Talk:Cathy Newman/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

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)

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 [1]. 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)

Criticism

@Sangdeboeuf: I don't understand your edit (per [2], [3], [4]), neither [5], 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. [6] "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 [7] "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)

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)

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Consensus is built through the discussion of relevant material, argument and compromise. The third opinion is merely a step in that process: while I value Dig deeper's input, it is not a binding decision -- the discussion was not "finished". There are multiple editors in this dispute, not solely you and I, and we should seek to incorporate their concerns. This is an extremely basic principle of consensus building, and it's disappointing to see it so clearly misrepresented. You seem, in fact, to be the only one who believes it is: we've continued to discuss multiple aspects of the proposals Dig deeper and others have made. For now, I'm simply going to disengage: get other editors' input if you believe this change is important. —0xf₈e₈ (t♥lk) 14:44, 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)

@Sangdeboeuf:That is an appalling approach to editing, to assert that another editor is not editing neutrally when they call out your transparent POV-pushing.

Your argument is based on a number of unprovable and irrelevant assumptions

- Peterson's book is not about his area of expertise - who cares? He's still a professor. Finding opinion pieces that are critical of his book proves nothing.

- Newman's interview with Peterson was about his book - irrelevant, and it generally wasn't.

- Newman's interview was not about his work as a professor - irrelevant, but it did cover the controversy around his university teaching, from 21min45.

- "Calling him a "professor" .. looks like we are trying to subtly give his socio-cultural opinions undue authority" - bullshit. We present just the facts. Assuming what readers would read into his job title is preposterous.

The bottom line is that even if his book was not related to his work, and this interview was all about his book, and nothing to do with his work, and even if our easily-misled readers would think that calling him a professor meant he had some expertise that he didn't - all of which you have failed to demonstrate - they would still be irrelevant and it would still be correct to call him by his job title. Please move on. --hippo43 (talk) 17:51, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

[A]n appalling approach to editing – while I certainly try to assume good faith, competence is also required, which includes having the ability to edit articles impartally. [Y]our transparent POV-pushing – not at all. I am trying to keep this article from becoming a venue for Peterson fans to discredit Newman, and subtle wording choices such as presenting Peterson as a "professor" with no context tend in that direction. We present just the facts – Wikipedia is not an an indiscriminate collection of facts. Editors are responsible for selecting which facts to present and which to omit. In this case, the fact that Peterson is a "professor", which had little to no bearing on the interview, tends to unduly privilege his point of view over Newman's. [I]t would still be correct to call him by his job title – it would also be correct to say "Thomas Edison, who was afraid of the dark, patented the first practical light bulb". While true, it biases the reader toward a certain interpretation, which goes against WP:NPOV. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:35, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

That Edison example is transparently ridiculous. It is not at all comparable. If someone tried to include "Newman interviewed Jordan Peterson, who has been called "the most influential public intellectual in the Western world" then I would agree with you. Calling Peterson by his job title does not "bias the reader toward a certain interpretation" any more than calling Newman a journalist and news presenter does. Calling him something else would bias readers in that way. --hippo43 (talk) 18:58, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Since his actual job title is presumably "professor of psychology" (which you helpfully suggested), and not "professor of history", "professor of sociology", or "professor of political science", which is relevant to the controversy, that would seem the logical term to use. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:01, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

"Psychology professor"

@Hippo43: you suggested the term "psychology professor" above, and have since reverted my addition of the barely distinguishable "professor of psychology", saying that the previous version was "fine as it was". That's an opinion with which others may well disagree, hence the previous discussion. How exactly is the term "psychologist and professor" better than "professor of psychology"? If we're going to use "professor", then I think we should at least specify what Peterson is professor of. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:39, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

He is a psychologist and a professor of psychology. I.e. he practices and teaches - he is not just a professor of psychology. I don't mind including more detail if you think it is important, but "psychologist and professor" seems concise to me, and reflects how reliable sources generally describe him.

If you prefer "psychologist and professor of psychology" or "clinical psychologist and professor of psychology", either would be fine with me. --hippo43 (talk) 17:56, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done. [8] —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:01, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Early career

For some reason the article says that Newman 'briefly worked with Giles Foden on the Books section,' which is uninformative. Should read 'the Guardian books section.' Also, in her interview with the Guardian today, Newman says: “I wasn’t prepared for the torrent of abuse after [the Peterson interview]. People say: ‘Why don’t you just block them?’ But there were literally thousands of abusive tweets – it was a semi-organised campaign. It ranged from the usual ‘cunt, bitch, dumb blonde’ to ‘I’m going to find out where you live and execute you’.” So a reliable source quotes Newman herself on the subject of the 'threats', and it's fairly specific. Khamba Tendal (talk) 13:28, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I added the Giles Foden reference without mentioning The Guardian. As Wikipedia has an article about Foden, it seemed appropriate, although Newman's early mentoring by Alice Rawsthorn would seem to be much more important. Editors are apparently more likely to link men to articles rather than women, doubtless because of the gender issue. As one who tries to alleviate this problem in my edits, I temporarily forgot to be part of the pro-feminist solution. Philip Cross (talk) 13:53, 19 March 2018 (UTC)