Talk:Cathy Newman/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Vox article and Guardian interview

Another source that mentions the death threats against Newman, and the Guardian interview, is Vox: [Newman] received so many death threats that she had to get help from the police. 'There were literally thousands of abusive tweets — it was a semi-organized campaign,' she recalled in an interview. 'It ranged from the usual "cunt, bitch, dumb blonde" to "I’m going to find out where you live and execute you."' —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:21, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Another user has claimed that Vox is an unreliable source due to unspecified "bias". Firstly, reliable sources are not required to be totally unbiased. Second, despite one user's recent comments at WP:RS/N (in a discussion about a different source entirely), I haven't found any substantiated reason to think that Vox is categorically unreliable. To the contrary, in fact. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 170 and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 181. In any case, the fact that Newman told The Guardian about death threats should not be controversial, since it's right there in the interview. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:51, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Sangdeboeuf The Vox reference that you provided initially to support your argument of Vox being a reliable source (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard) was the same place where Vox was compared to Brietbart. I suggest you rephrase your sentence as, another user, based on the very same reference I provided noticed that Vox was being compared to Brietbart. I also suggest that you invest in a simple google lookup to verify the validity of my statement. Also, when you claim that Newman "told" the guardian that she received threats, i ask you to provide any (even one) sentence that validates such as assumption. In fact, when you claim that the russian botfarm claim is WP:UNDUE... i ask you to prove it. Here is the actual quote from the very same article you used "She tells me there was the suspicion of a Russian botfarm dedicated to spamming her with hate across social media."Supermadinthesky 16:00, 30 April 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madhulovespotatoes (talk • contribs)

@Madhulovespotatoes: A single editor at the reliable sources noticeboard has alleged that Vox is somehow biased, without substantiating it in any way. I would suggest that anyone who believes that Vox and Breitbart are at the same level has not read either one.

The part where Newman describes death threats to The Guardian is in the eighth paragraph of the article: "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'."

This was repeated verbatim by Vox, among the sources named above that refer to threats against Newman. The botfarm reference, on the other hand, was a one-off remark that hasn't been referenced in any secondary sources I've seen. That's what WP:UNDUE means. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:55, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

@Sangdeboeuf: Validating Vox as unbiased based on a whopping two positive editor references (based on completely unrelated topics) on reliable sources does not make it so but i get it and just to even out the odds, more reliable sources editors questioning Vox's credibility and chosing to not use them as references. Here is a great article by deadspin covering Vox's disasterous reporting credentials. Other great sources for Vox's credibility (outside Google) are watchdog groups such as the left leaning: Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), right leaning Media Research Center (MRC) and the relatively non partisan Media Bias/Fact Check (MBFC News).

On repeating Verbatim (see churnalism) being considered validation from multiple/secondary/tertiary sources, I really do expect better from editors but when I see certain editors claim two guardian articles are two different sources (after mislabelling one), I suggest we conduct a refresher on COI. Supermadinthesky 07:05, 1 May 2018 (UTC)Madhulovespotatoes (talk)

I'm afraid that none of this is pertinent to whether Vox is reliable in this specific context, namely, whether Newman mentioned death threats in an interview. As I've already mentioned, reliable sources are not required to be "unbiased". Nor has any "bias" related to the topic at hand been demonstrated. This article currently cites several news sources that are considered "biased" in one way or another, from The Guardian to The Daily Telegraph.

Neither does churnalism seem to apply here, since the Vox article is in fact using the Newman-Peterson interview to make a point about Peterson's apparently contradictory public persona; that is, they are making an analysis based on a primary source, which is what secondary sources do.

Finally, the Deadspin editorial, insofar as it can be considered reliable itself, far from demonstrating Vox's "disasterous [sic] reporting credentials", shows in impressive detail how Vox corrects its reporting errors, which itself is a significant indicator of reliability. So I don't see any reason to exclude Vox as a source on reliability grounds. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:23, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

@Sangdeboeuf: the Vox piece that you so like to reference in this specific context is titled "Jordan Peterson, the obscure Canadian psychologist turned right-wing celebrity, explained". Is that news or an opinion piece? the last line of the article is "The empathy that he displays for men and boys in his BBC interview and 12 Rules for Life is touching. The problem is that he can’t seem to extend it to anyone else", news or opinion? the very next line after referencing Newman's quote to the guardian says "This is not a case of mistaken identity, of two Jordan Petersons yoked to the same name. These seemingly distinct men, the accomplished scholar and the controversy-courting culture warrior, are one and the same, and their work is integrally interlinked." Again news or opinion you think?

let me remind you of your own words regarding both opinion pieces and organisations that muddle the line on this very talk page: "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." oh and another gem from yourself "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." AND another GEM from you, "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)".

I am curious about what you define as the news or an analysis now. Please do call this Vox piece one of those things because THEN... all the write-ups that you deleted claiming that they were opinion pieces in this specific context come back into play. The skewering of Newman's conduct by the NYT, Quillette, The Independent, The Irish Independent, The Spectator, and so on will all be fair game.Supermadinthesky 11:12, 1 May 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madhulovespotatoes (talk • contribs)

If I understand correctly, the problem with the Vox piece is not then that Vox is "biased" and "comparable to Brietbart [sic]", or that it produces "disastrous reporting", or that it's mere "churnalism", all of which were previously claimed, but that the piece in question is a mixture of news and editorial. Fine, that seems to be a valid point that I hadn't considered. Whether Newman's statement to The Guardian that she received death threats is worthy of inclusion is, of course, a separate question. And I'd appreciate a toning-down of the WP:BATTLEGROUND rhetoric, please. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:19, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

@Sangdeboeuf: Understood. While we can disagree on all the Vox's credibility issues, we can agree on this piece not being clean news. On a side note, apologies for the signature inconsistency as I am still new here and being tech illiterate has its share of issues. I am going to invest some time today to learn the in's and out's of this place. Also need to figure out why my signature does not have a link. Any idiot friendly tutorials would be greatly appreciated. Supermadinthesky 01:47, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

References

Conflict of interest

Cathy Newman in a recent interview for The Guardian said that “The internet is being written by men with an agenda,” she says. “Look at a woman’s Wikipedia page and you can’t believe a word of it.” She has been monitoring her own, which has been rapidly edited back and forth in the past few weeks..., was anyone involved in the discussions above, who pushed against the inclusion of the criticism by RS, personally or professionally connected to the subject of the article, again?--Miki Filigranski (talk) 11:47, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I think the issue of this article being "written by men with an agenda", another potential conflict of interest, is more important than whether some editors have the COI you suggest. As this article has gained more attention in the last two months than at any time since its creation five years ago (by myself as it happens), and the video of the Peterson interview has now had 8 million hits, the likelihood of any editor being directly connected to Cathy Newman must be drastically reduced. Philip Cross (talk) 12:15, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

There was no criticism by any RS. The definition of reliable sources has been elucidated by more than one editor of this page, so it scarcely bears repeating. However, it seems that some editors lack the ability to accept established community practice. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:06, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

"By any RS" - that's an obvious lie. Why are you making such a claim now? Did you recognize yourself in COI? It seems that some editors have a personal interpretation of the editing policy with which other experienced editors do not agree.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 13:15, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but it's not clear - who is accusing who of COI, and what does this have to do with the guardian article? Also, can we tone down the language a little, WP:GOODFAITH and all? :) Hentheden (talk) 14:49, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Miki, if you believe someone has a conflict of interest, the appropriate place to discuss it is on individual user's talk pages or the conflict of interest noticeboard. All this serves to do is cast vague, generalized aspersions against editors who disagree with you. —0xf₈e₈ (t♥lk) 04:09, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing this news article. It's not common that people in the public eye comment on their Wikipedia page or the editors who edit them. Dig _deeper ^talk 23:10, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

@Philip Cross: these are Newman's tweets ([1], [2]) posted on 21 March 2018, which are related to the cited quotes above. In the first was asked and invited to edit Wikipedia, she answered saying I’d love to but first tell me the percentage of editors who are female?, implying that neutrality of Wikipedia is not driven by its editing policy but editors sex. In the second, replying to a tweet which said that Wikipedia is edited voluntarily and number of men/women isn't a proof of anything, she answered But I can’t edit my own Wikipedia page...despite inaccuracies, bias and smears I just have to live with it, implying there's an obvious personal tendency of the personality to avoid reality and neutral reporting, which subjectively she describes as "inaccuracies, bias and smears", so yes, we should be careful of the possibility of perhaps double COI.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 23:47, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

