Talk:Cathy Newman

IP address

The IP address 194.169.221.231 traces to ITN (which produces Channel 4 News), so User:JWITN is almost certainly genuine too. In the thankfully relatively unusual circumstances, I think these edits should be respected; the deleted detail is otherwise difficult to trace online. Philip Cross (talk) 11:49, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

However, respected due to what? Until now there was really lack of evidence of threat for such "security concerns". If it is difficult to trace it online and has minor notability, then why it was edited in the first place (although with a reliable source [1])?--Miki Filigranski (talk) 17:08, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

27 January 2018

Hi All,

It appears that what Msmadeira is clearly trying to 'unbias' the article in Cathy Newman's favour by removing most references to any negative criticisms of the debate and the 'gotcha' moment. She has additionally removed almost all positive references of Jordan Peterson. This is NOT 'Neutral'. This is Vandalism.

Reverted the edit in question, the edit was clearly disruptive and not neutral.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 07:10, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2018

Hi,

It appears that what Msmadeira is clearly trying to 'unbias' the article in Cathy Newman's favour by removing most references to any negative criticisms of the debate and the 'gotcha' moment. She has additionally removed almost all positive references of Jordan Peterson. This is NOT 'Neutral'. This is Vandalism.

I request you revert all her edits.

Thanks, Superracoon (talk) 05:31, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Sakura Cartelet^Talk 05:45, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't see any vandalism in their edit. Also since I don't know anything about the subject I can't say whether or not the information removed was biased, thus it's easier to trust what they think unless there is evidence otherwise. Sakura Cartelet^Talk 05:47, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

That edit was clearly disruptive, and in recent days were published many other reliables sources which covered and criticized the interview which will (today) cite. Also, considering the accounts contribution history makes it suspicious to be another one-purpose account with conflict of interest.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 07:09, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Well aware of the subject and can confirm that the information MsMadeira, that removed should not have been removed, was not biased and all removed articles are reliable sources. What MsMadeira presents is clearly non-neutral point of view in favour of Cathy Newman, suspected COI. Have to agree with Mike Filigranski on this.FreedomGonzo (talk) 15:59, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Murray ref

Reading the wikipedia article, I had the impression that the threaths to Newman's life were strongly exagerated and part of a strategy of manipulation. I think it's worth adding for example that the theory of Douglas Murray is itself controversial, even within his collaborators in "spectator", like: https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/01/the-shameful-hounding-of-cathy-newman/ Sorry if it looks like a partisan comment, but it's not my intention: I'm not partisan to Newman, I was just surprised to realize later that the picture depicted by the wikipedia article (and that I was thrusting) does not reflect the real situation. 77.182.134.51 (talk) 13:05, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

It is a blog and itself a partisan piece; we should aim for neutrality with reliable sources. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 14:19, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

In the article is ignored the ideological context of the interview, it does not include quotes and supports the victim narrative other journalists reported on. It basically pushes, due to ignorance of context, the same narrative from the initial news articles which had almost the same wording i.e. the difference was so small it could be said that they do not represent separate sources. In the beginning, I struggled to edit the section because of this strange situation, especially after watching the interview itself, and it was helpful that other journalists soon gave the perspective on it. The current revision of the article shows the case realistic and chronological as possible, compared to certain "neutral" editing attempts. Within hours will update the section.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 17:45, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

To answer to RichardWeiss: the articles of Douglas Murray are on THE SAME BLOG. I agree with the objections, but then, exactly the same things should be said for all quotes from Douglas Murray (moreover, the article of Kirkup points out that Murray has demonstrated to be very partisan of Peterson, the argument of "partisan piece" is therefore as relevant). If this argument is considered as relevant, please be consistent and remove all reference to partisan pieces from this blog that are currently in the wikipedia page. To answer to MikiFiligranski: I agree that the previous "neutral" edits have to be reverted. I think it's important to keep the information that some people are critical about the death threat or advance the hypothesis of a manipulation strategy. I don't understand the rest of the argument: the goal of a wikipedia article is not to support or not an individual, I don't care if it does not support Newman. Simply, on the Jordan Peterson section, it does not reflect the case realistically. Right now, it looks like the main discussion is about death threats and not about the failure of Newman. There is very few emphasis on the fact that global opinion see this interview as a failure of Newman, because the oversized part about death threat give the feeling that all media have supported Newman's side while it's not the case. 131.220.163.41 (talk) 11:21, 31 January 2018 (UTC) (I was the one posting the first comment)

Murray's article is a reliable source, with own bias which is something almost every notable journalist has and can't be characterized for some and not for others, including Kirkup's. In the latest edit didn't cite Kirkup's article because it doesn't add anything new. If you want will think again how to properly cite it, but the fact it wasn't cited it doesn't mean others shouldn't as well. I won't remove Murray's reference because he is not the only one who reported the victim narrative as the paragraph includes other references reporting the same/similar thing, for e.g. Melanie Phillips writing that "The station’s response was to turn Newman into a victim. Her editor Ben de Pear said such was the scale of the online “threats and abuse” she had received that he had “called in security experts to carry out an analysis”. Clearly, all such abuse is wrong. Newman reportedly was the target of obscene messages and a pornographic mock-up on Instagram. That’s vile. Much of the reaction, though, consisted merely of fierce criticism of her perceived hostility and bias, while some of her supporters targeted Peterson for violent abuse... Unfortunately, threats and vilification on social media are now routine for anyone putting their head above the parapet. It is typical of ideologues, however, that they inflate such victimisation as a form of emotional blackmail to silence criticism.", or another uncited The Spectator article writing "...Cathy Newman blames her lamentable performance on ‘misogyny’. Presumably she means misogynists ‘perceive’ her to have had the worst of the encounter. She has also, allegedly, been the target of ‘vicious abuse’ and Channel 4 has called in ‘security specialists’. Since vicious abuse and the Left are not exactly strangers to each other, that sounds like a red herring cooked up to deflect attention from the real story. Ephemeral as TV interviews usually are, this one will endure as a textbook example of the television tactics of the Left and of the bias we are always being told by the ABC and its apologists that television journalists do not display.", among others. As regarding which part of the controversy was given more notoriety in the media, if we checked the initial, even the articles which were critical of Newman's performance, the majority of them only partially reported or ignored Newman's performance (calling it as "combative" without any context or criticism) and the main story was the exaggerated abuse/threat. The sentence or two explain Newman's mistake in the interview (repeated misrepresenting of Peterson) and one part on freedom of speech which gained most notoriety. If you share some other constructive criticism to ponder upon you are welcomed to do so.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 13:43, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

To clarify, I'm not in favor of the removal of reference to Murray's articles. I was answering to RichardWeiss who was saying that reference to Kirkup does not satisfy wikipedia standards. I don't know if it's true, I'm just saying that if it the case, of course, I accept the situation, but I also point out that articles of Kirkup and Murray are very very similar in status, and if Kirkup does not qualify, Murray does not qualify either. For the rest, I don't see the point of your citations: I know the story, I know the positions. My problem is not that those positions don't exist, they exist for sure. My problem is that the balance of positions are badly done in the article. I don't get the logic here, it seems you are both saying that the main consensus is that death threats are a manipulative strategy (so it justifies that this opinion is given without showing it's controversial) and that the main consensus is sympathy over Newman for the death threats. My position is to give all the aspect of the story: one sentence about media saying she was bad (as already done), one sentence about media saying she was "combative" (you say yourself that this opinion is important, because it justifies some reactions that you want to keep), one sentence about the death threat, one sentence about the opinion that the death threat thing is a manipulation, one sentence about the opinion that thinking it's a manipulation is far-fetched, ... I don't see why one only of those aspect merits way more coverage, while it's certainly not the dominant opinion in the media. After all, you say it yourself: some media pretended that Newman was "combative", which is a very important information to understand the "manipulation" part, and it is not at all in the current wikipedia article. 131.220.163.41 (talk) 17:32, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

As far I understand Weiss's answer, assuming he knows the Wikipedian editing principles, he did not say that it doesn't satisfy. Wikipedian articles are edited according to WP:NPOV, and your concern is related to WP:WEIGHT and WP:FALSEBALANCE. There's no "main consensus" over Newman for the death threats, which existence is another controversy. When we edit articles on Wikipedia we do it so according to given weight, and not all aspects deserve the same amount of mention. The issue with the "sentence about combative interview" is in the fact the media initially did not use any other explanation or context to "combativeness", the term was basically repeatedly used to cover up what later many other journalists extensively criticized ("an aggressive and biased interview while repeatedly misrepresenting Peterson"), and is redundant to mention it without such criticism in other reliable sources (ignoring the initial ones because they were not opinion pieces). The issue with the "sentence about the death threat" is in the fact it was not extensively reported in the media, and if remember correctly, the repeated one-two examples of the "evidence" are really vague. The issue with "sentence about opinion ... manipulation is far-fetched" needs reliable sources which report such a thing. So, think that, if am not mistaken, your proposition can't be properly applied with currently available RS.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 18:42, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

The part about RichardWeiss is very simple: all characteristics of the status of Kirkup's article are the same as the ones of the status of Murray's article. End of the subject: we concluded that Murray's articles don't qualify as "blog and partisan" enough to be avoided, so, same for Kirkup. You are right when you say there is no main consensus over Newman for the death threats. This is my problem: this wikipedia article does not provide any sources supporting another opinion on those death threats then the one currently supported. Your only argument seems to say that saying "X does not agree with Y" means that Y exist. But in this case, just add reference for Y (which should exist unless this statement is false). A good article will be "some people say Y (ref), but other say X (ref)" and not, like you do "some people say X (ref) (and therefore you should guess that some don't agree)". I don't understand your argument about Kirkup's article: why Kirkup's article is not good to add but Murray's article is? They are both as sourced, as argumented, as reliable, they are both opinion pieces. Maybe you are not convinced with one of the two, but this is not your job, your job is to provide a realistic overview of the opinion, even when you don't agree with them (and I don't even ask to describe the content of Kirkup's article, just "this opinion is itself disputed (ref)"). You are even saying "the repeated one-two examples of the "evidence" are really vague": your job is to say "some people have pretended to provide evidences (ref)", your opinion on the quality of those evidence does not matter, it's not your job, you are not a journalist, you are an editor of a page that provides a realistic picture of what happened: if some people claimed they provided evidence, you say they have, with the link, even if you don't believe it yourself. At the end, it's the quality of your article we talk about, if you have no problem with people reading your article and then seeing that the reality prove it's a poor depiction, it's in fact not really my problem, I've commented here just to help. 78.48.98.104 (talk) 19:43, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I didn't say that Kirkup's article is not good to add, but the way to properly edit it in the current revision. There is no source, as far I know, that has another opinion or new evidence on these "death threats" besides what was initially inexplicitly reported. You are commenting as if there's a specific reality about these "death threats", which until now wasn't reported, actually still is examined and according to the most recent references, it's really a controversial claim. I am not sure of the reasoning for mentioning of such thing, even separately, when it's already mentioned "deluge of alleged "vicious misogynistic abuse and threat"", which imply that such action was taken according to specific evidence, nevertheless of it's factual accuracy.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 01:37, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

This is exactly the problem: it's NOT YOUR JOB to check if the threats are real or not: media said "there were threats", you just write "media have reported that there were threats". 131.220.163.41 (talk) 10:42, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it is our job to check if the threats are real or not according to sources, and there's no consensus on the topic. Saying that "media have reported that there were threats" is the same as already cited "deluge of alleged "vicious misogynistic abuse and threat"" (according to Ben de Pear because the media reported his words and not their own).--Miki Filigranski (talk) 13:38, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

NO, it is NOT: you NEVER say that the sources are correct, you just state the REALITY: there are newspapers saying that, so, just say they are saying that. Additionally, if it's really your position, WHERE ARE THE PROOFS for the other affirmations that you quote ? You are shooting a bullet in your own foot, you are saying that you are just a partial activist trying to promote an opinion, because you confess that you believe in the thesis "these threats are part of a manipulation". It's even more stupid that if you really believe that, you do a BIG favor to newspapers who were wrong by not quoting them on something that will end up being proved incorrect. And AGAIN, I'm not saying to add a sentence, just do "deluge of alleged "vicious misogynistic abuse and threat" (refering to (ref, ref, ...))". How is that complicated ? 77.182.83.123 (talk) 14:28, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

