Talk:Jordan Peterson

Removal of self-promotional material

This is my second attempt at this - the first was deleted. I assume this was due to my revealing to much info regarding the editor in question. I've removed names and links this time.

I have removed the previously discussed book review of 12 Rules of Life. This is because the editor who added this text (Divinecomedy666) is almost certainly intimately linked to (or is) the author of that paper. The edit has been made as an act of self-promotion and thus violates wikipedia rules. There is the fairly extensive evidence of this.

Edit in question: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jordan_Peterson&diff=prev&oldid=986541830

Editor contributions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Divinecomedy666

The contribution history of Divinecomedy666 is confined exclusively to the pages of Jordan Peterson, Carl Jung, Arpidithecus ramidus, human evolution, the origin of language and self-domestication. In every single page the editor has contributed to he has inserted citations to work by one (and mostly only one) individual as the main contributions. In the case of the only other bio this editor has extensively edited, it is readily apparently that there is a strong connection outwith wikipedia that further supports the editor as being strongly linked to the articles he has edited and information he has added.

The editor has previously been called out for violating self-promotion rules e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Divinecomedy666#January_2018.

With this new evidence - along with the various other points made below - it is safe to remove this edit as a rule violation. I see no reason for it to remain as there is no valid reason for a non-notable academic piece of work to have three times as much text than the text that actually describes the book in that sub section. If we want to include some criticism of Peterson in that section there are large number of more high profile and notable publications that can be added.

There is a lot of further information that supports this that is probably not necessary for me to reveal here (doxxing etc.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atshal (talk • contribs) 00:48, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Not a fan of JP, but still find it baffling that this removal was reverted. Eliminating this from the biography should be a complete no-brainer. One may argue about due weight in the sub-article, but it is plainly absurd to even consider that this would be an appropriate summary of 12_Rules_for_Life#Reception. Please just remove it on technical/stylistic grounds from here (WP:DETAIL) and any real content discussion can be had on the sub-article where this may possibly belong. Vesal (talk) 15:36, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I saw that (this has been discussed), but that discussion does not make sense to me. Jungian psychology is core to JP, but this journal is really the bottom of the bottom in terms of journal quality metrics. This should not outweigh genuine heavyweights, such as David French, and all other commentaries. What is the policy-based reason to cherry-pick this one review from a journal that meets the astonishing criteria of having a lower h-index than me? Vesal (talk) 15:59, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

The review in question is, however, more reliable than the broadsheet reviews on which 12_Rules_for_Life#Reception generally depends. Newimpartial (talk) 16:06, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

The question here is giving due weight and fairly summarizing the reaction to the book. Anyway, I will not argue further because I don't even disagree with the content, but Wikipedia's fundamental goal is to represent views fairly and proportionately to their appearance in reliable sources. This sort of debunking, including a fairly low-level technical objection, is not encyclopedic. Do you really think including this makes the article more balanced? I think it makes Wikipedia look unprofessional and petty. Vesal (talk) 16:29, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

"Jungian psychology is core to JP, but this journal is really the bottom of the bottom in terms of journal quality metrics." How many peer reviewed Jungian psychology academic journals are there? Citing metrics for journals across all disciplines is hardly accurate. With respect to Jungian theory, there appear to be two main academic journals, above, published by Taylor Francis, and Journal of Analytical Psychology, published by Wiley-Blackwell. Both sources are WP:RS, I fail to see why they should be excluded. Perhaps a trim would be in order, but removing mention is unwarranted. Acousmana (talk) 16:33, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Vesal. The issue isn't whether this is RS. The issue is that it's clearly overweighted in this article. There's a ton of critical reaction to Peterson (see the very long list of reactions to his book in our article for his book). Why then should we have this one reaction from an obscure journal? I would agree with a short paragraph here summarizing the overall critical reaction, but a huge paragraph on this one reaction (out of like 15 or so by my count that we include in the 12 Rules article) is clearly giving this one source undue weight. Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:24, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

"Why then should we have this one reaction from an obscure journal?" it wouldn't perhaps have something to do with the fact that Peterson is heavily influenced by Jungian theory and employs it across his writings? Inclusion is valid, the amount we include is open to question. Acousmana (talk) 21:30, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't agree that this specific citation should be included. It's RS, sure. And it's on topic, I agree. Those things are not in dispute. The question is how much article space in the JP article should be devoted to summary of the reception of one of his two books? The answer, I think, is clearly "not a lot" especially since we have extensive coverage of the reception of that book in the article on that book. I think what would make sense is to produce a paragraph summarizing the whole reception of his book, which of course may be influenced in a small way by this one piece (out of about fifteen cited in the article on the book). But I don't think we need to link all the reaction pieces here. Ideally, if we could find a tertiary source that summarizes the books reception for us, that would be the best. Shinealittlelight (talk) 23:29, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

perhaps we need a "reception and influence" section that can summarize such responses and highlight his "influence" on the manosphere etc.? Acousmana (talk) 14:23, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

The paragraph was copied verbatim to the 12 Rules page, reception section in November; the removal here by user jordanbpeterson was within bounds, but no removal of that same paragraph on 12 Rules for life would be reasonable, however, this on-going discussion might be best focussed for the content of the paragraph as exists on 12 rules book page? Maybe a slimming down, or leave as-is over there. Tomacpace (talk) 18:14, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

More recent activity (23 February and 24 February 2021): Stephen removed the paragraph, Acousmana re-inserted, Korny O'Near re-removed, Newimpartial re-re-inserted. Acousmana and Newimpartial used their edit summaries to urge discussion; I hope they'll explain why WP:BLPUNDEL should not apply. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 02:56, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I haven't seen any bona fide BLP-based objections to the use of this review. Are there any? Newimpartial (talk) 03:03, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't know if there's a serious BLP objection. What there is, however, is a very obvious WP:UNDUE objection. Including just a single review of a book is questionable; having that book be from an obscure academic journal, when the book itself is basically non-academic in nature, is just strange. Korny O'Near (talk) 03:16, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

As a reader of the article foe the first time in awhile, suddenly there's a negative review of his book. Who is the reviewer? What are their credentials? Why does their opinion matter at that point in an encyclopedic description of his work. Why isn't there a positive review also? I'm removing it again. Stephen 03:47, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

not an "obscure" journal, leading academic publication in a field Peterson is considered an authority on, it's WP:RS, and WP:VER, appears relevant to any assessment of scholarship evidenced in said book, inclusion warranted. Acousmana (talk)

Acousmana, you might be right that this material is DUE but currently there isn't a consensus thus, per NOCON policy, it should stay out until there is a consensus. I'm inclined to say exclude on several grounds. First, it appears the material was inserted for self promotional reasons. That should always be discouraged and we shouldn't reward that sort of bad behavior by keeping the review. Second, we have a primary topic on this book where specific notable reviews could be included. Third, which is related, why should we specifically mention this review? This single paragraph should be a summary of information. Is that single review so significant that it alone should be mentioned by name and as representative of all other reviews? Springee (talk) 12:49, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Re:NOCON, this matter was discussed previously, and content stayed. Re:questions: i) it's not clear that it was "promotional," that was alleged, I also trimmed excess from the original text to address concerns; ii) having a primary topic does not necessitate removal of valid "reception" commentary from here; iii) as discussed, this review appears to be notable because of significant overlap with one of Peterson's research interests - Jungian Psychoanalysis. Acousmana (talk) 13:20, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

In reviewing that discussion I don't see there was ever a consensus, just editors got tired of it. Since it seems to have come right back up I would say this is material that never had consensus for inclusion and thus should be removed on NOCON grounds. That is consistent with ONUS. Springee (talk) 14:20, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

For my own part, I would point out again that WP:BLPUNDEL does not apply because, as far as I know, the text in question raises exactly no controversial BLP issues to which it would apply. I don't like to see people CRYBLP. Newimpartial (talk) 14:04, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I think you make a good point but I can't see there was ever consensus to include so the burden would be on those who wish to include it. Springee (talk) 14:20, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Objections have been made above that "journal quality" is poor and that relates to the BLP requirement (repeated four times) for "high-quality" sources. Objections have been made above that the article is self-promotional and that relates to the BLP requirement to beware of "overly promotional" sources. And if you "don't like" me mentioning BLP that's not a good point, CRYBLP is just an essay. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:16, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

• "Objections have been made above that "journal quality" is poor" - these are invalid objections, it's a valid academic field, one Peterson is engaged with, and there are two prominent journals, one, published by Taylor Francis, and the other, published by Wiley-Blackwell (both of which are reputable academic publishers).
• "Objections have been made above that the article is self-promotional" - this has not been substantiated, it's an accusation.
• Other than possible WP:UNDUE issues, don't see the problem, if it's a major concern, we could always have a "reception" section and detail this there. Acousmana (talk) 15:35, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Peter, much of the current article is sourced to broadsheet journalism, while other (ABOUTSELF) bits cite Peterson's Reddit AMA and his Facebook page. Any peer-reviewed academic work is of higher "quality" than the aforementioned sources so methinks you protest, if not too much, at least in the wrong direction. Also, whether or not the initial inclusion of the Jungian studies piece was COI on the part of the editor who added it initially, it has since been re-added by many other editors, so your "promotional" claim is now irrelevant. Newimpartial (talk) 15:51, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

See my comment above. My opposition rests totally on the worry that this is UNDUE. There have been scores of prominently published reviews and discussions of Peterson's book; why are we putting so much weight on this one in particular? Even the academic discussion of his book is widespread. What would be really great is a tertiary source that helps us summarize the general reception. But, failing that, any discussion of the reception of this book on this page should try to summarize the whole reception, not summarize one article on the book, which is obviously giving that one article way too much weight. In addition, the current inclusion of this material is against consensus and reflects the outcome of an edit war in my view. I would like to see the last user who added it self-revert. Shinealittlelight (talk) 16:05, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

If there is any prior consensus on this, I think it is for the status quo and inclusion. Newimpartial (talk) 16:48, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't see a prior consensus so much as editors couldn't agree just gave up the fight for a while. Springee (talk) 17:12, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I read this discussion as establishing said consensus. Newimpartial (talk) 17:16, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

"the current inclusion of this material is against consensus and reflects the outcome of an edit war" - no it doesn't, the inclusion is representative of editors previously failing to agree that removal is necessary, which in turn led to a round of BRD. Acousmana (talk) 17:22, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

To be clear, the consensus I documented was a consensus for inclusion. Newimpartial (talk) 17:41, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

On what grounds? I don't see that one side persuaded the other side. I don't see that we had an overwhelming number of editors favoring inclusion. Certainly involved editors can agree a consensus has been reached even if they don't individually agree on the question at hand. I don't see that here. In a case like this it would be best if an uninvolved editor decided if consensus had been reached. Regardless, I would say the prior discussions ended as NOCON and certainly the recent discussion hasn't changed that. I would suggest a RfC to settle the matter. Springee (talk) 17:59, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Before we get to an RfC, a question for the pro-inclusion crowd: do you really think the section about 12 Rules for Life should contain exactly one review, from a Jungian studies journal? Or do you agree that that's weird, and want to see more reviews added to that section? Korny O'Near (talk) 18:40, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

a "Reception and influence" section is long over due, perhaps that would be a better place for this and any additional WP:RS perspectives on Peterson's work? Acousmana (talk) 18:50, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree with that; the treatment here should be comprehensive and based as much as possible on secondary literature reviews and high-quality academic sources. It should not, as much of the book-specific articles do, read as if it came from the publicity department of the publishing house. Newimpartial (talk) 18:52, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

What do you mean by that? Are you talking about the 12 Rules for Life article, or something else? Korny O'Near (talk) 19:41, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, and Maps of Meaning, which is briefer but otherwise just as bad. Newimpartial (talk) 20:12, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

What's wrong with the 12 Rules for Life article? It has summaries of a lot of reviews, both positive and negative - including (maybe no surprise) an extremely verbose summary of the infamous International Journal of Jungian Studies article. Korny O'Near (talk) 21:59, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

For one thing, I have to read down to #Reception before I encounter anything that doesn't sound like it was written by the book's publicists. For another, the #Reception section itself is very nearly organized from most positive to most negative review, and reviews from Peterson's professional/academic colleagues are almost entirely excluded. Newimpartial (talk) 22:17, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, I find this criticism bizarre, but it does get at the difficulty of trying to summarize all the reviews of 12 Rules for Life in a way that doesn't overwhelm the Jordan Peterson article. For movies, we can just point to the Rotten Tomatoes percentage and summary to give a brief overview of the critical reception. But for a book like this, how do you possibly begin to summarize all the opinions expressed on it, not just by book reviewers but by political commentators, theologians, and academics, in an even-handed but comprehensive way, that pleases everyone here and is not 15 paragraphs long? It seems impossible - which is why it's probably better not to include any reviews. Korny O'Near (talk) 23:12, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I think this is a mischaracterization of that reception section in the other article; the first review listed says the book contains "cerebral preening" which is not exactly a compliment. In any case, as I've said above, we should try to summarize the reception of the book briefly; the JP article is not an article on this one book, and so it should not be taken up with details of particular book reviews but should instead summarize the full body of reviews. I agree that this is challenging, and it would be best if we could find a tertiary source. I oppose a "reception" section for Peterson generally: that's just going to become a coatrack instead of improving the article. If there is specific criticism or reaction to his ideas, propose the source here and we can try to incorporate it into the body of the article in the appropriate place. Shinealittlelight (talk) 23:50, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

If there is specific criticism or reaction to his ideas - this is not a phrase that gives me a lot of hope for building an encyclopaedia. There is, in fact, a good deal of specific criticism and reaction to his ideas, most of it on a spectrum between critical and dismissive. Newimpartial (talk) 23:54, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not against a "criticism/reception" section - it makes a lot of sense, and the articles on a lot of other public intellectuals have one, like Noam Chomsky, Milton Friedman, Jean-Paul Sartre etc. But that's not we're talking about here - we're talking about the criticism and reception of a single book of his, one which already has its own article, with a lengthy section for reviews. Given that, and given the difficulty (illustrated on this talk page) of coming to any sort of agreement about how the reception of 12 Rules for Life could be briefly summarized, I think it's obvious that the best solution is not to include any reviews at all - unless they're in the context of general criticism/commentary on Peterson. Korny O'Near (talk) 14:56, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Where we agree, is that there should be a section of this article that gives a DUE account of the critical response to Peterson. Where we apparently disagree is what should be in place until then. I think we should retain the status quo until then, because removing the Jungian Studies response would leave the article even more slanted towards deferential views of the subject and his writings than this article - and the Maps and 12 rules articles - already are. Newimpartial (talk) 15:15, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

could be that owing to Peterson's lack of intellectual gravitas there simply isn't enough academic coverage, so a reception and influence section would probably rest largely on press commentary? maybe that's why some folk object? I do find it unusual though, considering his manospehere status, that we don't note the extent of his "influence" on that domain. Acousmana (talk) 15:18, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Newimpartial, status quo should be removal because the material has never had consensus for inclusion. It hasn't been here long, there is no clear consensus on any of the talk pages and currently we have at least 5 editors involved and at least 3 say remove. Again, I'm happy to start a narrow RfC on that subject if we can't come up with a better question. Regardless, the book has a primary article so there is no reason to have anything more than a summary of the range of receptions here. Any detail that is book specific should be on the book's page. Evaluations of Peterson himself should be on this page. Springee (talk) 15:29, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

In the prior discussion, four editors supported inclusion and two (you and one other) supported redaction, and your "colleague" was contesting the credentials of the only peer-reviewed source offered. So from a policy-relevant standpoint, I would call that an unequivocal prior consensus for inclusion. Unless we come to more of a clear consensus in this discussion here, per WP:CONSENSUSCANCHANGE, then I say the status quo should be retained. Newimpartial (talk) 15:47, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Newimpartial - I think you have a bizarre view of what constitutes "slant", if you think the articles on Peterson and his two books are slanted. As far as I can tell, they just offer straightforward recountings of his life, career, and writings. Can you point to any particular slanted writing there? Or could it be that your personal dislike of Peterson makes neutral writing appear biased? Also, the emphasis on "peer review" is strange, because 12 Rules is not an academic book (though it's written by an academic) - it's explicitly a self-help book. I haven't read the book, but I can't see how the International Journal of Jungian Studies would have any particular insight on, say, whether people should clean their rooms. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:14, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I'll deal with this last point first - the whole basis of Peterson's claim to insight (re: "self-help") is his status as a Jungian therapy practitioner (and academic), so the responses of qualified Jungians are absolutely relevant. Peterson's Jungian insight into room-cleaning isn't any more on-point than that of his Jungian critics.

