Talk:Craig Murray

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

Craig's Website[edit]

In the Legal Pressure section it's stated that Craig Murray's web hosting company shut down his site in September 2007. I notice that Craig's new site [www.craigmurray.org.uk] is now down, and has been like that for a couple of days (i.e. since at least 14th Sept 2009). Is anybody aware of any further legal action, or any other reason that could have caused this? Darriuk (talk) 19:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's back online now. A temporary blip. Darriuk (talk) 09:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move per request as the primary topic.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Murray (activist) → Craig Murray —

This article has just been moved from Craig Murray to Craig Murray (activist) without prior discussion or announcement. I object to the move because the ex-ambassador, author and former university rector who is the subject of this article is certainly a lot more notable than a random guy who played hockey for a Canadian college for four years (so his article should be the primary topic, see WP:PRIMARYTOPIC), and also because "activist" is a very inappropriate way of pigeon holing him. I also note that the relatively new editor who did this appears primarily interested in politics, not hockey, so I can't help feeling this looks suspiciously like sneaky POV pushing. Hans Adler 00:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Do we have to wait the 7 days? This seems an obvious revert case. In the meantime people may waste time changing wikilinks in other articles. Rwendland (talk) 16:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since Craig Murray has been edited after the move, it can only be reverted by an admin. I would of course not be opposed to a speedy move. Hans Adler 18:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Due to the many broken links, I've redirected Craig Murray back to this article pending conclusion of this discussion. Station1 (talk) 20:03, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Documents[edit]

... Murray has stated is the government "trying to claw back the very limited gains in Freedom of Information in the UK",[26] especially attempts to close websites on which the supporting documents were posted instead. Though many attempts to do this have proved successful, media interest has also meant that the documents frequently re-surface on mirror sites ...

The documents are on his web site now. The timeline is a bit of a mess.

Would be good if this could be tidied up.

Rich Farmbrough, 02:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]


Removed[edit]

Controversies[edit]

According to Paul Craig Roberts,[1]


  1. ^ The World's Least Powerful Man, by Paul Craig Roberts, 1 December 2009

--end-- Seems more about promoting Roberts than adding to the article. Rich Farmbrough, 02:34, 4 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Craig Murray. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:24, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Murray's photograph[edit]

In an entry for his blog, Craig Murray wrote on 26 January 2010:

In the choice of images to illustrate articles, editors' are not supposed to use any which do not present the subject in a good light. (I cannot currently locate the policy document.) At present, Wikimedia Commons contains only the image of Murray which, in 2010, he rightly found unsatisfactory. As an image for a biography article is desirable, but not essential, it seemed best to remove it. However, a new entry in his blog concerns my edits to this and other articles in which he says I "even removed my photo on the extraordinary grounds that it was 'not typical' of me." So it seems his current thinking on this relatively trivial issue is not as it was six years ago, and have reverted my edit.

[Removed sentence per request below.] Philip Cross (talk) 13:04, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Your last sentence is a breach of WP:BLP, being a potentially defamatory personal opinion stated as fact, and should be deleted.
On the AI case concerning Craig Murray's own edits to this article you wrote: "An IP editor, User talk:86.179.232.251, who identifies himself in the edit summary as Craig Murray himself, persists in restoring legally sensitive material about the Julian Assange case, breaking the WP:BLP policy in libeling one of Assange's alleged victims. Obviously, there is no reliable, third party, source for Murray's claims." Obviously, so long as the material is presented in the article as a set of statements made by Craig Murray on his blog, the blog itself is a sufficiently reliable source. Those statements which had not beeen presented as something he had written, could easily have been recast to conform.
    ←   ZScarpia   23:22, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]


References

  1. ^ Murray, Craig (26 January 2010). "Vanity posting". Craig Murray. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)

Lap dancer[edit]

my life lap dancer - she wrote this herself. 'I had asked him which bus would take me to the club.'

'she was forced to swap her respectable but low-paid teaching position for a job in a lap-dancing club and how Murray spotted her there and took her away from it all.' the squalid truth Why is Murray allowed to dictate the articles language? 92.3.26.69 (talk) 19:16, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He is not, and I changed the reference for consistency after realising the Max Hastings review of Murder in Samarkand could resolve what I perceived to be a problem. As the later theatre show which featured Nadira Alieva was The British Ambassador's Bellydancer, she was later previously referred to as having been a "lap dancer" in the "personal life and awards" section, which looked odd to me. In any case, Alieva is described as having been an "exotic dancer" in many other sources. I know the former Ambassador has a mixed reputation, but Murray seems to be the main source as to the details of his first meeting with his second wife. The Daily Mail, because it is a tabloid newspaper, is frowned upon as a source for editors to use, see Identifying reliable sources. Philip Cross (talk) 20:06, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough - I loathe the Daily Mail myself, but the woman wrote the article herself. She says the club where they met was was one where she was 'dancing in just my underwear but the other girls seemed as comfortable as if they were skipping around their own bedrooms.

I admired how professional they were and by the end of the first week I had found my nerve.