I did not say that and would advise you to not misrepresent other editors ("you are just a partial activist"). There was an edit of the paragraph, which I think alignes with your criticism.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 15:14, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

February 2018

@0xF8E8: would note you that reverted your edits and would like to hear your reasoning. Would emphasize that early reports i.e. journalists don't specifically "characterize threats as real", they barely forward Ben de Pear's Twitter statement in which are considered as real. Considering the quantity of commentary, 500 comments out of at least 36,000 (1.38%), soon exceeding 43,000 (1.16%), which is a really small minority. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 01:56, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

@Miki Filigranski: Hi Miki, I explained my revert on your talk page, but I'll respond to your claims here. As I see it, the language the reports use clearly indicate the outlets treat the threats/abuse as real:

"Newman has faced a wave of abuse and threats online, including on Twitter." The Guardian

"Channel 4 has been forced to call in “security specialists” after a combative interview with a controversial Canadian psychologist spawned a series of online abuse and threats directed at presenter Cathy Newman." The Independent

"Newman has since been subjected to abuse online..." The Daily Telegraph

"Newman has been the subject of gender-based abuse and threats on social media, which has led Channel 4 to conduct a risk analysis by security experts." The Varsity

"Channel 4 has called in security experts after its presenter Cathy Newman received threats and abuse following a “robust” interview about gender." The Times (warning: paywall, you might have to sign up to read this article)

The articles do quote extensively from de Pear's statements, but these sentences are in the voice of the outlet and not statements attributed to de Pear--they pretty carefully distinguish between de Pear's descriptions, like "vicious misogynistic abuse", and the fact of the threats. Some commentators do dispute how severe the threats were, or indeed if there were any at all, so I note Peterson's comment in my edits and leave Murray's commentary. But in establishing the facts of whether there were threats are not, I have to rely on the existing news reporting, which generally seems to report the threats as credible. The numerical breakdown of comments you present strikes me as a textbook example of synthesis--you're combining facts you found in two articles, making a few assumptions, and then drawing a conclusion neither of them made. Your analysis requires several assumptions--comments are distributed across several platforms (you only look at YouTube, but there are surely a much larger amount on Twitter) and this makes the overall percentage of abuse difficult to truly assess. Even if your analysis was entirely correct, it would still be inappropriate to make the claim in wiki-voice because neither of the articles directly make such a claim: we have to adhere strictly to the sources per WP:SYNTH. —0xf₈e₈ (t♥lk) 02:39, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Would not agree, the media outlets just repeat Pear's consideration, there's no distinction, and there's almost no distinction between these outlets reporting. It is as replied above, "media have reported that there were threats" is the same, but not more accurate than already cited "deluge of alleged "vicious misogynistic abuse and threat"" (according to Ben de Pear) because it switches the subject from Pear to media. However, will do a bold edit on "minority" because agree we should abstain from describing it until is more seriously reported in the media. The number of 500 comments by Daily Mail (tabloid newspaper) are a suspicious number too because it was counted by whom (?), also it wasn't exclusively considered Twitter by Pear, recently The Varsity reported "The nature of the threats against her or specific measures taken, however, have not been specified ... A Twitter search failed to unearth direct threats against Newman. Two Twitter comments reacting to the debate said “RIP Cathy Newman.” Around 10 tweets since January 16 have leveled slurs against the interviewer. One Twitter user collated comments on the YouTube video and found over 750 comments using misogynistic slurs", we have reports which show that "more abuse directed at Peterson and his supporters than at Cathy", so the whole case "factual claims" and "narratives" are highly intertwined because of which think we should keep "alleged".--Miki Filigranski (talk) 14:58, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

The Varsity's info is useful in contextualizing the threats, but it addresses the type and content of threats, not whether there were any. The article still claims there were some threats, just no direct threats it could find on Twitter. I think you might have misintepreted what I meant about distinction: the important factor is whether the statements were attributed by the outlet to de Pear or not, not whether we hold a subjective belief the media outlets take de Pear too credibly. If they don't quote de Pear when making a statement, or tag a statement with "according to de Pear" or "de Pear says", the outlet is making a direct claim. Perhaps you believe these papers haven't exercised the appropriate amount of scrutiny, but unfortunately they do indeed make such claims. We can't simply go by whether we hold a belief the sources are in error or are biased towards de Pear; we have to present factual matters according to the preponderance of information presented in RS, and they generally say--directly, not quoting de Pear--that there were threats. In the above discussion you pointed to, I also noticed that you present Murray's editorial as reliable source which disputes the threats. Murray's article is published under the Coffee House blog of The Spectator, which falls under our guidelines for newsblogs. These can occasionally be used as RS, but they're not generally subject to the same fact-checking process as journalism and often feature editorials, like Murray's. Statements taken from the editorials need to be attributed, and can't be used directly to make a factual claim in the article. It wouldn't factor into the broader consensus of RS which indicate there were threats. We can describe Murray's opinion in the article (as we already do in both my proposed revision and yours), but it's useless for settling factual disputes. I've boldly made an edit reinstating the information about the threats, but contextualizing it with some info from The Varsity. What do you think? —0xf₈e₈ (t♥lk) 20:20, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

No, I didn't write about whether the media question Pear's credibility, yet their attribution, which is not the same in the initial media articles, and the latest one like of The Varsity. Murray is notable and reliable and was not the only one who pointed out such narrative, but I would shorten his statement to "In a subsequent piece, Murray stated that Channel 4 had started to create a narrative that, rather than acknowledging that Peterson was the potential victim of a hostile interview, was instead being built around claiming victimhood for Newman. The online criticism and mocking of Newman were being reframed as abuse and threats, conflating the contradiction of certain ideas to hate." with no direct quotes. Your edit was good. However, would point out that "Newman claims to have received online abuse and threats following the interview" can't be WP:VERIFY in the references, it is again Pear's claim, Newman barely made any statement after the interview (an example of SYNTH). So will edit that part.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 11:27, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

I apologize, but I really don't understand what you mean. The articles all directly state that Newman was threatened in the quotes I've provided. The Varsity also says Newman was threatened: "Since the interview was posted on January 16, Newman has been the subject of gender-based abuse and threats on social media, which has led Channel 4 to conduct a risk analysis by security experts." It mentions de Pear only one time, to quote him describing getting the police involved. The statement about abuse is not attributed to de Pear. In fact, other than the police quote, no other part of the article is attributed to de Pear. The Varsity's claims do not differ substantially from the other sources. The fact that its investigation did not find "direct threats" on Twitter does not mean the article is claiming "there were no threats on any platform, indirect or direct", it means that it couldn't find direct threats on Twitter (which is a subset of all possible threats). What, specifically, in The Varsity article is different? I agree about the "Newman claims" bit being SYNTHy. That bit was not my phrasing, but rather an IP editor's addition; I wrote "Newman began to receive threats..." which mirrors what the sources say. With regards to Murray, I agree his opinion is notable. As the article is an editorial, per NEWSBLOG I suggested that we use in-text attribution when dealing with his statements. It doesn't factor in to settling the factual dispute over whether Newman was threatened. —0xf₈e₈ (t♥lk) 21:26, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

I am currently on vacation and will not be able to properly continue the discussion so will put it on halt for few weeks. Will keep watching on the article from time to time until then.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 20:16, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Came back ... If you compare initial media articles and The Varsity it is not the same reporting. Will remove @Madhulovespotatoes: edits because the section is becoming unnecessarily huge in size for the scope of the article. Also removed @0xF8E8: re-adding d'Ancona, Kirkup, Rayner because the paragraph does not give anything substantial to the case nor every individual consideration has a weight to be included. The focus is an event (interview), what followed it (internet reaction, de Pear's, media) and critical reception (by journalists etc). If anything, because of mentioned d'Ancona etc. commentary, as well the commentary which followed theirs (even by Peterson), because the interview even expanded into internet meme phenomenon, would propose the creation of a separate article for the interview because of its notoriety. Also reverted because they are not the same kind of sources for such removal, and are cited for easily verified claims. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 12:31, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Your objection to d'Ancona and Kirkup doesn't seem particularly grounded in due weight, despite your claim; there are several editorials across multiple sources which make similar points to Kirkup and d'Ancona: Revesz in The Independent, Hodgson in The Guardian, Semley in The Globe and Mail, just to name a few. They're not used indiscriminately, but rather to represent a significant viewpoint, just as Murray and Lillywhite represent another significant viewpoint. I don't think a separate article is warranted. I'm in favor of trimming the section, but we ought not to be selective in removal; the criticism para is also quite inflated with citation overkill, and we should probably just summarize the most common criticisms instead of listing critics one by one.

What do you mean by "it is not the same reporting"? We're discussing, as I mentioned earlier, whether we say there were threats in the article, not the type or content of the threats. Both The Varsity and the initial media reports clearly claim that Newman received threats. You have not offered a justification for excluding that information from the article. I don't agree that The Knife and ValueWalk are being cited for uncontroversial claims. None of the example media articles provided support the claims media is calling him "anti-feminist" or "alt-right": VW only suggests vaguely "ideological opponents" for the alt-right claim, whereas TK uses a single tabloid Daily Mail article where the term "anti-feminist" is in scare quotes. These failures are a reflection of the poor quality control and lack of separation between editorial analysis and factual reporting that plagues unreliable sources like VW and TK. Even if the claims were uncontroversial, the sentence is a synthesis of VW and TK with Lillywhite, who only suggests "anti-feminist" is being used to discredit. —0xf₈e₈ (t♥lk) 23:20, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

The interview is notable for its criticism, and that's not an overkill. If there's a need for trimming then obviously both parts of criticism should have equal treatment. However, there's an issue with weight and balance in the article - the negative criticism is prevalent and has more references, as such it should be more noted than the other (unless other including you cited above should be added as well and compared). No, they do not clearly claim such a thing - the barely report Pear's statement and channels viewpoint, while until now there's lack of evidence for consideration it can be considered as "abuse" and "threats". Saying that The Knife and ValueWalk have provided no support i.e. factual evidence for the claims media is labeling him is, let's be honest, a lie. Your personal opinion about their quality and reliability is simply made-up original research. The sentence was not SYNTH because it was used as an example which goes along Lillywhite's and other cited sources.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 16:47, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

One of the examples for your biased OR opinion about media reliability is the fact you called Irish Independent an unreliable source ([2]), then stating that "these allegations are not mirrored in other sources" ("But even the broadcaster's initial claims of a sinister and orchestrated campaign of harassment and intimidation of its presenter began to appear shaky when metrics were used to discover that he had actually received more abuse than Newman, on a roughly 3:1 basis."), although did you made a research for such a claim? (for e.g. one which was previously cited [3]). If anything, it is another RS stating that the "Channel 4 was quick to claim that she had been hounded with death threats and abuse". Not to mention that saying "claim is not mirrored in other sources" the same, I assume, is with The Varsity. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 17:04, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I genuinely don't understand what you mean. I'm not lying or inserting my personal opinion into the article. I would remind you that biographies of living persons generally require stronger sourcing than others articles: sources which are reliable in some contexts may not be reliable in others.

