Talk:Cathy Newman/Archive 3

Threats redux
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. — 0xf8e8 (t♥lk) 04:09, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The noticeboard discussion is here. We already discussed that and attribution. The articles in question are, as stated by Dig Deeper, churnalism. Wrong, sources do use such language, see for example Toronto Star Channel 4 news editor Ben de Pear said on Twitter that journalist Cathy Newman has been the subject of “vicious misogynistic abuse, nastiness, and threat” following the conversation, which he says is “an unacceptable response to a robust and engaging debate.” ... After de Pear announced or Irish Independent Channel 4 was quick to claim ... But even the broadcaster's initial claims, as well along The Varsitys The nature of the threats against her or specific measures taken, however, have not been specified we can't but mention it with proper attribution that "he said...". --Miki Filigranski (talk) 16:05, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Just because something has already been discussed doesn't mean it can't be discussed again - consensus can change over time. I can't help but agree with 0xF8E8 (again ^^) that it does misrepresent the sources cited, and does seem to dilute the threats and what they were. Hentheden (talk) 16:31, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * To add to what Miki F said above, the Iqbal source is an interview, not a news report. 0xF8E8, it seems like you would like to denigrate sources that are not news reporting when they contradict your view, but use them when they suit you. --hippo43 (talk) 16:37, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * How it misrepresent the sources when they clearly report them that Pear/C4 said or claim? The same thing with The Guardian Ben de Pear ... said ... said on Twitter ... Channel 4 News said.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 16:42, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * "What he said were threats" implies there is some doubt there were threats, which is not what is reported in any of of the existing sources. The articles only quote de Pear for pull quotey phrases like "vicious misogynistic abuse", and report directly in their voice that there were threats. The existing sources editors have cited to discredit threats have been opinion pieces, not secondary RS. Hippo43 seems to misrepresent and/or misunderstand the prior arguments I've made; sourcing criticism to a opinion piece not mentioned in secondary RS raises clear issues of BLPSTYLE, whereas citing a fact mentioned in numerous news reports and an interview to those reports and the interview does not. The suggestions applying policy is the result of some nefarious biased agenda is just a Chewbacca defense--it doesn't address any of the arguments presented.— 0xf8e8 (t♥lk) 19:57, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Your opinions have been addressed endlessly above. Stating that de Pear said there were threats does not imply anything. It just states that he said there were threats, that the threats story came from him. Some readers might give it greater authority because it came from someone associated with the channel, some might think he was exaggerating for some reason. Who knows. --hippo43 (talk) 20:36, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * And FWIW, claiming that someone suggested you have "some nefarious biased agenda" is just a bullshit defense. --hippo43 (talk) 20:43, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm specifically objecting to the phrase "what he said were threats", which is a phrase not found in any of the existing sources. Even de Pear said they received threats would be better than de Pear said they received what he said were threats. You haven't put forward any actual argument for using this phrasing, nor have you addressed the sources. I'm not sure what else I'm supposed to take from your comments than an accusation of bias. "You only do this when it suits you" is a pretty clear suggestion you think I am looking to game the system. This is mirrored in your characterization of other editors' comments. In an earlier response to Sangdeboeuf, you characterize their edits as "transparent POV-pushing". Whether "nefarious biased agenda" is how you would personally that gaming/pushing is irrelevant. — 0xf8e8  (t♥lk) 21:14, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * We should stop pointing fingers at each other and continue comment on content. 0xF8E8, I think you should double check on who actually started calling out editors for POV-pushing.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 21:40, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * the statement about death threats comes from the introduction to Iqbal's interview with Newman, not the interview portion itself. This is a summary of other news reports, and so is an acceptable source for factual statements. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:14, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Not convinced by your assumptions here. The comment appears among comments on make-up and purple chiffon shirts, and immediately before "She tells me there was the suspicion of a Russian botfarm...". Doesn't look like news reporting at all. --hippo43 (talk) 01:03, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Here is the full paragraph from Iqbal: This is a summary of news reports, with links to the relevant articles. "Make-up and purple chiffon shirts" are irrelevant to this material. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:22, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Not irrelevant at all. It's in the same section of the same article. The following sentence - "She tells me there was the suspicion..." - shows it is clearly part of the interview. It is disingenuous to claim that the sentences you like are somehow separate from the interview. --hippo43 (talk) 03:20, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

This seems to be degenerating into a discussion of personal feeling of editors toward each other rather than examining the points the other is actually trying to make. Sometimes we all lack the words to adequately express our thoughts, which is ok, but everyone should step back and try to see the other's perspective for a moment.

One point I think 0xF8E8 is trying to make is that "de Pear said they received what he said were threats" is just poor grammatical construction and reads very awkwardly. The reason is because it's redundant, saying the same thing twice (like I just did). It's like saying, "Joe said he ate what he said were doughnuts". We can assume Joe said what he said, so there is no reason to say it twice, unless implying that Joe is either lying or clueless about what he ate.

That brings me to the second point I think OxF8E8 is getting to, that is this phrasing does indeed have a connotation of untruthfulness. I don't have time to read the sources, so perhaps there is some reason to suspect de Pear is being untruthful. I don't know. But this particular phrasing makes me suspect he is. (For example, if someone said to me, "The government said they brought back what they said are moon rocks..." I would suspect this person to be a moon-landing denier clearly implying the government is lying.)