It was at the club in April 2003 that I met Craig Murray.' my life lap dancer - that becomes for Murray 'a belly dancing club'. He is dictating the articles language if you ask me, but I respect you as an editor. But belly dancing, as I've seen it portrayed in films, and I remember I saw Lawrence Durrell in a film at one performance, is highly skilled , is something different - and the dancer didn't wear 'just underwear'. the text as is stands 'where she was working as a belly dancer' looks bad to me - if she was working as a belly dancer why didn't she write that in the Mail article? 92.3.26.69 (talk) 20:23, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at you last link, I find the main use of the term "lap dancer" in Alieva's Mail article is in the article's heading (which would have been written by a sub-editor), while the principal reference to nude dancing is from the brief period when she worked for Spearmint Rhino in London, not Taskent, as is the sole reference in the article to her time as a lap dancer. So on this evidence, "lap dancer" still seems inappropriate for Murray's article. Philip Cross (talk) 21:31, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not arguing for 'lap dancer' necessarily, I'm just saying 'belly dancer' isn't supported by the evidence she herself presented of dancing around in underwear. You think that is her saying she was a 'belly dancer' -?? Murray is making out he met her at some kind of cultural event if you ask me - 'a belly dancing club'. It should be 'where the couple met while she was working in a club where the women danced in their underwear' - and thats from his wifes own account. 92.3.26.69 (talk) 21:43, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The full title of "the squalid truth" Mail article from December 2007 is "The squalid truth about Our Man in Uzbekistan and his belly dancer lover", and the content also suggests "belly dancer" is the correct term to use. Other editor's are likely to take a dim view, if any of the more salacious material about the club in Taskent were to be added. I should know, I have been burnt a few times, mainly in my editing of the article about the arch-establishment writer Paul Johnson. Philip Cross (talk) 21:56, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm talking abut the article she wrote - if you think it suggests 'belly dancer' is the correct term to use for what the dancers were doing at the club where she met Murray, well, I just don't agree with you, but won't belabour the point any more. The article should be as 'salacious' as the reality it seeks to present in my opinion, no more , no less. At first I was shy about dancing in just my underwear - [but] by the end of the first week I had found my nerve - What 'nerve' is required to be a belly dancer? Skill, yes, but 'nerve' ? Her own version means surely at first she was nervous about dancing around in her underwear in this club but after a week she lost her nerves. But whatever, let the whitewashers win . 92.3.26.69 (talk) 22:12, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Craig Murray. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:11, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Craig Murray. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:51, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Craig Murray. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:08, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please translate for Americans[edit]

The British educational systems is outstandingly obtuse to an American. Please translate this sentence into some string of words internationally intelligible:

He spent seven years in total at the university, he had to sit one year twice for not attending tutorials, compared to a normal four for a Scottish first degree."

This makes no sense to an American. For example the word "sit" cannot mean sit above. Americans in university (last I knew & I have a number of American degrees) do not attend tutorials, whatever tutorials are. The sentence seems to imply that Murray was penalized for not attending tutorials and had to so something twice, yet the article goes on to saying that there are "a normal four" (four what? four tutorials?). So it sounds like he was penalized to have to do something twice, though the normal is four. Twas brillig & the slithy toves, did gyre & gimbel in the wage. (PeacePeace (talk) 19:19, 13 June 2017 (UTC))[reply]

'Sit' suggests he had to re-do a whole year and sit the exams again, because he had failed to attend tutorials (these are individual tuition sessions which a small number of students -- it could be just two, or even one -- must attend with their assigned member of teaching staff, usually every two weeks during term). 'Four' is the normal number of years for a Scottish first degree, compared to three in England. How he strung the whole thing out to seven years, God knows, but then he's done a lot of strange things. Khamba Tendal (talk) 21:03, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And he's just done another strange thing (not that that is saying much, as he does something strange every few hours) with this tweet, which looks remarkably like an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory:- https://twitter.com/CraigMurrayOrg/status/974192978574094337 Khamba Tendal (talk) 18:05, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A correlation isn't any sort of conspiracy theory.Keith-264 (talk) 22:28, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Craig Murray. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:32, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Washington Times[edit]

IP user:46.208.174.77 has objected to my use of this source because the citation is dependant on the Daily Mail which is rather notorious on this site.

WP:CONTEXTMATTERS says "In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication". Which would not seem to exclude The Washington Times, which is not a "tabloid" in the meaning of Yellow journalism, of which the Mail is regularly accused.

In addition, WP:BLPSOURCES says: "Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources" (my emphasis).

The disputed issue has been mentioned elsewhere, and is therefore not invalid for inclusion. That "Murray denies the Daily Mail assertion" (see the edit history) is not a reason for excluding it.

The self-published writings of the subject of an article are normally admissible, but Murray's blog contains contentious claims about living third-parties which are potentially libellous. So it is best avoided most of the time. I should have edited this article more often. Murray's outburst about the Scottish independence referendum ('No' voters being "evil, or quite extraordinarily thick") should have been properly cited before now. Philip Cross (talk) 21:20, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:DAILYMAIL1, we do not use anything that is sourced to that newspaper. Additionally, the diverging political agendas between Murray and Daily Mail make the paper an even less reliable source on Murray. Washington Post's editorial policies might differ, but here we are editing an encyclopaedia, not a news piece. — kashmīrī TALK 03:58, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Condense[edit]

This article has become an ideological battlefield. Part of the problem is that it is overloaded with selective citations, both from Murray's blog and public media. While direct quotes are not a bad practice per se, here they have became a

I started condensing the article, so as to keep the key facts and leave out the majority of trivia, lengthy citations, and forum-like discussions on the quotes. Yes, it all was making an interesting read, but the style was definitely appropriate in a biographical work on Murray but not in an encyclopaedia. Nor do we need lengthy listings of media reactions to some words uttered by Murray: he is not US President but just a blogger and activist.

