Jump to content

Talk:Richard Murphy (tax campaigner)

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

One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from: http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/richard-murphy/?akst_action=share-this. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bias?

[edit]

Although this article correctly shows that opinions of Richard Murphy and his work vary, with left-wingers tending to like him and right-wingers tending to dislike him, the overall impression given is that Murphy is tendentious and unreliable (and possibly hypocritical). This seems biased to me, and it is surely not for a Wikipedia article to take sides in this way. I am also concerned that the content might be libellous, as it is damaging to Murphy's reputation, and many of the criticisms of him are not backed by adequate evidence. PhilG (talk) 20:27, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above comment by User PhilG of 20:27, 17 August 2014 Gunnermanz (talk) 03:15, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Odd snippet?

[edit]

This snippet looks odd to me: "His often radical, strongly held views are controversial and have made him many enemies - apparently including some who have edited this Wikipedia page." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.24.129.195 (talk) 11:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Its been removed. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 11:08, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quaker

[edit]

Richard Murphy his a Quaker. The Category:British Quakers may be added? Reference: "Salter Lecture 2014 Tax Justice Richard Murphy". --MHM (talk) 10:19, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Accountant? page name

[edit]

I struggled to find this page. I understand that describing him as an economist might give him undue credibility. Would "economic advisor" not be more suitable given his new prominent role as creator of 'Corbynomics'? WykiP (talk) 11:35, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given his recent appointment as part-time Professor of Practice in International Political Economy, and that he calls himself a "political economist", "political economist" seems a reasonable choice. Rwendland (talk) 12:05, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
He can call himself whatever he likes, but he's not an economist. And given that Corbyn has explicitly rejected Murphy's claims to have influenced him in any way, it's a bit of a stretch to call him an advisor. How about 'Richard Murphy (campaigner)'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.96.230.11 (talk) 01:13, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Revisions

[edit]

To explain why I have undone several revisions: Murphy is a professor, it is cited in the main body. The source you quote, which you say show Murphy's antisemitism, doesn't mention jews, zionists or similar. While Corbyn denied that Murphy was his advisor, he did use some of Murphy's ideas, as the source states. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 08:45, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Much better now, a difference in tone and now much more accurate. However...
"The source you quote, which you say show Murphy's antisemitism, doesn't mention jews, zionists or similar." Are you shitting me?
One commenter says "we all know she’s been made a Dame for helping (ahem) members of that special tribe you work so hard to oppose, but while we can’t come out and say that outright..." and neither he nor his acolytes argues with that, although they do take issue with the suggestion that they might appear sexist. If you can't see the pretty naked antisemitism there, you're deliberately closing your eyes to it: 'the tribe' is a well-known reference to Jewish people. It's hardly an isolated example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.96.230.11 (talk) 14:06, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that you can use comments by people commenting on Murphy's blog to show that Murphy is antisemitic or connected with antisemitism. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 14:14, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Even if he's tacitly (and sometimes overtly) endorsing them? I think it's obvious that when someone only objects to being accused of sexism in response to being accused of racism which leads to the appearance of sexism, they're saying that they don't disagree with the praise for racism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.96.230.11 (talk) 17:01, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you can find a place where he is overtly endorsing antisemitism, then I would suggest you send it to a newspaper, I'm sure they would be happy for the headline. Once a secondary source has agreed with you, then you can cite it. Primary sources have no place in WP:BLPs, especially when accusing someone of antisemitism. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 19:34, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Richard Murphy (political economist). 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 03:09, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Media Commentary section

[edit]

Hello friends. The Media Commentary section has the following sentence: "Murphy has been criticised for writing articles in The Guardian on minimising tax in situations such as being self-employed or employing a nanny." The source given is: <http://order-order.com/2010/12/06/more-left-wing-tax-hypocrisy-from-richard-murphy/ More Left-Wing Tax Hypocrisy from Richard Murphy>. If examples of media commentary are to be given, they should be representative of the overall view in the media. I do not believe this source is. Indeed, it appears to be highly ideological and therefore spurious. More objective sources should be cited or the statement should be removed. In addition, some readers will, I suspect, feel that the nanny reference is trivial and contributes little to the article. What do the rest of you think?

Also, I have revised: "On the other hand, Murphy has been widely praised by commentators on the left" to "On the other hand, Murphy has been widely praised by anti-corruption advocates." The word 'left' is politically charged, inflammatory, ideological and more to the point in this case, inaccurate: ending tax corruption is a highly _conservative_ enterprise and is by no means 'leftist,' however one may define that word. Words such as 'left' and 'right' are little more than meaningless smear-words and have no place in Wikipedia. Gunnermanz (talk) 04:52, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Please Explain Revision

[edit]