I don't really have much of an opinion on this one way or the other. I think in the span of this entire person's life and career, given the overall size of the article, we are giving way too much weight to this one issue, so it seems rather trivial in the whole scope of things, but that should be worked out on the talk page. (I don't see any blatant BLP vios here ... so far.) I simply came to point out I think there is a big misunderstanding here. A little rephrasing to correct a simple grammatical error may likely be all that is needed to solve this problem. And consensus can change at any time, so relying on that to end further discussion is futile. (If you think this is bad, try working on, say ... the Barak Obama article. No matter how many times you form a consensus, someone comes along to challenge it, and you just have to discuss it (preferably civilly) over and over and over again. That's just the way it is. ) Zaereth (talk) 22:18, 20 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Good point Zaereth! :) With that in mind, and per WP:BOLD to try and resolve this, I've just edited it to something slightly more natural and neutral. What do we think? Hentheden (talk) 00:00, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, if we look at the telegraph article:
 * it's quite clear from the usage of grammar that the security experts being called in is not in dispute (the lack of qualifiers on the first sentence), and nor is her being subject to abuse - the switch from the future tense (the tweet) to the past (the reporting) makes this abundantly clear. Can we just leave it as is? Hentheden (talk) 00:07, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you're reading far too much into the grammar that's used here. Looked at more broadly, it's clear from the sources that they are reporting what de Pear said. There's nothing wrong with the article reflexting that. --hippo43 (talk) 00:46, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * But I'm really not. By that grammar and the lack of qualifiers, the Telegraph is reporting it as a fact, and not simply something that has been said that may be true or not. There is something wrong with the article reflecting that, because the wording explicitly casts doubt on whether or not the abuse occurred and whether or not Channel 4 brought in security. At this point, I can't assume you're editing in WP:GOODFAITH, you're really just being WP:DISRUPTive. Feel free to revert my edits, but please at least explain why on the talk page, which you didn't do for the section further up (see the next talk page section below). Hentheden (talk) 13:24, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * But I'm really not. By that grammar and the lack of qualifiers, the Telegraph is reporting it as a fact, and not simply something that has been said that may be true or not. There is something wrong with the article reflecting that, because the wording explicitly casts doubt on whether or not the abuse occurred and whether or not Channel 4 brought in security. At this point, I can't assume you're editing in WP:GOODFAITH, you're really just being WP:DISRUPTive. Feel free to revert my edits, but please at least explain why on the talk page, which you didn't do for the section further up (see the next talk page section below). Hentheden (talk) 13:24, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Zaereth has accurately summarized my objection to "what he said were threats". We don't need to use "said" twice; attribution is already accomplished with one, and it does appear to cast specific doubt on the idea Newman received threats. With regards to attribution more broadly: the idea that repeating what the sources actually say is "reading too much into the grammar" is unconvincing to me and others, and reflects the confused nature of this dispute. The sources are not arrested of their normal ability to fact-check by quoting people from Channel 4; the view they are merely reporting what de Pear said, as opposed to the abuse that transpired, has yet to be supported by more than "it's obvious/clear". Iqbal also demonstrates that RS have continued to characterize the threats as credible after initial reports. — 0xf8e8 (t♥lk) 20:39, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, but I still think the wording I used was better ^^ - why do we need to use said at all, considering the telegraph article reports it as facts? Furthermore, Miki Filigranski, again, if you're going to revert my edit, then at least write something on the talk page. WP:CCC explicitly states that "Editors who revert a change proposed by an edit should generally avoid terse explanations (such as "against consensus") which provide little guidance to the proposing editor". When I get time, I'm going to escalate this (again?) to the noticeboard. Hentheden (talk) 00:47, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Spectator Life
What should be done with the statement: The interview brought her international attention and criticism for what were perceived to be repeated attempts to misrepresent Peterson's views. cited to this column by Douglas Murray in Spectator Life? I think this poses clear WP:BLPSTYLE issues, particularly because the sentence does not summarize secondary RS, but rather the characterization of Murray in an opinion column (and unattributed, at that). No RS seem to use the "international attention and criticism" language, either.— 0xf8e8 (t♥lk) 13:00, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I've removed it as WP:OR. The source is a straight opinion piece and so would not be reliable for factual statements, even if Murray mentioned anything about "international attention and criticism", which he doesn't exactly do. As for Murray's evaluation of the interview, I agree that it would need to be mentioned by a reliable secondary source to be relevant. As I've said before, the whole affair is textbook recentism; if the only sources examining Newman's role it in any depth are professional pundits making hay with the latest culture-war headlines, then it's too soon to include it in an encyclopedic biography. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:27, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The interview is notable because of its criticism, and media&public attention it was given (more than 8 million views on YouTube until 10 March), and both of them are not mentioned i.e. are repeatedly removed. Although there's some issue with the sourcing of the first (but wonder what's wrong with for e.g. The Washington Times, Toronto Star, Toronto Sun, Irish Independent), there is no issue with the second. In regard to the first, citing The Guardian specific source is outdated and ideologically polarizing - "Newman's approach to the interview was criticized by some commentators from right-wing websites, such as Douglas Murray and James Delingpole" - because many commentators, as cited in previous revision, were not from right-wing newspapers, it's factually wrong and not neutral to ignore the existence of so many sources from mainstream media (NYT, The Times, The Wallstreet Journal, The Atlantic, The Australian etc).--Miki Filigranski (talk) 16:35, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you mean "noteworthy", not "notable". On Wikipedia, Notability refers to whether or not a topic deserves its own article. But no, not everything that receives media attention or criticism is suitable for an encyclopedia. WP:BLP specifically requires secondary sources on "criticism or praise". Editorials and op-eds don't count as secondary sources, as I've already stated. YouTube views are likewise meaningless unless commented on by a reliable source. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:08, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * , thank you. I wonder what's going on here, what's so important about these minutia. Drmies (talk) 00:34, 11 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I am glad policies and guidelines are being included in this discussion. Overall, this discussion has been much more civilized than the previous 3rd opinion I participated in. I agree that secondary sources with BLP are very important (especially when it comes to praise or criticism, which btw "should be included"), however (as an aside) WP:BLP does not say that primary sources must not ever be used. It says
 * Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses. from WP:BLPPRIMARY