To the earlier point, I'll quote the lede of the 12 steps article: The book topped bestseller lists in Canada, the United States, and the United Kingdom, and has sold over five million copies worldwide. Peterson went on a world tour to promote the book, notably receiving much attention following an interview with Channel 4 News. Critics have praised the book's advice and its atypical style, though Peterson's writing style has been criticized by some, and his perspective on God received mixed reception. This breathless prose does accurately summarize the article per LEADFOLLOWSBODY, but that is because the whole article follows this quasi-publicity department style, with bumpier moments of the reception minimized and deferred. Newimpartial (talk) 16:34, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Timeline: Material added 1 Nov [[1]]. 25 Nov Miki Filigranski removed the material [[2]]. Acousmana and Newimpartial supported it. Back and forth editing in the article space through 4 Dec. The material was again removed by an editor claiming to be Peterson on 9 Jan [[3]]. Atshal removes the material 27 Jan. Korny O'Near removes is again 24 Feb and Stephen supports the removal. The material has never been stable. If you ignore the 9 Jan removal it was unchallenged in the article for less than 2 months. On the talk pages, back in late November I see myself and Miki opposing the content, I see Newimpartial and Acousmana supporting it along with Grayfell and possibly blindlynx. So in the imediate time period, yes, 4:2 for inclusion but between then and 27 Jan is hardly enough time to claim consensus is for inclusion. Also 4:2 by the number is on the consensus line. When the discussion started up again in Jan Vesal supported removal as did Shinealittlelight and Peter Gulutzan. That puts things at 4:5 against inclusion. It is very clear at this point there is not consensus for inclusion. Newimpartial's argument for retaining the content is purely that they feel the "consensus" stamp of approval was established because the content was left alone and undiscussed from early Dec until late Jan. It appears we all agree we are currently in a NOCON case with the additional voices all opposing inclusion. Springee (talk) 16:34, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

(Comment added after below discussion, putting it here for formatting's sake because of outdent) Note: Miki Filigranski has been blocked as a sockpuppet of Crovata. Their contributions should not influence any assessment of consensus. Srey Sros^talk 19:41, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

to clarify my position i think that the inclusion of that type of content is needed for this article but it should not limited it to one source—blindlynx (talk) 16:46, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Springee, the consensus in the discussion was clearly for inclusion, particularly the policy-relevant consensus. COI edits in article space and drive-by removals are not relevant to determining consensus. Also, when there has been prior consensus for inclusion, there is a real difference between NOCON and consensus for removal. Newimpartial (talk) 16:56, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I do not agree there was ever a consensus in the discussion. Regardless, as the discussion has continued it is clear there isn't a consensus. What you are trying to do is arbitrarily cut off consensus as established sometime between early Dec and late Jan since if we include the late Jan objection that puts you at 4:3 for:against which, by the numbers is pretty clearly noconsensus. You are trying to hang inclusion on the view that this is now "long term" content. Perhaps we should take this specific question to a message board? Springee (talk) 17:52, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I think an RfC would be the correct procedure, except the question under discussion is, "should we retain this particular academic review in the article until a proper Reception section is developed", which seems bizarrely specific to me. But that is the actual question that has 4-3 NOCON at the moment.

And as to status quo, this material has not only been present in the article for months, it also had a Talk page discussion which, in spite of your attempt to recount the !votes to include mail-in ballots or something, quite clearly concluded at the time in favor of inclusion. Newimpartial (talk) 17:58, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

It has also been disputed the whole time. That means it shouldn't have been in the article during any of that time. Springee (talk) 18:17, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

That is what I call wikilawyering. The previous discussion had four editors in favor of inclusion on a policy-compliant basis, and one or two opposed. Once that happened, there was a consensus for inclusion, and even though it has been disputed again since then on slightly different grounds, that doesn't suddenly or automatically overturn the prior consensus. WP:ONUS doesn't apply to content where there has been an explicit consensus for inclusion. Newimpartial (talk) 18:22, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Can't that claim be turned around? You are trying to treat this as an original settled event and a second distinctly separate discussion vs zoom out and see it as a longer, never settled discussion. You are picking your version because it defaults to inclusion and you can say I'm picking my position since it defaults to exclusion. You are claiming policy supports inclusion but I don't agree. NPOV is policy and MOS is a guideline. Focusing on just one recent set of comments while ignoring others is a NPOV issue. Dumping all the reviews into this article is a MOS issue since we have a primary article on the book. To claim those who reject this aren't doing it on policy grounds is simply not true. Anyway, this is getting repetitive, again, this could be part of a RfC or a noticeboard discussion. Springee (talk) 19:16, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

More, fairly explicit, wikilawyering. It isn't a POV issue to say that we discussed this, and consensus was for inclusion, and that people have questioned it again so we are discussing it again, but until then the STATUSQUO remains. POV has nothing to do with that, and neither does MOS. If there were actual BLP issues here that certainly would override STATUSQUO until those were resolved, but nobody has found any. Newimpartial (talk) 19:21, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Again, this is pot calling the kettle black. You are claiming consensus was established but where is the uninvolved editor saying that is the case? The guidelines on when something becomes the stable version is vague but claiming less than two months is sufficient is questionable. NPOV and MOS matter because you claimed those who rejected this material didn't have a strong basis in policy/guidelines. I agree that this isn't really a BLP issue so NOCON doesn't mean reject. However, claiming this is stable content is wrong. If nothing else, the fact that we can't agree means we should get a neutral 3rd party to decide this question. Springee (talk) 19:34, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Again, Springee, I am not claiming consensus and STATUSQUO on the basis of elapsed time (or "stable content"), I am claiming consensus and STATUSQUO on the basis of a prior discussion in which you, plus one sock, objected to inclusion (and the sock did so largely on grounds that were not compliant with policy), and four editors supported inclusion. That discussion stopped and was archived, and it clearly established consensus to include - it was not an RfC, so an uninvolved close was not needed. To overturn this prior consensus, per WP:CONSENSUSCANCHANGE, an actual new consensus rather than NOCON would now be required. I have also stated my own position, that it would be fine to replace this STATUSQUO material when we have a better Reception section in this article. I do not see this as an unreasonable specification. Newimpartial (talk) 20:50, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

So what is to say this is a new discussion vs the topic was simply paused for a bit until another editor saw the same issue? Where is the closed discussion where a consensus was declared? Hypothetical. On day 1 four editors say include X, 1 says exclude. As of day 1 there is a consensus for inclusion. The next day later 4 more editors agree with exclude. Now we have 4:5 exclude. Are you going to claim consensus was established on day 1 thus the day 2 discussion is carried out as if this were the stable version of the article, ie the consensus version? You might claim that it would be silly to claim the day 1 discussion established consensus and now the day 2 discussion need to overturn it. But what if the delay was 1 week or even 1 month? Absent consensus being established by a RfC closing, some discussions simply take a while. less than 2 months isn't long enough to claim this is stable text thus discussions of the same content show the material doesn't have consensus. This isn't CONSENSUSCANCHANGE, it's NOCON. Springee (talk) 21:44, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I am not going to answer the hypothetical, which is just some kind of slippery slope. The prior discussion ceased and was archived. Only an RfC needs to have a formal close to reach consensus; most consensus on WP is established without a formal close. If you can't see the consensus in the previous discussion where you and a sock were the only objectors to inclusion, that isn't on me, and I'm not the one wikilawyering. Newimpartial (talk) 22:33, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

So all I need to do to get "consensus" is set a very short archive timer. It is currently set for 30 days to you are claiming any discussion that is dormant for 30 days automatically is closed. Do you have a policy link to that? Springee (talk) 22:50, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

No, I don't. Do you have a policy link for any discussion I feel is still open must still be open no matter what anyone else thinks? I didn't think so. And I haven't seen any suggestion anywhere that a one-against-many discussion that lies dormant for 30 days should be considered WP:NOCON. That seems like a pretty heavy clean-and-jerk. Newimpartial (talk) 22:54, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree that there's no real appeal to consensus in either direction. Newimpartial - I disagree that Peterson's big claim to insight is that he's a Jungian scholar. That's not how he became famous, and it's not (as far as I know) the main subject of his most popular writings and lectures. You may as well say that a linguist should be the main source for analysis of the political writings of Noam Chomsky. As for that prose you quoted, I don't see what's "breathless" about it. Generally the most notable fact about a book that sold a lot of copies is that it sold a lot of copies. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:47, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Peterson is now most famous for being famous, a.k.a. as a YouTuber. However, unlike many of his YouTube colleagues, he arrived there as a subject-matter authority, and his authority was as a Jungian therapist. Newimpartial (talk) 16:56, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Not true (he became famous directly as a result of his political commentary), and also not relevant. Again, Noam Chomsky was first famous as a linguist. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:00, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

This is just a mis-statement of his career. To be concrete about it, Peterson was a Jungian therapist and academic first, then a self-help guru on the basis of his Jungian credentials, and then he had a platform for his Culture War "political" commentary because of his prior standing as a guru, which was in turn based on his prior Jungian credentials. In fact, if you look at the way he continues to intervene as a (certain kind of) "public intellectual", he is still engaging in the same kind of (sloppy) Jungianism he started out with 20+ years ago. Newimpartial (talk) 17:10, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Not true, and again, you could say the same thing about Noam Chomsky. I don't know how many times it needs to be repeated. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:16, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

What do you mean, not true? That is literally what happened. I don't know what Chomsky has to do with it, since structural linguistics doesn't have anything to do with his political views, but Jungianism has everything to do with the way Peterson deploys myths in his most recent interviews and YouTube interventions. Newimpartial (talk) 17:24, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Peterson's magnum opus, Maps of Meaning, is heavily influenced by Jungian thought, the guy is essentially a devotee, if there is one publication that defines his pseudophilosophical outlook, it's that. Also, he was doing stuff on YouTube before the pronouns debacle happened. Acousmana (talk) 17:26, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, of course he had a lot of writing and videos about Jung and other academic subjects, but he became famous for his political commentary. And again, I haven't read 12 Rules for Life, but as far as I can tell it's not a book of scholarship. Even if, say, 10% of the book is about Carl Jung, and even if all of that analysis of Jung is incorrect, it doesn't really affect whether the book offers good advice or not. As far as we're concerned, that's a question best left to the standard book reviewers, commentators, etc. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:39, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

if he became famous for his political commentary why is our coverage of this facet - how and why, and amongst whom, he became famous - insufficiency covered, arguably, too much weight is being given to his "scholarly" persona, because - unlike the Chomsky example - prior to taking an outspoken political stance, he was not famous for his research. Acousmana (talk) 18:06, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't know, but it's not relevant to this particular discussion. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:10, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

What is relevant to this discussion is the unsubstantiated claim that his current public interventions have nothing to do with his Jungianism, which isn't at all what e.g. his biographers have to say on the matter. Newimpartial (talk) 18:27, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I didn't say that, and of course it's not true. What I said is that 12 Rules for Life is a self-help book, not a book of academic research, and should be treated that way. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:37, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I am not saying that it is a book of academic research - if it were, we could dismiss The Catholic World Report and the opinion column in the New York Times as sources - both of which feature prominently in the 12 Rules article's reception section - and restrict ourselves to its (quite limited) academic reception. But because it is a self-help book by a Jungian, from a Jungian POV, that has been reviewed by Jungians it is entirely relevant to include commentary on the book by people in Peterson's own field. I find arguments to the contrary to be bizarre. Newimpartial (talk) 18:45, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree that it's relevant (I wouldn't say extremely relevant, but relevant), but you're arguing that it's the most relevant - i.e., that it's fine to have this as the only review of the book. That's what doesn't make sense. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:51, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

That's actually not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing that it is alright for this status quo text (representing the highest-quality source available) to remain until we have a proper Reception section for Peterson's work, based as much as possible on high-quality sources. Newimpartial (talk) 19:15, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it's highest-quality (peer review is meaningless for a non-academic book), but, whether or not there's a "Reception" section, the fact remains that including just one book review is strange, and including (say) ten reviews is going to lead to a big wall of text. Korny O'Near (talk) 22:21, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I dispute your premise. Even for entirely non-academic works (cue the fiction of J. R. R. Tolkien or J. K. Rowling), peer-reviewed articles discussing their work are higher-quality sources than broadsheet reviews, much less opinion columns or Catholic League special-interest pieces. And once again, I am not proposing that the article offer disjointed summaries of a dozen random reviews; I am stating that we should look at the highest-quality responses to Peterson's work as a whole, and present those with DUE BALANCE (and of course without SYNTH). Newimpartial (talk) 22:41, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

