Jump to content

Talk:Douglas Murray (author)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


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

[edit]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Murray's regular partner

[edit]

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)[reply]

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? BBQboffingrill me 00:29, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. BBQboffingrill me 05:46, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Better citation for 99?

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Improve Article

[edit]

Given this is C-Class, going to see what I can do to improve it. MaskedSinger (talk) 11:39, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Under no circumstances are over-the-top promotional claims like "Murray has devoted his career to seeking and spreading the truth and because of this, opinions on him are polarised." going to be appropriate to this or any other article. Focus on reliable, independent sources. Do not add WP:SYNTH and do not use flimsy sources to insert trivia, loaded wording, or editorializing. Wikipedia isn't a platform for hagiography, PR, or advocacy. Grayfell (talk) 09:34, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks for that @Grayfell . But couldn't you have just deleted that line instead of everything else? MaskedSinger (talk) 09:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Grayfell so can i try again? MaskedSinger (talk) 09:46, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For future reference, this is regarding this block of edit, which I have reverted.
To your first question: I used that one line to highlight one of the issues, but it was not the only issue, nor even the only over-the-top line you added. Your additions included far too much editorializing and vague language based on flimsy and opinionated sources which were presented as bland facts. You also moved content which had consensus built over time in the lead, such as Murray's endorsement of far-right conspiracy theories, the body. This all adds up to look like whitewashing the article, but Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion. Your edits had made the article less neutral, not more. I'm sorry, but explaining every single issue here is simple not feasible right now.
I don't know what you mean by "try again". You do not have consensus for these changes, and would need to address a lot of different issues to gain consensus. Grayfell (talk) 09:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Grayfell Ok. Thank you. MaskedSinger (talk) 09:57, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]