Talk:Cathy Newman/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

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)