It's questionable whether an academic work is the highest-quality source about a fantasy novel, but even if is, those academic sources would presumably be from the world of literary analysis. Deferring to a Jungian scholar for opinions on a self-help book that occasionally mentions Jung is like deferring to a medieval studies professor for their opinions on Tolkein's novels: interesting, but hardly authoritative. Korny O'Near (talk) 22:59, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

The views of Jungian scholars are relevant to a Jungian self-help book, just as the views of feminist scholars are relevant to a feminist self-help book. I would have thought this to be obvious. Newimpartial (talk) 23:02, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I haven't read the book, but it's not billed as a Jungian self-help book, and I don't get the sense that Jung is mentioned that often. Korny O'Near (talk) 23:15, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

If people don't understand that the ways Peterson acts and speaks as a public intellectual are based on his "practical Jungianism" - his internalization and application of Jungian concepts even when he does not overtly invoke them - then those people should read the accounts by those who know Peterson the best, which make this explicit. Newimpartial (talk) 23:20, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

This is irrelevant. Is the book trying to make a point about Carl Jung? No. It's trying to improve people's lives. So a Jungian scholar is not in any better position to judge the efficacy of the book than anyone else. Korny O'Near (talk) 23:33, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

By whose criterion is the purpose of a reception section for a public intellectual/author to judge the efficacy of their work? That seems like another bizarre (and idiosyncratic) claim. Newimpartial (talk) 23:36, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, it's a self-help book, so efficacy is presumably the main criterion. But the same logic applies to any other reasonable criteria, like literary quality, originality, etc. "Accuracy of views about Carl Jung" seems fairly low on the list of important aspects for a self-help book. Again, it's like asking a medievalist about the works of Tolkien. Korny O'Near (talk) 23:43, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

The present article is about "Jordan Peterson, public intellectual" as much as it is about "Jordan Peterson, self-help guru". I can see a defense of those narrower criteria for critique of 12 Rules in the article on the book, but not here. Also, your medaevalist:Tolkien::Jungian:Peterson analogy might be compelling here if 12 rules were a work of fantasy psychological self-help - and in some ways it is - but it presents itself as a work of actual psychological help; Peterson's credentials (and toolbox) for that offer are entirely Jungian. Newimpartial (talk) 01:43, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Jung's work is cited only two times in 12 Rules for Life, while there are over 200 notes. Outside of the cited references, Jung is only mentioned about 4 times. Compare this with comparably referenced sources, Jane Goodall, Erich Neumann, Goete, Nietzsche. Xenophon takes the prize with 6 times the citations as Jung. It's more a diversity of sources than Jungian. Dr. Gary Clark is hardly invested in this; I mentioned above that inclusion is not a big problem but I'd rather see it removed, my opinion. The inclusion seems more in line with a desire for more criticism of Peterson for the sake of self-promotion, which was the original objective of the inclusion on this page.Tomacpace (talk) 23:49, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Tom, who in thus discussion has shown a desire for more criticism of Peterson for the sake of self-promotion? That looks like an WP:AGF fail from here, but perhaps you had something specific in mind rather than WP:ASPERSIONS. Newimpartial (talk) 01:43, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Straight answer to your question on "who" is anyone voting or desiring to include the content, in this discussion, given the pushback. The nature of this single topic discussion (particularly its length... it is many, many screen-heights tall on a 1080 HD monitor) speaks to my point. With all due respect, you dodged my points. Please consider my points instead of making this out as a personal attack.Tomacpace (talk) 02:19, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

To consider your points, then, support for the inclusion of the review could only be self-promotional if the author of the review were participating in the discussion. They aren't, so it isn't.

As far as any desire for more criticism of Peterson, I can only speak for myself - the only thing I desire is for the tone of this article to match the way Peterson is treated in the best available RS. On the whole, the article in its current form is overly fawning and jejeune, IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 02:26, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

thank you for expression of intent, "To consider your points, then", but you actually didn't address a single point. My original point a few weeks ago earlier in this discussion was considering the weight of the content within the section, and the meaningful focus that has. Consider WP:PROPORTION; the content is about 40% of the whole section, even in its limited slimmed version. The whole original content exists on the 12 Rules for Life page. It shouldn't really be on this page anyway. Being critiqued by a Jungian isn't really anything spectacular or notable, it's more novel and exciting to those who think it means something, I see plenty of in-fighting and posturing within the IAAP. I'd like to know if you think my own edits on the page qualify as "fawning"Tomacpace (talk) 02:55, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Now that you've said "ask about my edits", my attention was drawn to this: Ongoing organization of the channel has included the Playlist feature. Using playlists allowed the channel to organize the course lectures according to class and year, plus link to Peterson's work published on other channels. Such playlists include video essays originally broadcast on TV, early conversations on his book project "42" (later renamed 12 Rules for Life) and a 2015 Farsi translation of his Maps of Meaning course. I don't know that that's "fawning", exactly, but it's certainly jejeune.

What I was addressing was your most recent "point", namely The inclusion seems more in line with a desire for more criticism of Peterson for the sake of self-promotion. Since you are unable or unwilling to defend that one, should I move on to your previous "points"? Newimpartial (talk) 03:06, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

"Since you are unable or unwilling to defend that one, should I move on to your previous "points"? yes, please. I did answer, but to receive "you are unable or unwilling" means it's a dead-end for further discussion and amounts to posturing. Can you do me a favour, and take this in all good-faith, can you please steel-man my points. Your first response was to my commentary rather than an argument point, one that you fixated on as if it was a point... if you can do that, this would be a better discussion. Tomacpace (talk) 03:13, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

How can I "steel-man" the point that support for inclusion of the review was "self-promotional", when the only editor for whom that could possibly be true has not participated in this discussion? It is as though you were asking me to "steel-man" the case for the stolen 2020 US presidential election. Huh? Newimpartial (talk) 03:20, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Re Catholic League special-interest pieces: CWR is owned by Ignatius Press, not the Catholic League. One of the former editors had previously directed a chapter of the Catholic League; I'm not aware of any other connection. gnu57 23:57, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

This article on Peterson's book is one among literally 266 citations of Peterson's book in Google Scholar, it is published in an obscure journal, and it currently has ZERO citations according to Google Scholar. Why are we arguing about this for thousands and thousands of words? This article has had zero impact, is likely to continue to have zero to little impact, and is therefore obviously UNDUE here. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:41, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Do you have any other Jungian criticism to propose? Newimpartial (talk) 02:47, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

The fact that we don't yet have any Jungian criticism that is DUE to include in the article does not mean we should include a zero impact, no name journal article, obviously. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:55, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

As has been documented previously, the journal in question is one of the two main Jungian studies journals; and, as has been documented elsewhere, algorithmically-measured "impact" is not notably meaningful on the more subjective side of psychology where Peterson pitches his tent. Newimpartial (talk) 03:01, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

If the article in question has been cited zero times I would tend to view it as a work of scholarship that has yet to prove it's merit. It absolutely should not selected above other reviews to be cited in what is meant to be a summary of the section. That is a clear case of UNDUE. Springee (talk) 03:11, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, please explain how you can regard an article with zero citations as DUE. Shinealittlelight (talk) 03:13, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Because it is one or the few commentaries on the book written by a qualified specialist in the field. Newimpartial (talk) 03:17, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

This guy appears to be a post-doc at the University of Adelaide; you're saying he's notable? Shinealittlelight (talk) 03:30, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

The point is that the article is peer-reviewed scholarship; that makes it higher quality than any opinion piece in the New York Times by definition. Newimpartial (talk) 03:35, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not making a comparison to a NYT piece. Please answer my question: do you think that this postdoc at U of Adelaide is notable? Shinealittlelight (talk) 03:42, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Notability of a reviewer is not a relevant criterion in assessing the quality of a RS. In general, source quality is supposed to trump famousness in determining DUE and BALANCE. Newimpartial (talk) 03:45, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

As Tomacpace noted, Carl Jung is mentioned just 4 times in the entire book. So Jungian analysis is not "the field" of this book. By the way, not to get sidetracked further, but does peer review confer quality, in the eyes of Wikipedia or anyone else? All it means is that two or more people read the thing and didn't object to it. Anything published in a major newspaper or magazine probably gets a similar number of eyeballs on it. Korny O'Near (talk) 03:51, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Still not answering my question. We can't make progress if you won't dialogue. WP:DUE makes no reference to "famousness"; by "notable" I meant that he is not prominent. Would you agree that he is not prominent? Shinealittlelight (talk) 03:55, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Newimpartial, it appears this is not a noted scholar in the field, rather a postdoc who got a paper published. That might make it due for inclusion in the article on the book but not as the only review mentioned in this summary section. Why would we even need to discuss this point? Springee (talk) 03:57, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Exactly, and there seems to be a misunderstanding that "Jung" is a "field" and that the good research on Jung is published in journals that contain his name. This is generally not the case. The best research on an important figure would not be published in a little no-name journal on that one figure, but in a general journal that publishes philosophical or theoretical psychology. That's how journals work. This is a very low quality source in terms of DUE weight, by a post-doc who is at present (zero citations, recall) the only proponent of the analysis he expresses. Shinealittlelight (talk) 04:02, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

There does indeed seem to be a misunderstanding; Jung is one of the figures who offers a theoretical paradigm, and a model of clinical practice, in humanistic psychology. "Jungian psychology" is therefore, in a sense, a "field", in that it circumscribes work within that paradigm. Papers in Jungian psychology are indeed published in journals in theoretical psychology as well as in specialist journals, but not all papers (even book reviews) in a theoretical psychology journal will be by Jungian specialists; however, one can assume that all papers (and the one in question is a paper, not a book review) in a specialist journal will be written by qualified specialists. I would, however, be more than happy to see any of you point to peer-reviewed treatments of Peterson's work by other, more prominent, Jungians. Then we might actually make progress in this discussion. Newimpartial (talk) 04:20, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Still not responsive. I repeat: is this post-doc a prominent adherent of the view he expresses? I'll add: is his view held by at least a significant minority? Will you really not answer these questions straight from WP:DUE? Shinealittlelight (talk) 04:26, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I think the view expressed in the paper represents the mainstream view of Jungian scholarship. Newimpartial (talk) 05:37, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to take this as an admission that he's not proinent, since you're again not answering. Let me know if that's not so. Given that he's not prominent, and he alone is the expositor of his view (having no citations), this manifestly and explicitly fails WP:DUE. Shinealittlelight (talk) 16:53, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

A good quote from Jung comes to mind: "Thank God, I’m Jung, and not a Jungian." Tomacpace (talk) 05:31, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm sure Peterson would say exactly the same - or at least essentially so. Newimpartial (talk) 05:37, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't think you understand what I mean. You still did not read my points and consider them in good faith.Tomacpace (talk) 14:01, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

In what way? You still haven't explained how I could "steel man" your claim about "self-promotion". Newimpartial (talk) 14:14, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I have politely asked you, multiple times now, to re-read what I wrote. I am doing my homework, and trying to listen to counter positions, but it doesn't really work when this is not reciprocal. One of my take-aways from this is, I don't think you read what I wrote, with honesty.Tomacpace (talk) 14:37, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

In your post yesterday you offered counts of name-drops - which are useless as a way of identifying a theoretical standpoint, as I think deep down you understand - and then offered this: I mentioned above that inclusion is not a big problem but I'd rather see it removed, my opinion. The inclusion seems more in line with a desire for more criticism of Peterson for the sake of self-promotion, which was the original objective of the inclusion on this page. What you offer here is (1) your preference (opinion) for exclusion, (2) a (demonstrably false) claim about the motivations of other editors (for the sake of self-promotion) - and I have shown that this is false, and (3) another claim, The inclusion seems more in line with a desire for more criticism of Peterson. I have previously responded to this last line of argument, saying that what I want is not more criticism as such, but rather for the tone of this article to match the way Peterson is treated in the best available RS. Since (1) is an opinion rather than an argued position, I believe I have addressed all the "points" from your post yesterday. Please let me know if I left anything out. Newimpartial (talk) 14:51, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

• "...and there seems to be a misunderstanding that "Jung" is a "field" and that the good research on Jung is published in journals that contain his name."

that one may feel that this is not a valid field of academic inquiry is irrelevant, Taylor Francis/Brill are reputable academic publishers, and the journal appears to be peer reviewed, that would seem sufficient.

• "...it appears this is not a noted scholar in the field, rather a postdoc who got a paper published"'

in a peer reviewed journal published by reputable academic publishers. The post in post-doctorate implies than one has been deemed fit to conduct independent (unsupervised) research, we are Wikipedia editors, this is not a REF assessment committee. Acousmana (talk) 11:42, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not making a strong argument against peer-review and journals, this or any others, but there is a clear and documented activism, seeking to tell-how-it-is, rather than honest open investigation, that is contributing to a visible degradation of the value of science journals. This article is one of them; just because it's in published, the arguments contained within need to stand up, and the flow and thought. From what I'm seeing, the argument points are hobbling, crippled.Tomacpace (talk) 14:14, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

No, Jung is a reasonable object of inquiry, and of course you can specialize in studying Jung, but the field of study here is psychology not Jung, and this journal is clearly not a prominent journal in that field. Nobody claims that this guy doesn't have a degree, or that the journal is not RS, or that he isn't qualified to do research. But none of this guarantees inclusion, of cousre, and it's just obvious that this piece is not DUE because he's not prominent, the journal is not prominent, and the paper has had zero citations. Maybe you can tell me that you think this post-doc is a prominent proponent of a view that he held by at least a substantial minority? I mean, at least if you make that statement you'd be claiming to satisfy WP:DUE. Otherwise it just looks like you guys need to read that policy again. Shinealittlelight (talk) 16:53, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

• psychoanalytic theory is the field. Acousmana (talk) 18:02, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Nope. Psychology. Psychoanalytic theory is a theory in the field of psychology. Want to answer my question? Here, I'll quote it for you: Maybe you can tell me that you think this post-doc is a prominent proponent of a view that he held by at least a substantial minority? Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:13, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

OK, you better contact these academics then and tell them it's not a field, [4], [5], [6]. Acousmana (talk) 17:36, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

As far as I know, it is the majority view among Jungians/analytic psychologists. Newimpartial (talk) 18:17, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Oh, no it obviously isn't: you can easily tell because it has no citations. Moreover, even if it somehow were the majority view, that's something we need to know in order to include it--not something that we can just say "for all I know" about. So this is currently included against consensus and against our policy WP:DUE. I won't revert it because I don't edit war. But its inclusion is in my view disruptive. I don't see that there's anything else for us to talk about. I don't have time to take further steps today, but I guess that's what you're going to make me do. Shinealittlelight (talk) 19:26, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

There is a clearly documented prior consensus for INclusion, so removal of the material prior to a new consensus would in fact be disruptive. Thanks for your cooperation. Newimpartial (talk) 19:34, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Please read Analytical_psychology#Archetypal - we are not discussing Jung as some figure in the history of ideas (you are quite right that Peterson is not an intellectual historian); we are talking about Jung as the originator of the specific mode of therapy that is the only one Peterson is qualified to practice in, and which is/was the basis of his academic teaching credential as well. This is the reason Jungian credentials are specifically relevant to the critical assessment of Peterson's work.

