This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles Journalism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Women writers Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This is one of those many tenuous biography pages with not a syllable of notability in the lead. And the rest, so far as I skimmed, seems more like personal biography than notable deeds.

Plus there's this very bad, no good, terrible tense change, sculpted around an intrusive, cleft-sentence, participle clause–like thing.

She was nine when her mother died. A home-maker who had helped run a playgroup, she was terminally ill with cancer.

Note that the first 'was' and the second 'was' are attached to different subjects. — MaxEnt 16:34, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed issue, I think. Philip Cross (talk) 18:28, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue agains the claim that Decca Aitkenhead caused controversy by her article about Jordan Peterson. The paragraph says that Peterson did not like what she wrote - that is hardly a controversy. And if it is controversy, then Peterson can be very well cause of it by not accepting the text. There is no source to prove Aitkenhead did anything other than the standard journalistic job. The paragraph is based completely on the frame Peterson offered. I mean look at that paragraph. There is nothing more than: "She caused controversy because Jordan Peterson said the text was bad." This is ridiculous. If this paragraph needs to exist, then the claim must be based on something other than Jordan Peterson claiming it is true (and articles that repeat he claims so) - there is no independant text about any specific mistake or wrongdoing of Aitkenhead. English is not my first language so I would prefer someone else to do the edit and I think it is necessary to get rid of the implication that any action of Aitkenhead is out of the ordinary until there is independant source other than the man who claims he is the target of the controversy. 88.103.227.5 (talk) 00:26, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, she absolutely did. She's a vicious left-wing propagandist, and her slanderous attack on Petersen is the zenith of her career. Nobody of note will ever give her an interview in the future, knowing what she just did to Petersen. 2601:647:4F00:7D:7D3E:EE7D:3530:138D (talk) 17:24, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

yo. there is full audio that she FABRICATED "facts" like the diagnosis. there was NO diagnosis that said shizophrenia, it was said as an example for the symptomes from the ailment you can get from those drugs.

look at the paragraph. then look at the ORIGINAL AUDIO RECORDING (well, hear at) and THEN come back and revise your statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:CC:B705:287:8F6:207C:D55E:22D0 (talk) 06:52, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is not how sources work... You need an source of that analysis and that statement - you cannot expect the statement and analysis to be self-explanatory. This is not r/peterson.

88.103.227.5 (talk) 14:33, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed a "controversy" section. The sourcing is really bad (a personal website and a YouTube clip from a person involved in the controversy, the New York Post tabloid, and the right-wing Washington Times, the opinion magazine The Spectator). In the absence of any mainstream coverage of this "controversy" I don't see why this is a major aspect of the subject's life. This strikes me as quite recentistic: it is about a recent (Jan. 2021) controversy that did not attract broad notice. Moreover, criticism sections are in general disfavored, especially on BLPs.

