Talk:Jordan Peterson

Recent unexplained reverts

Nobody has given any rationale for these unexplained reverts, which at a glance seem to more accurately summarize the relevant sources. Can anyone explain the reason for them? If not, I'll go ahead and reinstate them - possibly with additional sources to be safe, since while it accurately summarizes the existing sources, finding more isn't difficult. --Aquillion (talk) 03:41, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Hes not commonly described as right wing. but the main issue was that "right wing" was added in front of an already existing source that said something different --FMSky (talk) 11:52, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Since the original edit was challenged the editor making the change needs consensus. I don't see the change as an improvement. If you disagree please provide details explaining why. Springee (talk) 12:40, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

This smells like WP:SQS. Users reverting and objecting to seemingly fine edits with no explanation in their edit summary or even here (other than "not an improvement", which is clearly not an adequate explanation). You shouldn't be objecting to an edit that provides verifiable material without giving a valid reason. And before someone points to WP:ONUS, that's still not an excuse to revert a change to an article without adequately explaining why.

The addition of context that explains who has called Peterson right-wing and how frequently is a clear improvement to me.

We also have more sources describing him as right-wing than we do conservative, so I restored that part to the second sentence of the lede. ––FormalDude (talk) 01:14, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

First, the ONUS is on you to show that this change is DUE. You claim SQS but why is that more significant that what others might see as POV pushing? To establish the "often described as" you need to do something more than just show a source. Really this sort of throwing out labels as hard as possible and early as possible is poor writing style. For example, a google news search for "Jordan Peterson" returns 10k hits. However, if you add "right wing" or "conservative" to that search you get about 500 hits each. It seems like most sources don't fixate on either term. That seems to be a wikipedia phenomena. It also suggests that neither should be viewed as "often". I don't see your change as an improvement. The Guardian, while considered reliable, is not bias free and we need to be careful when it mixes writer's opinions with facts. Also, the only place the article calls Peterson himself "rightwing" is in the title. I think VOX was the only other source in that block that supported "right wing" Again, it's a source where we need to separate writer opinion from hard facts. Springee (talk) 01:44, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure you even read my comment, and this is too small a change to get drawn into a prolonged discussion about, so this will be my sole reply to you.

Nobody objecting said anything about POV concerns (nobody objecting gave any reason until your comment just now). Google search numbers are misleading for a plethora of reasons. I do agree that "often" isn't the best wording, fixed. Titles are part of the source, which I know you know because just five days ago you removed a reliable source from PragerU specifically because of its title–you can't do a 360 and say titles don't matter now. Three of the used sources support right-wing: Guardian, Vox, and Crossover99. Feel free to take any to WP:RSN. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:23, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Titles/headlines are not part of the source per RS wp:HEADLINES. You appear to be confusing my concern with the overall bias of an article including it's public headline with the use of headlines to verify content. In the PragerU example I don't think either of us were claiming the headline was used to support a specific claim in the PragerU article. Springee (talk) 02:41, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I'd suggest leaving "right wing" out. It's a questionable characterization that at best does not provide info and appears to need cherry picking of biased sources to come up with it. I said "at best" because he covers an immense range of areas that are not any "wing", doesn't touch the majority of "right wing" topics and so characterizing by politics is at best uninformative and more likely misleading/confusing. In some areas his views coincide with the conservative side of a US culture war topic which those "sources" of opposite views would fire a volley by doing the pejorative of calling someone who is primarily an intellectual / philosopher "right wing" Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:26, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

"Right-wing" is not a pejorative. It can be a polemic device when used by left-wingers, but it's not a pejorative by itself. And we're citing reliable sources anyway, not left-wingers. Not even "far-right" is a pejorative, its an objective description of a position on the political spectrum.

he covers an immense range of areas that are not any "wing" This is original research, almost exactly the opposite of what reliable sources say. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:38, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

IMO in the this context (as detailed) it is. Also, OR refers to article content....if you apply that criteria to talk pages, then 99% of talk pages are "OR" so you should not assert/imply that being in the 99% makes it invalid. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:47, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm aware of how OR works, my point was that you will find no reliable sourcing verifying that claim of yours. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:57, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken we article cites Vox and The Guardian. Neither are unreliable but neither are bastions of objectivism either. The author of the Guardian article you added is, per his bio, "a music writer for the Guardian and Observer as well as magazines including Q, GQ and Mojo. He is the author of 33 Revolutions Per Minute: A History of Protest Songs (Faber)." But, per wp:HEADLINE we shouldn't assume he wrote the headline. He didn't use right wing in the article itself. Perhaps we should start with more objective information about Peterson then leave the characterizations to the end of the intro. Springee (talk) 02:48, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps we should, but that is a much larger undertaking, and I'm working with what we've got. Simply put, using just "conservative" was not representative of the sources that are being used to support it. Could we do better by overhauling the section with better sources? Probably. But until we get there, this is a good compromise. Objecting to the improvement because it's not the best possible improvement is a false dilemma. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:54, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

the addition of right-wing was reverted multiple times by different people and in this discussion more people are AGAINST including it. you should find a consensus first and not reinstate the disputed content over and over again. please self revert until a consensus is reached --FMSky (talk) 03:26, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

btw Vox doesnt even call him right wing, they just say he is popular among right wing audiences --FMSky (talk) 03:28, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Supporting it we have Fred Zepelin, Aquillion, and myself. Opposing we have you, Springee, and North. That's 3 to 3. ––FormalDude (talk) 03:40, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