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


 * An exception to this would be the following...


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


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


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


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


 * Twitter, Google analytics, Youtube stats and the like would be most likely always be considered primary sources. With respect to this phrase (and this is usually important to specifically qualify this) this is clearly a secondary source. Let's look at the definitions:
 * A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources.


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


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


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


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


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


 * recentism was mentioned above. This is probably the best policy/guideline argument mentioned above in my opinion (although technically not a policy or guideline per se). I seriously considered this when putting together my 3rd opinion. My rationale against recentism was that this event put Cathy Newman into the international scene, perhaps for the first time. Also as mentioned above ::::Criticism and praise should be included ... from WP:BLPPRIMARY.  Dig deeper talk 01:55, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree. --hippo43 (talk) 03:51, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * That is the issue I recently discussed with Sangdeboeuf, the given interpretation of the policy was completely confusing for me. Now the issue is, for me, which of the two far more experienced editor's opinion is true. in regard to what you said above, can you review the "draft with references" found in discussion "Reduction of Peterson interview section" (mostly whether the RSs can be cited), and the discussion "Criticism" (only arguments presented by Sangdeboeuf and me)? I did not make an inquiry at BLP/N, as considered, because of lack of time.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 09:33, 11 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I have presented my argument for the material that I inserted, using Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I am not fond of the paradigm in which one editor is right and one is wrong. Principled negotiation rather than positional negotiations is more appropriate on Wikipedia. We focus on the central points (in this case "what is constitutes a secondary source" and "what constitutes a reliable source"). At the end of the day, we gather up all the arguments, policies and guidelines and ask ourselves what makes sense here and how can we come to a consensus. I think things are on the right track here. Using the 3rd opinion was a good second step. If after more discussion you feel you feel you've hit a stalemate, consider using dispute resolution noticeboard or request formal mediation. That is what they are there for. It's a straightforward process.
 * Rather than address each of the past arguments and sources mentioned above, I would simply suggest continuing move forward. "Given this new information, I would propose X, Y or Z" or "Given this new information, what do you propose we do?", etc. Every editor on Wikipedia is equal. I offered my 3rd opinion. I defended my edit. Provided some education. I'll monitor this page for a while, perhaps contribute on a formal mediation if it comes to that, but I'm not going to take over the discussion here. You are all doing things in the right way.
 * One more word on reliable sources. This is the opening line under reliable sources.
 * Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we publish the opinions  only of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves. The following examples cover only some of the possible types of reliable sources and source reliability issues, and are not intended to be exhaustive. Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense  and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process.
 * Common sense tells me that if several reputable news agencies commented on this particular point (Cathy Newman received international attention and criticism), whether in their opinion pages or elsewhere, this particular point can be safely considered a statement of fact. Large news agencies will often fact check the opinion pieces. The reputations of both the reporters and the news agency is on the line. Just because a statement of fact is found within an opinion piece (or a news piece that includes some opinions) does not necessarily make the source unreliable and unusable, especially on topics outside the sciences. This is a common misconception.  Dig deeper talk 20:07, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Just because a statement of fact is found within an opinion piece (or a news piece that includes some opinions) does not necessarily make the source unreliable and unusable – in that case you may want to suggest a change to WP:NEWSORG, which states essentially the opposite. Regarding WP:BLP, I would put the emphasis of Criticism and praise should be included... on what comes next, namely, if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources. I'm not sure Murray's essay is such a source. Reliability is determined partly by a source's reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, as you pointed out. Does The Spectator fact-check its opinion writers? I don't know, but this seems to be where "recentism" comes into play. If reliable news outlets don't directly mention international criticism (nor does Murray, although he is an example of it), then I believe we should adhere to the "do no harm" principle per ARBBLP and minimize mention of this controversy pending more authoritative sourcing, and should certainly not make an exception to an established guideline in this case – that looks like simple POV-pushing. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:12, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with Sangdeboeuf. Opinion pieces are defined as primary by policy (No original research), which is mentioned in the very page Dig deeper links above, hence the objection on BLPSTYLE grounds I mentioned earlier. With regards to recentism, let me offer an analogy. Several conservative op-ed writers have leveled criticism at statements by Nancy Pelosi. Some of these criticisms are from well-regarded magazines: there are even those in The Spectator! This doesn't mean we're obligated to report Nancy Pelosi celebrated the bill's defeat, though critics said fact anti-government Republicans had halted the bill in her article; to do so would be to give undue weight to a controversy not mentioned in RS. In this way, recentism is a matter of relative importance, not media attention: a journalist or politician's interview might traverse the Anglosphere for a few days and draw criticism, but the criticism but a footnote in their overall career. Unless we have a body of RS which describes Newman's interview as drawing "international attention and criticism", it would be premature to add such a judgment to the article. Murray doesn't even claim that in his piece--he says she became internationally famous through the interview and was criticized, not that she received criticism internationally. I think it might be advisible to revisit this in the coming months, if more reliable sources become available, but the existing sourcing doesn't seem to justify mention. — 0xf8e8 (t♥lk) 23:18, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * ...you may want to suggest a change to WP:NEWSORG, which states essentially the opposite. I stand by what I wrote. "Rarely" is not the same as never. If multiple sources are saying the same thing, common sense should prevail.
 * If the concern is with the phrase "international criticism", I would also be comfortable with "...criticism and international attention...". This was the meaning I was trying to get across. Antecedent "international" was intended for "attention" not necessarily criticism.
 * The sentence I added was phrased carefully in NPOV. POV-pushing is clearly not seen in the sentence I added. Avoiding criticism and praise on the other hand could. No harm also does not apply to my sentence.
 * As I mentioned earlier, editors often assume that if old facts are presented with new commentary they are primary sources, whereas copy-pasted work with no commentary is secondary. This common misconception is not at all accurate. See WP:LINKSINACHAIN Churnalism and WP:ALLPRIMARY.
 * I'm also curious to know what would consider as an alternative.
 * Would the phrase "attention and international attention" be acceptable?  Dig deeper talk 22:50, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Dig deeper, it may be true that "rarely does not mean never", but I'm not sure we've established reason to use this source here. News blogs, attributed statements, and expert opinion are all important exceptions to NEWSORG, but none of those apply in this case. "Criticism and international attention" is definitely an improvement, but I still think the sourcing is inadequate. While it is true that The Spectator sometimes does secondary work and it's important to avoid lazy assumptions about primary/secondary, opinion pieces are defined as primary in No original research, as mentioned in the page you linked earlier. I don't see how your points address a BLPSTYLE objection. — 0xf8e8 (t♥lk) 23:39, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