I am breaking now but feel welcome to continue the improvement work. — kashmīrī TALK 04:49, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cutting an article, as here, can still be problematic. The subject can complain about an article for this reason too. It is possible I cut too much from the article about Nafeez Ahmed who, like Murray, has complained vociferously about my edits on Twitter.
The "Subsequent career" passage is now rather breathless in tone, whereas the "Family and education" now seems overlong in comparison. The description of his time in the Young Liberals around 1973-74 may be difficult to source properly. While Murray remains best known for his period as British Ambassador in Tashkent, it now appears he has become more mellow in recent years, which potentially misleads readers. His outburst on Newsnight in 2012, which is now omitted, gained much media attention at the time and is the one example of his later unwise comments to choose. (He was not wrong to oppose the Karimov government; a subtext in the Uzbekistan section tries to suggest the issues raised by Murray doing so in 2002–4.) It might be best to restore the Newsnight issue with less detail, because it can certainly be sourced appropriately, and cut the passage on his involvement with the Young Liberals. Philip Cross (talk) 06:06, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Philip Cross: Agree, the balance is still not perfect and some sections (e.g., the Uzbekistan part) are overly detailed while others perhaps too cursory.
Cutting the Uzbekistan part needs to be done in my view, although the pace of narration is much more stable there, which would require condensing/rewriting rather than mere cutting which was easy to do elsewhere.
The media interview was a typical WP:ONEEVENT that nobody will care about in 10 years from now – just as we don't really care about celebrities' media interviews of 15 years ago, even if they made headlines at the time. Actually, this is my perspective when editing: trying to judge whether a particular piece of information will be of interest to a reader in 20 years from now, i.e., in 2038. So, as much as Murray's engagement in politics - party membership, standing for parliamentary elections, etc. - are an important aspect of his biography to me, all of his individual speeches or interviews did not really make history, so I removed them per WP:NOTADIARY.
As for the subject complaining, I admit I don't care much, mainly because people with COI should have no influence over the Wikipedia content. I even recall situations where subjects explicitly requested to be deleted from Wikipedia altogether and this was turned down at AfD (this is my memory only, I am unable to link to the cases at this time). Also, I don't expect Murray to discuss his Wikipedia entry, as he surely remembers the story of shill editing on Alisher Usmanov (see last section there). I will take a look at Nafeez Ahmed article later.
That said, I also think we should be careful not to make this article into a polemic with Murray's blog.
Cheers, — kashmīrī TALK 10:05, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Section: "Blaming Israel for Skripal Attack"[edit]

I am going to delete the "Blaming Israel for Skripal Attack" section and move it here for review. As the content doesn't accurately reflect the sources cited, it breaches WP:BLP. Also, if the what the cited sources say is compared with the articles by Craig Murray mentioned, it can be seen that those sources misrepresent the latter, which point out that countries other than Russia, which was partly being blamed for the attacks on the basis that Novichock agents were first developed there, had the capability to make them. There is also the issue of weight: does two newspaper articles make claims about antisemitic conspiracy theories justify the inclusion of that section in the article. If the section is re-instated, Murray's articles should be quoted so that readers may compare what they say with what the other writers say they say.

The text reads:

"In 2018, Murray was criticized for spreading a conspiracy theory that Israel was responsible for the poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal.[69] He was called a "conspiracy peddler" for blaming Israel, after the British government produced an assessment supported by 28 other countries determining that Russia was responsible for the attack.[70]"

Citation 69: Danny Stone (director of the Antisemitism Policy Trust), "How conspiracy theories about the Salisbury attack tap into antisemitic tropes". Neww Statesman. 2020.

Citation 70: Scottish Political Editor, Kieran Andrews (21 January 2020). "Israel conspiracy peddler Craig Murray to address SNP activists". The Times. ISSN 0140-0460.

The New Statesman article refers to two Craig Murray blog pieces: Of A Type Developed By Liars; Russian to Judgement. Another Craig Murray blog piece which deals with the Skripal issue, but is not mentioned: Pure: Ten Points I Just Can’t Believe About the Official Skripal Narrative.

    ←   ZScarpia   16:54, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Diff of the edit in which the content was deleted: [1].     ←   ZScarpia   16:57, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with me. — kashmīrī TALK 18:00, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how the statement you removed misrepresents the sources. The first one clearly says "Craig Murray has written on his blog that Israel was more likely to be behind the Salisbury novichok poisoning than Russian agents" ,and the headline calls him a "conspiracy peddler". Accordingly, I am restoring the longstanding version . Start an RfC if you want to remove it. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 03:34, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The sources do not state that Murray blamed Israel for the attack. Note that, in any case, the headlines are irrelevant as far as sourcing goes. Comparison with Murray's blog articles also shows that he was not blaming Israel. They also show that the cited sources are misleading.
I have opened a new section on the BLP noticeboard. By reverting the removal, without discussion and ignoring one other editor, you are now responsible for the presence in the article of material breaching the BLP policy. If I didn't have a personal rule not to revert more than once within 24 hours anywhere on Wikipedia, I would have immediately re-reverted you.
    ←   ZScarpia   04:28, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On wikipedia, we go by what reliable sources sy , and we do not substitute our personal analysis of the primary sources for what the RS say. I've quoted the Times to you: "Craig Murray has written on his blog that Israel was more likely to be behind the Salisbury novichok poisoning than Russian agents". I am open to different wording that more closely follows that, but you can't just remove an entire section , supported by reliable sources.JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 14:04, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Struck comments by JungerMan Chips Ahoy!, a blocked and banned sockpuppet. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NoCal100/Archive § 06 May 2020 and Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/NoCal100 for details. — Newslinger talk 16:52, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Staggers is IMO a lower quality source. It makes two claims, as I read it. First, that Murray cast doubt on the Government's explanation of the Skripal case. I am assuming that this is not in dispute, since it is clearly true? The second is that he drew a line between Labour MPs who supported the Government's line and "Labour friends of Israel". This was, obviously, picked up online as rather tone-deaf to say the least, but the NS clarifies that he meant the remark in the context of the anti-Corbyn faction and its dubious (and, we now know, almost certainly entirely bogus) allegations of antisemitism. The NS makes the point that antisemtitic comments were made, by people who amplified Murray's words, but stops short of atttributing blame. Does anyone else read it differently?
The Times is absolutely up front in describing Murray as having "promoted a series of conspiracy theories, including that Israelis might have been behind the Salisbury poisoning". That is bold. It's a reliable source, but I cannot find any other source that makes this specific bold claim. Maybe my Google-fu is weak. In the absence of a second source making the claim, or reporting on The Times making it, I would call WP:UNDUE here.
The NS does not corroborate The Times, as I read it. So the claim thjat Murray blames Israel fot he Skripal attacks is single-sourced, and, given that it is striking, damaging, disputed, and not repeated elsewhere, I would not include it. Guy (help!) 17:24, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The source is Murray himself, in both his blog articles and later follow up writings.