And once again, the highest-quality sources available on a topic do not have to be prominent compared to broadsheet op-eds and catholic newsletters. To merit inclusion, they just have to be the highest-quality sources available. Newimpartial (talk) 17:09, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

If the discussion was removal of this source from the book's wikipage I could see accepting that this at least is an academic paper in the specific field. However, a single, uncited paper doesn't give it much weight. In this case you are arguing that it should be the only review mentioned and it's acceptable that it's about 40% of the entire discussion of the book. That is why this is UNDUE. Springee (talk) 17:27, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

But I'm not saying that. As I have written about five times now, my view is that the status quo should remain until a balanced "Reception" section has been developed, representing with DUE WEIGHT the perspectices of the highest-quality sources available. Newimpartial (talk) 17:37, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Status quo is remove the material since it has been continuously disputed but editors simply didn't want to edit war to remove it. Given there is a primary article SUMMARY comes into play. If we choose to discuss reviews then we should summarize them rather than focus on any one review. Personally I think it is easier to simply remove the content and point readers to the primary article. Springee (talk) 17:58, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Springee, Status quo is not to remove the material - there was a discussion, that discussion reached consensus to include, it ended. Please stop repeating incorrect assertions. Newimpartial (talk) 18:02, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

That is your opinion and assumes the text has been stable/a consensus was established. The fact that we are all here discussing it and the text was never stable for even 2 months says a consensus was never established. We might as well drop this line of argument since neither of us will convince the other. Perhaps that can be part of the RfC. Springee (talk) 18:22, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Do you agree that we should be working towards a Reception section, separate from the books sections, that would give a DUE and BALANCEd account of the critical reception to Peterson's work in general? And that when this is added, the existing passage on the Jungian Studies article under 12 rules will be redundant? Because if you do, I don't really see the point of an RfC to determine what the article looks like until fixed. We just WP:FIXIT. Newimpartial (talk) 18:27, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

An overall reception section could be fine. I presume this would be reception to his works as a whole, not just his books. Reception specific to his books should go in with the books. Springee (talk) 19:08, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I fully agree. Newimpartial - maybe it's best to just concede that, on the particular point of this single review, the current consensus is that it should be removed, and let the matter go so we can all move on? Korny O'Near (talk) 19:41, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I've removed this review as there is consensus above to remove it, which I incidentally support. I checked to find it at the only place it belongs, 12 Rules for Life#Reception, though that section is very badly written at present (verbose, unstructured, doesn't highlight the most pertinent themes in each review—see Wikipedia:Copyediting reception sections). — Bilorv (talk) 10:58, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Just to clarify some of this discussion: the author of the article in the Jungian journal is an evolutionary anthropologist who also researches the evolutionary basis of Jungian thought. Articles by the author in evolutionary studies have about thirty citations; see in google scholar for example "Ardipithecus ramidus and the evolution of language and singing: An early origin for hominin vocal capability" and "The life history of Ardipithecus ramidus: a heterochronic model of sexual and social maturation." The article in the Jungian journal is an in-depth analysis (30 pages) of Peterson's evolutionary ideas and how different theories about how we understand human evolution have implications for Jungian studies. To quote from the entry in the 12 Rules article on its reception: "The article claims that Peterson fails to take account of research in paleoanthropology, evolutionary anthropology and ethnographic studies of egalitarian societies. Such societies, which are believed to represent the ancient forager adaptation of H. sapiens, are matrilineal and lack social hierarchy. The author argues that a major sociocultural transformation occurred from this ancient adaptive complex with the onset of agriculture giving rise to modern patrilineal and hierarchical cultures. This view contrasts with Peterson's, which postulates modern social and economic structures are an outgrowth of the hierarchical impulses of our premammalian, mammalian and primate ancestors." Note that this is a critique of Peterson's evolutionary thought and how it informs his approach to Jung. The article offers an alternative conception of Jungian psychology informed by evolutionary studies to that offered by Peterson. It should be added that Peterson's thought on human psychology is grounded in his evolutionary ideas - the notion of modern human hierarchical impulses being inherited from the common ancestor we share with lobsters and more recently a chimpanzee-like human ancestor. And given his approach to evolution he has a certain take on Jungian thought. It should also be noted that Erich Neumann, who Peterson cites and who is a major influence on his thinking (see Maps of Meaning) is one of the major Jungians of the 20th century who elaborated Jung's archetypal model in "The Origins and History of Consciousness" and "The Great Mother." If you read 12 Rules you will see that it is saturated with Jungian and archetypal psychology. And far from Jung only being mentioned a few times - this is incorrect - he is referenced twelve times in the index of 12 Rules - which makes him the most frequently cited individual/author in the book being only surpassed by Jesus. The article goes straight to the core of Peterson's thinking and its basis in evolutionary ideas and illustrates how his thinking is at odds with both the current fossil evidence as well as ethnographic studies. The article could not be more relevant to the core ideas as expressed in 12 Rules. Peterson is a very thoughtful, sensitive and astute Jungian thinker who at his best offers profound insights into the nature of human psychology. However there are alterative ways of grounding Jung in evolutionary theory. Which is what the article sets out to do thereby contributing to the debate surrounding evolutionary approaches to Jung. I hope that clarifies some of these issues. Divinecomedy666 (talk) 17:42, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Peterson far-right ?

I suggest you add that he is far-right in the first paragraph of the lead. Source:https://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news/video/who-is-jordan-peterson-favorite-figure-of-the-alt-right-1221615171523 Blizzard-of-Revisions1220 (talk) 07:58, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• You're free to make any edit you want. Bold editing is encouraged as a matter of policy. However I've looked at the source and it doesn't actually describe Peterson as "far-right", so there's that. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 10:13, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
• I don't think it is fair to call Peterson far-right. What positions does he hold that can be considered further right than any other loud conservative voices in the USA? Ben Shapiro for example holds very similar views, but isn't labelled far-right. The source you cite is misleading, and doesn't justify the link between his views and that of the far-right. Labelling him as such is incorrect, and potentially dangerous in that it lowers the bar for what can be seen as alt-right. A less misleading description of Peterson would at worst be "considered to hold far-right views", though even that is strongly debatable. Frankly jarring to see him fall under the same term as the likes of David Duke. I would advise reconsidering your edit, or backing it up with stronger citations. Syzyf01 (talk) 20:27, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
• The reporter in that source never calls Peterson "alt-right" but only mentions that he has an alt-right following. There is, however, a chyron laid over that piece which does call him "alt-right" however, chyrons are similar to headlines in that they're typically not specified by the reporter but are added by producers and other non-journalists. They're therefore generally not considered reliable on Wikipedia. SaltySaltyTears (talk) 22:52, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
• Read the section on his political views before suggesting to write far-right at the top of the article. You can discuss and suggest edits there. Petterson constantly rejected both far-right and far-left political views and there are extremely diverse reactions from the press - a single reference does not cover the topic (even if it would substantiate your suggestion). This needs to be removed.Derek1155 (talk) 13:00, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

This needs to be removed. Peterson is absolutely not a far-right personality, the alt right do not like him either. Your viewpoint does not change this. It needs to be removed. Doktor ew (talk) 10:02, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 March 2021

The preview for Dr Peterson’s page should not include the term ‘far right’ as it is not consistent with his own description of his political views, nor is it consistent with the rest of the Wikipedia article. 194.193.207.88 (talk) 06:02, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles do not rely on self-descriptions by controversial figures, but rather on how independent, reliable sources describe those people. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:13, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but I think the OP may have meant something like 'when JP describes (expresses) his political views, the content is not far-right' rather than 'JP doesn't think he is far-right' as it may have been interpreted. Joshrav (talk) 09:25, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, in general a self-reference can not be enough to declare oneself they way one wants. This applies to both Peterson and unreliable sources. It is reasonable to consider a tenure university professor with decades of peer-reviewed scientific track record risking his face and reputation a more credible source than a faceless online-magazine like "Pacific Standard" taken as reference below, where an 1-click research reveals the overlying company: "The Social Justice Foundation" (self-reference). I strongly suggest to restrict the references, whether Peterson or publicist, to direct quotations or the well-established internationally known Press (BBC, NYT, ...) with a foundation-year way before the emergence of the huge amount of hard to differentiate mis- or disinformation, preferably the year 2000 or even sooner. Again, I would not consider the reference to the online-magazine "Pacific Standard" a reliable source in our age of mis- and disinformation. It takes 1-2 days, today to set-up such a online-magazines without known well-established publicists. Such references should not be cited here as they are just as controversial as a self-reference. Furthermore, the perception of Peterson among the press varied a great deal, both in reception and over time. It is thus central to keep the references up-to-date. An example which does represent what I consider a fair and up-to-date evaluation is from the NYT: The Jordan Peterson moment. I believe that this is a credible and up to date source to start from. There is not a single reference to 'far-right', 'alt-right', or 'right'. Instead the article points to Petersons cultural, humanistic, psychological, phylosophical world-view. The whole message is overall positive.

Should the page include the wording 'far-right': I have yet to find any evidence for the 'far-right' stigma which doesn't come from an obscure faceless magazine or some close-minded protestor shouting slogans and hiding within the masses. Is there any credible up-to-date reliable reference? I did not find any. The above left-tending NYT article says no. Let us turn the question around: What would Peterson have to say to not be smeared 'far-right'? The answer should not be an left/right ideological statement. This is precisely what he is saying!

I would not include it blundly with the intent to smear and silence, due to lack of any(!) credible referentiable evidence; instead I would include the following line of argumentation:

• Without doubt... the overwhelming majority of people who are familiar with his content knowns that his position is clearly not 'far-right/left' or 'right/left'. He dedicated decades of his life to studying what such type of thinking will lead to when the left/right-ideologists go too far. In a very vage sense or low resolution, one may understand his interpolation between chaos and order as an equilibrium between left'ish- and right'ish thinking (or psychologically inbetween the devouring mother and tyrannical father), even though this is vastly oversimplified.
• What Peterson is articulating is the cross-cultural mechanism which stabilised humanities societies from falling into right- or left totalitarian self-destructive pathological societies. When coming from a simple left/right world-view, left-pulling forces take his correction from going too far left as what a suppository 'right-puller' would do. In the left/right binary worldview the pull toward the central equilibrium is hard to distinguish from the pull of covert radical 'far-right' ideologist - unless you listen to him!
• But Peterson worldview is not binary Left/Right - it's a dichotomy dating back to the earliest known stable civilisations Sumer, see 'Tiamat' and 'Marduk' in "Maps of meaning". He also relates it to Nietzsches Apollonian/Dinosonian dichotomy- and affirmation of life. Peterson is trying to tell the protestors about this stable equilibrium each individual must find within himself, such that one does not fall prey to left- or right self-destructive identity politics. He doesn't even see them as 'enemies' as they see him - in fact he gently corrects people who formulate their questions to be more understanding.

Numerous universities have come forward over the years to allow a civil discussion to clarify Petersons position. However, mobs of protestors made it at first almost impossible to allow Peterson the chance to state his case. Consider for example the protest at Queens University, or the disaster at MacMaster. Innocent until proven guilty - rallying mobs to prevent Peterson to even state his case should be alarming to any free society. Not everyone is interested in engaging in a civil discussion. It is much easier to keep ones box-like thinking and simply smear a stigma on someone to scare people away or be associated.

• Leaving the stigma 'far-right' on this page without articulating his position takes a side of people smearing a reputation, such that they do not need to allow free-speech. It is simpler to smear his name (burn his book/information) instead of having to confront the possibility that a tenure Ivy league Professor risking his name and reputation might know something they could need to prevent shifting into a pathological society. Peterson is not some average guy on reddit hiding his identity behind some fake profile and big mouth. Before the 'controversy' he already was an extremely successful tenure professor who taught at Harward Ivy league. It's a shame that mob of protestors refusing to engage themselves nor allow others a civil discussion and hiding behind flag of an ideology which lead to hundreds of millions of deaths in the past century (see MacMaster incident), should not be able to smear this page with 'far-right', when they have no clue what Peterson's position is.

As with other pages of prominent people Wikipedia should not allow people to smear the name of Peterson and passively picking the side of a shouting mob contributing to the inhuman treatment of J. B. Peterson. Wikipedia should not allow vague and lose references trying to sneak vicious formulations and 'far-right' stigma with a one-line reference to some obscure online-magazine self-referencing their own bias or some protestor not just unwilling but so deep within their ideological way of thinking that they became unable to consider the possibility that they might go too far by impeding free-speech and promoting compelled-speech.

• One tragic aspect of the situation is that Petersons message is very hard to articulate correctly this leaves few other possibilities than self-referencing to Peterson. His message has depth psychological aspects which must leave chaotic/creative room for interpretation at some places at other places the message must leave a tyrannically orderly "no" for any room for interpretation.

It takes time for people to understand and catch up. The New York Times did. And they did not call him controversial at all but "one of the most influential thinkers of our time", which is positive - it implies there is a valuable message. Wikipedia should not enable people to smear Ivy leave accredited tenure professors! Let's be reasonable the NYT is considered rather left democratic trending; It would never write this about a 'far-right controversial figure'. Derek1155 (talk) 19:53, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

No actual edit requested. Additionally, please get consensus for any changes before requesting an edit. Thanks.

ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:26, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

• a David Brooks op-ed from three years ago is irrelevant at this point - and thanks to the wide range of sources included, our article offers a fairer assessment. Acousmana (talk) 22:33, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

@Derek1155: I think you make some thoughtful, valid points about Jordan Peterson. However, the other editors are correct about how one should go about incorporating such a nuanced understanding into the article. I encourage you to "learn the system" here at Wikipedia and then apply your advanced knowledge to this and other articles. Or, just throw your hands up in disgust and rail against tyrannical Wikipedia editors. (See Rules 6, 7, & 9 in 12 Rules for Life.) Btw, I have "thrown up my hands in frustration" many times during my 12 years as an occasional Wikipedia editor, especially when I felt misunderstood and attacked. Hang tough! Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 14:53, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Worth noting also that an argument riddled with authority bias isn't going to get you very far here. Acousmana (talk) 15:33, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Quite right. Occasionally contentious newcomers transform themselves into great editors, which is my (perhaps rose-tinted) hope. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 16:25, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand Derek1155's concern with the current state of the article. The IP editor might have been concerned with the edit being reverted here [[7]]. I agree with the reversion and the editor who originally made the edit has since been blocked as a sock. I don't see where the current version of the article calls Peterson far/alt right. Springee (talk) 17:28, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Bestseller in lead

Do we need to mention that his book was a bestseller in the lead? I have tried removing this but J.Turner99 (now blocked) and Volteer1 both reverted this. I am not denying that the book was a bestseller, but I don't think that is is appropriate for the lead as should not try to just highlight Peterson's achievements (even if he has many). Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:31, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

He's published 3 books, but one of them was very popular (12 Rules for Life). I think he's marginally notable for his other books, but very notable for that book in particular. As I stated in the edit summary, my reasoning was that saying this book is popular would be a strange thing to say in wikivoice, and saying that it's a bestseller is basically a more precise way of saying "it was popular" without the npov/wikivoice problem. Happy to hear other people's opinions on this, but I think just saying he's written books A, B and C would be insufficient when really the important and noteworthy thing is that he's written book B. --Volteer1 (talk) 15:50, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree that book was the most noteworthy, but more so due to the world tour rather than the number of sales. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:51, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

The world tour may indeed be noteworthy, but the book is certainly particularly noteworthy in its own right compared to his other books, and as far as I can see, its popularity is the reason why (e.g. being #1 on Amazon, etc). --Volteer1 (talk) 17:56, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

We can wait and see what others have to say. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:45, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

• "12 Rules" was a bestseller (#11 of all print books) in 2018. Thus, the adjective "bestseller" is not in dispute, is supported by reliable sources, and is relevant. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 03:41, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

  Nobody is disputing that it was a bestseller, or at least not me. All I am saying is that he is not notable for the bestselling status, but more the tour. The number 1 on that list does not mention the book at all in the lead; the number 2 does not even have a Wikipedia article; and number 3 does mention the bestselling status despite them being primarily an author. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:56, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I've had a look at more sources describing Peterson and his book generally, and it does seem the fact that it's a bestseller (or just popular, at least) is what people find important to mention when talking about his book. Just grabbing some articles we're currently using as sources: Eighteen years later, the author of “Maps of Meaning,” Jordan B. Peterson, has produced a sequel, of sorts. It’s called “12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos,” and it has become an international blockbuster. [8], or The confrontation has worked wonders for Peterson. His new book 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos has become a runaway bestseller [9], or His most recent book, “12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos,” was a number one national and international bestseller and is a great example of his intellectual prowess. [10], etc. Are there other sources that find the tour the important thing to mention? ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 19:27, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Emir of Wikipedia In this case, "bestseller" seems appropriate for the lead section, because, in a word, it summarizes the extraordinary sales (5 million copies to date) the book has achieved, which is reflected in the media coverage ("popular", "bestseller", "runaway bestseller"). I did some looking: it's hard to find publishing statistics, but a survey of online articles discussing overall book sales, and sales in non-fiction and self-help categories, seems to indicate that 5 million is extremely unusual, putting 12 Rules.. perhaps in the 0.005% (my conservative rough estimate) of all books ever published, ranked by copies sold. This is far from the case for many books called bestsellers in the moment. It's also been out for only three years, a short period compared to popular non-fiction books that have accumulated sales over years and decades, and sales seem to be continuing (on today's Amazon.com Top 20 chart for all non-fiction, it's at #5 Most Read/#13 Most Sold) -- this suggests that 12 Rules' popularity will continue for some time. The sales total should be mentioned in the body of the article, which gives context to the loosely defined term, "bestseller". --Tsavage (talk) 22:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes! What Tsavage wrote is spot on. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 04:06, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory has an RFC

Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:08, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Jordan Peterson/Red Skull

Should this go in the article somewhere? 209.6.198.13 (talk) 10:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

References

I think it's best to wait a bit and see if this incident gains more than minor/fleeting coverage – it's probably less about Peterson himself and more about the comic book, and so far I don't think it's really something we'd look back on in 10 years and think is noteworthy unless there is more to be said about it. Possibly it could have a place in an article about the character or the comic book, though. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 10:48, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm thinking it's more about Peterson's reaction. That he assumed some pretty generic lines from a Nazi supervillain were lifted from him and flipped out over it. — Red XIV ^(talk) 23:29, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I would say no, if only because it seems like these kinds of cheap, one-off political shots are rarely mentioned here. The article on Newt Gingrich, for example, doesn't mention the character Nute Gunray from the Star Wars films, even though the connection between the two names is well-documented. Korny O'Near (talk) 00:18, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

It looks like this particular one will stay in the news cycle, in no small part due to how it seemingly hit a nerv with Peterson and his followers. I wouldn't write this one off just yet. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 10:40, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

It is difficult to read that comic and not think of Peterson. Peterson's enablers flipped out before he did, and many left wing commentators found the comparison to be apt. Maybe Peterson should ask himself why his lectures and philosophies sound so much like a nazi supervillain. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 10:38, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOTFORUM. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:08, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment surprisingly, this has now garnered significant coverage across multiple WP:RS, so based on the weight of this coverage, it would be permissible to mention it in the article. Would you like to propose text with sources? Acousmana 11:57, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
• Wait and see. RECENT is a big issue here. This seems to be a petty swipe at Peterson by a comic author on the other side of the culture divide. It has gained some traction with those who are discussing the intersection of pop-culture and the culture wars but in the long term it doesn't say much about Peterson himself or his beliefs. If anything it says more about the current set of writers at Marvel and the use of their comic as a political platform. Perhaps in a year we can see if this has a real impact on Peterson. Springee (talk) 12:29, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

notability, in terms of those involved (Marvel, Ta-Nehisi Coates, Peterson), suggests this merits mention. If it was some indie comic, and the incident was ignored by mainstream sources, undue, but based on the the amount of coverage this has gotten, across a wide range of sources, inclusion is reasonable - it's not for us to assess "impact" and that aspect has no bearing on whether or not the article should note the incident. Acousmana 14:26, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Has Marvel or Ta-Nehisi said this is Peterson? This really is the sort of petty cat fight stuff we should leave out of an encyclopedic article. It doesn't appear that Peterson is doing much about it other than a few twitter comments. Currently we can't say this has any lasting impact beyond any other criticism Peterson has received and it is for us to ask that question since it adds/remove to the WEIGHT we should give the material. Yes, some commentators are making an issue of it (for or against) but this is very likely to blow off when the next outrage item comes up. Per RECENT, and in the spirit of NOTIMELIMIT we can just wait and see. Springee (talk) 14:39, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Peterson has responded directly on the matter, sources are multiple, they are RS and the weight of coverage means mention is warranted, irrespective of any notions you may have about RECENT being an impediment to inclusion. Acousmana 14:47, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Again, RECENT. Just replying doesn't mean it has a lasting or significant impact. Springee (talk) 15:05, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

"Recentism is a phenomenon on Wikipedia where an article has an inflated or imbalanced focus on recent events," that is not what's happening here. A couple of lines about this is not indicative of recentism - a guideline designed to limit the production of articles burdened by excessive coverage of recent events. Put simply, RECENT is moot. We can move this to an RfC if people really feel there's an issue adding a short mention of this. Acousmana 15:45, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

OK, yes I'm oppose to adding this. Why should we give weight to a petty swipe by the author of the comic? Does this come even close to passing the 10YEAR test? We are in no hurry and can wait and see rather than adding it now. The article doesn't need to be filled with petty insults directed at Peterson vs actual reasoned criticism of his work/ideas etc. Springee (talk) 16:09, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

"doesn't need to be filled with petty insults", that isn't what anyone is proposing. "Does this come even close to passing the 10YEAR test?" easily, it suggests a number of things, none of which are applicable to adding two lines about a Peterson/Marvel spat. Acousmana 16:30, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Petty insults refers to the content of the comic, not a proposed discussion of it. I do not see how you can claim this passes the 10YEAR test when the whole topic is recent. Why do you think this won't be forgotten as soon as the news cycle moves on? Springee (talk) 16:56, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

already outlined above why recent/10y is moot. Acousmana 17:22, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

And I don't agree that you have. Springee (talk) 17:23, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

10YearTest: Will someone ten years from now be confused about how this article is written? In ten years will this addition still appear relevant? If I am devoting more time to it than other topics in the article, will it appear more relevant than what is already here?

I don't think that sentence or two mentioning this (in a ~5000 word article) would place undue weight on recent events, given the relatively extensive RS coverage that we have here. Srey Sros^talk 18:17, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

@Springee: The "comic book author" is actually Ta-Nehisi Coates, a well known and respected author and journalist. Not exactly some random person taking a jab at Peterson. That being said, I believe if this is going to be mentioned anywhere, is more appropriate to include a reference to it on the Red Skull article. Somebody more versed in comics, who knows where in the fictional character biography this current iteration of the red skull belongs, could also add a mention that he has been interpreted as a criticism of Jordan Peterson and the cult-like behavior of his followers. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 09:39, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

per above discussion, entirely appropriate to add mention of incident here also - additional detail/context re:Coates POV more appropriate at Red Skull page. Acousmana 10:48, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

• The subject of random unregistered users trying to smear the page with a 'far-right' suggestions have already been discussed in several talks above. See in particular the entry of Derek1155 in .

References

Wikipedia follows reliable sources not every social media trend.Sophie1221 (talk) 21:24, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Acknowledging Jordan Peterson's connection to the alt-right (at least an indirect one) is not a "social media trend". It's well documented. Nobody outside the alt right uses the antisemitic "Cultural Marxism" conspiracy theory, for starters. Also, I'm not sure what this has to do with the Red Skull. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 09:24, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2021

A sentence in the first paragraph under the subheading ‘Political views’ is misleading. This sentence is:

He has stated that he is commonly mistaken to be right-wing.[72]

The video in source [72] shows Jordan saying that his opponents mistakenly think he is a “right winger of some sort”.

Therefore a more accurate statement would be this:

He has stated that his opponents commonly mistake him to be a “right winger of some sort”. 2A01:388:5DC:110:FCCE:FBD8:69A8:F31D (talk) 20:00, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. The wording you propose has the same meaning. If you'd like to change this prose please get consensus. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:21, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Opinion of Current Affairs editor

@Tsavage and Kolya Butternut:, I think the removal of this opinion from Current Affairs is reasonable [[11]]. It seems more about insulting and less about actually pointing out errors in Peterson's comments. I don't see that the magazine nor the editor are notable enough to warrant inclusion of such an inflammatory quote. KB, you said their was a prior conversation about this. Can you point to it? Springee (talk) 20:27, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Those lines were discussed in a couple sections in Archive 8. I think that the critique often shared by Noam Chomsky is noteworthy, and well balanced by the quote: "[t]he startling success of his elevated arguments for the importance of order has made him the most significant conservative thinker to appear in the English-speaking world in a generation." Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:55, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, the opinion Nathan Robinson expressed in that op-ed ("his vacuous words are a kind of Rorschach test onto which countless interpretations can be projected") is a fairly common one I've seen other commentators express before. Regardless of that, given Chomsky's references to the piece it definitely seems due to me. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 21:01, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

seems like a relevant critique, but we could partly paraphrase and drop "vacuous" - "Nathan J. Robinson of Current Affairs argues that because Peterson's ideas are "a kind of Rorschach test onto which countless interpretations can be projected" he has been viewed as everything from a "fascist apologist to an Enlightenment liberal." Acousmana 21:11, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, not ideas, he's specifically talking about how it can be sometimes hard to pin down grander ideas to his words, e.g. stringing together some non-controversial descriptive statements which you could (or could not) interpret as a controversial normative statement, things like that. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 21:24, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Calling someone's professional utterances "vacuous words" seems problematic, particularly in a BLP, particularly in the context of trying to establish a person's political views. The statement, "his vacuous words are a kind of Rorschach test onto which countless interpretations can be projected" can only be reasonably read as, "his words convey no particular meaning, such that anyone can take them to mean anything they like" or "his words, devoid of meaning, are worthless". Sensational language aside, that sounds pretty damaging in any context, from any source. In this case, I can find little on Nathan J. Robinson or Current Affairs, nothing that suggests the quote as being more reliable or significant than numerous other published Peterson comments by journalists. And what does it have to do with Peterson's political views -- how does one opinion about how differing views may have been arrived at fit here? --Tsavage (talk) 22:07, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

James Grainger wrote for the Toronto Star that Peterson has become a "human Rorschach test".[12] This isn't a critique, but it backs up the noteworthiness of Robinson's use of "Rorschach test". Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:06, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

• I object to fundamentally changing the meaning of a quote by cutting off the end, Peterson has been seen "as everything from a fascist apologist to an Enlightenment liberal, because his vacuous words are a kind of Rorschach test onto which countless interpretations can be projected." We shouldn't paraphrase or trim someone's words just because we find their meaning to be objectionable, that would be whitewashing. There's no reason to exclude negative material as an attributed opinion. –dlthewave ☎ 03:00, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

• If the objective is to note that a number of people have found Peterson to be a sort of Rorschach test then we should say that and cite several examples without specific quotes. I don't see the significance of citing this specific editor or his publication as they don't seem to be a significant voice. If Chomsky quotes it then perhaps we should quote Chomsky. I do find the inclusion of "vacuous" direct quote or no, to be a needless insult that shouldn't be included in BLP except under the most limited of cases (this isn't one). While I'm not convinced that Robinson's opinion is DUE, if included I think Acousmana's version conveys the same information without the needless personal insult. Springee (talk) 03:34, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

  It's not a "needles insult". It's an apt characterization of Peterson's words. Others have described his lctures and writing as "word salad". None of these are an insult of Peterson, but rather an objective evaluation of his style, which strikes all but his most ardent fans as confusing and nonsensical. Might I add, while Peterson has been interpreted in a variety of ways, as far right, right, center right, libertarian or "classical liberal" (whatever that means), I have yet to hear anyone interpret him as left wing or left leaning, so the idea that he's some kind of a rorshach test that anyone can project anything on doesn't seem to be too accurate. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 09:10, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

  Nathan Robinson was published in The Guardian where he linked to his analysis which contains this quote.[13] Kolya Butternut (talk) 08:53, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

  I'm easy either way, and while I personally feel Peterson is full of crap, the "vacuous" part of the quote is a POV value judgement coming from someone who really isn't all that notable, if Chomsky had said it, different story, then there's a real argument for hammering "vacuous." Acousmana 12:59, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