It seems really clear that this interview attracted a great deal of attention and criticism, otherwise it wouldn't be in the article and we wouldn't be discussing it. We can argue over different interpretations of these policie, but we still have to use common sense and judgment. A statement along the lines of "attracted international attention and criticism" is not really contentious here, and doesn't contravene BLPSTYLE as far as I can see. --hippo43 (talk) 00:41, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * If it's "really clear", then it should be trivial to find a reliable, secondary source discussing it. Otherwise, it's at best recentist fluff or original synthesis, and at worst character assassination, to describe some vague "criticism" of Newman. "It's in the article; therefore it's important" makes no sense at all, since anyone can create and edit a Wikipedia article about anything. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:11, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Pathetic argument, and both of you are constantly ignoring the existence of other sources. The discussion is not only about The Spectator. The cited reference by The Observer described the interview "Cathy Newman’s interview with University of Toronto professor Jordan Peterson, who was promoting his new book 12 Rules for Life: an Antidote to Chaos, went viral after Channel 4 posted the full 30-minute footage online last Tuesday. It has been watched almost two million times on YouTube and attracted nearly 50,000 comments. Many are highly critical of Newman, who declared on Twitter that she had “thoroughly enjoyed” the “bout” with Peterson, considered one of Canada’s leading intellectuals. A large number of the comments criticised Newman’s approach to the interview, accusing her of being a “social justice warrior” with a preconceived and misplaced grasp of Peterson’s views": the reasoning why Peterson was in the UK, was interviewed by C4, and the fact the discussed topics were those which were in his book - nope, the mention of the book is WP:PROMO; the interview is notable because it attracted such a huge public attention, as well public and professional criticism because the way it was conducted by Newman - nope, the attempts to included the number of YouTube views with various secondary RS sources is removed without proper substantiation, while the mention of the criticism, in general, or specifically public/professional, is constantly removed due to interpretation of the editing principles with which some editors (majority?) in discussion do not agree with. Again, we ignore other RS which were previously cited and discussed.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 14:49, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I've added a mention of the YouTube comments per The Observer. But this is not at all the same as "public and professional criticism". YouTube's comments section is notorious as the most toxic on the Web, and is not exactly stocked with professional journalists. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:32, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I believe we all know to which part, "public" or "professional", YouTube comments belong to...--Miki Filigranski (talk) 17:41, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless, no reliable, secondary source that I've seen refers to any "professional criticism"; that part is OR. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:51, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Do I have to remind you that we have more than several RS by mainstream media with professional criticism and opinion? Don't push the line of calling that OR.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 18:23, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Miki, I understand this discussion is frustrating for you but I would nonetheless request you remain civil and avoid calling other editor's comments "pathetic". It's clear you disagree strongly with other editors, but consensus is built through compromise and agreement, not intensity of exasperation. So far, there have been three editors who disagree with adding the sentence (myself,, and )) and three (including you) who disagree with us; there is no clear majority. The complaints mentioned above do detail specifically with The Spectator source, as it was what we were discussing, but most of the points apply to criticism mentioned in The Observer as well: as news reporting is primary source material, we shouldn't rely on it for describing criticism (BLPSTYLE). News articles (in this case, published a mere five days after the interview) regularly include such off-the-cuff reactions when describing recent events, but it is not our goal to summarize the reaction of every talking head and Youtube commenter in the Anglosphere. That doesn't mean we seek to "constantly remove" anything added, just that we exercise appropriate scrutiny in presenting only criticism in secondary RS. — 0xf8e8 (t♥lk) 17:57, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why are you making it sound personal? Yes, it's pathetic when common sense is ignored. Sorry, but as far I have seen Drmies did not make any such statement so I would advise you to stop making false claims in the name of others. That is not CIVIL. We are not summarizing, nor ever was any intention, of "every talking head and YouTube commenter". That's a straw man, again, because we have sources, and have current sentence version proposed by editor Dig deeper.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 18:23, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Please don't accuse me of "making false claims in the name of others". As you can easily check, commented above in support of the removal of the statement on "international attention and criticism": Sangdeboeuf, thank you. I wonder what's going on here, what's so important about these minutia. The atmosphere of this conversation is running a bit hot: other editor's arguments are not "pathetic" because you disagree with them. Lob as many adjectives as you like, but it inflames both sides of the issue and harms efforts to build consensus. What is common sense to you might not be to others, and suggesting other editors lack common sense is not helpful. You suggest I've strawmmaned you, but the proposed sentences are vague, generalized descriptions of criticism sourced to primary material. The description of this vagueness as "summarizing every talking head and YouTube commenter" is a bit hyperbolic, but it nonetheless captures my objection: we're trying to summarize a number of criticisms only found in primary sources without seriously considering BLPSTYLE. — 0xf8e8  (t♥lk) 19:20, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * As an editor, I would never dare to speak on others behalf and interpret their vague statements in which "wonder" as Yes or No answers. That's unacceptable. Yes, specific arguments can be described as pathetic because are against common sense we all have contrary to the opinions, and yet again you are making strawman that I suggested that other editors lack common sense.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 09:53, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * We could always just ask Drmies what they think; that's why I pinged them. From the context of the above discussion, it seems clear they supported Sangdeboeuf's removal of the statement "international attention and criticism"; it would definitely be odd to thank Sangdeboeuf for removing it and then describe it as "minutia" if they believed it should stay. "You don't lack common sense, your opinions are just contrary to it" is a distinction without a difference. You have offered no real justification in policy for your reply, and instead focused your limited time on reiussing "pathetic" and making extremely vague appeals to common sense. What is your actual argument? — 0xf8e8 (t♥lk) 14:44, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I am not pushing any line. The policy on original research is clear: Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves. It doesn't matter how many professional critics and talking heads line up to weigh in on the controversy (that's their job, after all). Any summary of the criticism itself needs to be directly attributable to a published source. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:57, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * We both know what you said, which sources we discussed before, and still, you want to depict it as OR. I am speechless. What is the point of making further comments about OR? This is becoming a pathetic vicious circle of pointless and unconstructive arguments. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 09:53, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * A word to the wise: contributors who lack a basic grasp of policy and can barely write a coherent sentence in English should be wary of calling others' statements "pathetic", since they risk looking extremely foolish. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:02, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * User:0xF8E8 read me correctly. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 18:32, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the comment added by "The interview became a viral phenomenon on YouTube, and many commenters online were critical of Newman." is a pretty good compromise. I think it would be more ideal to say why, but at least this puts the rest of the paragraph into better context. Thank you.
 * There are many ways to try to reach WP:Consensus. My last 3rd opinion on Talk:Macedonia naming dispute was a good example of me intervening on a less than productive discussion. I hope this discussion does not move in that direction.
 * A secondary source, by definition, includes the author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources.. Accurately summarizing a secondary source (i.e. not plagiarizing) would not be considered OR or synthesis on the part of the Wikipedia editor. Not accurately summarizing the authors views would be considered OR/synthesis. a productive next step would perhaps be to provide (or provide again) a clip of the news article you summarized to defend your point on "professional criticism".  Dig deeper talk 01:20, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * A secondary source, by definition, includes the author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources – I would clarify that not all secondary sources are reliable sources, especially for BLP articles. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:30, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * the "professional criticism" constituted the analysis/evaluation as well opinion about the victimhood narrative, see for the references in the discussion "Reduction of Peterson interview section" above. However they were removed according to previous discussion(s) in which was a debate about whether they are or not secondary sources. One analysis was mentioned by other RS, which gives it weight - it was by Conor Friedersdorf in The Atlantic, which was mentioned in [NYT] as 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 ... Peterson calmly and comprehensibly corrected and rebutted her. It is the most devastatingly one-sided media confrontation you will ever see or NR 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. Other secondary sources, for example Irish Independent, give similar description about the interview Anyone who saw his now infamous interview on Channel 4 News with Cathy Newman would have witnessed a calm and measured individual easily batting away Newman's misrepresentations of what he had said in the past.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 12:55, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I will repeat that the above (including The Irish Independent) are opinion pieces and primary sources for the authors' views, not reliable for factual statements. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:14, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * . Is there a different word/phrase you would be comfortable with that might be more palatable to others?  Dig deeper talk 18:14, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * As previously mentioned, we do have sources which report the existence of criticism for example, The Guardian The combative Channel 4 interview led to praise for Peterson and criticism for Newman on some right-leaning sites. James Delingpole, a Breitbart columnist, said the interview marked a “pivotal victory in the culture wars” and that the “weaknesses of the regressive left have never been more cruelly or damningly expose”. Douglas Murray in the Spectator said: “I don’t think I have ever witnessed an interview that is more catastrophic for the interviewer.”, or Mic The interview was a disaster for Newman. For a half-hour, Newman peppered Peterson with assertions about his beliefs, misquoting Peterson back to himself. In a discussion about the gender pay gap, she continually tried to catch him in his sexism, employing the phrase “so what you’re really saying is...” followed by bold mischaracterizations of his comments as he lucidly recited statistics and anecdotes from his work as a clinical psychologist ... 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?”. In the currently cited The Guardian and Toronto Star is mentioned that A large number of the comments criticised Newman’s approach to the interview, accusing her of being a “social justice warrior” with a preconceived and misplaced grasp of Peterson’s views or In addition to the reported threats, Peterson’s followers suggested that Newman was “putting words in his mouth”, but although do not think it would be appropriate to base the criticism only on online commenters i.e. "why" they were critical, however, one reasoning of both online commenters and journalists/columnists is reportedly the same - repeated misrepresentation of what he said. Don't know how much it is neutral to say that these journalists/columnists were "right-leaning" or "conservative" because only some of them are on that spectrum. In conclusion, and according to your example from 3rd opinion, would propose a change of sentence to "The interview became a viral phenomenon on YouTube, and many commenters online and columnists were critical of Newman misrepresenting Peterson" or if need attribution "The interview became a viral phenomenon on YouTube, and many commenters online were critical of Newman. Some conservative columnists like Conor Friedersdorf considered that she repeatedly misrepresented Peterson".--Miki Filigranski (talk) 17:42, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Breitbart News is not a source to use here, imo. I would be fine with Some conservative columnists like Conor Friedersdorf considered that she repeatedly misrepresented Peterson. More precise than "professional criticism".  Dig deeper talk 19:26, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * There was no mention for the use of Breitbart, while the "professional criticism" was only mentioned in the discussion to separate it from "public criticism", the term was not mentioned to be used in the article. Alright, and others, what's your opinion?--Miki Filigranski (talk) 20:58, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I think this is a ridiculously long discussion over tiny little gossipy things. Does that help? Drmies (talk) 17:07, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No, it does not help anyhow, nor is appropriate to consider such criticism as "little gossip".--Miki Filigranski (talk) 23:51, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * that is your opinion. Others are free to "consider" the sources as anything they want. I agree with that the "criticism" is not noteworthy here. Columnists write opinions about whatever is in the news – that's their job. Unless specifically commented on by reliable, secondary sources, focusing on such material is not encyclopedic. See WP:SOAPBOX and WP:RECENTISM. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:20, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * regarding your edit and edit summary opinion, see this discussion and two proposed sentences of which one is similar to yours.