@Philip Cross:, @Dig deeper:, @Miki Filigranski:: It appears to me that Sangdeboeuf is most likely a COI editor. I have noticed that over the course of the last few months, they have systematically, removed all negative criticisms of Newman including her well documented and well reported incident with the mosque. They have in the past also tried to use weasel words to try and reframe the Jordan Peterson interview. A review of their ANY or ALL their edits clearly demonstrates this pattern. Note that they have also removed Newman's own appraisal of how she handled the interview. They also seem to think consensus it just their own opinion when most editors have not agreed with it. Given that Newman herself as claimed that she has been watching her Wikipedia page I believe that now is a good time to flag this. Supermadinthesky 01:20, 13 April 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madhulovespotatoes (talk • contribs)

@Philip Cross:, @Dig deeper:, @Miki Filigranski: "Sangdeboeuf is most likely a COI editor?" You think? LOL. Reading some of the blatantly weaselly, propaganda-pushing comments on this page makes me wonder how anyone whose time is of any value could spend much time editing on wikipedia. Philip, Dig, Miki: You all have much more patience for silliness than I could ever muster. I hope you keep up your efforts to improve the intellectual integrity of this and other pages. 4serendipity (talk) 22:30, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

@Philip Cross:, @Dig deeper:, @Miki Filigranski:

"Might it be sensible to include a reference / link to the Guardian "Men with an Agenda" article on the Wikipedia page itself? and draw attention to the reality that there is pressure being directed at Wikipedia - rightly or wrongly - to alter the information presented. It makes that information obvious to the public. Cathy's own comments about this article and lamenting not being able to alter it are noteworthy and relevant. You might need to lock-down this page and vet editors, as has happened on other 'political' pages. Very concerning that articles alluding to manipulation of press and ordinary statements of fact like the mosque incident are being effectively silenced."

"But the fact that there is 2 'camps' is very disconcerting. Editors should not be able to push political or opinion-driven agendas through wikipedia. A lot of information that used to be here, going back years has been removed. This is political. It is especially ironic since some of the links they have cut out are from internationally respected journalists highlighting a manipulation of press and silencing of information. I wonder whether some of the editors at work here have been hired to pressure removal of information. Some of the journalists removed have mentioned being pressured into silence over the articles.

31.48.120.163 (talk)

I would like this article to look more like the Bill Maher article or David Letterman article. Unfortunately, any attempts to move in that direction ,at least in small increments, seems to lead to stonewalling. Perhaps large additions are the wsy to go.Dig _deeper ^talk 04:17, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I think the editors need to lock this topic and vet carefully who is allowed to submit. The comments are repeated removal and censoring information unfavourable to the subject or controversial. There used to even be a controversy section here last year. It is really just vandalism. It seems to obviously be politically motivated and I might guess they have been hired and are working as a team. Some of the sarcastic and nitpicking responses really suggest these are agitators here to battle rather genuine contributors here in good conscience to provide high quality information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.48.120.163 (talk) 21:31, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

20 May 2018

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The article is currently (correctly) rated as a start, yet there are quite a few people actively putting energy into removing information rather than improving the article by integrating opinions. Good job totally-unbiased-editors. Nergaal (talk) 09:12, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Not a useful comment. This article has received considerable attention by some very talented and dedicated editors, all of which have the best concerns of the encyclopedia and the article in mind. The subject of the article is controversial, and disagreements are completely natural. Your sarcasm adds nothing positive to the environment. Please use the talk pages to offer specific suggestions for improvement, not as an opportunity to express your general frustration and insult the editors who have worked on this article. Marteau (talk) 13:36, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

BLP

User:Sangdeboeuf thinks this is a BLP violation and has tried to intimidating me to stop disagreeing with him or by threatening me with arbcm sanctions re BLP though of course adding sourced material does not violate BLP. I require an explanation for this claim or the material will be restored. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 15:47, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

I, too, would like to hear Sangdeboeuf's rationale for not considering the Friedersdorf's Atlantic piece as a sufficient source for the text: "...commentators online were critical of Newman for her repeated misrepresentations of Dr. Peterson's responses to questions." That is not a controversial statement. The internet practically exploded with complaints that Newman misrepresented Peterson's responses, and I think any objective viewer of the interview would come to the same conclusion. I realize Friedersdorf is not exactly Bob Woodward or Carl Bernstein, but it is The Atlantic we're talking about here, and his is not a controversial categorization of the interview. "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources" (WP:EXCEPTIONAL) is not in play for this characterization. Marteau (talk) 18:12, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

