC that I didn't start. You changing the wording of the actual question is a crystal-clear violation of WP:RFC. Fred Zepelin (talk) 22:41, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

By "a number" do you mean 2? Editors who weren't familiar with the topic might assume no part of the lead mentioned "right wing". I wanted to make sure it was clear that was already in the lead but not in the first sentence as you were proposing. I didn't change either of your sentences. That said I think this should be reopened so we can get a clear response to the question so we don't have to go through this again. Springee (talk) 23:44, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Of course this RfC should not have been closed by Fred Zepelin. Michael Bednarek, you were the only person besides FZ to respond before Springee changed the question. Could you please review this change and let us know if you'd have responded differently to the prior version?

FZ, the conditions for an RFC ending are at WP:RFCEND. As the poster, you can withdraw RfCs, but the timing isn't right unless "consensus is reached, or until it is apparent that it won't be". And, withdrawing the RfC just means removing the RfC tag, not closing the discussion. Can you please re-open it?

Springee, I've adjusted an RfC question or two in my time, and I always ping the poster. Something to consider for the future. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:29, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I will. To be clear, when I made the adjustment I noted the edit right under the RfC question [6] where the change and associated comment would be very apparent. This is a practice I have seen other editors do. At some point the comment was moved down into the discussion section. Springee (talk) 01:37, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Responding to FFF's ping: No. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:47, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I voted B and I would have welcomed formal refutation of what Fred Zepelin had told me on March 7 ("I suspect you'll see 90% of established editors agreeing that "far-right" is the most accurate descriptor."). Alas, I do not see what part of WP:RFC allows Springee's change, it only allows "... add an alternative unbiased statement immediately below the RfC question (after the {{rfc}} tag)." Also I don't see what part of WP:TALKO required Hemiauchenia to move Springee's additional comment that was initially below the RfC question. It seems to me that Fred Zepelin technically had a right to close early. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:55, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I was just trying to clean up the RfC question because I thought it was cluttered, and I wasn't sure if having two signatures might interfere with transclusion by the RfC bot. I think regardless of whether the RfC was closed properly or not, there's very clearly not a consensus to describe Murray as "far right" in the opening sentence, which is what ultimately matters, and I don't think letting the RfC continue would result in a different outcome. If FZ continued to argue for the inclusion of "far right" in the opening sentence based on his argument about the RfC being invalid I think that would be disruptive editing, but so far FZ isn't doing that. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:14, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

You both violated WP:TALKO and WP:RFC and that's why I closed the RfC that I began, and you modified, in violation of policy, and in an attempt to affect the discussion and the votes of other editors. This is a black-and-white case, and it is closed. Fred Zepelin (talk) 22:05, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I posted at WP:AN#Talk:Douglas Murray (author)#Request for Comment to hopefully get some input on what to do next. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:25, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

The WP:AN discussion's now archived without action. If the RfC had been re-opened I'd have struck my !vote. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:11, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I think based on the state of the RfC when closed we can conclude there is no consensus for and perhaps a consensus against putting "far right" in the opening sentence. I don't think we should take this as an endorsement of the status quo with the term later in the lead since "remove it" wasn't a clear choice yet may reflect editor preference. Note the recent tag added (and removed) to the lead to this end. Springee (talk) 10:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

What a shock - you think that the RfC you didn't write, but edited to try and arrive at your preferred outcome, arrived at your preferred outcome? Amazing. Fred Zepelin (talk) 21:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

The RfC was 12:4 against your proposed change at the time you closed it early. That certainly looks strong enough to be a consensus against assuming sound arguments on both side. It would have been good to discuss the proposed RfC prior to opening it so we could be agreed on the wording and intent. Springee (talk) 22:17, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I see you're once again ignoring the fact that you changed the wording of the RfC before the vast majority of those posts were made, rendering it useless. Let's not pretend that you had some altruistic motive. I looked through your edit history. In every single discussion you get involved in, you vote to remove information you perceive as "negative" from conservatives' articles. That's not an opinion, an attack, or a violation of AGF - it's just straight facts. Every. Single. One. I have no idea how you've gotten away with that for as long as you have. Fred Zepelin (talk) 22:24, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Please FOC, not editors. Springee (talk) 22:50, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2024

Please remove this sentence:

He is an atheist, having been an Anglican until his twenties.[114][12][19] He has also described himself as a cultural Christian and a Christian atheist.[115][12]

and replace it with this one:

He has described himself as a cultural Christian and a Christian atheist,[115][12] and he was an Anglican until his twenties.[114][12][19]

It's unnecessary to call him an atheist twice in consecutive sentences. 123.51.107.94 (talk) 04:17, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank for that suggestion. Done. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:05, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Subjective "known for" claim

Fred Zepelin, please follow BLD. You boldly moved a subjective claim from the second paragraph of the lead to the opening sentence [7]. That change was challenged. Please either self revert or show consensus for the change. Springee (talk) 02:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC)