Talk:Jordan Peterson

« Debunked » ?

It’s said that the affirmation that Bill C16 might criminalized the misgendering had been « debunked » by legal experts and no one had been jailed nor fined on that basis. First, these « legal experts » are not named. Second, there is no source Third, debunked means that the initial information was fake. Dubious or controversial would be better since no proof is given nor can be about a risk. Last, a rapid googling gives st least one case of conviction against a company based in the arguments that correct gendering was a human right. Not only was the company ordered to put in place an « inclusion policy » but it was ordered to compensate CAD 30 000 to the plaintiff. Article from 2021. It seems that the four arguments are enough to at least rewrite the paragraph, or possibly suppress it. Diderot1 (talk) 09:20, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

This is being discussed in the section directly above, but I'll entertain anyway.

1. The lede is just a summary, the experts are mentioned in the body.
2. See WP:LEDECITE. It is extensively sourced in the body.
3. His claim is patently false, so "debunked" is perfectly accurate.
4. That conviction was not merely because the complainant was misgendered, it was because they were fired for asking to not be misgendered. I.e. the employer's response is what amounted to discrimination.

––FormalDude (talk) 05:04, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Per this CBC article I quoted in the section above, jail time is at least possible (thus not patently false) however, the expert clearly felt it would take extraordinary circumstances to get there. Springee (talk) 01:38, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Dr. Peterson, I think, overstated the degree of danger posed to free expression by C16, but his detractors, in turn, understated it. I do think that "debunked" is a strange word to use in a legal context, especially when, as Springee's source notes, it is not quite as black and white as that term denotes. What's a better way to phrase this to adequately capture the nuance? I think a good path forward would be to merely mention Peterson's position on C16 in the lede, and offer various opinions about his position in the body. Pecopteris (talk) 02:05, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

i am not convinced by the subtlety of "fired because they asked to being not misgendered". The fact is that not being misgendered is clearly stated as a human right by the judge, and that's the proof that private speech is being compelled. Second the company is forced to design a a specific policy that goes way beyond not firing people because they ask to not being misgendered. These facts contradict the opinion of so called experts. Their opinion if still pertinent must at least be listed as opinion and not as "debunking" the statements of Peterson. Unless disregarding the facts. Diderot1 (talk) 21:57, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Apparently a father in BC had to face a jail sentence for referring publicly to his transgender son as a girl using the birth name she was given. The legal path to send him to jail is rather tortuous: he is charged if breaking a ban, so one could argue it’s not directly because he misgendered, and second the charge is « family violence » meaning referring by birth name is considered as family violence, so here again one can argue it’s not misgendering by itself. Anyway that’s largely enough to relativise the so called debunk by legal experts.

the article Diderot1 (talk) 17:11, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't see how a contempt of court charge is directly related here EvergreenFir (talk) 17:48, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH. ––FormalDude (talk) 22:07, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

• That article doesn't mention Peterson or the bill in question, so using it here in relation to those things would be WP:SYNTH. And the reason it doesn't mention the bill is because it had nothing to do with it - the father got in trouble for violating a court order, which is specific to his situation and wouldn't affect anyone else not under that specific court order. --Aquillion (talk) 15:07, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

@Diderot1 please avoid misgendering people in your comments. Simonm223 (talk) 20:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Does the Olivia Wilde section in Influence warrant inclusion?

It seems undue coverage to give a bunch of words mentioned by Wilde when promoting her new film (an endaevour where controversy is often stoked in the interests of PR for a new film) : as no other reliable sources have talked about her statement in the last 18 months.Peckedagain (talk) 00:23, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE

This article needs a some serious rewriting to appropriately contextualize a lot of the things said about Dr. Peterson here. To put it lightly: "he is the very model of a fringey academical". Allan Nonymous (talk) 17:13, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Want to pick an example? North8000 (talk) 18:15, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

The article seems to paint him as largely within the academic and political mainstream, which he clearly is not see [1] or [2]. He is to put it lightly, closer to Andrew Tate, than he is to your typical psychologist. Allan Nonymous (talk) 18:36, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Peterson's academic credentials speak for themselves. He is a highly cited scholar, he has written an erudite intellectual work [Maps of Meaning], and he has worked at several reputable universities such as Harvard. Trakking (talk) 20:28, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

By the way—Peterson and Tate despise each other. Tate has made fun of Peterson several times, while Peterson has been harshly critical of Tate. Trakking (talk) 20:32, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Both are traditionally considered cannonical figures of the manosphere, something that this article's lede, again, curiously omits. Allan Nonymous (talk) 20:39, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

There are no authoritative sources that identify Peterson as an exponent of the manosphere movements. Peterson has called MGTOW "weasels" and pick-up artists "psychopaths". Trakking (talk) 20:59, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

That's, frankly, quibbling over terminology. It's pretty clear he's on the same axis as they are, even if he doesn't agree with specific subgroups, you could say he's a "fellow traveler" (to reflect his sort of thinking back at him). Allan Nonymous (talk) 21:15, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I think this does a better job of explaining the issues I ever will: [3] Allan Nonymous (talk) 21:13, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I am laughing out loud at anyone calling that trite bit of vacant obscurantism Maps of Meaning erudite. He's no longer teaching and no longer practicing as a therapist because he's so thoroughly WP:PROFRINGE. Simonm223 (talk) 00:36, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

I suspect one can find some good stuff by searching for his name and "woke". That's something he's allergic to, and he's also in trouble. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:26, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I think that he sets his own course on various views/positions. And through the lens of US/Canadian culture wars, that lens puts him generally on one side of those culture wars and for folks on the other side wars deprecating him becomes the main goal. IMO this article should just try to be informative on straightforwards facts regarding him. North8000 (talk) 23:24, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree with North8000 here. Given the culture war associations here it's hard to say if the disagreements are based on true academic issues vs associations with politics. The article covers this but we shouldn't pick sides in tone. Springee (talk) 00:06, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

The side we pick is the side of reliable sources, same as always. Politics can of course be a true academic issue, but Peterson himself has never been an expert on politics, so his own views should not be presented as credible. This is WP:FRINGE at its most basic. Grayfell (talk) 02:28, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

We should document the fact he is controversial and is criticized. We don't write hagiographies here. As the link I posted above shows, his profession itself is at odds with him. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:39, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

The article does include controversies and criticism. We just need to be careful that we are impartial in how it is presented. I'm not sure his "profession" is at odds with him vs the governing body is at odds with things he has said outside of his practice. Springee (talk) 03:04, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Are we presenting his views on politics as credible? His views on topics that are related to his academic background do cross over into areas of politics but so long as they are in areas where he has academic standing we need to be careful about presuming FRINGE etc. Springee (talk) 03:01, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

That ship sailed when he got barred from practicing therapy and stopped teaching classes. So, no, we don't have to be that careful here. He is obviously FRINGE.Simonm223 (talk) 03:04, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Not really. As I recall he was banned because he refused to submit to things that were not related to his treatment of his own patients. It seemed like a very political action vs one of malpractice. Springee (talk) 03:06, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

He was barred for potentially bringing his profession into disrepute. That is an example of fringe behavior. Simonm223 (talk) 03:11, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Let's assume he did something like stealing from a patient. Would you call that "fringe"? I mean stealing from a patient would certainly be a reason to bar someone but it doesn't mean their work was otherwise fringe. You have taken the reason he was barred, which appears to be that he said things the college did like, outside of his actual practice, the then leapt to the conclusion that his work in practice, when he was dealing with real patients, was fringe. That is a leap too far. Springee (talk) 03:20, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Granted, this thread is labeled "fringe", but there are other practices and views of his that are controversial, unprofessional, bring disrepute to his profession, and are a danger to the public. Those things should also be documented, even if they are not labeled "fringe". We don't even have to label them, just describe them the way mainstream sources describe them.

The College of Psychologists of Ontario, has as its mandate “to protect the public interest by monitoring and regulating the practice of psychology”.[4] Peterson's public statements, which he admits are deliberately offensive, have gotten him in trouble. He said transgenderism was a “social contagion”, and that is a primitive view at odds with the profession of psychology, and he is thus subject to the discipline of the College of Psychologists of Ontario.

Whether one calls that fringe or not, it's unprofessional, primitive, unenlightened (IOW not "woke"), and very damaging to patients and the public. "The CPO told Peterson that they felt his comments “may cause harm” and had a significant “impact risk.”[5] The CPO is a major RS on the matter.

I should add one fact related to fringiness. When one tries to find RS content on his views, one discovers he's a darling of fringe and unreliable sources, so that throws a wrench in documenting some of this stuff. That's also a red flag that says a lot about him. Per sourcing, he is fringe. Period. (Not policy, just my opinion.) We may have to depend on the few mainstream sources that mention him. We can also use a few of his own statements on Twitter and other social media (per ABOUTSELF) to document his views. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:56, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree with North8000 and Springee.

Peterson is not fringe; he is anti-postmodern, anti-Marxist, and pro-Christian. "Postmodernism" did not even exist until a few decades ago, and today it still barely exists outside of the Western world, making it a very fringe ideology. As for Marxism, it is another fringe ideology, especially in the Western world, where no parties have dared openly to identify as Marxist for many decades. Meanwhile, Christianity is the exact opposite of fringe, as it is the most global ideological phenomenon with billions of adherents all over the planet. Conclusion: Peterson is non-fringe, indeed he is explicitly anti-fringe and quite mainstream from a global and historical perspective. Trakking (talk) 07:34, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm gonna hard disagree with you on "no parties have dared openly to identify as Marxist for many decades". There are loads of marxist parties in the west, some electorally successful, such as the Communist Party of Spain (currently in government), and the Progressive Party of Working People (part of the government in 2013). OTOH "Cultural Marxism", something Jordan Peterson defends [6], is a conspiracy theory. Allan Nonymous (talk) 21:14, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I think that this conversation is about whether or not he is real-world fringe. IMO he is not. And wp:fringe is a different set of guidance which is clearly not applicable here. This is an article about a person, not about theories. North8000 (talk) 13:11, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Peterson may be controversial, but he's not fringe, at least not in the mainstream media these days. In the assessment of this profile in the Washington Post Andrew Tate makes "Jordan Peterson look like a cuddly old uncle.” So, some secondary sources see the figure as almost mainstream. In an assessment made by The New Yorker Peterson is "the Internet’s most revered—and reviled—intellectual". And I think that's how mainstream news platforms regard Peterson now.

MatthewDalhousie (talk) 05:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Addition of Ontario court ruling to lead

Grayfell, per ONUS you need to justify the restoration of material added to the article just today before restoring it as you did here [7]. The "controversial" term earlier in the lead is subjective and judgmental thus it was removed. As it was recently added it would need consensus to stay (@Allan Nonymous: who added it). As for the last sentence, it simply is UNDUE for the lead. Single sentence paragraphs are almost never part of a well written lead. Additionally, given the length/scope of the article, it's not clear why that fact is DUE for the lead vs as part of the body. Springee (talk) 02:58, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

It is definitely due. Simonm223 (talk) 03:04, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Based on what? It's a single, stand alone sentence without context. Springee (talk) 03:06, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Based on it being incredibly relevant to his current career trajectory. Simonm223 (talk) 03:12, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

That means you are forward projecting. Regardless, this is a BLP so we shouldn't make the lead out in a way that tries to highlight negative things, especially recent things who's long term impacts are not clear. Additionally, making it a stand alone paragraph gives it undue weight. Springee (talk) 03:22, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