I went ahead and restored the text supported by the Friedersdorf Atlantic piece with my rationale as above and in the comment. Marteau (talk) 18:30, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

A highly contentious term like "misrepresentations", which is equivalent to lying, should be attributed to a source such as Friedersdorf in the text, instead of being stated as fact in Wikipedia's voice. This is a BLP matter. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:38, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Also, posting a relevant and applicable discretionary sanctions notice is not "intimidation". It is routine and necessary in such disputes. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:45, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

That's true. I have re-phrased it as ...many commentators online were critical of Newman, saying she repeatedly misrepresented Peterson's responses to question. Many commentators online said exactly that, and I added David Brooks of the New York Times to the existing Atlantic citation in support of it. Marteau (talk) 19:58, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Friedersdorf's essay in The Atlantic and David Brooks' op-ed in The New York Times are opinion pieces and not reliable for factual claims. This has been extensively discussed on this page already. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:57, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Opinion pieces can be reliable sources and clearly do not per se violate BLP, meaning that your assertion was misplaced if not actually acting in bad faith. Don't misquote BLP again or I will take further action to prevent you using spurious BLP claims to try to get your way. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 08:08, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

This has been discussed at length here previously; see § Spectator Life above and Talk:Cathy Newman/Archive 2 § Criticism. Opinion essays and op-eds are considered primary sources per WP:RS and WP:NOR. BLPs instead rely on authoritative secondary sources, especially when it comes to criticism and praise. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:34, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

It was extenively discussed, but (!) without a proper consensus that such interpretation of editing principles is correct.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 21:54, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

In other words, editors disagree about how to implement policy. No kidding. Such lack of meta-consensus does not imply that we include criticism of Newman indiscriminately or by default. ONUS applies, as does ARBBLP – the rule of thumb is to omit contentious material pending a definite consensus for inclusion. Above all, we are enjoined to remember that BLPs affect the lives of living people, to write conservatively, use only the most reliable sources, and to do no harm. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:29, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

• Sangdeboeuf, you are correct. Perhaps it is time to slap some sanctions/topic bans on a few editors here. Drmies (talk) 01:34, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • No comment. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:35, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I disagree with Drmies here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:28, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Oh NeilN I'm going to have you disbarred over this. ArbCom will be on your case and you can forget about your invitation for the Preakness Party. Drmies (talk) 05:39, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
      • @Drmies: :-) Using a different context, if Ben Bernanke wrote an op-ed in the NY Time criticizing a politician's economic policies, as an admin I would not consider it a BLP violation if the criticism was included in the politician's bio to show the reaction to the policy. Editors can decide whether or not the inclusion is undue, but to rip it out and just saying, "BLP violation" is going to earn someone a block if 3RR is broken. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:53, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
        • @NeilN: Maybe I'm misreading the part about "criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources" (my emphasis), but I don't think so. Newman's notability as a public figure is not on the same level as a politician, and David Brooks is not a former head of the Pulitzer Board. He can tut-tut about Newman being rude to Peterson all he likes, but I've never heard him held up as an expert in interview technique or journalism more broadly. He's chiefly a cultural pundit, so the analogy is flawed. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:24, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
          • @Sangdeboeuf: You are giving credible reasons why the material should not be in the article. This is not the same as arguing that it's a BLP violation. Is Newman a public figure? Yes. Is the NY Times and the op-ed a secondary source? Despite your contention above, yes ("A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources"). So WP:RSOPINION is met. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:43, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
            • Except that Brooks is not analyzing primary sources (except when he mentions Friedersdorf's essay, which is not the material in question). In this instance, he is giving his own personal impression of Newman's performance; he isn't evaluating the content of the interview, but rather opining about Newman's technique as an interviewer by way of lamenting what "a lot of people do in argument these days".

              Per WP:NEWSORG, "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" (my emphasis again). Editorials and opinion columns are specifically named as a type of primary source at WP:No original research#defs. So I do not think Brooks meets the requirement of secondary sourcing per BLP policy. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:07, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