The judgment these publications have no reputation for fact-checking and accuracy does not result from a subjective opinion on quality. The fact is TK and CW are recently established outlets not referenced by other reliable sources or in scholarly literature. Additionally, the sources are op-eds, not news reporting: The Conservative Woman (probably the most egregious example here) is exclusively a commentary site, and doesn't appear to characterize its content as anything but. It is not referenced by other RS, positively or otherwise, and lacks an editorial board. The Knife article is an editorial statement, and is consequently categorized under "analysis" section rather than the "daily cut" or news reporting. Other sources avoid referencing it: a Google News search brings up only TK itself and blogs by its creator on HuffPo. ValueWalk signals on its about page that it regularly syndicates blog posts and commentary: in this case Dan Sanchez of the Foundation for Economic Education. ValueWalk's financial reporting, which goes through a different process than their syndicated columns, would be a different matter. Op-eds are rarely reliable. The articles are also being used to connect material with Lillywhite's analysis he does not himself state: the claim outlets described him as "controversial" to discredit Peterson. Lillywhite only suggests the media is characterizing Peterson as "anti-feminist" to discredit him. SYNTH explicitly cautions us against using an example provided by one source to flesh out that of another, e.g. "United Nations founded to promote peace, only 160 wars throughout the world". It does not matter how similar one might believe the arguments to be, what matters is attributing claims to their respective sources.—0xf₈e₈ (t♥lk) 06:40, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

With regards to the Irish Independent, you've attributed a position to me that I don't hold. I don't believe the Irish Independent is unreliable, just that that specific article is not sufficiently reliable in this context: it's a book review, as indicated by the "Indo Review" at the bottom, and thus not subject to the fact-checking of II's news reporting. Because that was unclear in my initial edit, I put in a dummy edit to clarify that II's news reporting is generally reliable and my objection was to the specific article. I already knew about the Conservative Woman source, which is AFAIK the only one which makes a similar exceptional claim: it is perhaps the least reliable of the sources yet mentioned, as I address above. My apologies for the hasty summary with the prior edit: I was caught in the nor'easter and was about to lose power.

If you could, please expand on your description of how the articles address threats directed towards Newman. I don't understand what "they barely report de Pear's statement and channels viewpoint" means, and fail to see how it undermines the language used directly in the sources I've provided above about the threats. The comments you make about The Varsity are very confusing to me. I was the one who added the material from The Varsity in the first place, and I've never disputed its reliability or inclusion in the article. You've repeatedly asserted The Varsity is in contradiction with the claim that Newman received threats, but have not supported this with material from the article. As I mentioned before, "direct threats on Twitter" and "threats" are not the same; The Varsity still claims Newman received threats. This discussion has been fairly fruitless in terms of producing any agreement, so I've asked for a third opinion here.—0xf₈e₈ (t♥lk) 06:40, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Will be short. As discussed above, saying "Disagreement about whether sources claim Newman received threats and abuse online" you missed the point, we do not discuss whether sources claim that (it's self-evident they do), yet to who is attributed that claim - de Pear and the channel. The media, especially initially, wrote almost the same word-for-word reports about de Pear's statement and action, on that is basically built "their" claim when don't directly mention de Pear, while very few actually independently investigated and reported on the "abuse" and "threats" (for e.g. The Varsity), as some journalists pointed out.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 06:59, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we've been over that already. What matters is whether the language RS uses treat the threats as credible, not whether they relied on C4 or not (impossible to know). We quote statements which are quoted to de Pear, but claims made in the voice of the outlet need not be attributed. The Varsity disputes *whether there were direct threats on Twitter*, not whether there were threats. It still says there were threats.—0xf₈e₈ (t♥lk) 07:32, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, we were, and it is not reasonable to ignore and not attribute specifically know subject (de Pear) who made the statement about "abuse" and "threat".--Miki Filigranski (talk) 08:06, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

We don't "know" anything about how the articles came to the conclusion Newman received threats. We know that de Pear said they received threats, and the article claims she received threats. We can't necessarily draw a causal connection between the two, and it would be original research to do so anyway. —0xf₈e₈ (t♥lk) 08:15, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

@0xF8E8:I haven't read the whole discussion above (TLDR), but none of the 4 sources you quoted in the section below explicitly includes any threats made to Newman. They include examples of insults, but no examples of threats, and simply repeat Channel 4's claim that there were threats. It's apparent that they are reporting Channel 4's claim, not that they have investigated and found threats. --hippo43 (talk) 08:18, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

@Hippo43: Hmm. I agree they are reporting C4's claim, but they nonetheless threats as credible in the voice of the outlet. The only extant "investigation" into the threats appears to be The Varsity, which still claims there were threats (but no direct threats on Twitter). —0xf₈e₈ (t♥lk) 08:23, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

They reported de Pear's statement...--Miki Filigranski (talk) 08:20, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

What I mean, though, is that the articles have nonetheless gone through the normal fact-checking process and still claim Newman was threatened. This isn't disputed in any followup source, even The Varsity. —0xf₈e₈ (t♥lk) 08:26, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

@0xF8E8:Sorry, I don't read the sources that way. They clearly report what Ch4/de Pear said, and they are not reporting their own belief that she was threatened. Although they mention examples of abuse and insults, do not mention anything threatening. --hippo43 (talk) 08:50, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

@Hippo43: What I'm referring to is the direct statements made by each outlet that Newman received threats, like Newman has been the subject of gender-based abuse and threats on social media in The Varsity and Newman has faced a wave of abuse and threats online, including on Twitter. in The Guardian. These statements are not attributed to de Pear. Not sure why they need to directly mention which threats they were? This seems like an unusual standard to apply; they may have any number of reasons not reprinting them which are not related to whether there were any: wanting to avoid publicity for the threat issuers, the process of an ongoing police investigation, etc. Their own belief is summarized by their direct statements (not attributed to de Pear) that there were threats: if they didn't treat the threats credibly, they would attribute such statements to de Pear when made. But instead they quote de Pear for descriptions of the abuse, and make the direct claim there were threats.—0xf₈e₈ (t♥lk) 09:08, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

@0xF8E8:Sorry, I think you're reading these sources wrong somehow. I just don't agree with your interpretation. As far as I can see, in eacah case they are reporting what de Pear claimed. You quoted selectively, I assume inadvertently, from The Varsity. It said "Newman has been the subject of gender-based abuse and threats on social media, which has led Channel 4 to conduct a risk analysis by security experts", clearly reporting what Channel 4 had said. It even says "The nature of the threats against her or specific measures taken, however, have not been specified."

I think each source even includes some variation of “vicious misogynistic abuse” in quotes - it's a stretch that any of the sources you have shown me are doing anything beyond repeating what de Pear and C4 claimed. --hippo43 (talk) 09:29, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I just don't see how that quote is "reporting what Channel 4 said". If it was merely reporting a statement, it would be "Newman has been the subject of gender-based abuse and threats on social media, which has lead Channel 4 to conduct a risk analysis by security experts, de Pear said/Channel 4 said/according to a report from Channel 4". But that claim is not attributed to de Pear, Channel 4 or anyone else: the mere fact it mentions Channel 4 does not mean the claim is solely attributed to Channel 4. I agree the articles do mention descriptions by de Pear, which is precisely why I think it's important they don't tag it with "de Pear said/according to Channel 4/etc." They distinguish between descriptions given by de Pear ("'vicious misogynistic abuse', de pear said") and direct claims ("Newman was threatened and Channel 4 called security"). —0xf₈e₈ (t♥lk) 09:45, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't think we are going to agree on this. Each of the sources reports what de Pear said, nothing more. All they say about the threats is what de Pear said. I think this is obvious and you are reading too much into what they don't say or how they don't say it. --hippo43 (talk) 11:13, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Thanks for your input, nonetheless. I don't mean to prolong the conversation. The de Pear said/Channel 4 said thing is intended to illustrate distinctions between quotes of de Pear and claims that the outlet makes in the voice of the outlet. Your objection is, as I understand it, is that the article only fleshes out "threats" with de Pear quotes. As far as I can tell, the article treats the threats as credible by placing the statement in its own voice, and it should be unnecessary to attribute it. RS do not become unusuable or too WP:BIASED because they don't disclose the precise verification process for threats anymore than the Washington Post becomes unreliable when it does not release the identity of White House leakers. In both cases, the reporting is thoroughly vetted by an editorial team and statements are made carefully. —0xf₈e₈ (t♥lk) 11:41, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I understand what you're trying to say, but I don't agree with you. Your comment on how these sources might have vetted these articles is just speculation. I didn't claim the sources were biased or unusable. I'm not objecting to these sources being used, but to me it is only accurate to say they support the statement that "Ch4 said there were threats", not "there were threats". --hippo43 (talk) 11:58, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

In addition, I think you are wilfully misreading what The Varsity article says. It clearly casts doubt on whether threats existed, quoting Peterson "Channel 4 should make the ‘threats’ public so that the public can judge their validity...Criticism and threats are not the same thing, and as far as I know there has been no police involvement", and itself saying "Peterson says threats and criticism not the same", "The nature of the threats against her or specific measures taken, however, have not been specified." and "A Twitter search failed to unearth direct threats against Newman". --hippo43 (talk) 12:06, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I struggle to understand your interpretation of the Varsity source, and it seems you've sort of flipped the script here: "we can't use statement that mirrors de Pear, but we can use this bit sourced to Peterson to make a judgment" seems contradictory. We can't base judgments on what we think the article's general tone is, we have to stick to the statements as provided in the article. When the Varsity quotes Peterson, it is not making a claim about the threats but rather what he says about the threats. "Direct threats on Twitter" are not "all threats", and The Varsity still claims there were threats in the sentence I provided earlier. The bit about vetting is not speculation or idle praise towards the specific process used here, but rather noting existence of an editorial board at all these publicaitons which routinely fact-checks articles. I can't say what the ultimate process is, just that the sources have the regular editorial oversight just like other RS. All of those four sources make a direct claim, as I've indicated upthread. If the presence of "Channel 4 called security experts" means the statement is attributed to Channel 4, I struggle to see how we can use any piece of the article. I might not be able to respond to future posts, as I'm out of town today. —0xf₈e₈ (t♥lk) 12:16, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

OK. I don't think this is going anywhere. I think Miki's response above was probably best - They reported de Pear's statement. --hippo43 (talk) 14:01, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Reduction of Peterson interview section

I've taken a first stab at reducing the amount of material on this interview. It had been given more prominence than almost her entire career. Seems an obvious case of undue weight and recentism. Others may be able to summarise the episode better than me. --hippo43 (talk) 07:04, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

@Hippo43: Thank you very much for the attempt! I had been wanting to pare down the section for a month now but was bogged down by the discussion in the preceding section. Do you have any comment about that? Filigranski has reverted your edit, so it's probably going to be difficult to progress without addressing that in part.—0xf₈e₈ (t♥lk) 07:32, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Firstly, respect WP:BRD process and stop your disruptive behavior like you showed at recent Jordan Peterson's editing history (WP:POINT). Nevertheless, if you are in line with policy (which is partly questionable), that does not overweight the process until it is reached a consensus. No, I have no issue with reducing the interview and emphasized before it should be done, neither have much to complain about the edit. However, not in such a way. For example, why is Murray's opinion kept? Does everybody agree with Hippo43's edit?--Miki Filigranski (talk) 07:51, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

@0xF8E8:Thanks. I don't have anything to add on the section above just now (TLDR). Happy to discuss here with User:Miki Filigranski and anyone else, especially if I have missed anything important in my edit. Obviously the section should follow reliable sources, and I don't think it should be too difficult to get right, if it is kept to an appropriate size. --hippo43 (talk) 07:52, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

@Hippo43: Hippo43, the core of the dispute is basically whether we can directly claim Newman received any threats in the article. I think we can, because the sources claim that Newman did receive threats (see, e.g. [4] [5] [6] [7]). We already note a lot of caveats about type of threats, like the Varsity's investigation of "direct threats on Twitter" and Murray commentary, but this is specifically about *any* threats. Miki believes that the sources rely too heavily on C4, and therefore we can't claim Newman received any threats. Further details, including disputes over ancillary sources, are above. —0xf₈e₈ (t♥lk) 08:04, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

@Miki Filigranski:I realise this is your pet subject, but I don't understand your objection. I made an edit and opened a discussion. You agree with my edit in principle and in detail but reverted anyway? Are you serious that I am the one being disruptive?