Such as this tweet https://twitter.com/CraigMurrayOrg/status/974192978574094337.

Here is the blog - https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/03/russian-to-judgement/

I quote -

“Israel has the nerve agents. Israel has Mossad which is extremely skilled at foreign assassinations. Theresa May claimed Russian propensity to assassinate abroad as a specific reason to believe Russia did it. Well Mossad has an even greater propensity to assassinate abroad. And while I am struggling to see a Russian motive for damaging its own international reputation so grieviously, Israel has a clear motivation for damaging the Russian reputation so grieviously. Russian action in Syria has undermined the Israeli position in Syria and Lebanon in a fundamental way, and Israel has every motive for damaging Russia’s international position by an attack aiming to leave the blame on Russia.”

So I will be adding Murray's own statements and the reaction to them.

Tanila001 (talk) 16:05, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to use Murray's article for the claim that he said Israel did it, you should also include his statements that Porton Downs did it and that Orbis intelligence did it. It's a wonder all the culprits weren't falling over each other.

The “novochok” group of nerve agents – a very loose term simply for a collection of new nerve agents the Soviet Union were developing fifty years ago – will almost certainly have been analysed and reproduced by Porton Down. That is entirely what Porton Down is there for. It used to make chemical and biological weapons as weapons, and today it still does make them in small quantities in order to research defences and antidotes.

But with the stakes very high, having a very loose cannon as one of the dossier’s authors might be most inconvenient both for Orbis and for the Clinton camp. If I was the police, I would look closely at Orbis Intelligence.

In fact, if you look at the article dispassionately you can see he wasn't saying anyone in particular did it. He was pointing out that, in his opinion, there are suspects which are just as plausible as Russia.

Both the Orbis and Israeli theories are speculations. But they are no more a speculation, and no more a conspiracy theory, than the idea that Vladimir Putin secretly sent agents to Salisbury to attack Skripal with a secret nerve agent. I can see absolutely no reason to believe that is a more valid speculation than the others at this point.

We should be extremely sceptical of their current anti-Russian narrative. There are many possible suspects in this attack.

Burrobert (talk) 17:39, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Tanila001: An accusation of anti-Semitism is a very serious charge and you better have very good sourcing if you want to include it in a BLP. You can't simply fly such accusations in peoples' faces only because they dared to criticise the government of Israel. Even if it is done by a journalist, Wikipedia editors cannot blindly copy such accusations into mainspace. — kashmīrī TALK 18:08, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[EC] Tanila001 partially quotes from an article to distort its meaning. The article is not claiming that Israel was the perpretrator, but showing that Russia is not the only country with a motivation or the resources. See lower down in the article: "Both the Orbis and Israeli theories are speculations. But they are no more a speculation, and no more a conspiracy theory, than the idea that Vladimir Putin secretly sent agents to Salisbury to attack Skripal with a secret nerve agent. I can see absolutely no reason to believe that is a more valid speculation than the others at this point."     ←   ZScarpia   01:39, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am fine with adding his other, equally outlandish, claims too. I provided a reputable source for the peddling of tropes and did not accuse him of anti-Semitism. Neither did the source provided. He also does not suggest the UK might have done it in the article, the Orbis fantasy is about his defence of Russian 2016 US election interference.

His central point, echoed here, is not sustained by any evidence and is contradicted by evidence from a range of sources.

"But they are no more a speculation, and no more a conspiracy theory, than the idea that Vladimir Putin secretly sent agents to Salisbury to attack Skripal with a secret nerve agent. I can see absolutely no reason to believe that is a more valid speculation than the others at this point."

We have public domain recordings and documents showing that it was a targeted assassination, including of the alleged killers movements. We have video of the alleged killers admitting they were in Salisbury and their FSB records. This is not my opinion, it it publicly available information from multiple sources. Murray completely ignored that evidence and claims his "speculation" is on a par with actual evidence. That is clearly conspiracy theory nonsense at best, and deliberate disinformation at worst. My personal opinion is the latter, but of course that will not affect my edits. So I will reinstate the text and add that Orbis/UK are also included in his "speculation". Tanila001 (talk) 08:00, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tanila001: Feel free to squabble with Murray in the Comments section on his blog, or you can email him directly[2]. This here is an encyclopaedia, though. — kashmīrī TALK 10:08, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"We have public domain recordings and documents showing that it was a targeted assassination, including of the alleged killers movements. We have video of the alleged killers admitting they were in Salisbury and their FSB records." The two cited articles by Craig Murray were written before the "alleged killers" were identified, invalidating your argument.     ←   ZScarpia   18:19, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, Murray's blog is exactly what it is - a blog on which Murray posts his commentary on current events. I think it is quite disingenuous to quote selected blog entries from years ago and hold against their author that later developments have shed new light on the discussed events. Someone clearly confuses a biographical entry in an encyclopaedia with a polemical commentary on the subject's blog. — kashmīrī TALK 22:21, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Conspiracy theorist"[edit]