All, please keep in mind this article has a 1RR limit. Please avoid incidentally crossing it. Springee (talk) 04:05, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes that means that there is no consensus for the suggested controversial change and as such should not be implemented --FMSky (talk) 13:34, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

"Bastions of objectivism" would probably not be reliable, given its right-wing leanings. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:36, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

• Just to be clear, the sole objection is sourcing? I think that objection is easily satisfied, but before I undertake a search for sources, can people specify what sort of sourcing they'd want to see before we say that he has been called right-wing? --Aquillion (talk) 21:10, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Its also undue in my opinion. he is widely known as a conservative figure so it should be presented as such in the lead (especially since the article doesnt even mention him being a right winger anywhere at all). the current "often described as conservative" is spot on --FMSky (talk) 21:20, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Due weight is decided based on the weight in the sources. Can you give me at least a rough ballpark description of what sort of coverage in WP:RSes would convince you that he's also widely-known as a right-wing figure? Your note that we don't cover his right-wing views in the body is true, but when they were added there you reverted that - can I take your shift to focusing on whether it's leadworthy to indicate that you accept that it ought to be covered in the body? Or that your removal of the text from the body was an accidental consequence of a broad revert to remove it from the lead? Either way, of course, expanding there is naturally the first step to take, in terms of resolving this dispute - I think the best approach would be to restore and perhaps elaborate on the bits in the body that you reverted, with additional sources; then we can see whether the amount we can support and source in the body justifies including it in the lead. --Aquillion (talk) 21:40, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I think putting this sort of "sources describe him as" later in the lead would be fine. It reads like an attempt to jam labels into the early part of the lead when we put "described as" in the first few sentences of a BLP. I do get that many people feel it's important to put such labels as early as possible into an article. The results are article that read like partisan, persuasion based journalism rather than impartial, encyclopedic writing. Springee (talk) 21:48, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Time for a review of terms, alt-right and far-right.

Many WP:RS describe Peterson as alt-right and far-right, especially in the decade since he changed from being a non-notable pop psychologist to rise to fame primarily as an anti-lgbtq crusader. Per a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view I suggest a review of these sources to determine the dueness and weight of the descriptions and if they should be included in the article lead. 76.142.90.140 (talk) 14:50, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

No this is a foolish idea that's failed to reach a consensus multiple times, and for good reason. Also, your personal political POV oozes out of every edit that you make, and you are a sockpuppet who should have been banned already. Philomathes2357 (talk) 16:58, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:AGF please. 76.142.90.140 (talk) 17:34, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

hello User:Saikyoryu --FMSky (talk) 17:40, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Not me. Hello whoever you are. Do you have a comment on the topic? 76.142.90.140 (talk) 17:46, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Initials in name

I've noticed that his name is commonly written as "Jordan B. Peterson" rather than "Jordan Peterson". For example all his social media accounts and his website (as well as his Wikipedia account name) seems to refer to him like this (or shortened as "JBP"). In media & common usage it seems to be quite split, with some saying "Jordan Peterson" and others "Jordan B. Peterson", and some mixing the two in the same article. MOS:INITIALS appears to say that you should take both what the authors preference is and what is commonly used into account, so I'm not sure what it should be in this case. If anyone has any thoughts please reply. 212.116.83.55 (talk) 21:54, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

It could go either way, since media coverage is split, as you mention. But I think calling him "Jordan Peterson" is sufficient, unless another person named "Jordan Peterson" becomes notable enough that there's confusion over which Jordan Peterson is being discussed, in which case "Jordan B. Peterson" would be preferred. Pecopteris (talk) 00:16, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Bias and framing Peterson as a cultist

Statements included from a former Harvard student about Peterson having a “cult” like following and students crying are highly subjective and biased and inserted merely to bias the reader against him. There is no relevance for this article. That statement should be deleted. 109.198.0.3 (talk) 12:52, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Most editors bristle at the suggestion that an article they have worked on might contain bias. However, I think it's fair to assume that the majority of contributors to this article dislike Jordan Peterson, and this is apparent by subtly biased word choice. Instead of "his lectures are available on Youtube", it used to say "his lectures propagate through YouTube" - implying that his lectures are propaganda. Things like that. I plan on reading the article carefully one of these days and fixing some other things like this. I'll have to take another look at the passage you've highlighted. Overall, I will say that the article is pretty decent, and people have done their best to mask their disdain for the subject. Pecopteris (talk) 14:11, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

New controversy

You should add misrepresentation of negative reviews in book blurb to the list of controversies surrounding Jordan Peterson. One may say that this is his publisher's wrongdoing, but somehow the scandal is very tale-telling about how interest in basicly irrelevant pseudo intellectuals posing as conservative gurus is generated. See [[1]]. --2003:E5:170A:6ED0:281D:1533:2DD:1048 (talk) 08:38, 1 September 2023 (UTC)