I kept Murray's opinion only because it was a sourced comment about Ch4's manipulation of the narrative, which I thought was important, but couldn't find a better way to include it (with a source) than attributing it to Murray. I'd prefer handling it a better way - including his opinion specifically probably isn't appropriate. Can you suggest a better way? --hippo43 (talk) 07:56, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

@Miki Filigranski:I think you misunderstand BRD - please read the Revert section there. I appreciate your support for my version. If you have suggestions for improvement, let's discuss them. --hippo43 (talk) 08:00, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Have you ever read BRD, including Discuss section, about consensus building, or about disruptive editing to make a point or 3RR? Yes, you are disruptive. Instead to present a draft as properly should be done in a civilized discussion, you constantly revert to your revision impatiently ignoring other editors reply (or edit!), and process which consensus could result with less confusion and possible mistakes. The revision has obvious faults, yet you ignore it. No, I cannot accept such way of editing.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 08:16, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Not a draft, but a significantly better version. Which, of course, can be improved upon by other editors. And I am not editing to make a point. Again, I note that you actually agree with my improvements above. Per BRD#Revert, please suggest any improvements you would like, or obviously feel free to make the edit yourself. --hippo43 (talk) 08:25, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Can we agree on this draft, or would add/change something about it:

"On 16 January 2018, Newman interviewed the Canadian psychology Professor Jordan Peterson on various topics, including identity politics, which feature in his new book, 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos. The interview was viewed on Youtube more than 7.4 million times by 24 February . Newman was broadly criticised as having given an aggressive and biased interview, repeatedly misrepresenting Peterson, and at one point having been unable to reply to his statement about freedom of speech.

A few days after the interview was published, the programme editor Ben de Pear stated that Channel 4 had called in security specialists in response to "vicious misogynistic abuse, nastiness, and threat". On Twitter, Peterson requested that his followers stop threatening Newman if they were doing so, but disputed that critical comments amounted to threats. A search by The Varsity on Twitter found some tweets directing slurs towards Newman, but did not uncover any direct threats on the platform. Some journalists like Douglas Murray and Melanie Phillips later commented that Channel 4 had created a narrative that, rather than acknowledging that the interview was hostile, was instead portraying Newman as a victim, while the online criticism and mocking of Newman were being reframed as abuse and threats."--Miki Filigranski (talk) 08:36, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

References

Mostly good, but some qualms with the criticism section. Neither Murray nor Phillips dispute that there was abuse, so "criticism reframed as abuse and threats" is inaccurate. More accurate is something like "threats directed towards Newman were being used to shield from criticism of the interview". —0xf₈e₈ (t♥lk) 08:41, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

@Miki Filigranski:That looks good to me. Maybe we don't need to mention Murray and Philips by name - in other words, possibly remove "like Douglas Murray and Melanie Phillips" from your text. I didn't name other comentators for the sake of concision. But I don't mind either way. --hippo43 (talk) 08:43, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

IMO the solution is to expand the rest not delete conten and if you delete content without consensus I will revert, esp sourced content. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 08:45, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

We should not reframe their words which were about the media victim narrative, Phillips wrote "The station’s response was to turn Newman into a victim. Her editor Ben de Pear said such was the scale of the online “threats and abuse” she had received that he had “called in security experts to carry out an analysis”. Clearly, all such abuse is wrong. Newman reportedly was the target of obscene messages and a pornographic mock-up on Instagram. That’s vile. Much of the reaction, though, consisted merely of fierce criticism of her perceived hostility and bias, while some of her supporters targeted Peterson for violent abuse... Unfortunately, threats and vilification on social media are now routine for anyone putting their head above the parapet. It is typical of ideologues, however, that they inflate such victimisation as a form of emotional blackmail to silence criticism". As regarding the consensus, well, for now, it's kinda 2 vs 2 because I do not support new revision until consensus about its form.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 08:51, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Miki, that seems exactly consonant with my claim: Murray suggests threats are being inflated, not that there aren't any. "Reframed as abuse and threat" implies Murray believes no abuse or threats were issued, which misrepresents his opinion. —0xf₈e₈ (t♥lk) 09:13, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

They write about the narrative in which mostly criticism (etc.) are being represented as "threats". Your representation of their quote is not accurate, if anything, only partly.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 09:17, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Really confused here. Murray suggests that threats were a minority that overshadowed criticism, not that criticism was reframed as threats. That implies a more deliberate action. —0xf₈e₈ (t♥lk) 09:21, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I am also confused because of your partial representation of their quotes. We are not dealing only with Murray.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 09:30, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I thought repeating myself would be excessive. Phillips has a similar issue Clearly, all such abuse is wrong...Much of the reaction, though, consisted merely of fierce criticism of her perceived hostility and bias [...] Unfortunately, threats and vilification on social media are now routine for anyone putting their head above the parapet. where the claim being made is that most reactions were not threats (and that the threats are routine and inflated), not that criticism is being passed off as threats. That is a considerably more out-there theory which implies much more serious motives, and is not made in either commentary. —0xf₈e₈ (t♥lk) 09:52, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

"...It is typical of ideologues, however, that they inflate such victimisation as a form of emotional blackmail to silence criticism". I don't get you, it's not implying that they don't believe no abuse or threats were issued. In short, what kind of sentence(s) you propose? --Miki Filigranski (talk) 10:09, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Douglas Murray and Melanie Phillips argued that the severity of the threats were overstated and used to silence critics of the interview. is roughly how I'd like to phrase it. I'm not terribly specific about the wording, but it should include 'threats-overstated' and 'used-to-hush-critics', the primary thrust of both articles. —0xf₈e₈ (t♥lk) 10:29, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Done.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 10:44, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

@Miki Filigranski: Thanks, but I still think the lead-in is unnecessary and inaccurate. "Channel 4 created a narrative that [R]ather than acknowledging he was the victim of a hostile interview..." makes the claim that the interview was hostile in wikivoice: Murray and Phillips argued Peterson was subject to a hostile interview, stating the severity of the threats were overstated and used to silence critics. is far more concise and considerably more accurate. —0xf₈e₈ (t♥lk) 11:03, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

That is so concise that the reporting from three sources lost any context and meaning.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 11:12, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I can't really glean anything from your statement. Summaries are by their nature somewhat destructive, but I don't think it helps the article to flesh out every detail of criticism, nor do I think the added points are accurate representations of the criticism. My proposal gets across the primary thrust of all three pieces: interview was bad, threats overstated and used to silence. As mentioned, there are problems with the attribution in the existing lead-in: "rather than acknowledging" implies Peterson was victim in wikivoice. The sentence is the longest in the entire section: is that really necessary? —0xf₈e₈ (t♥lk) 11:49, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Also, Lillywhite is not a journalist but rather a publisher and editor: 'some journalists criticize' isn't accurate if we're including Lillywhite. —0xf₈e₈ (t♥lk) 11:57, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Attribution is clearly on journalists, he is a journalist if is writing a news article, and not every journalist in the world needs and is specifically a journalist by profession. All three sources state he was a victim of a hostile interview and media discrediting.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 19:04, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

@RichardWeiss can you address the concern that this section is too long, per WP:UNDUE? Thanks --hippo43 (talk) 08:54, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I dont believe it is too long or can be reduced without losing content. My solution to WP:UNDUE is to expand the rest of the article, I believe she is notable enough for this article to be expanded. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 14:11, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

The Peterson interview section is textbook WP:RECENTISM – a media brouhaha that led to a few days of saturated breaking-news and opinion coverage, but is otherwise a minor event in Newman's career. I've trimmed a good portion of it accordingly. We should rely on coverage by reliable, secondary sources such as analytical news articles and books by reputable authors and publishers. While those are lacking, we shouldn't over-burden the article with recent details – Wikipedia is not the news. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:36, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Section looks good to me now. --hippo43 (talk) 16:59, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

@Sangdeboeuf @hippo43 : I strongly disagree with how the two of you have vandalised the section. You have removed all context of the interview. You have removed all criticism of Newman and you have removed sources such as the New York times and Douglas Murray and instead left behind the only sources that favour you narrative. Your narrative being,'she had an interview with a bad guy, her producer claims she was threatened (despite producing no evidence).. so she was'. In what appears to be even more deceptive, you have insinuated that Peterson is in some way associated to the far right when it is not even relevant. Wikipedia is not the news but it should strive to be honest. Could you please tell me why there are implications to Peterson having followers in the 'far right' when the two sources you left behind after stripping all the content don't even agree on that? The two sources referenced do not even mention the same group. The Guardian says 'alt-right' and the Independent 'far-right' following with no supporting evidence, analysis or attribution to that statement. It seems that the only 'opinion piece' here is yours.Madhulovespotatoes (talk) 15:00, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

See below. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:23, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

@Sangdeboeuf responded belowSupermadinthesky 15:42, 7 March 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madhulovespotatoes (talk • contribs)

Criticism

@Sangdeboeuf: I don't understand your edit (per [8], [9], [10]), neither [11], most of these seem to be secondary rather than primary sources by noteworthy journalists. The references are used just to state that fact (for example in draft above). Also, what's your opinion about reduction?--Miki Filigranski (talk) 09:13, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP, Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone (emphasis mine).

The sources I removed were opinion pieces in the news and elsewhere. These are primary sources for the author's opinion, not reliable for general statements of fact, and so not suitable for BLPs. Material about "criticism" of living persons needs to be supported by secondary sources that comment directly on the criticism itself. Otherwise it's improper synthesis of primary sources.

With regard to the Jordan Peterson brouhaha, recentism plays a large role, as mentioned above. Documenting every piece of punditry that takes a bite of the scandal of the moment is not the mission of an encyclopedia. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:24, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

@Sangdeboeuf: I understand your point about secondary sources commenting directly on criticism, but I think including a statement like "X was the subject of criticism..." is generally acceptable when it's supported by multiple referenced examples of criticism. --hippo43 (talk) 09:37, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

If the criticism is encyclopedically relevant, then there will be secondary sources commenting on it. Otherwise, generalizations based on a collection of "critical" sources are original research. This is crucial for BLPs, where the first rule is "do no harm" – see WP:ARBBLP#Principles. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:52, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't get you very well, then why you kept "opinion pieces" in the second paragraph?--Miki Filigranski (talk) 09:44, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

@Miki Filigranski: I removed only the most obvious examples of WP:SYNTH. There may be more that should be cut as well. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:52, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I've added Miki's suggested text from above, as the current version was a mess that I don't think anyone wanted, but have omitted the disputed criticism sentence for now. --hippo43 (talk) 09:55, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I doubt all, as you said, primary sources are primary (or for the cited claim), for e.g. [12] "So, as Conor Friedersdorf noted in The Atlantic, she did what a lot of people do in argument these days. Instead of actually listening to Peterson, she just distorted, simplified and restated his views to make them appear offensive and cartoonish". Aren't these reliable sources by notable journalists published by "high-quality mainstream publications"?--Miki Filigranski (talk) 10:00, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

David Brooks is an op-ed columnist; his essay appears in NYT's opinion section. Opinion pieces like his don't have the same editorial oversight as regular news, so they're only reliable for the author's personal opinion. See WP:NEWSORG. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:11, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

So it can be used to "attribute the opinion to the author in the text of the article and do not represent it as fact"? For example, instead of using it among others as previously was done, it can be roughly cited that according to Conor Friedersdorf's analysis she repeatedly misrepresented Peterson? If so, can it be also referenced by [13] "The entire interview was an insipid exercise in Newman attempting to cram her own words into Peterson’s mouth; as Conor Friedersdorf of The Atlantic points out, Newman’s technique was to “restate what [Peterson] said so as to make it seem as if [his] view is offensive, hostile, or absurd.” Peterson, with the patience and mildness of a saint, doggedly refused to be boxed in that way"?--Miki Filigranski (talk) 10:37, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

The proposed text (according to Conor Friedersdorf's analysis she repeatedly misrepresented Peterson) is the exact opposite of not representing Brooks' opinion as fact. It is, in fact, representing Brooks' opinion as fact. What Brooks says may indeed be factual for all I know; the point is that we shouldn't generally use op-eds as sources for factual statements, especially about living persons.