I bring it to the talk page for discussion; absent a firm consensus for inclusion, it must of course not be in the article (WP:ONUS, WP:BLP). Neutrality^talk 23:37, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You neglected to mention that the Toronto Star, Canada's highest-circulation newspaper, also had an article on the subject. I do agree, though, that a "Controversy" header for that paragraph is unnecessary. I think the paragraph should be there, but simply as another paragraph. Korny O'Near (talk) 02:15, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The best source is one interview in the books section of the newspaper — that seems undue weight to me. It's a Feb. 3 article about a Jan. 30 mini-controversy. I don't see how this is biographically significant to Aitkenhead. I'm struggling to see the lasting impact. Neutrality^talk 02:35, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, "lasting impact" is a pretty severe test, and I don't believe that's a Wikipedia guideline. By that metric, probably this entire article could be removed (no offense to Ms. Aitkenhead). Press coverage aside, I do think that the fact that (a) she was chosen to write the big comeback press story about a bestselling author, and (b) she ended up antagonizing the author and causing him to cancel his press tour, are notable aspects of her career. Korny O'Near (talk) 03:13, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted your re-insertion of this content. There is no consensus for inclusion of this content - "rough" or otherwise - and in any case, as you know, there is a heightened standard for BLPs. (Half of the sourcing also is garbage - deprecated sources like the Post Millennial, low-quality unreliable sources like the Washington Times, etc.). Neutrality^talk 02:41, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to say for sure where the consensus is, but looking through the page history, it looks like there at least five editors with a substantial editing history who have added to and/or edited the paragraph on the Jordan Peterson controversy, while only one (you) has tried to remove it. And even if half the sourcing is "garbage", the other half is not - including, again, the Toronto Star. I've also found another article on the subject that's not yet cited - this one, from the National Post, another major Canadian newspaper. I'm fine with removing the citation of the Post Millenial. As for the Washington Times, it's not unreliable; there's currently no consensus as to its reliability. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:57, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, we don't reckon consensus according to number of times a piece of text has been "touched" by editors. We especially don't do so on BLPs. You support this content, I have challenged it; you have not shown the requisite high bar of consensus to include it. As for the Washington Times, it's a lousy source, and we don't use borderline sources for anything contentious. (WP:BLP: "We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"; "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced"). As for the article in the National Post, this seems like minor coverage of a mini-controversy: Aitkenhead gets a few sentences of a mention. I don't think this shows biographical significance. Neutrality^talk 17:08, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think would prove consensus, short of an RFC? And what exactly do you think is contentious about this information? All the facts seem pretty unambiguous: she wrote a fairly negative profile, he was unhappy about it. The only contentious part, as far as I can tell, is whether this information is important enough to include in the article. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:50, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's "contentious" both because there's a dispute over inclusion and because the material relates to a BLP controversy. In any case, I think it's undue weight. People are dissatisfied with media coverage and complain about it all the time. That doesn't mean we enshrine the grievances in various writers' Wikipedia biographies. Neutrality^talk 19:45, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think would prove consensus? Korny O'Near (talk) 20:14, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's like defining "reasonable doubt" - not really quantifiable. Wikipedia:Consensus has more. But however one defines it, the proposed inclusion in this specific case is far short of consensus. Neutrality^talk 20:42, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't appear to be a whole lot in this section saying what controversy. What about her infamous Jordan Peterson interview? Even speaking as I am as somebody who reacts to Jordan Peterson with some distaste the tone and content of The Sunday Times article was distorted, sinister and off-colour. Falsely claiming he is a diagnosed schizophrenic, portraying him as a drug addict controlled by his daughter, and omitting anything of report about what he does or stands for. This is after recordings emerged of Aitkenhead lulling him into a false-sense of security, offering him the chance to set the record straight then proceeding to callously write another hatchet-job on him. At a guess the experience will put Peterson off doing interviews for a considerable length of time, and it would surprised me if, alongside producing a distorted and inaccurate profile of him, warding him off future interviews was not precisely the intention. About her precise intentions I can of course only speculate but there was certainly widespread protest and complaint, amongst which were two response videos, one from his own YouTube channel of a complete transcript of the information traded during the interview, and another from his daughter complaining of dishonesty, distortion and untruth. Doesn't this qualify as "controversy"? Reading the objections below I don't believe the mere fact the incident was ignored by the media at large much diminishes the public outcry which followed. I don't accept that the general coldness and ignorance of the media to a topic is a reliable guide. The mass media largely ignore Holocene-extinction too, that hardly implies the issue is trivial. Vapourmile (talk) 20:06, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I happen to have made the edit on this talk page from June 2018 wondering out loud where the notability was hiding. Indeed, as one of the participants in the frozen RfC pointed out, she's lucky to have a page at all (though I do find the current article closer to clearing the bar than it was back when I encountered it in June 2018).

My original encounter with this page resulted from her interview with Peter Higgs, the physicist. As someone interested in physics, I am well acquainted with Eric Weinstein, and from that hub much of the now largely defunct IDW as well, in particular Jordan Peterson, so I feel qualified to speak to this issue from both sides. My entry point into this micro-culture tracks back to Dawkins and Dennett in the 1980s, Hitchens and Harris post 9/11, then more recently Peterson, Dave Rubin, Bret and Eric Weinstein, Rogan, Douglas Murray, and then to some of the crowd associated with Rebel Wisdom (where the lead voice, David Fuller, a direct participant behind the scenes in the Cathy Newman controversy takes largely the same view of Dave Rubin as I did—a little too free and easy with loose canons for moral comfort).

I find Douglas Murray to be one of the leveler heads in this world, and he does a reasonable job of laying out the complaints from Jordan's side.

• Hit-job journalism misses the target again — 5 February 2021

From the Wikipedia perspective, the problem is that the vast majority of the coverage online—that I've managed to bump into—comes directly from Jordan and Mikhaila through their own media presence, or is a second-hand source basically quotes them talking about themselves. I've never seen a definite treatment of their maladies which documents their narratives to the standard of a BLP article. Even Douglas Murray seems to be taking the joint Peterson history somewhat on faith.

