Talk:Cathy Newman

"Internet meme"
The statement that Newman's phrasing from her interview of Jordan Peterson in my opinion is inappropriate without support from sources beyond a newspaper editorial and the Claremont Review of Books. Such sources lack the editorial oversight and fact-checking required for statements of fact, especially in a biography of a living person. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:13, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is edited according to editing policy, not my or your personal opinion. Your revert was inappropriate.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 14:58, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Please explain where Wikipedia's editing policy says we must include this content. The policy on Verifiability says that articles should be based on sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Neither of the sources offered qualify in my opinion. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:35, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Where says it "must be included"? There's no such a thing for anything. It depends - it's relevant to the topic, verifiable in the RS, and has WEIGHT. What you're doing is not concern about the fact i.e. content as such, but an appalling questioning of reliable sources reliability, which "lack of editorial oversight ... fact-checking" is your own personal assumption (!). Do you want an attribution? I will partly revert the references without the sentence with which seemingly is an issue. If you don't have anything else more substantial to say I am making a full revert because this discussion is pointless and I'm not going to play along with it as done in previous section's discussion where your endless argumentation about RS in the end was ignored by the administrators, with part of the content you tirelessly rejected being included (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." ).--Miki Filigranski (talk) 00:30, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * If you're not too "appalled" to read the actual reliable-source guidelines, you might give it a try. WP:RS says that 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. Any source that says Newman "totally lost her cool" and that she "needled him, hectored and ridiculed him, but worse: she twisted what he said" or describes the interview as a "hilarious publicity boost" and seeks to contrast "reasonable, thoughtful statements" by Peterson with Newman's supposed "stubborn image of him as a misogynistic bigot" is an opinion essay and is a reliable primary source for the author's statements, but not generally reliable for statements of fact. That's true even when some facts are supported by more reliable sources. The second ref here is not even about Newman (neither is Brooks's essay), so using it in her biography, even with attribution, is a clear case of undue weight. The quoted excerpts only serve to overburden the article with poorly-sourced criticism —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:00, 26 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I can't find good sources for the meme, but I can find a fair bit of support for David Brooks's views:
 * Why Can't People Hear What Jordan Peterson Is Saying? "A British broadcaster doggedly tried to put words into the academic’s mouth." The Atlantic
 * NO NEED FOR GUESTS WHEN CATHY ARGUES WITH HERSELF "Cathy Newman employed a curious tactic during her now-infamous interview with University of Toronto professor Jordan Peterson. Rather than discuss Peterson's actual words, she argued instead against points Peterson never made. Over and over again. You may quickly tire of the Channel 4 host’s frequent “what you’re saying is” gambit, but Peterson remained remarkably calm." The Daily Telegraph.
 * So I think we do need to write that, to give an accurate picture. --GRuban (talk) 14:23, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Those are both opinion pieces (The Atlantic is an editorial magazine, not "hard" news). A clue is in the language: "striking", "unfortunate", "pernicious", "curious", "remarkably", etc.. The second one is labeled as a blog post. Neither one mentions Brooks. A media frenzy among the commentariat is not necessarily a matter of encyclopedic record. Both of these sources, and Brooks's column, are primary sources for statements clearly attributed to the author, but not generally reliable otherwise. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:59, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Please also note that The Atlantic's Web site does not have the same content or editor as the print magazine. While they do publish magazine feature articles online, that doesn't give every online article the same reliability as the magazine itself. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:40, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Callaghan source
I was about to add a brief reference to a description of the Jordan Peterson interview from this article in the Sydney Morning Herald's Good Weekend magazine; however, the author appears to be an associate editor of said magazine. That and the general breezy, opinionated tone makes it hard to tell if this is a piece of news, human-interest reporting, or simply an editorial. The piece isn't even primarily about Newman, so I think we should steer clear of this source. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:04, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Use of bad language is it necessary
A question, is it necessary to an understanding of Newman that this quotation from those who abuse her online needs to be included:

> ... abuse ranged from "cunt, bitch, dumb blonde" to "I’m going to find out where you live and execute you."

It seems to me, that the detail adds nothing of substance. The abuse is common and garden abuse and not anything of note in itselfCanterburyUK (talk) 21:10, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It's of note if published, reliable sources note it, whether or not Wikipedia users think it is. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:56, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The words illustrate the misogyny she was subjected to, and WP:NOTCENSORED.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:34, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The words are her own, when she was making unsubstantiated claims in a news source clearly sympathetic to her. In other words, not reliable.174.0.48.147 (talk) 18:12, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, the words are her own, and the quote is attributed to her. Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:50, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Radio Times interview
Peterson's Radio Times interview is a primary source for his comments therein. Articles should not give undue weight to primary sources. WP:IMPARTIAL is also a consideration here. Why should we care that Peterson called Newman's story a "victim narrative"? --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:26, 24 May 2021 (UTC)


 * , I just replaced saying there was "no evidence"of threats against her with criticizing the story as a "victim narrative"; I hadn't restored all the text you had removed. I feel like it's not explicitly clear why he was saying there were no threats, but that statement was part of his criticism of the story as a "victim narrative". Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:31, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I felt like the quote "victim narrative" was showing that he was cynically dismissing the threats, but is there another way we can say that? Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:43, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It does do that, but it comes across as a hostile term of disparagement, and the fact that it's sourced to a softball interview is concerning. The relevant part of the Observer article reads: I'm open to summarizing this differently if it makes the issue clearer. But I don't think selectively quoting an interview is helpful. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:53, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

From the Varsity source: https://thevarsity.ca/2018/01/29/british-journalist-subject-to-online-threats-following-interview-with-jordan-peterson/
 * "In an email to The Varsity, Peterson wrote that “Channel 4 should make the ‘threats’ public so that the public can judge their validity.” “Criticism and threats are not the same thing, and as far as I know there has been no police involvement,” said Peterson. On Twitter, Peterson has called on his followers to stop threatening Newman if they were doing so, saying, “Try to be civilized in your criticism. It was words. Words, people, words. Remember those?”
 * A Twitter search failed to unearth direct threats against Newman. Two Twitter comments reacting to the debate said “RIP Cathy Newman.” Around 10 tweets since January 16 have leveled slurs against the interviewer. One Twitter user collated comments on the YouTube video and found over 750 comments using misogynistic slurs." Drachentötbär (talk) 20:23, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

The guardian interview https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/mar/19/cathy-newman-the-internet-is-being-written-by-men-with-an-agenda doesn't look like a high quality source to me. It's in the Lifestyle category and written in a way where it's not always clear what is reproducing what Newman says in the interview, what is the author's opinion and what are researched facts. There are also contradictions with other sources.Drachentötbär (talk) 02:49, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Drachentötbär, please restore the longstanding text you removed while we discuss this. This is an opinion piece from a high quality RS. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:02, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Let's consider it as an opinion piece as you suggest. A primary source for the author's opinion which isn't shared in any other primary or secondary sources. As per WP:WEIGHT Iqbal's opinion doesn't fit here as only opinion about what Peterson did in the interview. I also don't see what kind of useful information this opinion sentence offered. Drachentötbär (talk) 18:02, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You're saying that the opinion piece critical of Peterson is UNDUE because it's not shared by others, but the opinion critical of Newman is DUE because it is shared by others? Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:02, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Newman received mostly critical reactions for the interview, so picking a critical opinion is not necessarily UNDUE. Peterson receiced mostly positive reactions, cherry-picking the only negative statements from the sources is misleading and not DUE. Drachentötbär (talk) 18:18, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You have to ONUS to show that is accurate. I removed all of the material critical of Newman, pending discussion, but I would prefer that you leave all of the longstanding text pending discussion. Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:23, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , there was consensus to keep this while the text critical of Peterson was also left in place. Keeping just the criticism of Newman is a BLPBALANCE violation. Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:57, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, what text critical of Peterson? And what does WP:BLPBALANCE have to do with it? I'm looking at WP:BLPBALANCE, and can't see the part that says "only keep in text critical of the subject if you also have text critical of another person". --GRuban (talk) 20:42, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * This longstanding material was just removed: Text critical of Peterson is implicitly supportive of Newman. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:53, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * First, not necessarily. Exempli gratia: Peterson is a boring dresser, can't tell a Bordeaux from a Claret, and cheats at Solitaire - that's text critical of Peterson, but is that in any way supportive of Newman? Surely not. Similarly in this case, the removed sentence was The Guardian 's Nosheen Iqbal stated that Peterson had made "broad generalisations on male and female behaviour" and had denied the existence of the gender pay gap "as a qualitative fact". Without further explanation, which we don't give, that's not contradicting the text you removed, that Newman had misrepresented Peterson's views. Second, the cure for missing a sentence you like is not to delete another one, it's to get the sentence you like back, possibly rephrased. Two wrongs do not make a right. I don't know what the objection to the Iqbal sentence was, but we agreed to keep in Brooks's criticism back in 2018. --GRuban (talk) 21:53, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The text critical of Peterson gives context for what Newman was reacting negatively towards and is absolutely a balance issue. Anyway, will you restore the text critical of Peterson? It was removed with the edit summary: not neutral, contradicted by other sources and doesn't improve understanding, which doesn't make any sense. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:13, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I can believe the "doesn't improve understanding" bit, since, as above, it merely describes Peterson, and this is an article about Newman. So if you think it gives context, then rephrase it so it does give context, as it was, it didn't. The text doesn't even say anything about "Newman reacting negatively", presumably it should? Though, I've got to say, if you want to put "Newman reacted nagatively to her own interview subject", that might be more damning than anything Brooks wrote, you'll want good sources for that. In general, an interviewer being negative towards their own interview subject is considered quite unprofessional. But you want to get the person who removed it to agree, not me. --GRuban (talk) 22:44, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