That should also go for National Review, which as far as I know does not make any effort to separate news from commentary. Phrases such as insipid exercise, cram her own words into [X]'s mouth, patience and mildness of a saint, etc. should be red flags; it's clearly a polemic, not a reasoned analysis by a relevant subject-matter expert or even a trained journalist. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:43, 5 March 2018 (UTC) (edited 05:31, 14 March 2018 (UTC))

Have you read Friedersdorf article? How I can attribute the opinion to Brooks if two reliable sources mention it is by Friedersdorf? How is that red flags, and if anything, the focus is what on Friedersdorf points out? If if is used only the first source and attribute it to Brooks it would be fine, but isn't that inaccurate? I don't care about the point, generally does not mean that we can't use it in exceptions, then it would not be written in the principle that "When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability (both or all three authors are reliable!). The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint.[notes 2] If the statement is not authoritative, attribute the opinion (done!) to the author in the text of the article and do not represent it as fact". If the proposition sounds like a fact, then how should it sound to not sound so and can be included?--Miki Filigranski (talk) 19:18, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

My point is that op-eds are not the reliable secondary sources for factual content mentioned at WP:BLP. Opinion writing is not reliable for material about living persons in general (Conor Friedersdorf is a living person). Per the RS guideline, the "author" in this case is Brooks (since his essay is being cited): Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) [see Brooks' op-ed] are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author [Brooks], but are rarely reliable for statements of fact [e.g. "according to Conor Friedersdorf's analysis"]. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:04, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Isn't that contradicting the bottom "point" I cited before, in which is stated "attribute the opinion to the author in the text of the article", but if we follow your analogy then no opinion content can be cited (author with primary opinion - not reliable, author with secondary opinion about primary - also not reliable), which is against the principle itself? Don't get me wrong, it's confusing and I'm trying to understand it for proper future editing. I already cited two RS, what about this by Mic which states "In the days that followed, conservative columnists rushed to his defense in the Guardian, the Atlantic and the Wall Street Journal. The New York Times announced that the “Jordan Peterson Moment” had arrived. Soon after, Peterson’s latest book, 12 Rules for Life, shot to the top of the Amazon bestseller list. In the Atlantic, resident conservative Conor Friedersdorf asked, “Why can’t people hear what Jordan Peterson is saying?”" (although is not specific about the criticism of interview).--Miki Filigranski (talk) 13:46, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Isn't that contradicting the bottom "point" I cited before – no, it isn't. Friedersdorf is not the author in question. [A]ttribute the opinion to the author in the text of the article refers to the author of the source being cited. In this case, that's Brooks. [I]f we follow your analogy then no opinion content can be cited – that's correct, as long as it concerns criticism or praise per WP:BLP. If the criticism or praise is noteworthy, it will be mentioned by reliable, secondary sources. Op-eds are not reliable, secondary sources. It seems like you have a certain POV in mind that you want the article to have, and are looking for any and all sources to support that POV. That's not how we write biographies, or indeed any article. The best approach is to find the most reliable sources on the subject first, and then impartally summarize what they say, keeping in mind what Wikipedia is not. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:25, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Firstly, your interpretation is contradicting and does not make any sense - it's said "secondary sources", these "opinion pieces" were "secondary sources" according to the principle in mention. Opinion pieces were published by reliable mainstream publications written by noteworthy journalists - yet for you they are now all not reliable and hence should not be cited, basically violating Wikipedian editing principle (!). Secondly, you dared to accuse another editor for pushing certain POV (violating WP:GOODFAITH). Since you decided to cross that "polite" boundary, should I accuse you for WP:OWN?; for censorship (!) because why should any reader care what these pundits had to say?, yeah, why should the public care about reporting by RS and notable journalists?: further misrepresentation of principles because stating a fact like that the topic featured in his book is somehow promotional, or removal of another referenced fact about the interview view count; removed reliable opinion about media reporting and victim narrative, the fact about the lack of provided evidence, mentioned by The Varsity and hence decided to use another Peterson's quote where does not say that "they’ve provided no evidence that the criticisms constituted threats": somehow is notable to mention him in relation to "alt-right", or cite left-leaning The Guardian about "right-leaning sites" because that's somehow neutral, yet contradicting the factual reality and ignorantly polarizing all the criticism... and you dare to call out other editors on POV?--Miki Filigranski (talk) 04:55, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Forgive my earlier bluntness, but I'm having a hard time seeing the difficulty here. Opinion pieces are not secondary sources per WP:RS: Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact (emphasis mine). Whether the authors in question are themselves noteworthy is beside the point, and does not change established community practice concerning reliability and BLPs. I'm not sure how to explain this any better than I have already; if the limits on using op-eds as sources of critical material about living persons are unclear, you're welcome to make an inquiry at WP:BLP/N. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:15, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, I will try to formulate my, let's call it current confusion, and will write an inquiry there.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 10:16, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

@Sangdeboeuf Since you are clear about wanting integrity in your sources, could you please tell me why there are implications to Peterson having followers in the 'far right' when the two sources you left behind after stripping all the content dont even agree on that? The two sources referenced do not even mention the same group. The Guardian says 'alt-right' and the Independent 'far-right' following with no supporting evidence, analysis or attribution to that statement. It seems that the only 'opinion piece' here is yours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madhulovespotatoes (talk • contribs) 14:55, 7 March 2018 (UTC) Madhulovespotatoes (talk) 14:59, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

@Madhulovespotatoes: if you have any remarks that are not in the form of a personal attack, I'll be happy to address them. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:23, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

@Sangdeboeuf: Understood. Basics then... Could you please tell me why there are implications to Peterson being associated to the 'far right' in some way, when the two sources you mention don't even use the same term? The two sources referenced do not even mention the same group. The Guardian says 'alt-right' and the Independent 'far-right' following with no supporting evidence, analysis or attribution to that statement. Applying your very same logic could I introduce Cathy newman as this : "Newman, who has falsely claimed she had been ‘ushered out’ by a mosque and then apologised, interviewed the Canadian psychologist..." because the following two non opinion piece sources that I am listing below say just that.(the first sentence in a NON-OPINION piece on the same by the Guardian and supported by non-opinionated video evidence in another article by the Huffington post)Supermadinthesky 15:40, 7 March 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madhulovespotatoes (talk • contribs)

@Sangdeboeuf: since you clearly don't seem to have a response, i will go ahead apply the same standards that you and your buddy Hippo43 seem to have applied. As clearly you believe that the alt-right is relevant to the the threats, I believe that her history with honesty (as the guardian clearly in a NON OPINION piece reporting just the facts states that she 'falsely claimed' that she had been ushered out.) is relevant to the veracity of the claims of threats. Supermadinthesky 01:34, 8 March 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madhulovespotatoes (talk • contribs) 02:15, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

3rd opinion

A request for a 3rd opinion was made for the section "February 2018". Would the 2 editors kindly fill out the sections below in a concise manner. Dig _deeper ^talk 22:01, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

I have taken a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on Cathy Newman and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. Dig deeper talk 23:53, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Third opinion

Dig deeper (talk · contribs) wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below.

Viewpoint by 0xF8E8

This dispute regards whether or not we can state that Newman received threats. As far as I can see, the vast majority of RS treat the threats as credible. The Independent, The Daily Telegraph, The Times, and The Guardian, and The Varsity all state that Newman did receive threats. Filigranski has asserted many sources contradict this, mostly opinion pieces. Edit: Filigranski argues we should avoid making the statement not because the articles avoid it, but because they think the media relied too much on de Pear and they don't like the evidence provided. We need to stick to the sources; we can't rely on the subjective characterization of op-ed writers and Filigranski. Filigranski also misrepresents The Varsity. It states: Since the interview was posted on January 16, Newman has been the subject of gender-based abuse and threats on social media, which has led Channel 4 to conduct a risk analysis by security experts. This claim is not attributed to de Pear. 'Failed research' is a misnomer; The Varsity says no direct threats on Twitter could be found, but stil says there were threats. Again, all of the remaining sources provided to dispute this are op-eds, which are not generally reliable for statements of fact.

Viewpoint by (Miki Filigranski)

In the discussion was disputed whether or not we can state that Newman received threats in relation who should be attributed to making such original statement, why the known subject (de Pear, C4) whose words and opinion media reported and relied on for making such a headline should be ignored in attribution, if is stated generally (i.e. with attribution to media) there's lack of provided evidence and examples of "threats" by the media itself (The Varsity failed research, Peterson's quote "[C4] provided no evidence that the criticisms constituted threats"), and they were seemingly inflated as for e.g. Melanie Phillips described in her The Times article [will quote due to account-paywall] "The station’s response was to turn Newman into a victim. Her editor Ben de Pear said such was the scale of the online “threats and abuse” she had received that he had “called in security experts to carry out an analysis”. Clearly, all such abuse is wrong. Newman reportedly was the target of obscene messages and a pornographic mock-up on Instagram. That’s vile. Much of the reaction, though, consisted merely of fierce criticism of her perceived hostility and bias, while some of her supporters targeted Peterson for violent abuse... Unfortunately, threats and vilification on social media are now routine for anyone putting their head above the parapet. It is typical of ideologues, however, that they inflate such victimization as a form of emotional blackmail to silence criticism".

Third opinion by Dig deeper

@Miki Filigranski: @0xF8E8: As I looked into this I'm a bit surprised at the focus here. It appears that the controversy section is missing the actual controversy and is focusing more on the response after some unknown controversy. WP:UNDUE applies here. The interview brought her international recognition and criticism regarding what was perceived to be repeated attempts to misrepresent the views of her interviewee by asking ‘So what you’re saying...’ type questions [14]. This seems to be the "controversy" as well as the notable act with respect to Cathy Newman. Without this statement, it does not make sense to put this paragraph under "controversy" or even have this on her article. Otherwise, it looks like she appears she did nothing controversial or notable. To address the question of threats, it is true that there were several newspapers that reported this. I would point out, however, that some newspapers @0xF8E8: provided used quotation marks when reporting on these "vicious threats", "vicious misogynistic abuse" and “security specialists”. Only one put forth a little journalistic effort to provide specific examples by saying "A cursory Twitter search revealed a series of messages directed at the presenter calling her a “b***h”, “c***” and “f***ing idiot”." What is the significance of this? Most of these news agencies are reporting the official public statements made by channel 4 rather than independently verified facts. See Churnalism. Given that "threats and abuse" are legal terms, it would have been useful to have an university law professor or the police to provide a published opinion on this to verify the claim. Without this, it remains a claim and should be treated as such. Given this, the use of the words "threat" and “security specialists” can remain but they should be in quotations following the example of The Independent. This would be make it clear that it is part of the statement by Ben de Pear rather than proven fact by any sort of independent legal experts. I would agree that news op-ed's are not reliable for statements of fact. They may be considered statement of facts relative to the opinion of the person making them. Eg. "John Doe (ref) and Jane Doe (ref) felt that Cathy Newman was aggressive in her interview" would be acceptable provided the source was reliable (no Twitter or Youtube opinions allowed). Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. WP:NEWSORG Quoting the opinions of a source in text as shown in my example above would still respect the WP:STICKTOSOURCE principle. I will make the changes and monitor this talk page and the article over the coming days. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. Feel free to leave any comments to me on my talk page. Thank you for using 3rd opinion. Dig deeper talk 02:12, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Jordan Peterson

The following three editors by Hippo43, Sangdeboeuf, 0xF8E8 have removed all context of the interview. all references critical of Newman and appear to smear Jordan Peterson using a single unsubstantiated statement in the Guardian. The statement in concern is "...and has attracted a following among the alt-right, although Peterson has denied any sympathy with right-wing views."

This is clearly being used to frame Peterson as some sort of villian to Newman's victim. This is not neutral and more importantly an attempt to reframe the narrative.

using the same quality of sourcing and 'editorial discretion' from the exact same source the Guardian, based on a NON opinion, news article and the actual byline I should be allowed to state that cathy newman has made 'false claims' in the past based on the actual first line that says "Mosque accepts new apology by Channel 4 News anchor, who falsely claimed she had been ‘ushered out’". Source the Guardian article link.