The above edit was reverted by user Absolutelypuremilk. I would appreciate it if he would provide some explanation why "commentators on the left" is preferable to "anti-corruption advocates." Words such as "left" and "right" are vague and used according to many contradictory definitions. The context of this article is specific, namely tax corruption. The use of the expression "on the left" implies that Murphy is a "leftist," which therefore associates him with a wide variety of views he clearly does not hold. This is unfair. Murphy is clearly an anti-corruption advocate and not a campaigner for causes which various people describe as "leftist." The expression "anti-corruption advocates" is far more precise and free of these irrelevant and unfair connotations. At least on Wikipedia, we should strive to use precise language. Therefore, please give some more explanation for your reversion rather than merely saying "not supported by sources." Thanks. Gunnermanz (talk) 03:07, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I did not see your post on the talk page and would have responded there if I had. Maguire and Toynbee are generally known for being figures on the left rather than anti-corruption advocates - if you can find sources which say they are anti-corruption advocates then I will happily revert. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 08:48, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comment. I hope I didn't miscommunicate my concern. It may indeed be correct to say that Maguire and Toynbee are "generally known for being" figures on the left rather than anti-corruption advocates. (Though perhaps it would be more precise to say "generally described as being....") My concern, rather, is first that in popular parlance the words "left" and "right" are too often politically charged and do not contribute to a clear and accurate communication of well defined concepts. I believe they do just the opposite. The use of the expression "on the left" to describe those who have "praised" Murphy does not contribute to an accurate understanding of Mr. Murphy himself, which should be the point of this article. Let us say a disproportional number of those who praise Murphy have brown hair. To say so would be to imply some relevant connection between Mr. Murphy and brown hair, which there is not. The issue in question is tax corruption, not left- or right-wing politics (whatever these might be). Moreover, as I noted above, these words are associated in many people's minds with beliefs that Mr. Murphy may not hold and very likely does not hold. Use of them here to describe those who have praised Murphy is therefore very unfair to Murphy. To illustrate, let us say Charles Manson were to praise Mr. Murphy. It would be relevant to note the fact in this article only if one desired to defame Murphy without _seeming_ to be doing so because it would obviously imply that Murphy is engaged in some activity that Manson approves of. The effort to end tax corruption is neither intelligibly nor logically connected with any one of the many inconsistent and mutually contradictory definitions of left or right any more than Murphy is connected with brown hair or Charles Manson. Moreover, perhaps Maguire and Toynbee themselves do not accept the designation "leftist"? Are we at Wikipedia to join with the mob and force labels on them like a Scarlet Letter or a "Jude" pin on their arm? Indeed, I do not, nor do I not think any intelligent, self-respecting person would allow himself or herself to be characterized by such meaningless, politically charged words. Let the readers of this article put their own labels on Maguire and Toynbee if they wish. In any case, how others describe them is irrelevant and unfair to Murphy if the intimation is, as it seems to be, to describe Murphy himself. We on Wikipedia should rise above imputing vague and politically charged designation to people, regardless of what the media, the public at large or the operators of ideological websites choose to do. Gunnermanz (talk) 14:35, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Text "on the left"

[edit]

As I noted in previous edit, which was reverted, this expression unfairly characterizes Murphy. The idea that the journalists who praise Murphy are on the "left" is nothing more than the personal opinion of the editor in question. In the absence of any specific statement by these journalists themselves declaring their own position as being on the "left," this statement is biased. Even if such journalists _do_ describe themselves as being on the "left," the article if NPOV should read something like, "...by journalists describing themselves as being on the left...." Even then it would remain unfair to Murphy because the political orientation of those who praise or criticize Murphy is no more relevant than their race or religion. I have already explained in detail on this talk page the obvious fact that terms such as "left" and "right" extremely vague, politically charged and therefore biased. The text as it stands clearly implies, falsely, that Murphy is a "leftist." Yet the issue of tax evasion has absolutely nothing - nothing - to do with the "left' or "right," no matter which of the many contradictory meanings of these vague and politically charged words one may be referring to. I previously changed "those on the left" to "anti-corruption corruption campaigners," which is far more accurate. This was wrongfully reverted to the clearly NPOV expression "on the left." The text as I have edited it now is thus a fair compromise because it leaves it to the readers of Wikipedia to decide for themselves what the political orientation of the journalists mentioned is - or whether they are pretty or ugly or have good or bad taste in art, all of which are in any event irrelevant to the issue of tax corruption that Murphy is focused on. If the text is reverted yet again to "on the left," I will place a disputed tag on this article. Gunnermanz (talk) 02:14, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My my, don't have a pet. You're rather partial in your choice of what is unsupported; and you can't tell that PT and the Mirror are Left? Weird. Anyway, there's no source for the POV "widely praised" so I've deleted it William M. Connolley (talk) 09:48, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand you sir. And I'd appreciate it if you would speak like a gentleman. I would also appreciate it if you perhaps do a little study about the relationships between words and concepts. May I also respectfully recommend Cordelia Rice's book, A Mind of It's Own, or indeed the other books about human irrationality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gunnermanz (talk • contribs) 14:52, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Richard_Murphy_(tax_campaigner)&oldid=1195787741"