              • You are confusing statement of facts with opinions. "X hurled obscenities at his guest" is a statement of fact. "X was rude to his guest" is an opinion. Criticisms and analysis of interviewing techniques are opinions. And the footnote you cite also has, "Primary sources may include newspaper articles." I doubt we're going to gut half the BLPs on here, saying that newspaper articles are primary sources. Again, I have no opinion if the material should stay or go. Just that in its present form, it's not a BLP violation. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 07:21, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
                • News articles can be primary or secondary sources, which I think is what that note is saying. Frankly, many BLPs probably should be drastically cut, for reasons of WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS alone. But WP:OTHERCONTENT isn't the issue here. My point is exactly that Brooks' criticism is an opinion. By any definition, his column cannot be a secondary source for his own opinion contained within that column. Therefore it would not seem to meet BLP standards for "criticism and praise". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:56, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
                  • NeilN, the problem was, as noted above by Cullen328 and others, the phrase "her repeated misrepresentations of Dr. Peterson's responses to questions", stated in Wikipedia's voice as if it were fact. I believe Marteau, above, agreed that this was not OK at all, though in the flurry of edits to the article I can't easily see (nor do I really wish to, right now) when and by whom that was changed. Of course it is ridiculous to begin with, that we are spending so much time and so many resources on a bit of minutiae where the only matter of concern is the opinions of some people on something--not facts, for instance. And if there are still editors who insist that there was nothing wrong with that "her repeated misrepresentations of Dr. Peterson's responses to questions" phrasing, they should be considered for a BLP sanction. This has nothing to do with Bernanke or with sourcing, but with basic article writing. Drmies (talk) 16:06, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
                    • @Drmies: We're talking about different edits. This removed material which was not in Wikipedia's voice, was attributed properly, and is not a BLP violation. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:41, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: attribution alone is not enough to meet BLP standards. I'm fairly certain that "criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources" means sources that report on the criticism itself, not just any old independent source, since by that definition any mention of a living person is a "secondary source". That would open up a scenario where all of Donald Trump's insulting tweets were considered valid sources in the biographies of his targets, as long as the insults were "attributed". I scarcely think that would be in the spirit of BLP policy. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:37, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

@Sangdeboeuf: That's an editorial decision that editors can make taking into consideration WP:UNDUE. If I wasn't clear before, I'm speaking as as admin here - I would not block for a BLP violation in this case and would warn an editor claiming a BLP exemption for 3RR. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:05, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I should add that someone's tweet is a WP:BLPSPS. Having it covered by the NY Times may make it notable commentary. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:16, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: well, since the link above is to a New York Times page, the minimum standard of "covered" would seem to be met. I really don't think it's at all in the spirit of BLP policy to say that every such Tweet listed is fair game for the biographies of the targets of such slanders, as if they were sourced to an actual secondary (i.e. containing interpretation and analysis) source. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:57, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Merge Peterson interview section?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus is merge as proposed. While the initial discussion shows no consensus (after discounting the sockpuppet, "me too", and arguments based on page views), the RFC that followed showed a unanimous view among participants, with no dissenting for nearly 3 months. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:40, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

---

---

For the sake of WP:RECENTISM, I'd suggest merging § Jordan Peterson interview into the "Channel 4 News" section under § Career. Viral phenomenon or no, the interview was a brief occurrence in Newman's professional career that shouldn't be given undue WP:WEIGHT by being placed in its own section. To the inevitable remarks of "But it's why she's known", I would ask, how many news articles about Newman herself have appeared in the last month, or anytime since the initial brouhaha? For Newman's career (as opposed to Peterson's), this appears to have been a flash in the pan. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:20, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. Take a look at her page views [3]. This interview is the single most notable thing she has ever done.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:44, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Note: giving due weight to a topic within an article is determined by its coverage in reliable sources, not its popularity among Wikipedians or the general public. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:48, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