, please explain why you changed the Many commenters were critical of Newman, several of them saying she had a preconceived and misplaced grasp of Peterson's views. It was correct, sourced (not based on one source alone) and fitted well to the following sentence which specifies a reason for the critics. Please also explain why you justified your change with WP:COPYVIO. Drachentötbär (talk) 02:48, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I changed it to Many YouTube commenters were critical of Newman, several of them saying she had "a preconceived and misplaced grasp of Peterson's views", wrote Jamie Doward of The Guardian. It is a copyright violation to include the direct quote without quotations, and attribution is necessary for a quotation. I added "YouTube" commenters because we should make it clear who these commenters are. Kolya Butternut (talk) 08:27, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I like specifying they were YouTube commenters; the YouTube user comments section is legendarily frequented by Internet trolls. --GRuban (talk) 15:09, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The sentence was a summary about the reactions, criticism wasn't exclusive to YouTube. If we emphasize on this article I suggest quoting the nearly 50,000 to clarify the impact, when reading "Many YouTube commenters" I think of 100-300, not of over 40,000.Drachentötbär (talk) 18:10, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm all for numbers, but we can't say "nearly 50,000 were critical", our source doesn't say that. It says there were nearly 50,000 comments, and many were critical. You can write that if you like. --GRuban (talk) 13:14, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Peterson interview
The section about her interview with JP is not objective. Newman’s conduct was universally criticised and the interview is largely credited with elevating Peterson to global stage. The section contains none of this and instead talks about a ‘fiery back and forth’. Nobody remembers it for being fiery. They remember it because Newman’s routine and blatant mischaracterisation of Peterson’s words whenever he answered a question. Journalism courses use this interview as an example of what not to do. We need to update the article so it stops reading like a sanitised version. 82.132.214.177 (talk) 23:27, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Please present a published, reliable source supporting your desired changes. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:34, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @-Sangdeboeuf : Here is the interview for you to watch, clearly supporting the points made in the section above.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMcjxSThD54 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:246:8000:bb:d1b9:3739:779c:b0d6 (talk) 03:13, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The interview itself is a primary source and only supports the statements made by Newman & Peterson. Any interpretation of those statements is original research. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:04, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I don’t see the support for “fiery back-and-forth”. The citation at the end of that sentence characterizes the interview as an “interrogation” and the questioning as “aggressive” and “antagonistic”.  I don’t see support for anything fiery going the other way.. 2603:7000:9700:7796:3C17:804A:4DAD:7B89 (talk) 19:50, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I don’t see the support for “fiery back-and-forth”. The citation at the end of that sentence characterizes the interview as an “interrogation” and the questioning as “aggressive” and “antagonistic”.  I don’t see support for anything fiery going the other way.. 2603:7000:9700:7796:3C17:804A:4DAD:7B89 (talk) 19:50, 18 December 2023 (UTC)