It is significantly harder at this point to find a reliable, independent source which doesn't mention his fringe political views. Any source which blandly describes him as an academic without any context would be automatically suspect. Calling an accurate summary of sources undue is both wrong and also wikilawering. Do not ping me again, ever. Likewise, do not post on my talk page unless required by policy. Grayfell (talk) 06:15, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, it was very awkward by that user to throw in the word "controversial" in the lede. However, I tried to fix it by rewriting the clause as "his cultural and political views on controversial issues." Everyone has their own views, and these are not "controversial" in themselves, but there are definitely controversial issues. Even if one googles the phrase "controversial views," the search engine generates instances with the phrase "controversial issues." My edit was reverted because I reverted two edits at once, but you, Springee, are free to redo it, if you will. Trakking (talk) 07:44, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Trakking, I think your take makes sense. He has views on controversial topics. Do you have a thought on the single sentence paragraph that Grayfell restored. While they did try to justify restoring the word controversial, they said nothing about the final sentence. I think that is the bigger issue of the two changes. Springee (talk) 11:14, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I think you were correct in reverting that other edit for, as you have pointed out, a number of reasons: 1) it is too short to constitute an entire paragraph, 2) it is too irrelevant to merit inclusion in the lede, 3) it is too WP:RECENT to have any historical significance, and 4) it is too contentious to be added without consensus etc. Trakking (talk) 13:23, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not deep in on this enough to weigh in on the particulars, but we need to be providing information, not value-laden characterizations. North8000 (talk) 13:40, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

His defenders are the ones who are assigning specific value to him being barred from practice by claiming a political motivation for it. Simonm223 (talk) 13:46, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Include the word: Adding "controversial" isn't a value-laden characterization. It's a factual description of his views on cultural and political issues, as described exactly by a number of reliable secondary sources. Grayfell is correct here, and the reasoning offered on this talk page to remove the word is not based in policy, but in a desire to defend Peterson from any possible negatively-tinged verbiage. Wikipedia is not here to sanitize any person's reputation. It's here to describe a subject the way that reliable sources describe them. Fred Zepelin (talk) 15:06, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Introducing a high-profile individual as controversial is pure disrespect; it is not worthy of an encyclopedia. Equivalent articles on people like Nietzsche and Freud—other highly ”controversial” thinkers—mention controversial aspects only in the final sections of their respective lede. Trakking (talk) 16:08, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Controversies are important to mention, but simply describing someone as controversial is redundant. Practically every political theorist has some "controversial ideas", because their methods and their effects are disputed. Dimadick (talk) 16:27, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Peterson is not Nietzsche or Freud, even if we assume his scientific work rises to that level, he's a very political guy. It'd be like if Sigmund Freud spent most of his time writing Fatherland Front (Austria) propaganda in Austria. Allan Nonymous (talk) 16:28, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

The first reply to my comment has set up a straw-man argument. Peterson is not "described as controversial". He is not "introduced as controversial". The second sentence says he has received "widespread attention in the late 2010s for his controversial views on cultural and political issues" - a statement that is absolutely true and backed by dozens of sources already in the article. Stick to what's actually in the article. No one is proposing the first sentence should say "Jordan Peterson is a controversial guy." Fred Zepelin (talk) 19:46, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

This too. Allan Nonymous (talk) 20:08, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

FZ, the sentence in question was recently changed. The long term stable version of the article does not say "controversial views". Springee (talk) 22:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

The article says: "Often described as conservative, he began to receive widespread attention in the late 2010s for his controversial views on cultural and political issues." Allan Nonymous (talk) 22:56, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

That was a change you made 7 days ago [8]. It was also reverted by both Trakking and myself. Presenting the sentence with "controversial" as the stable version is misleading. Springee (talk) 23:12, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