You've undercut your own argument. The Peterson interview has been given tremendous weight by reliable sources. Marteau (talk) 15:54, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support due to WP:UNDUE WEIGHT. The obsession of Peterson's camp followers with Newman and their desire to bully her doesn't change that. 38.99.190.242 (talk) 20:42, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
  • This IP's sole contribution to the encyclopedia has been to one article, and their effort was quickly reverted. Seeking consensus is, by definition, a process Wikipedia editors participate in... can an IP user who has never contributed anything which was retained in the encyclopedia be considered an 'editor'? Marteau (talk) 00:01, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Please do not make personal attacks. The policy is that anyone can edit Wikpedia. Users do not have to pass some arbitrary threshold of activity in order to contribute. — Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:38, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
      • There is nothing "arbitrary" about preferring that editors discussing matters of policy have at least added something... anything... to the encyclopedia. That this one's idea of debating policy is going "UNDUE" and then saying what meanies Peterson's "followers" are would tend to support my assertion. Marteau (talk) 01:10, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
        • That is merely your preference, and a simple argumentum ad hominem to boot. What consensus policy actually states is, "In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing policies and guidelines." Nothing there to justify discounting any user's opinion based on their level of editing activity. That in fact would violate the policy of "Comment on content, not the contributor." —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:42, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose exactly because of WEIGHT which shows the interview had extensive coverage by reliable sources. Also, note that the discussion above about the section itself did not finish and reach a consensus. Until then there cannot be any merge.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 14:47, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
  • So then The Independent, The Daily Telegraph, The Times, The Guardian, and The Varsity are all reliable sources after all? That's odd considering the previous statement (diff) that they were mere churnalism. I don't see how they can be both. However, we are still dealing with the problem of WP:RECENTISM wherein the article gives disproportionate weight to recent sources and is "overburdened with documenting controversy as it happens". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:50, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
    • I advise you to not intentionally misunderstand things trying to piss off other editors if you want that your opinion gets their respect.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 18:20, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
      • Here is the relevant exchange from § Threats redux, above:

        When characterizing the threats, Iqbal reports She even received death threats following her interview with Peterson, and Channel 4 called in security experts., a description echoed by previous news reports mentioned here. In the article, we dilute this claim heavily and use considerably weaker language: ...what he said were social-media abuse and threats directed against her. No source uses language resembling "what he said were threats" (?!), and doing so seems to misrepresent the cited sources. Discussion above has focused more generally on early reports, so it seems highly relevant that articles have continued to characterize the threats as credible months after the initial interview. A shorter description which hews more closely to the sources would be Newman received threats and online abuse following the interview.
        — User:0xF8E8 04:09, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

        We already discussed that and attribution. The articles in question are, as stated by Dig Deeper, churnalism.
        — User:Miki Filigranski 16:05, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

        What exactly am I misunderstanding then? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:19, 6 May 2018 (UTC) (edited 01:54, 8 May 2018 (UTC))
        • Did you even read the discussion? Churnalism referred to their reporting quality, not their reliability as mainstream sources. Stop making false claims.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 13:52, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
          • Not sure I follow your logic there. Why would we accept poor-quality reporting as "reliable"? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:56, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose, very poor argument, weight means perhaps a one-liner in the C4 article and emphasise in her and Peterson's articles. No evidence to support assertion this is a flash in the pan in Newman's career. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 07:29, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Newman is a professional communicator and interviewing is a large part of her vocation. Interviewing is as much an art as a science, and commentary about her performance in that role is directly applicable to her role as an interviewer and her claim to fame as the face of Channel 4 News. Her performance in this interview has been mentioned numerous times by numerous, highly reliable sources, and commentary about her performance far outweighs commentary for any other specific act she has performed in her role as news presenter and interviewer. As such, the sub heading as it currently stands gives the appropriate amount of weight due in proportion to the coverage the interview has been given, which has been substantial. Marteau (talk) 08:14, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
  • We don't consider "commentary" to be reliable sourcing at all. The "commentary" (actually criticism) on the Newman-Peterson interview has come from opinion essays and op-eds, which are not appropriate for BLPs. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:24, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Absolutely incorrect. Newman is news presenter, and commentary about her performance in that role, and the quality (or lack of quality) in the performance of that role is completely appropriate in a BLP, as it is with any other presenter or communicator in the public eye. And while I'm at it, I'll amend my assessment of weight for the subsection to include the instance of death threats to her due to the performance of her occupation, and the necessity of her employer to take action, also due to threats coming from the performance of her occupation. All in all, this is a very weighty issue and having a sub heading is completely appropriate given that weight. Marteau (talk) 08:41, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
      • This has been discussed at length under § Criticism, above. Opinion essays and op-eds are considered primary sources per WP:RS. BLPs instead rely on authoritative secondary sources, especially when it comes to criticism and praise. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:49, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
        • You're right. Commentary must be secondarily sourced. And it is, as in the current sentence containing "... and many commentators online were critical of Newman..." which is followed by three secondary sources mentioning the commentary and mentioning her performance. Marteau (talk) 09:00, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
          • It's actually two sources, The Star and The Guardian, not counting the recent addition of Friedersdorf's essay in The Atlantic, which I've reverted. And The Star doesn't even refer to such commentary. In any case, the "commentatators" are people commenting on YouTube, not published authors. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:15, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support – I don't find the arguments for retaining particularly strong here, and I think it would be worth considering whether we'll care about any of this in ten years. Pageview stats are a very statistically noisy method of assessing importance, and don't capture events from before 2016 – I don't think we can get "single most notable thing she has ever done" from only that. So, are Marteau's statements that commentary about her performance far outweighs commentary for any other specific act she has performed in her role as news presenter correct? Well, no – Newman's interviews of Tim Farron, just to give one example, were widely reported on and played a significant role in his resignation as party leader. Even the conservative tut-tutting is not unique: there were the usual pieces in National Review and The Spectator, with the editor of Spiked! being so incensed by the Farron interview he called Newman a "gay-friendly Witchfinder-General, fancying herself the interrogator of men’s souls". The trouble is that for television media personalities, "some news coverage and critical op-eds" isn't a defining career event, it's Monday morning. We must remember that both prominence of placement and quantity of text can give undue weight to statements. Keeping with summary style, the most useful configuration for readers seems to be brief mention of the most important interviews, linking to a dedicated section in the interviewee's article. —0xf₈e₈ (talk) 17:55, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