I see that this polemical term has returned to the article (lead) supported by citations from a discredited C4 news programme, two rags and a zionist front organisation. Poor, very poor. Keith-264 (talk) 22:34, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well said Keith-264. The other aspect is the behaviour of the ip editors who added this contentious term to the article and then breached wikipedia's policy on consensus by not discussing on the talk page. I raised this on the BLP noticeboard and requested protection for the article while Murray's court case is being heard. Burrobert (talk) 23:33, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is why I rarely edit articles about contemporary matters, all too often Wiki follows the partei line rather than even-handed description. As has been said, fish rot from the head. "Conspiracy theorist" is a pejorative term for anyone who dissents from state propaganda. I agree that some protection is merited given the predictable and biased nature of recent edits. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 07:18, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. But it's next to impossible to have a meaningful discussion with an IP editor. Feel free to go ahead and simply revert such POV edits, no point wasting much time on them. If disruption continues, we can always request page protection. — kashmīrī TALK 11:32, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Re "supported by citations from a discredited C4 news programme, two rags and a zionist front organisation", I presume that's a reference to this version: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Craig_Murray&oldid=1003420955 The sources are The Times, The Daily Record, Channel 4 Factcheck, and the Campaign Against Antisemitism. I don't think there is consensus on the Daily Record (it's heavily used as a source in Institute for Statecraft for example) but I think the Times and C4 are seen as reliable sources on Wikipedia. Would a solution be to move it out of the first sentence and put at the end of the lead something like "is sometimes described as a conspiracy theorist" with those RS citations? Here's another: https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/insight-inside-story-fierce-internal-battles-raging-snp-3021383 BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:12, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keith-264, calling The Times "a rag" invites questions as to your competence to comment on sourcing. The Times is not always right (that is the nature of human endeavour) but it is regarded as highly reliable.
We need secondary sources calling Murray a conspiracy theorist, as fact, if we are top do so. But not liking the term doesn't mean you get to decide that C4 is "discredited" orThe Times "a rag". That's good old-fashioned motivated reasoning and does not belong here. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:06, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone old enough to have read the Times in the 70s will be apologising for the sound of hollow laughter at your defence of the contemporary paper which has the same title. Anyone who has watched C4 news since C4 began in the early 80s will echo the hollow laughter of the former. "It is regarded as highly reliable"? By whom?? Experience trumps naivete but that isn't really the point is it. Wiki allow anyone labelled as a dissenter to be traduced using spurious "reliable sources" manufactured by propaganda factories. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 19:19, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keith-264, I get it, you repudiate Wikipedia's consensus on reliability, apparently because you dislike the content. If you want to change that consensus you need to go to WP:RSN. In the mean time, C4 and The Times are accepted as reliable.
Your statements say way more about your neutrality than that of either the article or the sources. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:00, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@JzG: Comment on content, not on the contributor, or you will end up at ANI once again (for the umpteenth time). Also, we don't care what you consider "reliable" or "unreliable" - if a source goes against Wikipedia's editing policies (WP:BLP for example), we do not use it, plain and simple. Just like we don't describe Trump and quite a few other living people as idiots even though multiple RSs use this exact word. So, you better come to terms with the fact that many editors here won't agree to using subjective, libellous, disparaging terms for WP article subjects. — kashmīrī TALK 23:45, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Kashmiri, you are not helping. I am pointing out how Wikipedia works.
We are in a situation here where a reliable source (The Times) describes someone as promoting a conspiracy theory. You, as an editor, reject that conclusion. On Wikipedia, you can now proceed in one of two ways:
  1. To state that this is WP:UNDUE or needs to be attributed, or whatever, accepting that the source is what it is but discussing whether and how to represent it.
  2. To assert that The Times and Channel 4 as spurious "reliable sources" manufactured by propaganda factories.
Only one of these works. The extent to which the second blows up in your face is largely dependent on the extent to which you apply similar critique to genuine propaganda sources like RT.
Feel free to drag this to ANI if you want. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:03, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Channel 4 story mentions Murray in relation to a photo of two men at an airport. Murray commented quite reasonably that they appeared to be at the same place at the same time. He admitted his mistake once an explanation was given. Murray wasn’t described as a conspiracy theorist in the story.
  • The Daily Record uses quotation marks in saying that Murray writes a "conspiracy" blog. Presumably it isn't comfortable calling him a conspiracy theorist. It does quote an MSP Labour parliamentarian for the description of Murray as a conspiracy theorist. The parliamentarian shouldn’t be regarded as a neutral observer given Murray’s support for Alex Salmond. The parliamentarian does not say what conspiracy theories he is referring to.
  • The Campaign Against Antisemitism isn’t a neutral observer. It is a pro-Israel lobby group and seems to regard criticism of Israel as anti-semitic. The group describes Murray as a conspiracy theorist because of his comments about Israel and skripal and describes Murray's comments as anti-Semitic.
  • The Scotsman article says:
"A leading ally of Alex Salmond, Craig Murray - whom is dismissed by many as a conspiracy theorist - has thrown his hat in the ring to be party president". So the article doesn’t say who has described him that way. It doesn’t say what the conspiracy theories are. It doesn’t say the the journalist considers him a conspiracy theorist.