  In a section called "Political views", we have to be careful not to synthesize, by misframing and giving undue weight to media commentary, creating the impression that Peterson himself operates in the political sphere. Some "left" commentators pejoratively label Peterson "right", some "right" commentators embrace Peterson as "right", based on their interpretation of things Peterson has said as a psychologist (hierarchies, gender differences, and so forth). His one overt public political act was his opposition to a Canadian law, on freedom of speech grounds, and that's clearly delineable from everything else that he's noted for (research scientist in psychology, clinical psychologist, psychology professor, entrepreneur promoting psychology-based products, author and speaker on psychology/self-help). When asked, he has given opinions about political issues (eg: climate change, Trump and US politics) but these comments are from a psychologist's perspective. None of the coverage indicates that he is outspoken about politics. That should be clear to the general reader so that we're not mischaracterizing the subject in a BLP. --Tsavage (talk) 15:39, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

  Nobody is "mischaracterizing" him, you present a very weak argument here. Peterson stepped out of academia and waded full throttle into the sociopolitical sphere so us covering how he was received is uncontroversial. Claiming he is somehow immune from criticism because he's "speaking as a psychologist" is nothing more than an appeal to authority. Acousmana 16:04, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

  Immunization and appeal to authority don't come into it. The subject is the "Political views" section. We can and should cover the notable amount of labeling of Peterson that's been done in the media. Since not all of it can be correct -- can you be, say, "center-right" and "alt-right" at the same time? -- it's overall speculation rather than fact. Specifically with "vacuous words", the quote presents an entire argument about why Peterson's political views can't be pinned down (Peterson's "words" are meaningless, gibberish, word salad, you can read anything into them). This is analysis and opinion, not factual information, and should be clearly presented as such: "There has been extensive speculation about Peterson's political leanings..." type of framing. --Tsavage (talk) 17:15, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

  An opinion it may be, it is a very notable one that touches on the essence of the nature of Peterson's words. It is an accurate description with which I believe most people here can agree with. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 08:35, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Is there anyone who would be opposed to summarizing Robinson's view and removing the "vacuous" word as a compromise solution? I think that addresses the bigger BLP policy concern. Springee (talk) 17:08, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree, that would address the larger BLP issue. --Tsavage (talk) 17:15, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I would be opposed at this point. "Vacuous" seems noteworthy: "Peterson, meanwhile, was completely vacuous."[14] We should keep looking. Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:17, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That is someone else (is their opinion notable?) referring to a specific statement of Peterson as vacuous. That doesn't justify inclusion of a different non-notable opinion that uses the same word but in a different way. I think including what it basically a personal insult is a "contentious claim" related to a BLP. We need consensus to keep it in the article. Springee (talk) 18:50, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I would be opposed to removing "vacuous" as well, we shouldn't be modifying quotes or paraphrasing in a way that changes the meaning by removing negative connotations. –dlthewave ☎ 16:33, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't see there is consensus to keep this contentious material about a BLP subject. That would mean remove if we can't come up with a compromise option. Springee (talk) 16:49, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Springee. Although I do not believe Current Affairs is a reliable source, and I think Robinson is actually projecting what he unconsciously knows to be true about himself, e.g., much of his writing is vacuous, if we must include the Robinson material, paraphrasing it would be better. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 04:24, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

An opinion piece critical of Peterson's critics mentions the Robinson piece and his use of the word "gibberish".[15] Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:47, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

That's an opinion article. Springee (talk) 18:50, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

So? –dlthewave ☎ 18:57, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Is the opinion notable? If this is a non-notable person repeating what Robinson said why does that establish weight for inclusion here? (Note: I'm not using notable in the wiki NOTE sense) Springee (talk) 18:58, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

My point was that many commentators are describing Peterson's words as lacking substance, so the sentiment is noteworthy. But as I have said, Noam Chomsky finds Robinson's piece to be a noteworthy analysis of Peterson, and the piece is one of the things he sends out to people "more than anything else."[16] Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:33, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I think that sort if justification is problematic per NOR. Recently I asked a similar question on NORN [[17]]. The basic question was can we include an example of a pattern of behavior if no RS notes the pattern. If individually the sources identifying a pattern aren't due can we presume them to be due because a number of them say the same thing. The answer was no. So we can't say because several sources have said his comments are vacuous it's OK to use this particular source as an example of that unless a RS says, "many sources say Peterson's statements are vacuous". In this case if we can find a RS saying Chomsky says X about Peterson then we can include that. We can't include Robinson just because we know that Chomsky thinks Robinson sums up Peterson. Springee (talk) 20:57, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Your NORN question is unrelated. WP:DUE states that we should "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." All of the opinion pieces discussed are RS for opinions. "Vacuous" is a significant viewpoint. We could cite someone more prominent, but their language wouldn't be any less harsh. Chomsky isn't just saying that he agrees with Robinson, he communicates that the Robinson piece is noteworthy. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:22, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

It is specifically related. If the reason we want to include the term "vacuous" here is because the term is widely used by others then we either need a RS to say as much or each example must stand on it's own in terms of weight. We cannot justify inclusion of this instance because we feel it represents a larger view. As for your part about all of these sources are reliable for the opinions they convey, yes, I agree. The question is which opinions are DUE for inclusion. In general if we are going to review the things Peterson says we need to use experts in the topic area, not political commentators. Springee (talk) 03:15, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

You are splitting hairs here. It was just explained to you why this represents a larger view. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 08:35, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Sources don't "stand on their own in terms of weight"; assessing the prominence of a viewpoint among sources is literally how we assess due weight. –dlthewave ☎ 16:35, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

That is not what the NORN discussion said. If opinion A, B and C all say the same thing (Z) but none are from significant sources then we can't say "commentators say Z". That was the outcome of that NORN discussion. It relates to this discussion as people are saying we should include Robinson's opinion as representative of several sources that make the same claim about "vacuous". Springee (talk) 16:49, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Dlthewave, close. Assessing the viewpoint across reliable, independent sources is how we assess due weight.

I can easily find a thousand unreliable sources that say the British royal family are lizards. Do we add that to the article on the British royal family? Guy (help! - typo?) 07:53, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Kolya Butternut, this is a fundamental error. Primary opinion sources do not magically become significant because several of them say the same thing. Opinions are like arseholes: everyone has one, and most of them stink.

Mining the internet for quotes from random blowhards (or even random thoughtful op-ed writers) is a terrible way to write an article, especially on a subject like Peterson, where we have secondary sources that discuss his work and public reaction to it as a subject in and of itself. Guy (help! - typo?) 07:58, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

I was saying that the viewpoint is significant because several of the opinion sources say the same thing, and the Robinson source is significant because Noam Chomsky cites it. Kolya Butternut (talk) 10:35, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

But that is the SYNTH issues I was talking about. A viewpoint becomes significant when significant people say it. As an example there are a lot of fire arms rights points that are not significant per Wikipedia standards because the sources who state those views aren't significant per Wiki standards. Gun rights people may have a solid argument why they are opposed to a particular type of legislation and plenty of non-firebrand blogs, Youtube commentators, etc will say the same thing. However, per Wiki policy we can't include that in an article on the subject unless a RS sums up that POV. This is a similar case. Wikipedia doesn't allow us to bundle a number of similar, not significant opinions together to create a significant opinion. We need a RS to do that for us. Springee (talk) 11:24, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't see why it should be removed. The only argument I heard for such a compromise is that "it sounds mean". By this logic, no critic of Peterson should be cited because there is no critic of Peterson that describes his utter nonsense in nice terms.46.97.170.112 (talk) 08:35, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Reliable source?

• It's simply an unclear quote from an unreliable source for this context:

• There's no easily found background info on Current Affairs. The core info in the Wikipedia article on the mag is cited to currentaffirs.org. The web site provides info like: "while other magazines’ culture content may tend toward the vapid or the aloof, you can trust that Current Affairs’ writers always have startling new insights and incredible jokes".
• The only article profiling Robinson and Current Affairs I could find is from 2017: "Rise of the Hard Left": Robinson was the only staff, it had a circulation of 2,000, it focused on "relentless critique" of pop culture and politics, "no subject is safe from a scathing takedown."
• It's a satirical magazine. Quoting the current web site, it features, for example, "'advertisements' for non-existent products, services and General States of Mind". From "The Rise of the Hard Left": "A principal reference point for Current Affairs was Spy, a satirical monthly magazine". One would expect rhetorical flourishes that aren't great for direct quotes, when the point is the content, not the style, of the source.
• The quote used here is unverifiable: People ... seeing him as everything from a fascist apologist to an Enlightenment liberal is Robinson's opinion, undeveloped further in the article. Which people "people' called Peterson a "fascist apologist", who called him "an Enlightenment liberal", from where was this data gathered? From what we know of it, is this publication likely to have a robust fact-checking process?
• The second part of the quote, his vacuous words are a kind of Rorschach test onto which countless interpretations can be projected, is an argument that it's impossible to discover Peterson's views from his work, so what is it doing here, is it rebutting the other sources that do categorize his views?
• Much of the source article, supporting the vacuousness of Peterson's words, consists of Robinson, who has a law degree, giving his opinion -- basically, mocking and trashing -- quoted passages of Peterson's academic book, Maps of Meaning. Is some domain expertise perhaps required: psychology, philosophy, something?

Everyone commenting here should first assess Current Affairs and read the article we're citing, so that we're all discussing the same thing. --Tsavage (talk) 05:29, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

@Kolya Butternut, Springee, Volteer1, Acousmana, Dlthewave, and JzG: @46.97.170.112 - Is the source reliable for the material used in the article? --Tsavage (talk) 04:09, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Current Affairs does not satisfy our reliable source criteria for the reasons Tsavage cogently outlined. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 04:16, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Reversion of edit due to "special pleading"

User:JzG: You reverted this edit, commenting "This looks very much like special pleading":

, and "what’s being missed by the critical media coverage, even the positive media, for that matter—what I’m doing is not political. It’s psychological, and focused on the individual."[100] There have been varied media accounts of Peterson's political positioning.

I'm not clear on why you reverted it. Please explain. --Tsavage (talk) 19:43, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Tsavage, we should not rely on self-sourced presentations of his claims. There are independent sources that analyse this, so describing it in his own words risks giving undue weight. Guy (help! - typo?) 07:16, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

JzG you should not have reverted that. Quotes from the subject of an article are allowed per WP:QUOTE. Nweil (talk) 21:48, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

disagree, Peterson's view of what he believes is being "missed" is undue. It's patently obvious he has been vocal on a number of political and sociopolitical issues and has drawn criticism for his views. Yet again there is an attempt here to conflate Peterson "the academic" with Peterson "the public intellectual" - his activities in the former relate to psychology, whereas the latter is him engaging in subject matter outside of his field of expertise. If criticism relates to views expressed publicly, on a range of issues, some of which are political/sociopolitical in nature, it's a fudge to say he's really talking about psychology and the media is "missing" what he's about. Acousmana 22:05, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

That is your POV, and there are many, many individuals out there who disagree with you. So if we are looking at properly representing due weight, the revert is clearly going in the wrong direction. Nweil (talk) 22:12, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

NPOV, however, must be based on the views of the highest-quality RS, not on a poll of people who may agree or disagree with the subject of the article. Newimpartial (talk) 22:19, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Nweil, yes I absolutely should. See WP:PROFRINGE. Guy (help! - typo?) 07:41, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

It appears this is a statement from Peterson himself. Has any source said Peterson said this in reply to his critics? If yes then I think it could be included. If no then the question is does ABOUTSELF apply. If this is a specific response to things critics have said about him then I think it could be included per about self. If this is a general statement then I don't see it being DUE. Springee (talk) 01:37, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Springee, "X says Y, source, X saying Y" has always been a terrible idea. It's an open invitation for us to take on the role of arbiter of significance, mining the internet for the things that best support our vision of how a subject should be represented.

That's particularly important with Peterson, given his fans' tendency to assert that every criticism is invalid because you have to have seen this statement on this YouTube video for context first, and if you haven't consumed every word he's written and every moment of his many thousands of hours of video, then you can't possibly understand. They act as a kind of pseudointellectual Zamboni, constantly having to sweep up the damage from his actual words, which do keep being "misunderstood" as dumb Christian Nationalist misogyny (odd how someone who makes his living from words seems to be so consistently misunderstood).

So with Peterson, especially, we must rely on how reliable independent secondary sources present his ideas, and never on how he spins them himself. Guy (help! - typo?) 07:50, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't agree though your concern is not without merit. Suppose a reporter takes a particular Peterson statement and says, "here is why this statement is a closet support of racism..." and that makes it into our article. Then in an interview Peterson directly responds to that reporter's claims. That would be a clear ABOUTSELF case. I think the same is acceptable if a number of sources have the same criticism of a specific Peterson POV/statement. However, to be an ABOUTSELF the linkage needs to be clear. I have no idea if that applies in this case. If it does then I think ABOUTSELF can be used here but I think the linkage needs to be shown since the text has been challenged. Springee (talk) 11:33, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Springee, WP:MANDY. And that applies to people who are clear communicators - Peterson's signature word salad allows people to cherry-pick phrases to defend even his most egregious bullshit as somehow being "out of context", in fact that's the near-universal response of his fanbois to any form of criticism. Guy (help! - typo?) 07:17, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Politico is reliable and this quote seems simple and limited enough to be acceptable (though, as always, we'd prefer to paraphrase it). He's not a fringe figure on the topic of psychology—rather, it's his (only) field of expertise. Additionally, politics doesn't have the same notion of "fringe" as science does: a political perspective cannot be wrong, per se, but either consistent or inconsistent; and mainstream or non-mainstream. As such, if Politico thinks it was an important enough statement from the interview to use in the article and even choose as the headline, then we can think it's important enough to give half a sentence to. — Bilorv (talk) 11:38, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't see a valid removal here. This is published in Politico magazine so this isn't a self-source issue. The content was Peterson describing himself, and we word the content as such. In order for this to be some sort of special pleading we have to be deviating from accepted standards without good reason, and I'm not seeing the argument for that. --Kyohyi (talk) 12:56, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

JzG On the topic of self-sourcing, for comparison's sake, this seems like a textbook example: In his video posted on October 2020, Peterson mentioned, "...with God's grace and mercy I'll be able to start generating original material once again and pick up where I left off."[175] From the "Religious views" section. Entirely unlike the quote you removed, which is from a reliable secondary source, and reflects a central theme of the article (in fact, the quote is in the article headline). --Tsavage (talk) 00:34, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Tsavage, this should go too. We have no need to use the quoted words of Peterson. We should rely instead on what reliable secondary sources say about his words. Guy (help! - typo?) 07:19, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

• When we can so easily demonstrate that Peterson contradicts this claim re:"not political," lending credence to his POV on this is a bad idea. It's unduly self-serving and an exceptional claim. Acousmana 13:36, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

This would be a valid rebuttal iff they were discussing the same thing. The not political quote is in response to a question on his life advice and intellectual program. The PragerU video is not about his life advice and intellectual program. A person can have a political aspect and a non-political aspect, we're not one thing all of the time. --Kyohyi (talk) 13:52, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

"The not political quote is in response to a question on his life advice and intellectual program, correct, and that's exactly why an editor shouldn't - in a section on political views - be stringing an out of context quote together with existing article content (He has stated that he is commonly mistaken to be right-wing) to form a sentence that reads: He has stated that he is commonly mistaken to be right-wing and "what’s being missed by the critical media coverage, even the positive media, for that matter—what I’m doing is not political. It’s psychological, and focused on the individual". The only place this would be appropriate, if at all, is in the section on the book '12 Rules for Life', because that was the reason Politico did the interview, and that's the proper context for the answer. Acousmana 16:08, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

The relevance of that argument depends on whether the section in question is "Political views held by Peterson" or "Views described as political". Based on the (largely news media coverage) that I've read, it's the latter, a "walks like a duck, quacks like a duck" type of comparison, which is often a useful heuristic, but not evidence. It's up to us to sort out this political thing, and then find a way to cover it in a verifiable way. --Tsavage (talk) 22:55, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

User:JzG: "It's not political" is a directly relevant and appropriate to the majority of what we have categorized as Peterson's "Political views". By and large, what Peterson produces (books, speaking events, comments, etc), is based on psychology, not politics.