This is a different straw man. It doesn't matter that the word "controversial" was introduced 7 days ago in the context of this thread, because commenters above claimed that Peterson was "described as controversial" or "introduced as controversial" in this lead. He is neither. The word "controversial" is in the second sentence and is only in the context "widespread attention in the late 2010s for his controversial views on cultural and political issues" - can you argue that that sentence is factually incorrect and unsupported by reliable sources? No one can, because it is factually correct and supported by reliable sources. Which explains why some editors are clever enough in this discussion to subtly move the goalposts just a little bit. Stick to the facts, please. Fred Zepelin (talk) 01:32, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

What are you even trying to argue? You quoted the current lead as the long term stable version, "Stick to what's actually in the article" (your post at 19:46, 12 May 2024). I noted that the version of the lead you referenced was not the QUO version. AN said the article says...[new version of lead]. I'm not arguing what's in the current version of the lead. Instead I'm arguing why the previous, long term stable version was better. Note that because it was the stable version NOCON says we need to restore the previous version since a new consensus hasn't been formed. Springee (talk) 01:38, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

The common meaning of "controversial" is something beyond just that the other side of a culture war or political war considers it to be such. North8000 (talk) 22:53, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

This is pure opinion, or WP:OR, if you prefer. When multiple reliable secondary sources report that Peterson is known for his controversial views, his lead reflects that Peterson is known for his controversial views. It's that simple. Fred Zepelin (talk) 01:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I have a procedural question for @North8000: Is your topic ban from post-1932 American politics still in place? Fred Zepelin (talk) 01:26, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

If you are able to find that ancient post then you already know how to find the answer to your question, already know that the answer is no, and yet you asked here anyway. North8000 (talk) 13:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

No, I had no idea that the answer was "no", actually. All I saw on that link is "His 2013 topic ban from the Tea Party movement is broadened to encompass post-1932 American politics". I had no idea that it has been lifted (if it has) nor would I know where to find the lifting of that topic ban. Fred Zepelin (talk) 21:34, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

You—and another user before you—claim that reliable sources report that his views are controversial. But these are not ”reliable sources,” which would be journals or books; they are sensational newspaper articles, often with a very explicit ideological profile. And none of them even seems to use the word ”controversial” or, more importantly, the phrase ”controversial views,” so that’s just your own interpretation of the content. Trakking (talk) 02:59, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Ummm....? They are all RS. There is no PAG about RS anywhere close to your claim about "journals or books". Get that idea out of your head. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

It’s not only that they are newspapers, it is that they’re often of a very sensational and ideological character. There’s better and worse journalism. Trakking (talk) 03:42, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Pure WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Simonm223 (talk) 13:21, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Can't the reverse be said as well, pure WP:ILIKEIT? Springee (talk) 14:00, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

No. It cannot. Simonm223 (talk) 14:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it can. :) Trakking (talk) 14:55, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

"This is a consistent description of the subject per WP:RS" is not covered under WP:ILIKEIT. Simonm223 (talk) 14:57, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

What reliable sources? I thought it was all Vox etc. Please cite some reliable sources and give me exact quotes. Trakking (talk) 15:00, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

The lead is supposed to be a summary of the contents of the article. Using the word "controversial" when creating that summary needs something beyond just that the other side of a culture war or political war considers it to be such. Otherwise everyone in politics or who offers views on a political or culture war topic would need to be described as controversial, and there would inevitably be some sources that say that or use that term about them or their views. North8000 (talk) 14:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Wise words.