So, are Marteau's statements that commentary about her performance far outweighs commentary for any other specific act she has performed in her role as news presenter correct? Well, no - Newman's interviews of Tim Farron, just to give one example, were widely reported A google news search on the quoted phrases 'Cathy Newman' 'Jordan Peterson' yields almost four times as many results as 'Cathy Newman' 'Tim Farron' (980 to 257) and Tim Farron has a three year head start. I stand by my statement; it does seem to be the case that the coverage of the Peterson interview far outweighs coverage of any other event in her career. Marteau (talk) 22:50, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid on discussion pages#Google test. Just presenting the number of results, as opposed to the quality and depth of commentary, is not a particularly fruitful method of discussion. Google News indexes a number of blogs, social media and self-published websites with little to no editorial control. Looking at the queries you present, it's pretty clear this inflates the numbers--on just one page I found Ricochet, a social media website; Patheos, a blog; and Big Think, another blog. When assessing weight, we have to go beyond "many people are talking about this online" and consider how RS assess the importance of the interview. This is why I mention Farron – the interviews were generally cited by the media as a pivotal event in his career, and we consequently devote some space in his article to it. But to judge importance in the interviewer's career from a spate of routine op-eds and blogosphere reactions – numerous as they were in both Farron and Peterson's case – is to treat the encyclopedia as little more than Crossfire writ large. —0xf₈e₈ (talk) 01:16, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the Farron interview became a big thing because of the effect on his career, though it had limited interest outside of Europe. In fact, I could not even find any mention of the Farron interview in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, or The New Yorker, whereas those all covered the Peterson interview. That interest in the the Farron interview was concentrated mostly in Europe, while the Peterson interview obtained wider coverage and world-wide interest goes a long way to explain the significant difference in amount of coverage. Marteau (talk) 04:11, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

NYT and WSJ did not "cover" the interview. It was written about by op-ed columnists David Brooks and Peggy Noonan, respectively. Let's not confuse editorial priorities of a paper's news division with pundits' desire to gossip about the latest pop-culture trend. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:52, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

You're right. Besides opinion pieces or blogs, Cathy Newman has received exactly zero mentions in the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal at all, ever (according to Google). It was only after the Peterson interview that she received any ink in any of those publications in any way other than one passing mention in a blog eight years ago.Marteau (talk) 10:38, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - for all the reasons above. --hippo43 (talk) 22:21, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
• There appears to be no clear consensus on the issue, so I've started an RfC below to attract some fresh eyes. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:08, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Request for comment

Should the text under Cathy Newman § Jordan Peterson interview be merged into the section on her Channel 4 News career? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:08, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support merge: despite the brief and predictable deluge of talking heads weighing in on whether Newman was fair to Peterson or whether the interview was "catastrophic" or not, there doesn't seem to be much sober analysis from reliable, secondary sources on this. Ten years from now, will it make sense to give this one "viral" interview its own section separate from the whole rest of this professional broadcaster's career? The nature of viral notoriety is to be fleeting, so no. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:57, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support. Having it separate is obvious WP:RECENTISM, and is WP:UNDUE. It could (given the amount of material, probably should) remain a sub-sub-section; I've already made that edit, because having it at the same heading level as "Channel 4 News" under "Career" directly wrongly implies to the reader that it's a separate phase of her career. That's just terrible article organization.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:09, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support merge per SMcCandlish, the idea that this single interview deserves the same attention as the whole of her Channel 4 News career, or should be separate from it is fairly preposterous. Pincrete (talk) 14:10, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support (Summoned by bot) Undue, per nom. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 00:25, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
• (Summoned by bot)Support merge per SMcCandlish, noting that already reducing the section to a sub-heading is the correct action. Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 08:18, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Brooks essay

I strongly suggest removing the following sentence from the article as putting undue weight on a primary source:

David Brooks, in an opinion piece in The New York Times said "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."