Burrobert (talk) 01:03, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JZG Stop putting words into my mouth, refrain from non sequiturs and do something positive to reach consensus. Keith-264 (talk) 05:34, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keith-264, as the editor seeking change, the onus is firmly on you to achieve consensus. I am under no obligation to leave standing your ridiculous hyperbole re sources generally considered reliable by Wikipedia. If you think these are unreliable then WP:RSN is the correct venue, until you have consensus there, you're up against a long-standing consensus as reflected at WP:RSP that The Times, including its sister paper The Sunday Times, is considered generally reliable.
Every statement you have made thus far shows clear signs of bias. That's normal and expected. What we are not allowed to do is to apply personal bias to reject consensus about the reliability of sources. You are permitted to seek to influence the consensus, in the right venue. But doing so by describing generally accepted sources as (and to avoid accusations of putting words ion your mouth, I will quote exactly) spurious "reliable sources" manufactured by propaganda factories, is counterproductive, to the point that it is very likely to come back at you. The Times is not a "propaganda factory", and neither is Channel 4. Both have an editorial line - and in the case of The Times it's one with which I disagree pretty profoundly - but it's hardly the Daily Mail.
I number at least one former ambassador among my friends. I think that the FT has a very nuanced take on Murray. But I'm not going to reject The Times out of hand just because I don't like its conclusion, any more than I would accept it unchallenged if I did like its conclusion. Murray is, to quite the FT, a "flambuoyant character". To read that he is supporting a Russia-backed conspiracist narrative around the Skripal poisoning does not violate the principle of minimum astonishment. It's very plausible. So we don't reject it out of hand, especially since his thesis is that Israel, not Russia, was responsible for the poisoning, when everything we have discovered in recent years points to Putin using overseas assassination generally and poisoning specifically, as a matter of course.
We should fall back to WP:ATT. Note: "A former British diplomat who has promoted a series of conspiracy theories, including that Israelis might have been behind the Salisbury poisoning, has been invited to address SNP activists." This is stated as fact by the Scottish editor of a major national newspaper. It's not couched as opinion. It is a presumptively serious conclusion by a presumptively serious journalist writing in a presumptively reliable source, backed by other independent reporting. Whether or not we personally believe that Russia poisoned the Skripals, or Israel did it, or something else, is, and must be, immaterial. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:25, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pompous appeals to spurious authority (the corporate media) is no basis for serious editing, particularly in an article under BLP rules. Why are you willing to be content with such catchpenny sources? Are there no scholarly texts to look at? Keith-264 (talk) 19:13, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • JzG, everything we have discovered in recent years Have all of you indeed worked on discovering new evidence over years, or it is only a rhetorical pluralis maiestatis to weaken any contrary opinion? The rest of your reasoning re. Murray and Skripal is OR I am afraid.
Murray sometimes blows a whistle, which naturally attracts denials and attacks, and sometimes his deep-rooted mistrust of the mainstream narrative takes him too far IMO, almost into the fringe area, which attracts ridicule. However, here as encyclopaedia editors we have a duty to tell an objective analysis from motivated attacks and smears. If you don't get what an encyclopaedia is all about – that it is not a collection of mainstream press clippings – then perhaps you should not venture into editorially challenging areas. — kashmīrī TALK 11:25, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are correct about Murray. And when we look at the distinction between objective analysis and motivated attacks and smears, we find The Times and others reporting that the accusation that Israel was involved in the Skripal poisoning is the latter, and the fact that Russia was involved, the former. And that is supported by other cases where Russia has done the same thing, notably including Navalny. The Times' article is not written as invective, it is a factual article. C4's analysis is also factual.
The waters are muddied here by the intersection with the Assange cult, who reject mainstream facts about the GRU hacking the DNC and various other things, and also the amplification of Murray's more fringe ideas through Russian propaganda, amplified by people like George Galloway. But when we step away from opinions and back to reliable sources, what The Times says appears to be a serious commentary on Murray's tendency to go off the rails, as you note above.
Keith-264 has decided that this means the "corporate media" is biased and unreliable, but you know well enough that using framing language of that kind to dismiss entire classes of generally accepted sources rarely goes well. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:16, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I noted in the previous section of this talkpage ('Section: "Blaming Israel for Skripal Attack"'), examination of Craig Murray's original blog pieces shows that articles in The New Statesman and The Times misrepresent what he wrote. Murray was not arguing, as in JzG's suggested wording above, "that Israelis might have been behind the Salisbury poisoning." His argument was about how Russia wasn't the only actor with a motive. Israel was given as an example of one such. As far as source reliability goes, it should be remembered that newspapers are at the bottom of the heap.     ←   ZScarpia   18:22, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NomdeA: edit to the article's first sentence.[edit]

Today, NomdeA made an edit to the article's first sentence which has subsequently been reverted.

The description of Craig Murray was changed from "a British former diplomat, now a human rights campaigner and journalist" to "a British former diplomat, now “a blogger who describes himself as a historian and human rights activist.”

The change is based on a the description given in a Guardian article by Severin Carrell which NomdeA added a citation to: "Murray, a blogger who describes himself as a historian and human rights activist."

Curiously, given that Nomdea based the change on a single self-added source, appearing to ignore previously cited sources, the edit reason given was based on neutrality: "Neutral language taken from a reliable source."