Peterson refers to mainstream Big Five personality trait theory. People high in trait OPENNESS (spontaneous, imaginative) vs those high trait CONSCIENTIOUSNESS (disciplined, careful) naturally sort "left-right" in all aspects of life. The two types exist in tension with each other, continually trying to achieve a balance. A high Openness farmer may constantly try new crops and new methods, take on too many things at once, and fail. A high Conscientiousness farmer may stick to traditional crops and methods, resist adapting to changing conditions, and at some point fail. Better for the two farmers to continually come to an agreement on maintaining a stable production system, while steadily addressing change as it happens. This dynamic can be seen in couples, in business (the entrepreneur idea guy partnered with the pragmatic financial type). It also maps onto politics, which we commonly refer to as left-wing/right-wing, liberal vs conservative, social safety net vs pull up by bootstraps, new ways vs traditional ways, all of that. This is a non-controversial, prevalent, science-based view in psychology.

It's easy to slot this stuff as "political". If a contraception researcher published a research-based book that concluded abortion seems on balance safe and largely beneficial, and then gave some interviews, and was widely branded in the media as "anti-Christian" and "anti-religion" or "radical left", would we automatically have a BLP section on "Anti-Christian views", or "Political views"?

A lot of the argument here is not making a distinction between how commentators (media, etc) have chosen to focus on a political interpretation of Peterson, which is not the only interpretation. Making certain media themes predominant leads to POV, undue weight, lack of balance, all of that.

The amount of critical coverage and political framing in the media certainly merit full coverage in his BLP. But the context has to be accurate, not simply repeating the loudest headlines. --Tsavage (talk) 22:00, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Tsavage, you're missing the point. This is Peterson's own self-serving statement. Independent observers note the contradiction between what he claims to be his philosophy, and the actual message everyone seems to take away, which is straight-up conservative christian nationalist misogyny. Guy (help! - typo?) 07:18, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

"But the context has to be accurate," yet your recent edit couldn't have been more out of context. You can try and spin it any way you want, but the reality is that Peterson has a political voice, has expressed political views, and has received notable coverage as a result. Acousmana 15:52, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

JzG, Acousmana Thanks for your replies. My response: "Views" is about fairly setting out what a subject has actually said and done regarding X or Y topic, and allowing readers to come to conclusions for themselves. We shouldn't be shaping the impression in favor of third-party opinions, in place of the subject's own views -- this isn't a "Reception" or "Criticism" section. For example, if Peterson is reliably quoted as saying that both detractors and supporters in the media who frame his work and comments in terms of politics, are missing the point, that he's speaking from psychology, that's his claim to make. Why would we suppress that, and only list the opinions of certain commentators, as to what his "views" must be? Where is info about his voting record, policy endorsements, party affiliations, associations with cause-oriented groups -- if he's so political, where is some concrete evidence of a political agenda, in all of that media coverage? --Tsavage (talk) 03:36, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

sorry to reiterate this, but he was clearly talking about the responses of "detractors and supporters in the media" to his first self-help book, however the way you framed the quote extract was misleading. Peterson has expressed a lot of explicitly political views, trying to frame this as him talking about psychology is a fudge, and not something Wikipedia should be engaging in. Acousmana 11:38, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Acousmana - I was referring to context in this article; now I'm clear you meant context in the source. That's reasonable: Commenting on media coverage of [his work OR "12 Rules..."], he says, "what's being missed [is that] what I’m doing is not political. It’s psychological, and focused on the individual." In an attempt at incremental improvement, I added that quote to give context to the (to me) inexplicable list of other media to tell the reader what Peterson's views are.

None of that media speculation should in "Political views". I checked into the sources, and there's no explanation of how those "conservative" labels were arrived at. And the Current Affairs quote is just weird. What makes sense for that paragraph is simply:

Views -> Politics: Peterson has said that politically he's a "classic British liberal" and a "traditonalist." He has stated that he is commonly mistaken to be "right wing". Some commentators have described him as a "conservative". Commenting on media coverage of [his work OR "12 Rules..."], he says, "what's being missed [is that] what I’m doing is not political. It’s psychological, and focused on the individual."

Though really, from what's there now:

Views -> Politics: Peterson has said that politically he's a "classic British liberal" and a "traditonalist." He has stated that he is commonly mistaken to be "right wing".

Again, those media quotes are not reliable assessments of Peterson's views, check the sources in the paragraph -- nothing is supported (and NYT/Hazony is an op-ed piece). I checked them all. There's no explanation, just pronouncements. --Tsavage (talk) 04:22, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2021

change to "Religious Views" to include

"Jordan Peterson has expressed favorable views of the Catholic Church, saying "I think that Catholicism … that’s as sane as people can get."

Source: https://www.catholicweekly.com.au/jordan-peterson-says-catholicism-is-most-sane/ Pazpkt (talk) 20:47, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Looks pretty WP:UNDUE to me. Just one piece of coverage of an interview. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:52, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Yikes. That sounds like something I wouldn't mind including. However, we would need a better source than a catholic website for that. Catholic Weekly is clearly trying to make an argument from authority to show that Peterson is supportive of their religion. We should probably see what Peterson's critics and noteworthy atheist thinkers and commentators have to say about Peterson's support of the catholic church. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 08:40, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

he has mentioned similar a number of times, in different sources, have a dig, there's an interview with Denis Prager where he repeats this "sane" statement, also some bishop in Canada he has sat down. Acousmana 17:50, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Reception section needed?

Maybe we should mention things like this: "Peterson was, depending on whom you believed, either a stern but kindly shepherd to a generation of lost young men, or a reactionary loudmouth whose ideas fueled the alt-right and a backlash to feminism. He was revered as a guru, condemned as a dangerous charlatan, adored and reviled by millions."[18] Kolya Butternut (talk) 12:41, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

I think we need to be careful about including a large number of direct quotes. It's better to summarize rather than decide which quotes we like best. Springee (talk) 12:59, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree. Kolya Butternut (talk) 13:01, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Fascism

Let's begin a talk on the contested new section. --Moxy- 13:56, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Extended content

While Peterson has repeatedly expressed opposition towards fascism and criticism of historically fascist regimes such as Nazi Germany, several commentators have criticised him for holding views that are fascistic in character, or at least sharing views with fascistic and other far-right thinkers of the past. Writing for the New York Book Review, left-wing author Pankaj Mishra describes Peterson's views on social hierarchy and gender relations, as well as his belief that the "desperation of meaninglessness" expressed by modern society can only be cured by a return to "ancient wisdom" and with the help of "the great myths and religious stories of the past," and compares them to beliefs about nationalism and myth expressed by the likes of Richard Wagner, as well as Proto-Fascist thinkers like Georges Sorel and Italian fascist Julius Evola. With regards to his views on Fascism, Mishra says that Peterson is "a disturbing symptom of the malaise to which he promises a cure." Writing for the left-wing Australian magazine Overland, Ben Brooker compares Peterson's world-view to Umberto Eco's concept of Ur-Fascism, as well as George Orwell's "working definition" of fasci sm as "something cruel, unscrupulous, arrogant, obscurantist, anti-liberal and anti-working-class." In relation to Eco's list of the fourteen properties of Ur-Fascism, Brooker lists Peterson’s "syncretistic retooling" of Christian and secular myth; his disdain for weakness and fetishisation of strength; his appeal among an economically and socially weakened middle class feeling besieged by a perceived rise in status of minority groups and the "strange folksy flavour of much of Peterson’s otherwise sophistic prose." References

I can hardly see why two opinion pieces, one being a book review in the The New York Review of Books, and one being an op-ed in a small Australian magazine Overland, deserve a whole section dedicated to them. Is there anything in an RS about this? ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 14:18, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Good point. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:48, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Just to clarify my revert, I had seen that prose in the article when I answered an edit request a few days back and saw it being removed by an account with a red link talk page. I assumed some amount of consensus existed for inclusion and advised to seek consensus to remove. I have no opinion on the section itself as I haven't done any reading into it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:22, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

It sounds like we should be able to find RS which discuss this: "Those on both the Right and Left defend him against charges of fascism and membership in the alt-right... Peterson’s fans argue that he is not a fascist, just a classical liberal [19] Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:32, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

For clarity, (I don't think you're implying this, but) Jacobin is probably not a reliable source (most recent RS/N discussion), given they are a partisan socialist magazine which only publishes opinion. It does make me think there might be more to be said about this in other reliable sources though. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 14:48, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Fascist is, indeed, a very skewed epithet to use against a man who openly identifies as Classical Liberal. We need to be straight with our definitions here; what defines a Fascist? If we use Mussolini as the prototype, a Fascist is someone who is 1) nationalist, 2) military and 3) revolutionary. One can hardly associate any of these traits with Jordan Peterson. It's a stretch, like calling Biden a Stalinist. Trakking (talk) 15:00, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Kolya Butternut, "classical liberal" is, of course, fascists' preferred term for alt-lite. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:43, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree that these sources are weak given the association they are trying to establish. It comes off as gossipy vs carefully considered. It's also a guilt by association attack vs saying Peterson actually is a proponent of our even a core tennant of fascism. Springee (talk) 16:07, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

• "Jordan Peterson & Fascist Mysticism", above cited article from The New York Review of Books [20]
• "After the Indian essayist Pankaj Mishra charged him with peddling 'fascist mysticism,' Peterson tweeted that Mishra was an 'arrogant, racist son of a bitch'...", The Atlantic [21]
• "Jordan Peterson slams left-wing academic who called him a fascist: 'I'd slap you'", Fox News [22]
• "Indeed, for Pankaj Mishra in the New York Review of Books, the invocation of such pseudoscientific guff places Peterson alongside a host of other 'intellectual entrepreneurs' in a lineage of 'fascist mysticism' (this criticism did not go down well)." Vice [23]
• "After a brutal but perfectly polite and clinical takedown in the New York Review of Books by Pankaj Mishra ... He called Mishra a 'sanctimonious prick'" The Guardian [24]
• "... his critics on the left say Peterson ... is one step removed from a white supremacist or similar to notable fascists. In March, Pankaj Mishra wrote an article titled 'Jordan Peterson & Fascist Mysticism'" National Review [25]
• Yegor Zhukov's "ideas have raised eyebrows. Critics have pointed to his support of Jordan Peterson, a Canadian thinker who has been described as a purveyor of 'fascist mysticism.'" The Moscow Times [26]

The Mishra piece and reaction are quite noteworthy. Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:54, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Honestly, that comes across as petty twitter fights. I don't see any of this as serious analysis or worthy of an encyclopedia article. Springee (talk) 18:00, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Springee, it's astonishing to me that anyone can distil anything at all, beyond Christian nationalism and misogyny, from the disjointed nonsense Peterson comes up with. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:08, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

His reaction is petty yes, but these stories and the book review are clearly noteworthy. Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:26, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Kolya Butternut, clearly? Says who? Not me. Peterson's actual importance as a philosopher is strictly limited. Guy (help! - typo?) 07:20, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

@JzG:, I'm a bit confused as to what you're getting at. This isn't about Peterson's relevance as a philosopher, this is about his characterisation of a wide array of noteworthy critics, who point out the close and unmistakable link between Peterson's views and fascism. Are you opposed to the inclusion because of Peterson's percieved lack of notability? Because that makes very little sense. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 08:26, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

No, I am saying that the article could be about one tenth the size, and better for it. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:24, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

@JzG:With that logic, one could argue that Trump shouldn't have a dozen articles about him, from his own article to his racial views to his conspiracy theories to his eating habits, yet you would object to this claim and you would be right to do so. Like it or not, Jordan Peterson is a high profile far right agitator and his role in the current socio-political and cultural landscape cannot be downplayed. Jordan Peterson has been widely covered by noteworthy, reliable sources, and his insane ideologies have been criticized by all but the most fringe public figures. I agree with you on Jordan Peterson, which I why I believe the article should go into MORE detail about what exactly it is he preaches and the many ways he has been criticised. If anything needs to be trimmed down, it's his list of works, which go into excessive detail, and maybe his misinformation campaign against Bill C-16, which should focus only on the fact that he campaigned against it, the consequences of his actions and the refutations of his false claims. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 08:53, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

If you think that Jordan Peterson and his not-cancelled career is comparable with Donald Trump, there's not a lot I can do to help you. Separately, I think we could also do with a lot less about Trump. Far too much of it is blow-by-blow reactions to the many outrageous things he said and did in the last four years. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:49, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Plase stay on topic. I only brought up Trump because like Peterson, he's a symptom of the same cancer that's destroying modern society. Yes, one had actual political power, and nearly destroyed the country. But people like Peterson are part of the reason there are people dumb enough to actually vote for trump. Their carreer's are uncomparable, but they represent the same toxic far right ideology. And Peterson is known for being one of the gateways to alt right radicalization. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 09:16, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Your point eludes me. My view is simple: I think this article is longer than the objective significance of the subject justifies. My benchmark is Robert Hooke. That article, on a man who coined the biological term "cell", surveyed half of London after the Great Fire, designed the dome of St. Paul's and the Monument at Fish Street, was Gresham Professor of Geometry and founding Curator of Experiments to the Royal Society, performed the observations for Boyle's Law and pioneered the tabulation of expected versus achieved results in an experiment, developed the law of springs, wrote the first great scientific bestseller, invented the sash window and wrote the first set of building controls in the UK, is 76,000 bytes. This, on a guy who wrote a particularly trite, albeit popular, book, is nearly twice that. I do not think that we will still be discovering significant work by Peterson four hundred years after his death, as we are for Hooke. Most of what is written about Peterson is already irrelevant by the time it's written down. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:57, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