Similarity using the same quality of sourcing and 'editorial discretion' from another highly reputable news source .. from an NON opinion, news article link here I can state that Ben de Pear has delivered multiple apologies for Newman's actions in the past based on this actual NON-opinion sentence on the BBC "Channel 4 News editor Ben de Pear hand-delivered two letters to the South London Islamic Centre on Wednesday and met with the Imam and his committee to offer an "unreserved apology"."

We either remove all smears or we let actual news coverage speak for itself. One man is being smeared via unsubstantiated claims of association to the alt-right and the other two subjects are being protected despite their documented and videotaped past actions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madhulovespotatoes (talk • contribs) 03:50, 8 March 2018 (UTC) Supermadinthesky 03:53, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, you're not going to make her out as a liar in article space based on that mosque story, certainly not in a section where that has no relevance at all. I do agree that some of the Peterson material was not well-placed in the paragraph, and I moved it to a better location, but the point is that Newman was harassed by Peterson's followers, so that he has a high number of alt-right followers seems pretty relevant to me. Drmies (talk) 03:59, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

@Drmies How do we know that he has alt-right followers besides a single unsubstantiated statement on the Guardian article? Also, there is still no evidence besides a single claim by Ben De Pear that Newman was harassed. You are leaping into assumptions when you first assume that she was really harassed with currently ZERO .. NOT ONE actual shred of evidence and then assume that he has an alt-right following.. which you currently have ZERO evidence for and then assuming that they harassed her. Supermadinthesky 04:06, 8 March 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madhulovespotatoes (talk • contribs)

@Drmies Additionally, as I mentioned before, if you believe that the alt-right is relevant to the the claims of harassment and think it is ok to imply that Peterson is associated to them (with no evidence), I believe that Newman's history (with documented video evidence) with dishonesty and her editor's history (with documented written evidence) of delivering hand written apology notes to a mosque for her potentially islamophobic and damaging actions is relevant to the veracity of the claims of said harassment. Supermadinthesky 04:22, 8 March 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madhulovespotatoes (talk • contribs) Supermadinthesky 04:25, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

You may believe it's relevant, but unless a reliable, published source explicitly makes the connection, it would be improper synthesis to mention the mosque incident in connection with the interview. We stick to what reliable sources (not editorials or op-eds) say. In this case, three news articles about the interview mention Peterson's right-wing following. From The Independent (second paragraph): "Ms Newman grilled University of Toronto professor Jordan Peterson, who has attracted a following from the far-right, on gender and equality". From The Observer: "[Peterson] has gained a large following on the American ‘alt-right’, leading some, he says, to label him wrongly as sympathetic to its views". And from The Guardian (first paragraph): "...following her interview with a controversial Canadian psychologist who has attracted a following among the ‘alt-right’". As Drmies points out, this fact seems pretty relevant to the online abuse directed at Newman. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:48, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Hmm OK--first, Hippo43 removed the stuff about Peterson saying it belongs in his article--sure, but here it provides context for who harassed Newman. I argue for inclusion. Madhulovespotatoes (will you please sign your posts??), "a single unsubstantiated statement on the Guardian article"--I suppose you mean "in" the article? Well, it's the essence of WP:RS that we judge this not to be a "single unsubstantiated statement": we judge this to be written carefully and vetted carefully as well, because The Guardian is a reliable source. If you don't understand that this is not a random statement made in haste and without evidence, you don't understand what it means if something is a reliable source. And, as Sangdeboeuf adds, if it's three reliable articles, then you don't have a leg to stand on, and one cannot escape the thought that it is you who are pushing a point of view. Drmies (talk) 16:25, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

@Drmies @Sangdeboeuf : interesting how you call them 'three references' ...despite them actually being one. The Independent uses the word 'far right' which is NOT the 'alt-right' (look it on wikipedia - wikipedia editors) the second observer reference is actually a piece on the guardian (I wonder if it was purposefully mislabelled) and the third is also a piece on the guardian which is the same organisation. Please ensure that you present correct references. Outside our debate and my general aggression, for the record... Peterson's lessons and book saved me from near suicide so I do care about the tarnishing of this man's reputation but he also teaches you to stand for and always speak the truth. As a commitment to that philosophy, I apologise if i am in any way offending anyone here but I also promise do my best to never to waver from what i believe is the truth. Supermadinthesky 18:39, 8 March 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madhulovespotatoes (talk • contribs)

@Drmies @Sangdeboeuf : One more point. You used the words "vetted carefully" but clearly you haven't done the same. The Independent uses 'far-right' ( not the same as alt-right) and the source that you referenced as the observer is another guardian piece. Supermadinthesky 18:43, 8 March 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madhulovespotatoes (talk • contribs)

The three sources we are discussing, which are all left-leaning publications, don't explicitly connect the alt-right to the (alleged) threats. They hardly even imply there is a link, which is interesting, given their political stance. None of the threats or abuse is explicitly characterised as coming from the right, only that right-leaning publications have criticised Newman. Even de Pear, who seems to have either made up or exaggerated these threats, doesn't make that link. If he had said anything about the alt-right or the far right threatening Newman, these sources would have been all over it. ("Cathy Newman subjected to ‘vicious misogynistic abuse by alt-right’ after interview with psychologist" etc)

In this part of the article we have been trying to be thoughtful and carefully follow policy. I think we have reached a pretty well-considered version of the text. To try to make this connection seems like OR to me, and if editors want to include it, I think it shows they are pushing, perhaps unconsciously, a particular POV. --hippo43 (talk) 23:09, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

@Hippo43: three news articles have specifically mentioned Peterson's right-wing following. No one to my knowledge has suggested that this is the reason for the abuse directed at Newman. The Observer gives this for context: "Peterson’s refusal to accept new legislation regarding the use of pronouns at his university saw some hail him as a free speech martyr and others as an enemy of the transgender movement. He has gained a large following on the American 'alt-right', leading some, he says, to label him wrongly as sympathetic to its views." This seems pretty relevant to the content of the interview, given what we know about the alt-right and their distaste for feminism, "political correctness", and LGBTQ rights. I'm guessing this is why the sources mention it, and I don't think it would be out of place to mention it in the article either. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:41, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

It's clear from your comments and those of Drmies that you were trying to connect the alt-right to the threats.

Drmies wrote "Newman was harassed by Peterson's followers, so that he has a high number of alt-right followers seems pretty relevant to me" and "but here it provides context for who harassed Newman."
You wrote "three news articles about the interview mention Peterson's right-wing following. ... As Drmies points out, this fact seems pretty relevant to the online abuse directed at Newman."
So, yes, you both suggested a link between Peterson's popularity with some on the right (which I'm not disputing at all) and the abuse that Newman received.
You also wrote "I'm guessing this is why the sources mention it" which reads like OR to me. The article already includes "known for his criticism of political correctness.[31] The combative interview covered topics such as gender equality,..." - which IMO gives enough context. --hippo43 (talk) 23:57, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I was referring to mainspace edits when I stated that no one had suggested a direct link between the alt-right and the abuse. It's not OR to simply repeat in the article what is documented by reliable sources. To insist that there is no connection would be OR, however. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:19, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

@Sangdeboeuf:OK, I understand. You're right - it's not OR to simply repeat what is documented by reliable sources. But it's important that we choose carefully what to include, and how we present that, per NPOV etc. As you wrote above, on another point, "You may believe it's relevant, but unless a reliable, published source explicitly makes the connection, it would be improper synthesis".

You're also right that it would be OR to insist there was no connection. I hope I didn't imply that, and if anyone else tries to push that view I would oppose it too. --hippo43 (talk) 02:54, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Sangdeboeuf you don't have three reliable sources ( as i mentioned earlier, you are referencing two articles by the same publication). you are extrapolating and creating original research. as Hippo43 mentioned, there is the also the fact the Guardian is a known left leaning publication. The connection/statement by the Guardian is being made via a completely unrelated incident relating to his refusal to use certain pronouns that anyway does not have a place on a wiki page for Cathy Newman. Also, by your very same logic, using the same guardian and even the BBC as a reference, Cathy Newman has history of dishonesty and Ben De Pear has a history of apologising for her actions. I am happy to put that inside the mosque ushering section as a lead up to this section if you are fine with that. Supermadinthesky 01:35, 9 March 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madhulovespotatoes (talk • contribs)

Different authors, different content, different sources. The Observer is owned by Guardian Media Group, but it is a different publication. Even if they were the same paper, two separate articles by different authors would be treated as separate sources. "History of dishonesty" is blatant WP:OR. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:09, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Sangdeboeuf The link for the observer literally says "www.theguardian.com/" and you don't get to walk away from that in your claims. Additionally, the observer is known to be a social liberal or social democratic publication according to our own Wikipedia. Opinion pieces could come from different authors... but news... that comes from the organisation and that is why authors of news don't get sued... organisations do. There is a reason why News is not the same as opinion (tsk... and you were the one preaching about how opinion pieces are NOT the news.) On dishonesty, your very same Guardian, the parent company of your very same Observer has literally stated in its own NEWS article the exact phrase "Mosque accepts new apology by Channel 4 News anchor, who ****falsely claimed**** she had been ‘ushered out’, but warns of a ‘fog of Islamophobia’ in national debate". How would you phrase that? For the record i used the words 'false claims'; not dishonesty in the wiki itself. I used dishonesty in the talk section and that is in the context of a conversation. Please do not conflate the wiki page from the talk section. WP:OR... hmmm who removed all opinion pieces and is now literally reversing their position by stating that different authors from the same organisation means different opinions? Supermadinthesky 15:35, 9 March 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madhulovespotatoes (talk • contribs)

There's nothing for me to add here. You're welcome to propose such an evaluation of reliable sourcing, vis-a-vis the parent company of a news organization, at the relevant noticeboard, but I think you'll get essentially the same response. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:13, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Spectator Life

@Hippo43, Dig deeper, Sangdeboeuf, and Drmies: What should be done with the statement: The interview brought her international attention and criticism for what were perceived to be repeated attempts to misrepresent Peterson's views. cited to this column by Douglas Murray in Spectator Life? I think this poses clear WP:BLPSTYLE issues, particularly because the sentence does not summarize secondary RS, but rather the characterization of Murray in an opinion column (and unattributed, at that). No RS seem to use the "international attention and criticism" language, either.—0xf₈e₈ (t♥lk) 13:00, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

I've removed it as WP:OR. The source is a straight opinion piece and so would not be reliable for factual statements, even if Murray mentioned anything about "international attention and criticism", which he doesn't exactly do. As for Murray's evaluation of the interview, I agree that it would need to be mentioned by a reliable secondary source to be relevant. As I've said before, the whole affair is textbook recentism; if the only sources examining Newman's role it in any depth are professional pundits making hay with the latest culture-war headlines, then it's too soon to include it in an encyclopedic biography. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:27, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

The interview is notable because of its criticism, and media&public attention it was given (more than 8 million views on YouTube until 10 March), and both of them are not mentioned i.e. are repeatedly removed. Although there's some issue with the sourcing of the first (but wonder what's wrong with for e.g. The Washington Times, Toronto Star, Toronto Sun, Irish Independent), there is no issue with the second. In regard to the first, citing The Guardian specific source is outdated and ideologically polarizing - "Newman's approach to the interview was criticized by some commentators from right-wing websites, such as Douglas Murray and James Delingpole" - because many commentators, as cited in previous revision, were not from right-wing newspapers, it's factually wrong and not neutral to ignore the existence of so many sources from mainstream media (NYT, The Times, The Wallstreet Journal, The Atlantic, The Australian etc).--Miki Filigranski (talk) 16:35, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps you mean "noteworthy", not "notable". On Wikipedia, Notability refers to whether or not a topic deserves its own article. But no, not everything that receives media attention or criticism is suitable for an encyclopedia. WP:BLP specifically requires secondary sources on "criticism or praise". Editorials and op-eds don't count as secondary sources, as I've already stated. YouTube views are likewise meaningless unless commented on by a reliable source. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:08, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

• Sangdeboeuf, thank you. I wonder what's going on here, what's so important about these minutia. Drmies (talk) 00:34, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I am glad policies and guidelines are being included in this discussion. Overall, this discussion has been much more civilized than the previous 3rd opinion I participated in. I agree that secondary sources with BLP are very important (especially when it comes to praise or criticism, which btw "should be included"), however (as an aside) WP:BLP does not say that primary sources must not ever be used. It says

Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses. from WP:BLPPRIMARY

Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources... from WP:BLPPRIMARY

An exception to this would be the following...