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 17:26, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was about to self-revert upon seeing this ping. But thanks anyway (not that rollback is suitable for undoing my edit). I haven't yet finished reading this whole discussion thread, can you please specify which two sentences are proposed? I think the word "international" is unacceptable. Maybe something like "criticised by media organisations and online commenters"? I think Friedersdorf is worth mentioning, Sam Harris may be worth mentioning if cited in a third-party source, I think NR is factual enough, Breitbart certainly can be ignored. feminist (talk) 17:39, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The sentences are: "The interview became a viral phenomenon on YouTube, and many commenters online and columnists were critical of Newman misrepresenting Peterson", or if need attribution, "The interview became a viral phenomenon on YouTube, and many commenters online were critical of Newman. Some conservative columnists like Conor Friedersdorf considered that she repeatedly misrepresented Peterson".--Miki Filigranski (talk) 17:51, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, I see which two sentences you proposed. I think attribution is necessary if we are citing to opinion pieces. However, as you said, e.g. the Observer article (which is not an opinion piece) mentions Many are highly critical of Newman. Based on this source, I would propose a change from and many commenters online were critical of Newman (currently in the article) to "and many were critical of Newman". This should not be controversial. Suggesting that it's only online misogynists who criticised Newman misrepresents the criticism she has received. feminist (talk) 17:56, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, the three sources you cited that mention criticism are opinion pieces i.e. blogs. Per WP:BLPSPS, these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. NR is unusable (can't trust Ben Shapiro and more importantly he certainly isn't subject to National Review's full editorial control). NYT and Irish Independent should be usable, Ian O'Doherty considers the evidence suggests that the newspaper has editorial control. But specify the authors. feminist (talk) 18:01, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I do not think the Spectator Life source is usable. I would support the second sentence, i.e. the one with attribution, though there is no need to specify the political views of the sources cited. I think the Atlantic article and the Irish Independent article, though technically not news articles, are subject to the editorial control of the publication and would meet WP:BLPSPS: Friedersdorf is a staff writer, and Indo Review is at the bottom of the Irish Independent article. Hence I would suggest something like The interview became a viral phenomenon on YouTube, and many commenters online and some columnists were critical of Newman. Conor Friedersdorf of The Atlantic and Ian O'Doherty of The Irish Independent considered that she repeatedly misrepresented Peterson during the interview feminist (talk) 18:17, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, how would Some columnists, including Conor Friedersdorf of The Atlantic and Ian O'Doherty of the Irish Independent, criticised Newman's "misrepresentations" of what Peterson said in the interview. fail BLPSTYLE? If anything, many commenters online were critical of Newman would be WP:UNDUE. feminist (talk) 05:30, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * as stated above, "criticism" requires a reliable, secondary source per WP:BLP. To synthesize material from primary sources (opinion columns) critical of Newman would be original research. I could find you an equal number of columnists who were "supportive" of Newman, but until a reliable, secondary source specifically comments on it, that too would be giving undue weight to primary sources. BLPs are certainly not the place for weasel words ("some columnists") or selective quoting of sources ("misrepresentations"). —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:22, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Here's another RS by The Washington Times which calls the interview "famous" (noteworthy), in which "Cathy Newman she adopted a relentlessly adversarial stance toward Mr. Peterson and unfailingly twisted his words ... interpretation time and again ... such misinterpretation..." with mention of previously cited The Atlantic, In a piece that broke down some of the exchanges between Mr. Peterson and Ms. Newman, The Atlantic asked, “Why can’t people hear what Jordan Peterson is saying?” giving it additional weight.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 01:14, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * just out of curiosity, what gives you the impression that a piece in The Unification Church's The Washington Times, polemically titled "Jordan Peterson's refusal to kowtow to modern liberal pieties makes him a star – and a marked man", is a reliable source for BLP material? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:08, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Because J. Varney is a staff member, he mostly reports, and quotes what others said, or happened? You imply this is not an RS, and why? How UC has anything to do with the reliability of every source they publish?--Miki Filigranski (talk) 15:38, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not a matter of "every source they publish"; the reliablility of any individual piece is contextual. The Washington Times is generally borderline (see RS/N discussion here). But pure reliability isn't really the operative factor here: the piece only says The Atlantic "broke down" the exchanges, and gives little space to Friedersdorf's criticisms. Depending on how you want to use the source, weight and synthesis issues come to fore. What summary do you expect us to draw from this? — 0xf8e8 (t♥lk) 18:36, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Currently, on 27 March, there are four editors in support and three against the inclusion of the sentence or part of the sentence, with the main issue not even being the content, but the different interpretation of editing policy by Sangdebouef and Dig deeper. I would call out  to find common ground in the policy or simply take the policy issue to the adequate noticeboard to get an answer once and for all because we will not make any progress this way.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 18:25, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Cathy is a public figure. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it  Dig deeper talk 02:06, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware we were on a first-name basis with our article subject. As for the allegation(s) in question, whether they are "noteworthy" and "well-documented" is exactly the point of contention here. I for one do not believe that a handful of talking heads citing each others' opinion pieces makes the incident "noteworthy", let alone "well-documented". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:54, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Exactly: if anything, the above discussion of increasingly has demonstrated that op-ed criticisms are poorly documented. The secondary coverage is just not there, and I don't think it will prove productive to attempt to squeeze SYNTHy summaries out of what's been presented. WP:PUBLICFIGURE helpfully says: If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. — 0xf8e8 (t♥lk) 19:50, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The article's subsection on the event is, imo, better than it was, but the article seems to censor the common criticism as well as the fact that many (mostly conservative) commentators expressed. The arguments for censoring the critics and the specifics of the criticism lack substance in my opinion.
 * There seem to be a misunderstanding as to what synthesis is. Including WP:INTEXT citation to a summary is not synthesis or original research. Paraphrasing is necessary in Wikipedia, and, as stated above, common sense should prevail.