With regard to neutrality, Nomdea might like to read the Guardian's own contributor profile for Craig Murray: "Craig Murray is an author, blogger and human rights activist. Formerly a diplomat, he was the UK's ambassador in Uzbekistan from 2002 to 2004. He stood as an independent parliamentary candidate in Blackburn in 2005. Craig is also an honorary research fellow at the University of Lancaster School of Law."

Besides descriptions given in previously cited sources, as always, Google can be used to find more. For instance, Jacobin magazine states: "Craig Murray is an author, broadcaster and human rights activist."

    ←   ZScarpia   17:40, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please acquaint yourself with WP:RS. The Guardian meets that policy and Jacobin doesn’t. Author biographies are always written by the author, not the source. You didn’t read the link for Murray’s Guardian profile which actually says it is “OWN contributor profile”. Again, please acquaint yourself with Wikipedia policies. NomdeA (talk) 18:13, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The word "own", as in the Guardian's own profile for Murray, was, as Cambial Yellowing points out below, MY usage, not the Guardian's. Make an attempt to read sources properly before commenting. Even if profiles are written by the subjects themselves, unless the Guardian indicates that the author, rather than the paper, is responsible for the accuracy of the content, it doesn't really make any difference as far as reliability goes, doesn't it? I gave Jacobin as an example. If it really has been judged consensually an unreliable source, then, given some of the dross which is acceptable, it demonstrates that Wikipedia really does have a problem.     ←   ZScarpia   21:50, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You've done four reverts in 24 hours, moreover BLPs are under discretionary sanctions regime. Any admin will be in their right to block you now for your edit warring. — kashmīrī TALK 19:24, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please acquaint yourself with WP:RS. Your edit wars are unconstructive. NomdeA (talk) 20:01, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
the link for Murray’s Guardian profile was written by zscarpia; one presumes they also read it, in the writing. The profile itself does not contain the text you emphasised. Cambial foliage❧ 20:54, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Subject description as “journalist”[edit]

The two sources for the description of Murray as a journalist do not say this. One calls him a blogger and the other calls him a “‘new media’ journalist”. So he’s a blogger and should be called one.NomdeA (talk) 10:03, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Plainly, a 'new media' journalist is a journalist. The other article refers to him as a journalist, as well as a blogger. The word blogger is informal and does not represent encyclopaedic WP:TONE. While "blogger" and "journalist" are not exact synonyms, the more formal word is the appropriate one for the opening sentence of an encyclopaedia. Cambial foliage❧ 10:48, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The word “plainly” is doing a lot of work there. It’s not plain. Writing a blog is not journalism. I suggest the article should be changed to “blogger’, in line with the Guardian description of Murray which meets the standard of WP:RS. NomdeA (talk) 14:54, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The National describes Murray as a journalist [3], and I'm guessing he'd be considered so by Scottish nationalists, but not English nationalists. Given this and his "new media" designation, I think calling him a journalist is appropriate. -Darouet (talk) 15:28, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cambial Yellowing, "new media journalist" is a synonym for self-published writer, aka blogger. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:11, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't a synonym for blogger. Where did you get that notion? New media simply means digital/computer based media. So it means a journalist who works in that medium, a subset of "journalist". If it was some masked reference to "not a journalist but a blogger" they wouldn't have used the word "journalist", would they? They're not talking in code, and neither is the Telegraph. Cambial foliage❧ 19:34, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Another self-published site: Bellingcat. "Investigative journalism" or just a blog?     ←   ZScarpia   20:57, 14 May 2021 (UTC) ... @JzG:, while this page has your attention, could you speak to NomdeA about legitimate reasons for breaching WP:3RR? Mere mortals aren't worth paying heed to apparently.[4][5][reply]
  • I suggest people to read this, this or this. Hope these texts resolve the debate. — kashmīrī TALK 20:38, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The discussion of whether blogger=journalist is interesting, but we need to follow how secondary independent reliable sources refer to him and not use our own analysis. Fences&Windowse
      • Agreed. Luckily, we have independent secondary sources that describe the subject as a journalist. — kashmīrī TALK 11:31, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Commons: Photographs taken at the Sunday, 1 September 2021 demonstration outside St. Leonard's police station, Edinburgh as Craig Murray handed himself in.[edit]

Photographs taken at today's demonstration have been uploaded to Wikimedia Commons under the normal, free-use licence. FreeCraigMurray (talk) 19:58, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. I have chosen a photo that seems to show Murray addressing the crowd with his family around him. Let's see what people think. Burrobert (talk) 13:55, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've added more photos to Wikimedia Commons, which can be found by clicking on my Uploads link. They include photos taken at Craig Murray Justice demonstrations, a screen grab of yesterday's birthday Zoom meeting, and a head-and-shoulders extract of Craig Murray taken from one of the other photos. The latter can be substituted for the photo currently being used in the Lead if wanted. Yesterday's Zoom meeting was recorded and uploaded to Youtube under the title "Anonymous Bites Back - Happy Birthday Craig Murray Live Event". FreeCraigMurray (talk) 14:16, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Section: Human Rights Activism[edit]

As I was reading this article, this section stuck out to me. I am not quite sure how either the paragraphs about the 2016 DNC hack or his questioning of the Skripal poisonings fall under the banner of human rights. While you could make the case that the Assange trial falls in this category, I do not believe it takes up enough of the section to justify the subheader.