An article about a person: The person's autobiography, own website, or a page about the person on an employer's or publisher's website, is an acceptable (although possibly incomplete) primary source for information about what the person says about himself or herself. Such primary sources can normally be used for non-controversial facts about the person and for clearly attributed controversial statements. from WP:PRIMARYCARE

Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Posts left by readers are never acceptable as sources. from WP:BLPSPS

So based on these guidelines and policies primary sources may be used in BLP, but with extreme caution and not with criticism and praise (unless self posted and clearly attributable). This is more of an FYI and not part of my argument.

If it is the opinion of @Sangdeboeuf and 0xF8E8: that it is merely Murray's opinion that Cathy Newman received international attention and criticism, this is wholly not correct. It is a common misconception that sources are either completely primary sources or completely secondary sources. Also most editors have trouble identifying what a primary and secondary source are. Editors often assume that if old facts are presented with new commentary they are primary sources, whereas copy-pasted work with no commentary is secondary. This common misconception is not at all accurate. See WP:LINKSINACHAIN and WP:ALLPRIMARY. Also editors sometimes assume that all facts must be attributed to the source. Also not correct. See here.

Twitter, Google analytics, Youtube stats and the like would be most likely always be considered primary sources. With respect to this phrase (and this is usually important to specifically qualify this) this is clearly a secondary source. Let's look at the definitions:

A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources.

Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on.

Clearly the spectator fits the definition of a secondary source. Again, many editors on Wikipedia often get this wrong, even those who have a great deal of experience on Wikipedia.

The quote from the spectator from which I derived mt sentence was as follows:

Within days, it was viewed by millions around the globe. The interview, in which the presenter repeatedly tried to misrepresent the views of her interviewee, and in which his responses finally brought her to a confounded silence, became a sensation. Memes of Newman saying ‘So what you’re saying’ washed across social media. Channel 4 News and Newman had become internationally famous through one interview with an Toronto academic.

The summary I provided was an appropriate and neutral POV summary of this. I stand by my original post. Without it, the rest of the paragraph seems meaningless.

recentism was mentioned above. This is probably the best policy/guideline argument mentioned above in my opinion (although technically not a policy or guideline per se). I seriously considered this when putting together my 3rd opinion. My rationale against recentism was that this event put Cathy Newman into the international scene, perhaps for the first time. Also as mentioned above ::::Criticism and praise should be included ... from WP:BLPPRIMARY. Dig _deeper ^talk 01:55, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Agree. --hippo43 (talk) 03:51, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

That is the issue I recently discussed with Sangdeboeuf, the given interpretation of the policy was completely confusing for me. Now the issue is, for me, which of the two far more experienced editor's opinion is true. @Dig deeper: in regard to what you said above, can you review the "draft with references" found in discussion "Reduction of Peterson interview section" (mostly whether the RSs can be cited), and the discussion "Criticism" (only arguments presented by Sangdeboeuf and me)? I did not make an inquiry at BLP/N, as considered, because of lack of time.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 09:33, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

@Miki Filigranski: I have presented my argument for the material that I inserted, using Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I am not fond of the paradigm in which one editor is right and one is wrong. Principled negotiation rather than positional negotiations is more appropriate on Wikipedia. We focus on the central points (in this case "what is constitutes a secondary source" and "what constitutes a reliable source"). At the end of the day, we gather up all the arguments, policies and guidelines and ask ourselves what makes sense here and how can we come to a consensus. I think things are on the right track here. Using the 3rd opinion was a good second step. If after more discussion you feel you feel you've hit a stalemate, consider using dispute resolution noticeboard or request formal mediation. That is what they are there for. It's a straightforward process.

Rather than address each of the past arguments and sources mentioned above, I would simply suggest continuing move forward. "Given this new information, I would propose X, Y or Z" or "Given this new information, what do you propose we do?", etc. Every editor on Wikipedia is equal. I offered my 3rd opinion. I defended my edit. Provided some education. I'll monitor this page for a while, perhaps contribute on a formal mediation if it comes to that, but I'm not going to take over the discussion here. You are all doing things in the right way.

One more word on reliable sources. This is the opening line under reliable sources.

Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we publish the opinions only of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves. The following examples cover only some of the possible types of reliable sources and source reliability issues, and are not intended to be exhaustive. Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process.

Common sense tells me that if several reputable news agencies commented on this particular point (Cathy Newman received international attention and criticism), whether in their opinion pages or elsewhere, this particular point can be safely considered a statement of fact. Large news agencies will often fact check the opinion pieces. The reputations of both the reporters and the news agency is on the line. Just because a statement of fact is found within an opinion piece (or a news piece that includes some opinions) does not necessarily make the source unreliable and unusable, especially on topics outside the sciences. This is a common misconception. Dig _deeper ^talk 20:07, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Just because a statement of fact is found within an opinion piece (or a news piece that includes some opinions) does not necessarily make the source unreliable and unusable – in that case you may want to suggest a change to WP:NEWSORG, which states essentially the opposite. Regarding WP:BLP, I would put the emphasis of Criticism and praise should be included... on what comes next, namely, if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources. I'm not sure Murray's essay is such a source. Reliability is determined partly by a source's reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, as you pointed out. Does The Spectator fact-check its opinion writers? I don't know, but this seems to be where "recentism" comes into play. If reliable news outlets don't directly mention international criticism (nor does Murray, although he is an example of it), then I believe we should adhere to the "do no harm" principle per ARBBLP and minimize mention of this controversy pending more authoritative sourcing, and should certainly not make an exception to an established guideline in this case – that looks like simple POV-pushing. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:12, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Sangdeboeuf. Opinion pieces are defined as primary by policy (Wikipedia:No original research#defs), which is mentioned in the very page Dig deeper links above, hence the objection on BLPSTYLE grounds I mentioned earlier. With regards to recentism, let me offer an analogy. Several conservative op-ed writers have leveled criticism at statements by Nancy Pelosi. Some of these criticisms are from well-regarded magazines: there are even those in The Spectator! This doesn't mean we're obligated to report Nancy Pelosi celebrated the bill's defeat, though critics said fact anti-government Republicans had halted the bill in her article; to do so would be to give undue weight to a controversy not mentioned in RS. In this way, recentism is a matter of relative importance, not media attention: a journalist or politician's interview might traverse the Anglosphere for a few days and draw criticism, but the criticism but a footnote in their overall career. Unless we have a body of RS which describes Newman's interview as drawing "international attention and criticism", it would be premature to add such a judgment to the article. Murray doesn't even claim that in his piece--he says she became internationally famous through the interview and was criticized, not that she received criticism internationally. I think it might be advisible to revisit this in the coming months, if more reliable sources become available, but the existing sourcing doesn't seem to justify mention. —0xf₈e₈ (t♥lk) 23:18, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

...you may want to suggest a change to WP:NEWSORG, which states essentially the opposite. I stand by what I wrote. "Rarely" is not the same as never. If multiple sources are saying the same thing, common sense should prevail.

If the concern is with the phrase "international criticism", I would also be comfortable with "...criticism and international attention...". This was the meaning I was trying to get across. Antecedent "international" was intended for "attention" not necessarily criticism.

The sentence I added was phrased carefully in NPOV. POV-pushing is clearly not seen in the sentence I added. Avoiding criticism and praise on the other hand could. No harm also does not apply to my sentence.

As I mentioned earlier, editors often assume that if old facts are presented with new commentary they are primary sources, whereas copy-pasted work with no commentary is secondary. This common misconception is not at all accurate. See WP:LINKSINACHAIN Churnalism and WP:ALLPRIMARY.

I'm also curious to know what @Sangdeboeuf: would consider as an alternative.

Would the phrase "attention and international attention" be acceptable?Dig _deeper ^talk 22:50, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Dig deeper, it may be true that "rarely does not mean never", but I'm not sure we've established reason to use this source here. News blogs, attributed statements, and expert opinion are all important exceptions to NEWSORG, but none of those apply in this case. "Criticism and international attention" is definitely an improvement, but I still think the sourcing is inadequate. While it is true that The Spectator sometimes does secondary work and it's important to avoid lazy assumptions about primary/secondary, opinion pieces are defined as primary in Wikipedia:No original research#defs, as mentioned in the page you linked earlier. I don't see how your points address a BLPSTYLE objection. —0xf₈e₈ (t♥lk) 23:39, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

It seems really clear that this interview attracted a great deal of attention and criticism, otherwise it wouldn't be in the article and we wouldn't be discussing it. We can argue over different interpretations of these policie, but we still have to use common sense and judgment. A statement along the lines of "attracted international attention and criticism" is not really contentious here, and doesn't contravene BLPSTYLE as far as I can see. --hippo43 (talk) 00:41, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

If it's "really clear", then it should be trivial to find a reliable, secondary source discussing it. Otherwise, it's at best recentist fluff or original synthesis, and at worst character assassination, to describe some vague "criticism" of Newman. "It's in the article; therefore it's important" makes no sense at all, since anyone can create and edit a Wikipedia article about anything. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:11, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Pathetic argument, and both of you are constantly ignoring the existence of other sources. The discussion is not only about The Spectator. The cited reference by The Observer described the interview "Cathy Newman’s interview with University of Toronto professor Jordan Peterson, who was promoting his new book 12 Rules for Life: an Antidote to Chaos, went viral after Channel 4 posted the full 30-minute footage online last Tuesday. It has been watched almost two million times on YouTube and attracted nearly 50,000 comments. Many are highly critical of Newman, who declared on Twitter that she had “thoroughly enjoyed” the “bout” with Peterson, considered one of Canada’s leading intellectuals. A large number of the comments criticised Newman’s approach to the interview, accusing her of being a “social justice warrior” with a preconceived and misplaced grasp of Peterson’s views": the reasoning why Peterson was in the UK, was interviewed by C4, and the fact the discussed topics were those which were in his book - nope, the mention of the book is WP:PROMO; the interview is notable because it attracted such a huge public attention, as well public and professional criticism because the way it was conducted by Newman - nope, the attempts to included the number of YouTube views with various secondary RS sources is removed without proper substantiation, while the mention of the criticism, in general, or specifically public/professional, is constantly removed due to interpretation of the editing principles with which some editors (majority?) in discussion do not agree with. Again, we ignore other RS which were previously cited and discussed.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 14:49, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I've added a mention of the YouTube comments per The Observer. But this is not at all the same as "public and professional criticism". YouTube's comments section is notorious as the most toxic on the Web, and is not exactly stocked with professional journalists. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:32, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I believe we all know to which part, "public" or "professional", YouTube comments belong to...--Miki Filigranski (talk) 17:41, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Nevertheless, no reliable, secondary source that I've seen refers to any "professional criticism"; that part is OR. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:51, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Do I have to remind you that we have more than several RS by mainstream media with professional criticism and opinion? Don't push the line of calling that OR.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 18:23, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Miki, I understand this discussion is frustrating for you but I would nonetheless request you remain civil and avoid calling other editor's comments "pathetic". It's clear you disagree strongly with other editors, but consensus is built through compromise and agreement, not intensity of exasperation. So far, there have been three editors who disagree with adding the sentence (myself, Sangdeboeuf, and Drmies)) and three (including you) who disagree with us; there is no clear majority. The complaints mentioned above do detail specifically with The Spectator source, as it was what we were discussing, but most of the points apply to criticism mentioned in The Observer as well: as news reporting is primary source material, we shouldn't rely on it for describing criticism (BLPSTYLE). News articles (in this case, published a mere five days after the interview) regularly include such off-the-cuff reactions when describing recent events, but it is not our goal to summarize the reaction of every talking head and Youtube commenter in the Anglosphere. That doesn't mean we seek to "constantly remove" anything added, just that we exercise appropriate scrutiny in presenting only criticism in secondary RS. —0xf₈e₈ (t♥lk) 17:57, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand why are you making it sound personal? Yes, it's pathetic when common sense is ignored. Sorry, but as far I have seen Drmies did not make any such statement so I would advise you to stop making false claims in the name of others. That is not CIVIL. We are not summarizing, nor ever was any intention, of "every talking head and YouTube commenter". That's a straw man, again, because we have sources, and have current sentence version proposed by editor Dig deeper.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 18:23, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Please don't accuse me of "making false claims in the name of others". As you can easily check, Drmies commented above in support of the removal of the statement on "international attention and criticism": Sangdeboeuf, thank you. I wonder what's going on here, what's so important about these minutia. The atmosphere of this conversation is running a bit hot: other editor's arguments are not "pathetic" because you disagree with them. Lob as many adjectives as you like, but it inflames both sides of the issue and harms efforts to build consensus. What is common sense to you might not be to others, and suggesting other editors lack common sense is not helpful. You suggest I've strawmmaned you, but the proposed sentences are vague, generalized descriptions of criticism sourced to primary material. The description of this vagueness as "summarizing every talking head and YouTube commenter" is a bit hyperbolic, but it nonetheless captures my objection: we're trying to summarize a number of criticisms only found in primary sources without seriously considering BLPSTYLE. —0xf₈e₈ (t♥lk) 19:20, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