 * To say that the phrase "some columnists, such as __, say.." with references to support the statement falls under "weasel words" is not a correct application of WP:weasel. If there were no citations to support the claim, then it very well might qualify as weasel. What is the alternative? Never use the word "some" and use intext citation mentioning every reference? That would make Wikipedia articles very awkward to read; unfortunately many contentious articles usually end up like this. One might argue that criticizing WP:INTEXT citation as synthesis on the one hand and criticizing the lack of WP:INTEXT citation as weasel on the other hand may be an example of status quo stonewalling.
 * The references Miki Filigranski provided seems to demonstrate well that this common criticism is well documented, despite the dismissive claims to the contrary by 0xF8E8.
 * There still seems to be a misunderstanding of what a primary and a secondary source is. See the definition above.
 * The amount of reliable, third party secondary sources given demonstrates that it is noteworthy. To censor out the specific criticism from journalist (albeit mostly right leaning) creates a positive point of view of Cathy rather than a NPOV.
 * If the expectation that a noteworthy, reliable, secondary source (with respect to the specific criticism) must be found in only in a left-leaning publication; this is not appropriate.  Dig deeper talk 18:19, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, but can't add anything much besides what already said. I see other editors are not responding. At this point, the only two options are to make a bold edit with a possible revert (which again is some kind of a move forward), or endless discussion about editing policy (with possible discussion at noticeboard).--Miki Filigranski (talk) 09:04, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Be bold. Might prompt some discussion/progress. --hippo43 (talk) 02:31, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I restored what was originally written by, with the exception of adding the word "conservative", as a good faith compromise to those opposed. The sentence was originally reverted. The reasons for the revert, given above, were without merit. My rationale immediately follows their rationale above. I also moved the last sentence to immediately follow the criticism for better paragraph flow.  Dig deeper talk 00:29, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * As noted above, "criticism" requires reliable, secondary sources, not editorials or op-eds. Friedersdorf's and Ian O'Doherty's pieces are primary sources for the authors' opinions. In particular, it's not clear what makes O'Doherty's opinion noteworthy here. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:11, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Apologies for not responding sooner here--I think the earlier ping failed for whatever reason. I'm not sure what misunderstanding there is—we consider opinion pieces primary, as specified in the examples of primary sources given in our policy on original research. With regards to synthesis, has anyone here has suggested that in-text attribution is synthesis? What I'm wary of is trying to divine generalized descriptions of what critical reaction to the interview was about—we should leave such summaries to the existing secondary sources.
 * The references provided by Filigranski don't really seem to demonstrate much: Mic (formerly PolicyMic) lacks editorial oversight, and has previously been rejected on RS/N, and The Washington Times only briefly mentions Friedersdorf et al. wrote pieces on the interview, not that they criticized Newman. I'm a bit puzzled about the "left-leaning sources" comment: we already use some conservative sources, e.g. The Times and The Daily Telegraph, we just avoid op-eds. Happy to listen to any further ideas, or get outside input. —0xf8e8 (talk) 20:54, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Apologies for not responding sooner here--I think the earlier ping failed for whatever reason. I'm not sure what misunderstanding there is—we consider opinion pieces primary, as specified in the examples of primary sources given in our policy on original research. With regards to synthesis, has anyone here has suggested that in-text attribution is synthesis? What I'm wary of is trying to divine generalized descriptions of what critical reaction to the interview was about—we should leave such summaries to the existing secondary sources.
 * The references provided by Filigranski don't really seem to demonstrate much: Mic (formerly PolicyMic) lacks editorial oversight, and has previously been rejected on RS/N, and The Washington Times only briefly mentions Friedersdorf et al. wrote pieces on the interview, not that they criticized Newman. I'm a bit puzzled about the "left-leaning sources" comment: we already use some conservative sources, e.g. The Times and The Daily Telegraph, we just avoid op-eds. Happy to listen to any further ideas, or get outside input. —0xf8e8 (talk) 20:54, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Views on sexism
I disagree with Hippo's removal of the section on her views on online trolls, I believe it is relevant to the paragraph above. I therefore reverted it, per WP:BRD. Let's discuss! Hentheden (talk) 00:14, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that 's edit was an improvement here (diff), in that it gives the reader context in terms of Newman's own exposure to sexism in her career. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:07, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Scare quotes on "Ushering"
Hi! If no one has anything against it, I'll go ahead and remove the scare quotes on ushering - it really doesn't look great having scare quotes in a subtitle, but I can't find anything for or against them in the WP:MOS. Hentheden (talk) 14:57, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I've removed the section entirely. It wasn't clear whether there was any controversy, or what the 2015 "Visit My Mosque Day" incident had to do with Newman or anything else – she tweeted something that turned out to be wrong, and later apologized for it – why should any reader care? That's not encylopedic material. Wikipedia is not a compendium of every time someone is in the news for something or other. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:02, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I strongly oppose this removal. It is VERY likely, that she claimed people from mosque have ushered her out to gain controversy (if you think it was honestly a mistake, you've must've never encountered or observed British press) and that se wanted get media attention and play on islamophobic feelings of the people. Look at this article before you make a decision: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/feb/12/mosque-deeply-disappointed-by-cathy-newmans-reaction Her comments were in fact rude and were taken with disappointment by mosque representatives. This might have been a play on islamophobia. And enough to mention as controversy. A reader will care to know, if the journalist in question is honest or not. Let's not blame her for that in the article, but let the "ushering" be known. Also this controversy piece was here way before Peterson scandal, so no it's not the case of "evil alt-right Peterson's fans trying to make poor Cathy look bad", at least with this section. I don't see objective reasons to take this incident out. We've already taking out the "trolling", now the "ushering", next the Peterson incident? Are you sure this is not biased editing with clear agenda to whitewash this journalist? FreedomGonzo (talk) 21:57, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Also don't support the removal. If there's an opinion for such an action it should be discussed.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 22:26, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Also don't support removal. --hippo43 (talk) 01:56, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