HERE HERE! BULLY BULLY!!! I've been passively following this conversation, and this is about the best summation of my position I can think of. Additionally, it applies to probably about half of the articles on Wikipedia, and four out of five articles that relate to anything with any controversy related. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:16, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

JzG, this is what I have to say about your Hooke argument [[27]]. Springee (talk) 15:00, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Springee, heh! Yes, a bit. "England's Leonardo" as one book is memorably titled. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:30, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

@JzG:I would once again like to ask you to stay on topic. We're not talking about Hooke (who's article would probably be twice the size of Peterson's had Wikipedia existed at the time he was alive), we are talking about this article. My point is that we can't just arbitrarily exclude valid criticism of Peterson just because the article is too long already. Mishra's and Brooke's criticism of Peterson and their accurate assessment that Peterson's ideologies skirt the edges of fascism are perfectly valid, are notable and come from reliable sources. Even you agree with their assessment, so length is no argument against leaving this out. If the article is too long, that's because of the large amount of pointless fluff text, much of which is self-promotional, and should be cut. The disputed section on the other hand should not be. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 09:06, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

This is entirely on topic. The article is packed with recentism and trivia. Rather than adding more, we should be removing more. Guy (help! - typo?) 14:12, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

@JzG:Yes, there are a lot of recentism and trivia. The article is twice as long as it should be. That pointless fluff needs to be removed, I agree with that. BUT that is not what this topic is about. This is about including two paragraphs of relevant and notable criticism of Peterson's ideologies, which SHOULD be included, regardless of what recentism and trivia needs to be removed. You're disagreeing just for the sake of disagreeing, and you didn't really add anything to this discussion besides you're personal dislike of Peterson, which is perfectly justified and we all agree with, but that doesn't change the fact that we need to STAY ON TOPIC. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 10:08, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

@Springee: "Petty twitter fights" describes Peterson's reaction to Mishra, but not Mishra's and Brooker's criticism of Peterson, which is both noteworthy and accurate. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 08:26, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I think it's fine to include these criticisms of Peterson, but it's best done in a general "Reception" section (which this article could use), and not in a section called "Fascism", which inherently skews the debate. And hopefully it can be done in a less biased way than the current writing, which for example includes the phrase "fetishisation of strength" placed outside of quotes. The writing should also make it clearer if he's being accused of fascism or of just holding views that fascists have also held; the latter is just shoddy logic of the kind covered in the reductio ad Hitlerum article.

By the way, Peterson's reaction to Mishra (like threatening to slap him) only comes off as "petty" if you think he was responding to Mishra's accusations of fascism. In truth, he was responding to Mishra describing Peterson's friendship with a Native American man as "romancing the noble savage". Korny O'Near (talk) 12:57, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Korny O'Near's cogent comment (immediately above). Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 01:23, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what Peterson was replying to. We're not here to document every bit of nonsense and drama that alt right pseudointellectuals start on social media every single day. Mishra's criticism of Peterson is perfectly valid, and I agree with including it under it's own heading, as per WP:SPADE. Peterson's reaction to him is little more than a childish temper tantrum. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 08:43, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

A summary of the reviews may be due so long as its presented in the form of arguments against, not attention grabbing quotes. Such quotes have no place in an encyclopedic article. As a side comment, the agressive nature of the claims you make against Peterson come across as personal rather than well reasoned arguments. Your case would be stronger if you dialed back the rhetoric and made your case based on dispassioned reasons. Springee (talk) 12:18, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

@Springee:First off, my claims against Peterson were no more agressive than those made by Guy, and he's an admin - not to mention one of the few people on wikipedia who actually understands what impartiality means, but that's besides the point. The only "attention grabbing quotes" I see here are Peterson calling Mishra names and threatening to slap him, and if that's his best response to being accused of peddling fascism, than maybe it can be construed as admission of guilt. Unsurprising from self described "classical liberals". Mishra and Brooker's criticisms ARE presented as arguments against. The two paragraphs in dispute are neutral, impartial and encyclopedically worded, and properly summarize both criticisms. Maybe instead of making vague claims that Mishra and Brooker are attempting "guilt by association", you could tell us which parts of the two paragraphs you consider "attention grabbing quotes". 46.97.170.112 (talk) 08:53, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I just read Mishra's full opinion piece, and it should be noted that he never actually accuses Peterson of fascism - or even of holding fascistic views. Rather, the whole thing is essentially "guilt by association", full of examples like that Peterson thinks we should read Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn - and hey, did you know Solzhenitsyn supported Vladimir Putin when he was 90? You could read the whole thing as insinuating that Peterson is a fascist - Peterson certainly did, as have some of the people on this talk page - but I actually think Mishra is making a subtler point: that Peterson, though not himself a fascist, is playing with fire by extolling things like ancient wisdom and personal strength, which could lead his followers to clamor for a fascist strongman. I don't think Mishra ever says that directly either, though.

Brooker doesn't call Peterson a fascist either, though he makes the connection more explicit, saying that Peterson's "worldview connects up with historical fascism". It's a bit light on actual examples, and the examples he does cite seem rather insubstantial, like that Peterson writes with a "folksy flavour" and that his appeal is "among an economically and socially weakened middle class feeling besieged by a perceived rise in status of minority groups". (Which is also guilt by association, if it's even true - no one controls who their fans are.)

I'm not arguing against including these views; these are reliable sources, or at least the New York Book Review is. (I don't know about Overland.) But the summary should accurately describe what they're saying, not what they're hinting at. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:26, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Nobody is saying Peterson is a fascist, or that Mishra and Brooker calld him a fascist. You're arguing over nothing. Peterson's ties to fascism has always been what you describe Mishra and Brooker saying, and this is also what the contested fragment said. Peterson's ideologies are very closely tied to the things fascists believe and you cannot deny that. This is not guilt by association, this is calling a spade a spade. Your claim that nobody controls who their fans are is asinine. You will not find fascists and white supremacists among the fans of Slavoj Žižek, or the fans of any of the members of BreadTube, but you will find plenty among the fans of Jordan Peterson, and that has everything to do with the nature of the ideologies Jordan Peterson spouts on a regular basis. If Jordan Peterson wasn't promoting beliefs and ideologies that are associated with fascism, then he wouldn't have so many fascist cultists flocking to him. this isn't guilt by association. This is an objective assessment. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 09:06, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

You're wrong about a few things. White supremacist Richard B. Spencer, for example, has quoted Žižek approvingly. As for no one saying that Mishra and Brooker call Peterson a fascist, the text under discussion says that they describe him as "holding views that are fascistic in character". Which is... pretty much the definition of a fascist, no? I'm also confused by your insistence that we "call a spade a spade", given that you don't think Peterson is a fascist. What does "spade" mean in this context - "near-fascist"? Korny O'Near (talk) 13:55, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

@Korny O'Near:Rest assured that I am not wrong. Richard Spencer has a history of using his abysmal reputation to try and smear people outside the alt right trumpist echochamber, but people inside this echochamber are usually the only ones who fall for this grift. Richard Spencer is far right, therefore it stands to reason him quoting Žižek favorably is disingenuous. He also quoted Ibram X Kendi favorably, which is nonsense because a white supremacist isn't going to agree with an anti-racist on pretty much anything, And he claimed to endorse Biden in 2020, which is bullshit because everybody knows he's a trump supporter. This is just his way of giving the alt-lite a reason to say "see, he's not one of us". as if anybody still believes that.

Mishra and Brooker say Peterson's ideologies are closely related to fascism and are sympathetic to fascists, both of which are true, and at the very least, Peterson likes to act like he doesn't know that. That in itself means vewry little, as not saying the silent parts out loud is exactly what separates the self proclaimed "classical liberals" (i.e. the alt-lite), from the outspoken fascists and neonazis. also, "fascist-adjacent" or "overlapping with fascism" is what I would call his nonsense. Guy insists on using the term "christian nationalism" but that means something very specific. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 10:08, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I wonder, do you have any evidence that there are white supremacists among Peterson's fans, or is that similarly an evidence-free assertion, like seemingly the rest of your arguments? This is hardly the place to get into a general discussion of fascism or white supremacy, but you may be surprised to know that historically, those who have promoted racial separation and inequality have also tended to favor left-wing economic policies, including the KKK, the Nazis and Apartheid South Africa. Perhaps if you knew more about the history of racial supremacy, you would not be quite so assured in your convictions. Korny O'Near (talk) 14:16, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

@Korny O'Near:Evidence? You mean aside from every single breadtuber that ever analyzed his ideologies in depth, and aside from the fact that all of Jordan Peterson's fans on youtube are members of or associated with the alt right? I souldn't need to prove what's common knowledge and easily verifyable.

...you may be surprised to know that historically, those who have promoted racial separation and inequality have also tended to favor left-wing economic policies, including the KKK, the Nazis and Apartheid South Africa - Perhaps you missed the memo, but PragerU is NOT considered a reliable source here on wikipedia. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 09:19, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

While Peterson has repeatedly expressed opposition towards fascism ... several commentators have criticised him for holding views that are fascistic in character, or at least sharing views with fascistic and other far-right thinkers of the past -- This premise comes across as so manufactured and undue that it reads to me as absurd. More so when:

• The "several commentators" appear to be two writers, one of them (relatively?) obscure and publishing in a (relatively?) obscure "radical literary magazine".
• The connections to fascism are tortured - I can't even follow the esoteric reasoning to any useful conclusion (what is the chance that it makes any sense to the general reader?) -- only "Peterson -> Fascism" clearly registers.
• The noteworthy point: that a couple of writers see some sort of fascistic tendencies in some of Peterson's work?
• And... What is the importance of people speculating about what Peterson "really" means about anything? The "Peterson said, but..." formulation of the first sentence suggests that Peterson is being misleading, or lyinig. Where is the evidence for that?

At best, a brief mention of Mishra's overall review in a "Reception" section may be reasonable (there have been a lot of commentators). --Tsavage (talk) 03:23, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

@Tsavage:Because Peterson IS being misleading, all the time. He can describe himself as one thing but his ideologies speak for themselves. This is neither manufactured, nor undue. Nobody is speculating, at least not in the cited paragraphs. Mishra and Brooker look at Peterson's own words, break down what his ideologies are, and conclude that they are closely related to fascism. This isn't speculation in any way. And the reasoning is only esoteric to readers who are completely ignorant of academic definitions of fascism. Of which we have an entire article here on wikipedia. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 10:08, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Mm...he's apparently the basis for the new Red Skull...so the perceived connections to fascism may not be so tortured.[28] Kolya Butternut (talk) 13:49, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

@Kolya Butternut The article you linked to doesn't mention fascism. Reading elsewhere on the subject, I found to me the most evocative Red Skull comment from Peterson: "It’s hard not to be shocked by the sheer surreality of the time we inhabit..." Red Skull, huh. "In popular culture"? --Tsavage (talk) 05:14, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

@46.97.170.112 "Mishra and Brooker look at Peterson's own words, break down what his ideologies are, and conclude that they are closely related to fascism. This isn't speculation in any way." <- That's practically the definition of speculation: reasoning that arrives at no reasonably indisputable conclusion. Speculation is stuff like, for a concise example, Mishra arguing that:

• Peterson adopts the public persona of Jung;
• Jung wore a primitive snake ring;
• Peterson collects [primitive] Native American art;
• Jung put down Jews and sympathized with Nazis;
• [You connect the dots.]

See para 13 of the review for Mishra's exact words -- am I reading that all wrong? For me, the entire review is of the same: comparison, guilt my association, no evidence. It doesn't once use the word, "fascism", or call Peterson a fascist, fascistic, or anything like that, it labels other people and things fascistic, and tries to associate Peterson with them. The writer apparently doesn't have the conviction to state his conclusions directly. If that's solid scholarly analysis, I think we are doomed. --Tsavage (talk) 05:14, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

@Tsavage:None of those things are mentioned in the two paragraphs that are in dispute here. You cherry picked some of the weaker points from Mishra's review and separated them from the broader context that gives them meaning. Not to mention you ignored Brooker's points entirely. This is what the Mishra review states, that's is being recommended for inclusion:

Pankaj Mishra describes Peterson's views on social hierarchy and gender relations, as well as his belief that the "desperation of meaninglessness" expressed by modern society can only be cured by a return to "ancient wisdom" and with the help of "the great myths and religious stories of the past," and compares them to beliefs about nationalism and myth expressed by the likes of Richard Wagner, as well as Proto-Fascist thinkers like Georges Sorel and Italian fascist Julius Evola And from the Brooker review:

In relation to Eco's list of the fourteen properties of Ur-Fascism, Brooker lists Peterson’s "syncretistic retooling" of Christian and secular myth; his disdain for weakness and fetishisation of strength; his appeal among an economically and socially weakened middle class feeling besieged by a perceived rise in status of minority groups and the "strange folksy flavour of much of Peterson’s otherwise sophistic prose.

There's no sign of the nonsense you're trying to use to strawman Mishra's points in a transparent attempt to run damage control for Peterson. No trace of "connect the dots", nothing even remotely similar to guilt by association. All of the criticism weighs Peterson's ideologies on their own merit. Maybe you should be asking yourself why so many people recognize fascist rethoric in Peterson's teachings, instead of using contrived mental gymnastics to defend the indefensible. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 09:19, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Short review of Beyond Order and debate between Peterson and Michael Shermer

[[29]] by Jason Colavito. Doug Weller talk 15:50, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Doug Weller, I think I would rather stick knitting needles in my ears than listen to either of those two. Both together? Ugh. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:01, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

@JzG:I think the main takeaway, at least for me, is Peterson's ignorance about ancient mythology. He's critical of Shermer also. Doug Weller talk 16:06, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOTFORUM. Korny O'Near (talk) 13:34, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Template:Re:Korny please see Teaching grandmother to suck eggs. Guy's comment was trivial perhaps, but not something that you should be worried about. Mine are directly about the article. Doug Weller talk 14:27, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Directly about this Wikipedia article? I don't think they are. Unless you think that blog post should be cited here, which seems doubtful. Korny O'Near (talk) 20:16, 2 May 2021 (UTC)