During [ed: her account of] the interview, Aitkenhead made a number of serious errors — including the claim that Peterson had been diagnosed with schizophrenia. It was immediately repeated in newspapers around the world, before the Peterson family posted a recording of the interview, showing that it was incorrect.

That kind of error falls miles short of Wikipedia's BLP standard. It's exactly the kind of ghastly error that Wikipedia's BLP standard exists to prevent.

But I don't think this by itself rises to the level of controversy. At this point all we have is a harsh treatment with abject quality control, which is hardly news in the world of news.

But then we have the original solicitation, as reported by Jordan on his own blog:

Hi Mikhaila

I hope you're well.

I don't think we've worked together before – I'm a commissioning editor at the Sunday Times Magazine in London, I wanted to get in touch about a potential interview, when the time is right, with your father, Jordan Peterson.

We have been following his story closely over the past weeks – and hoping that he is doing better. It is such an exhausting, uncompromising virus. It must be an incredibly stressful period for you all. When the time feels right, we would love to send one of our writers to speak with him for the Magazine. I like to think we tell difficult stories with generous space, time and objectivity. We run longform features, telling the whole story, rather than short flashy headlines.

The interview would cover his life and career to date, family life, illness, recovery, and upcoming plans and projects for the future.

It would allow you to clear up any factual inaccuracies that might have been reported in the press, telling his side of the story, as well as celebrating his life and career so far.

Let me know what you think. I have attached some interview examples here, so you can get an idea of what it might look like.

It would be great to talk.

Best wishes

Megan

This simply isn't what finally resulted when the interview was published. Maybe this isn't controversial after just one instance, but as a repeated journalistic M.O. it would rise to the level of controversy in short order.

However, again the Wikipedia perspective we have a sourcing issue. More about Jordan from Jordan. Not good enough for documenting a "controversial" status.

Besides, Peterson wasn't precisely promised objectivity due to that slippery "I like to think" phrasing (probably should have been a warning sign).

The National Post article recounts the story from Jordan's side, without appearing to do any journalistic checking or corroboration of the events Peterson offers.

Where you finally land is something like this:

Aitkenhead's interview profiles have not always been happily received by her interview subjects. Following a February 2021 profile, Jordan Peterson challenged Decca Aitkenhead's journalistic integrity, feeling he had been offered an accurate, objective and empathetic treatment by the editor who arranged the piece, only to find none of these qualities in the final article. Writing for UnHerd, Douglas Murray described the resulting article as a journalistic hit-job reminiscent of a previous clash with Cathy Newman, citing serious inaccuracies, hostility, disparagement, and inappropriate color, such as speculating on whether "toxic masculinity" might have contributed to Jordan Peterson's "battle with various prescription drugs".^[1]

For myself, I think the balance of this treatment is in roughly the right ball park.

First of all, Peterson and Murray are probably both more notable than Aitkenhead. Peterson's prior clash with Newman is notable within the scope of Peterson's own article. There's one sentence describing Peterson's allegation from Peterson's point of view, without making any judgement about the notability of the allegation itself (though some notability attaches to Peterson himself, or this would be out of line).

Then we have a quick summary of the allegations from a notable 3rd party writing in a publication notable enough to have its own Wikipedia page, with just enough specific detail to limn the issue in the reader's mind about what kind of "color" might have given Jordan offense.

It's important to stay away from depicting the factual errors, because we have no independent corroboration of Jordan's life story.

For my money, the National Post article add nothing as a citation, as it's almost entirely recapitulation with no journalistic value-add.

I absolutely oppose depicting this as a controversy; it does not rise to that level.

What does remain is a question of balance in terms of pans and plaudits. Her plaudit makes the cut. Does this pan rise to the level of adding balance by covering both sides? For people familiar with the Newman conflict, I think its useful information that Peterson painted her treatment of himself and his daughter as being more of the same from yet another major UK publication.

I understand the fine line around UNDUE, but I keep looking back at my treatment here, and it simply doesn't feel undue to me in this form. What I do see as a problem is keeping it in this form. Almost any further enlargement or elaboration could tip it over to the other side, and it could well function as a constant magnet for exactly that.

So that's my final assessment. Do as you will. — MaxEnt 10:03, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]