It seems this discussion has been conducted backwards; the onus for getting consensus is on those seeking to include material, not those who remove it. The rationale presented by FreedomGonzo doesn't seem based in policy. We don't determine what we do or don't include on the basis of whether we think it's "very likely" something shows a journalist was dishonest. We look to include material based on reliable, secondary sources, appropriately weighted to their prominence in the sources. There may be a place for a brief, neutral description of the mosque incident, but it gives undue weight to place it in an entire section of its own. — 0xf8e8 (t♥lk) 04:51, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * +1 to what said. Hentheden (talk) 16:28, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 0xF8E8 is misrepresenting ONUS. It does not say that after material has been included for some time, any editor who doesn't like it can insist on it being removed. That is just editing to make a point. This has been in the article for nearly 3 years, indicating a degree of consensus. Yes, consensus can change, but unless it does, the section should stay. --hippo43 (talk) 17:03, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * That's not how consensus works: Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus (emphasis mine). The mosque apology material has been removed by two editors now, indicating a clear dispute. WP:CONTENTAGE is irrelevant. When it comes to BLPs, the rule is to remove disputed content until a decision to include is is reached, as I've mentioned before. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:38, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Once again, the material gives undue weight to a trivial incident, one which is not given any context in terms of Newman's life or career. No one has so far suggested any reliable sources that place the incident in such context. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:03, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The fact that Cathy Newman not only mentioned it recently, but went so far as to go into significant detail about it clearly demonstrates that this is a relevant moment in her life. . Thus, WP:UNDUE does not apply here. If this is the only argument for removing it, then it should be restored. If there is another rationale, please share it.  Dig deeper talk 02:02, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Weight is given based on prominence in reliable, independent, published sources. The article subject's personal views are irrelevant for the purposes of assigning due weight. Which reliable, published sources explain why this incident is relevant? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:11, 13 April 2018 (UTC)