This is textbook case of an article "overburdened with documenting controversy as it happens". Many opinion columns were published following Newman's controversial interview of Peterson; the furore them quickly died down as the writers moved on to the next scandal du jour. That's how they make a living, but such a media frenzy itself does not necessarily constitute a matter of encyclopedic record. Articles, and especially BLPs, rely on reliable, secondary sources; they aren't just collections of sound bites.

What makes Brooks's opinion on Newman's journalistic techniques relevant? RS guidelines give greater weight to "the opinions of specialists and recognized experts". Brooks is neither; he is an (American) cultural commentator who has written, just recently, on topics ranging from nationalism to the Brett Kavanaugh hearings to the Gaza border protests to Vladimir Putin to Mister Rogers. This particular example is a passing reference to the Channel 4 interview in an essay focused on Peterson, not Newman. If Brooks isn't considered an authority on any of these other topics, then why do we treat him like one in Newman's bio? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:42, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

David Brooks is an experienced and even eminent writer and journalist, whose work has appeared in some of the most respected news sources in the English language, including the Wall Street Journal, NPR, Newsweek, and the New York Times (where the piece was published). As such, Brooks is an authority on journalism, which the interview was an example of. Same, tho a lesser degree, for Conor Friedersdorf and the Atlantic, and, to a moderate degree, for Tim Blair and the Daily Telegraph, whose pieces I link to above. These aren't casual partisan wingnuts writing in some website, they are experts in the field, publishing in respected outlets in the field. Their criticism is highly relevant. It is, of course, opinion, but it's hard to have critical evaluation that isn't opinion. --GRuban (talk) 00:06, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Can you substantiate Brooks being a recognized expert with published sources that treat him as such? "Recognized" for RS purposes means recognition by the wider world, not just Wiki editors. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:27, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Working 30 years as a published journalist for outlets like the Wall Street Journal, NPR, Newsweek, and the New York Times means he is a widely recognized expert journalist. It's a little bit like saying "what makes the Pope an expert on religion?" --GRuban (talk) 00:38, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

But, OK. We can find some sources for the sky being blue. "David Brooks of The New York Times is a gifted columnist. Among contemporary journalists, he is our Walter Lippmann, the closest thing we have to an establishment-approved public intellectual." The Nation. "David Brooks ... The respected New York Times columnist" The Washington Post. "David Brooks is a nationally respected editorial columnist", Rice University President David Leebron. "Leading journalist and author David Brooks" Skidmore College. "New York Times columnist David Brooks—one of the east coast power corridor’s most read and respected political writers", Forbes. "DAVID BROOKS, as an author, reporter, columnist and commentator, you have distinguished yourself among our foremost public intellectuals." Dartmouth University. --GRuban (talk) 00:46, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

That's all very gratifying to Brooks, no doubt, but it doesn't establish him as an expert on journalism, which is the relevant concern here. And no, I wouldn't consult the Pope, or the Dalai Lama, on Zoroastrianism, for example. Respect and admiration are not the same as being a recognized subject-matter expert. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:51, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

They really are when that is what he is being respected and admired for. All those sources aren't praising him for being a great family man, or philanthropist, or skilled at parcheesi. They're praising him for being a writer and journalist. "Leading", "gifted", "nationally respected", "among our foremost". Your saying they can be doing that but not saying that he is an expert at it, just doesn't add up. --GRuban (talk) 14:09, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

• Can I just start by saying that an opinion article by Brooks that discusses another person is not a primary source? Drmies (talk) 00:49, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but I don't follow you. Opinion columns are defined as primary sources per both Identifying reliable sources and No original research. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:41, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
• OK, I don't have a problem with Brooks being cited here. We shouldn't want a pile-on of commentary, but Brooks is a pretty well recognized moderately conservatively moderate, and his opinions have some weight. Let's not go sealioning around here. Drmies (talk) 00:52, 30 October 2018 (UTC)