Looking back at the edit history, I noticed that the section was changed by user:Kashmiri from activism to human rights activism. I will be reverting it back to the broader term. Andrewdonshik (talk) 23:31, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have "Political activism" just two entries earlier. I'd keep this section as "Human rights activism", otherwise it will be confusing. It will make more sense to move Skripals elsewhere IMO. — kashmīrī TALK 23:44, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. Fair point. I would also suggest moving the DNC-related stuff to political activism. Maybe it is best to move the Assange trials to the Investigative Reporting section as well. Andrewdonshik (talk) 23:50, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, just call the section Further Activism and call it a day. Andrewdonshik (talk) 23:54, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Commons: Photographs taken outside Saughton Prison (HMP Edinburgh) on the release of Craig Murray, 30 November 2021.[edit]

42 photographs taken outside Saughton Prison, Edinburgh as Craig Murray was released have been uploaded to Wikimedia Commons and are feely useable. Early articles about the release have been published by The Independent and The Herald. A video of the event titled "Craig Murray release and statement" has been uploaded to YouTube by IndependenceLive. FreeCraigMurray (talk) 17:14, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why is a section on Murray's conspiracy theories called "Activism"?[edit]

Why is it not called "Conspiracy theories"? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:39, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Activism may not be the best choice of heading. However, we also need to avoid using contentious labels. We correctly attribute the description "conspiracy theory" once within that section. Burrobert (talk) 14:07, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Burrobert. Section title should be neutral. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:00, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Snopes[edit]

It doesnt matter if Snopes is quoting from Daily Mail because Snopes has their own standards separate from Daily Mail, which is why Snopes is an RSP. The entry for Snopes says Snopes is certified by the International Fact-Checking Network, and is considered generally reliable. Attribution may be necessary. It doesnt say unless it mentions another source. Attribution was given.

Its extra silly to say we cant reference Snopes because it relies on the Daily Mail because Snopes relies on the Daily Mail for the entire article including Murrays claims. The first sentence starts with On 15 December 2016, the British tabloid Daily Mail quoted Craig Murray Softlemonades (talk) 12:55, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Snopes use in-text attribution; they do not report it as fact. Therefore it’s the daily mail.
Cambial — foliar❧ 12:58, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They report it as a fact checker because both Snopes and Daily Mail thought there was a possible credibility issue with Murray. Thats their job and a green RSP. Daily Mail doesnt matter but Snopes does and we dont get to pick and choose which parts of the fact checker we use Softlemonades (talk) 13:15, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We can give it clearer in text attribution if thats the problem Softlemonades (talk) 13:41, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your claim that Snopes...thought there was a credibility issue is unsupported. They do not make such a claim themselves; they merely report the view of the deprecated source known as Paul Dacre’s skitters. Cambial — foliar❧ 13:52, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didnt say they made the claim themselves. I said we could make it clearer with in text attribution. But like you said, Snopes reported it. Snopes is an RSP and a fact checker. Softlemonades (talk) 15:00, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This piece of information (or actually this lie, because the implied syllogism, "Whoever is linked with Wikileaks, is not reliable", is patently false) explicitly originated at Daily Mail, not at Snopes. We do not source any information from Daily Mail, especially in BLPs and especially lies. — kashmīrī TALK 18:01, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    1 It didnt imply that "Whoever is linked with Wikileaks, is not reliable". It said that people linked to wikileaks might be biased to Wikileaks
    2 Us deciding its true or a lie is OR
    3 This sounds like a policy question. We should ignore all the names and get a outside opinion because "dont use a RS because it mentions another source that isnt an RS" doesnt sound right unless anyone can point to a policy that says RSes stop being reliable if they cite things Softlemonades (talk) 12:32, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Murray may not be reliable re. DNC hack because he has ties to an organisation that reported on it? I'm sorry but this "logics" is beyond me.
    Yep, this is what Daily Mail implied: that a link to Wikileaks makes a person unreliable in other matters. Seriously.
    When Snopes decides not to state something in own voice but instead they go for a direct, attributed quote to a source with poor reputation, it's a deliberate red light for readers, and even more for Wikipedia editors. — kashmīrī TALK 13:00, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry but this "logics" is beyond me. You and I arent RSPs
    When Snopes decides not to state something in own voice but instead they go for a direct, attributed quote They did the same thing when quoting the New York Times, that has nothing to do with the Daily Mail
    Can you show me policy that says an RS stops being an RS if it cites something? If you can Ill drop it Softlemonades (talk) 13:32, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you always expect a policy for what most would call common sense? Read this response by Stephan Schulz. — kashmīrī TALK 16:13, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the link, thats what I asked for
    what most would call common sense Im sorry you think I dont have common sense Softlemonades (talk) 02:31, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Moreover, in your addition you did not use Snopes as a secondary source. You did not use it to find analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. Instead, you just copied a Daily Mail assertion into this BLP – an assertion that happened to be also referred to in Snopes (and then you linked to the latter instead, clearly trying to bypass the DM status here). Clear? — kashmīrī TALK 16:25, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    clearly trying to bypass the DM status here no Softlemonades (talk) 02:33, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think we should include Snopes' paraphrasing of the Mail (especially not written up as if it was Snopes itself saying this, but even if correctly attributed) as it is not noteworthy. If Snopes said Murray "might not be reliable due to Murray's ties to WikiLeaks" then that would be noteworthy. But it didn't, it simply said the DM said this. Time to move on. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:47, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, Im not going to argue against consensus, but needed to say no to the accusation about "trying to bypass" things
    Agree Its over Softlemonades (talk) 18:31, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at RSN on use of Daily Mail[edit]

An editor has opened a discussion about this article at the RS noticeboard but neglected to notify the talk page here. It’s about the use of ostensible claims supposedly made to the Daily Mail discussed in a section above. Cambial — foliar❧ 14:57, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Craig_Murray&oldid=1209266247"