As an editor, I would never dare to speak on others behalf and interpret their vague statements in which "wonder" as Yes or No answers. That's unacceptable. Yes, specific arguments can be described as pathetic because are against common sense we all have contrary to the opinions, and yet again you are making strawman that I suggested that other editors lack common sense.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 09:53, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

@Miki Filigranski: I am not pushing any line. The policy on original research is clear: Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves. It doesn't matter how many professional critics and talking heads line up to weigh in on the controversy (that's their job, after all). Any summary of the criticism itself needs to be directly attributable to a published source. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:57, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

We both know what you said, which sources we discussed before, and still, you want to depict it as OR. I am speechless. What is the point of making further comments about OR? This is becoming a pathetic vicious circle of pointless and unconstructive arguments. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 09:53, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Peterson statement re: threats

I've removed the quote from Jordan Peterson that Channel 4 "provided no evidence that the criticisms [of Newman] constituted threats". Why is Peterson the authoritative source for what Channel 4 did or did not do? Whether they provided evidence is for reliable, published sources to evaluate, not Peterson. His opinion here is WP:UNDUE, not least since it is obviously a self-serving interpretation. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:04, 12 March 2018 (UTC) (edited 23:29, 12 March 2018 (UTC))

Thanks. I largely agree, and would note that all sources generally report the "criticism and threats are not the same thing" quote, whereas only the Observer mentions the "no evidence they consituted threats" quote as part of a much longer reply by Peterson. Presenting that short bit out of context suggests Peterson is primarily disputing the existence of threats, rather than their relation to criticism. It's important to make sure we don't quote-mine. —0xf₈e₈ (t♥lk) 23:18, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Do not agree anyhow. What "all sources"? The quoute is referenced only by 2 sources, one of which (Observer) does not support it.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 14:22, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Do you think the quote conveys any particularly important meaning not covered by "criticism and threats are not the same thing" quote? My objection centers around the fact that presenting the quote from The Observer out of context might suggest Peterson believes there were no evidence of any threats, whereas the other quote has no such issue. Compare how these these statements read. —0xf₈e₈ (t♥lk) 18:03, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

It does not suggest that. The fact is that "Channel 4 News editor Ben de Pear said that the station had called in security specialists in response to what he said were social-media abuse and threats directed against her", which is the point and focus of de Pear's reaction media reported - the evidence - as stated in The Observer But they’ve provided no evidence that the criticisms constituted threats. There are some nasty cracks online but the idea that this is somehow reflective of a fundamental misogyny and that’s what’s driving this is ridiculous, or The Varsity The nature of the threats against her or specific measures taken, however, have not been specified. Channel 4 editor Ben de Pear tweeted that he would “not hesitate to get the police involved if necessary.” In an email to The Varsity, Peterson wrote that “Channel 4 should make the ‘threats’ public so that the public can judge their validity”. Peterson teaching his "followers" that there's a difference between "criticism and threats" is out of context and less important to the section.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 18:40, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Miki, I don't intend to relitigate the extraordinarily lengthy prior discussion. You should already know that I don't agree with your characterization of the articles: I don't think the statements they make about threats are attributed to de Pear. I can read the articles; you don't need to copy-paste them at me. I understand all the points you make--there's no need to bold them, as if they'll escape my notice otherwise--I just don't agree with you. It's not clear why Peterson telling his followers there's a difference between criticisms and threats is "less important". The difference between criticism and threats is a clear focus in the two articles, and it's only in this context that the throwaway points about "no evidence" exist. To focus on this bit to the exclusion of Peterson's other comments gives undue weight to a particular facet of the controversy. —0xf₈e₈ (t♥lk) 20:15, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Your opinion about attribution doesn't matter anymore, that discussion was finished, and got answers from other editors as well 3rd opinion. Get over that fact. No, the quote must be cited to make it clear for everybody what parts I am referring to, stop making it personal. Sorry, but I simply cannot agree with your interpretation.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 09:59, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Peterson description

The description of Jordan Peterson as a "psychologist and author" is the most concise and appropriate wording, in my opinion. "Psychology professor" is too wordy, and "professor" is simple WP:PUFFERY here. Newman did not interview Peterson about his university teaching, but about the contents of his self-help book, which are well outside his academic specialty. Calling him a "professor" in this context looks like we are trying to subtly give his socio-cultural opinions undue authority.

I've also restored the part about Peterson's criticism of "political correctness", which is pertinent to the subject of the interview itself. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:04, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I would go with something like 'academic and author' or just 'psychology professor.' I don't think it's fair that using professor is puffery. The book is not "well outside his academic specialty" at all - he is a clinical psychologist and professor of psychology, and the material in his book covers the same topics and themes he is well known for teaching in his lectures. --hippo43 (talk) 23:24, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Citation please? I wasn't able to find the book reviewed at any of the professional sources like Kirkus or Booklist, but according to The New Yorker, "Peterson himself embraces the self-help genre, to a point. The book is built around forthright and perhaps impractically specific advice, from Chapter 1, 'Stand Up Straight with Your Shoulders Back', to Chapter 12, 'Pet a Cat When You Encounter One on the Street'." Then there's what the LA Review of Books calls "sensible but unremarkable observations about the importance of standing up to bullies and respecting yourself, interwoven with trite Darwinist generalizations about the tendency of human society to replicate the brutal hierarchies of the animal kingdom, and a few tidbits of received right-wing wisdom". I'm not sure what any of this has to do with clinical psychology. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:57, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

This is becoming ridiculous. Citation for what? You wrote "contents of his self-help book, which are well outside his academic specialty" - that is an extraordinary claim and you haven't provided a source for it at all.

He isn't primarily notable as an author, and the interview wasn't primarily about his book. Almost every source covering the interview calls him a professor, including the two opinion pieces you linked to. Channel 4 itself refers to the "full, fiery interview with clinical psychologist and professor Jordan B Peterson".

WP:PUFFERY also doesn't apply at all. It doesn't refer to using someone's job title, just to adjectives or descriptions which push a particular POV. If we called him a "renowned professor" or a "right-wing professor" I would agree with you. Using the name of his job is not puffery. He is a psychologist and professor - if you have a serious objection to that you would need to provide sources to back it up, but it suggests to me you are pushing a particular POV. --hippo43 (talk) 11:10, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I, unfortunately, must agree that have the same impression which is interfering with the discussion, seemingly and strangely some editors are gaming the system. Calling him a professor is "trying to subtly give his socio-cultural opinions undue authority" - I am starting to doubt we are even having a serious discussion anymore, he is a professor and social scientist with over 100 published academic papers with h-index of circa 35-39, he has the authority. Newman made the same straw man insinuation in her interview when on 4:16 asked him "Newman: What gives you the right to say that, I mean maybe that's how they want their relationship those women, you are making wast generalizations - Peterson: I am a clinical psychologist". It is incredible we are discussing this, with editors going so far to do OR (?) about what's written in his book as an argument that "any of this has to do with clinical psychology", obviously ignoring his influences and topics which covered and is interested in as a psychologist, from evolutionary perspective. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 14:36, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

@Hippo43: A citation for the statement the material in his book covers the same topics and themes he is well known for teaching in his lectures would be helpful. I haven't seen any source that makes that claim. Peterson did the interview to promote his self-help book, as Miki Filigranski has helpfully pointed out. "Author" therefore seems relevant. The sources don't always refer to Peterson as a "professor": The Telegraph says "Canadian psychologist Jordan Peterson" in the second sentence; The Independent says "controversial Canadian psychologist" in the first sentence; and The Guardian likewise uses "controversial Canadian psychologist" in the first sentence. In any case, we're not beholden to the terminology used by reliable sources; instead, we should summarize sources in our own words. "Professor" is not just a job title; in common usage, it implies intelligence and authority on intellectual questions. I'd be happy with "academic and author" instead of "professor" if that suits everybody. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:48, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

This is a pointless discussion, let's be honest. If you read Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief and then 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos (including checked the references), you would not be making statements that there's a need for further citations. On the first book is based his same-titled lecture at U of T, and on this, and perhaps even on lecture "Personality and Its Transformations", is based the new book. Again, I do not understand this sudden reluctance of the fact Peterson has "intelligence and authority on intellectual questions" and is a professor. In conclusion, I do not agree nor suits me your edit/revert. There's nothing more to be added.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 17:14, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Sangdeboeuf, No, no, no and no. Just no. No one is claiming anything in the article about what his book contains. For you to assert that somehow his book does not relate to his area of expertise and therefore his job title, without any justification beyond "I'm not sure what any of this has to do with clinical psychology", is outrageous. If you read some of the book it clearly relates to his other material and to his professional interests. If you don't think so, the onus would be on you to establish that, but it is a trivial point that you are getting into to try to diminish Peterson's standing. FWIW, the Telegraph article which doesn't call him a professor also doesn't call him an author.

I think you may be right, that if someone reads "professor" they might think he knows what he is talking about. That's just a risk we have to take, when we describe someone as what they actually are.

"Psychologist and professor" is correct, per NPOV, RS, NOR, common sense etc. If you would prefer the more precise "clinical psychologist and professor of psychology" I wouldn't object, although I agree it would be too wordy. That way no one reading this would be confused, and accidentally think he was a professor of economics, or art history? The other versions you have pushed are deliberately misleading. I think you should stop with this nonsense which just distracts from more serious discussion of the article. --hippo43 (talk) 18:07, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

@Hippo43: I'm a bit confused here; if you think that the phrase academic and author somehow diminishes Peterson's standing, then why did you suggest it? Not that we are concerned here with Peterson's "standing"; Wikipedia does not promote one side over another in any debate.

And that is the potential problem with your statement if someone reads "professor" they might think he knows what he is talking about. Ironic or not, it is enough to suggest that you have an axe to grind vis-a-vis the interview controversy, and lack the ability to approach this topic neutrally.

As for whether Peterson's book strays from his academic specialty, the reviewer for The Globe and Mail seems to think so. To wit: "As with his online lectures, [Peterson's] new book is rangy and digressive, addressing a wide range of subjects (history, theology, critical theory, evolutionary biology) well outside his realm of professional expertise".

While I wouldn't cite such a source for factual statements about Peterson, it seems enough to inform our editorial discretion as to how we label Peterson. I still think "and professor" is the misleading phrase, as it suggests that Newman's interview centered on Peterson's academic expertise (which, notwithstanding statements to the contrary, remains to be shown, i.e. by reliable sources). —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:14, 14 March 2018 (UTC)