Since there is far from any consensus here, someone ought to go ahead and revert Allan’s controversial edits. Trakking (talk) 14:58, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I would advise you open up an RfC if you want to pursue the issue any further. Given the number of reliable sources that describe him as controversial (i.e. "controversial [psychologist/political commentator] Jordan Peterson", Wikipedia here is, frankly, giving him the benefit of the doubt by describing his positions as controversial, which most clearly are. Allan Nonymous (talk) 15:58, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Once again: Which reliable sources precisely? And which exact quotes from these sources? You fail to answer this basic question. Trakking (talk) 16:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Citations 5 through 9 as of the current edit summary. Simonm223 (talk) 16:47, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Those sources were added to refer to other things than the latest controversial edit. Once again: Which exact quotes that use the exact word controversial and from which reliable sources? For example, Vox is not a reliable source. Trakking (talk) 17:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Simonm223, please be more careful with such claims. This is source #5 [9], his U of T web bio. No where does that source reference controversies of any kind. Not surprising as it's a university quick bio. However, when you say "all these sources support X" and then the very first source doesn't remotely support it, what are editors to think about the other sources? I agree with Trakking here, which sources specifically say he gained notability in the late 2010's based on his "controversial views"? Springee (talk) 19:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

AN, please review NOCON. The change you made is not restoring a long term stable version of the article. That means, per policy, the burden of showing a consensus for that change is on those who wish to make it. Absent a new consensus the article should be reverted back to the last stable version. If you feel a RfC is needed to establish a new consensus version of the article the burden is on you to create it, not the editors who oppose you change. Springee (talk) 19:08, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I believe there are 4 editors in this thread that have no problem with the change that was made, and the couple of editors who have argued against it haven't given any policy-based reasons for their opinions outside of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. To me, this discussion shows that among the editors actually citing reliable, quality sources, the consensus is to leave the word in place. Fred Zepelin (talk) 21:37, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Loking at this thread, IMO you are mis-characterizing the arguments made by both sides. North8000 (talk) 22:04, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Fred, you have consistently failed to cite a single authoritative source that uses the word controversial or the phrase ”controversial views.” We are four people opposing your controversial edit, meaning that there is no consensus for it and that we ought to restore status quo. Trakking (talk) 22:28, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

This shouldn't even be in the BLP let alone the lead. Doesn't pass the WP:10Y test, no one is going to care in 2 years, let alone 10. Editors should be aware that WP:NOTEVERYTHING needs to be in an encyclopedia, despite how much modern news media covers it. Peterson **is** a controversial figure, so he's going to get a lot of coverage because it draws clicks and advertising revenue. Wikipedia need not pull every bit of melodramatic and salacious opinion from overtly polemic articles into his biography. Kcmastrpc (talk) 22:16, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I just noticed this. How does a court decision not pass a 10-year test? A constitutional law decision at that? At the risk of being pedantic, Canada has a legal system that is built on common law. It's migrating to a hybrid system, but yeah, there is this thing we call precedent... Elinruby (talk) 05:52, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Excellent observations by Kcmastrpc. Some people are trying hard to make this encyclopedic article be much more sensational and provocative than it ought to be. Trakking (talk) 22:33, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

@Talking: I see that my comment is back where I put it, good. The other thing I want to make sure you understand is that this page is under a one-revert restriction, and so apparently a you as an editor. Do you understand that any time you undo someone else's edit, that is a revert? So when you reverted my addition addition of a rationale to that template and told me to seek consensus first (!) That was a revert. When you moved my talk page comment and edited the indent, that was another revert. Then you reverted AN for a third revert, for a grand total of two more reverts that you are allowed on a 24-hour period. Do you understand that now? Elinruby (talk) 11:32, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't see where Trakking has violated 1RR. Also that 1RR applies to the article page, I don't think it is normally viewed as applying to the talk page though talk page edit wars are also rather rare. Springee (talk) 11:55, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I've reverted the addition of the single sentence related to the court case. The above discussions put little focus on it's inclusion. No consensus for inclusion was reached. The addition of "contentious" also doesn't appear to have consensus after the more extensive discussion but I will wait to see if there are any additional views before/if restoring the QUO text. Springee (talk) 12:31, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

"political correctness" is pejorative and NPOV

We should not be allowing Peterson's opinions to frame the article Elinruby (talk) 00:37, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Some consider it a positive term and others consider it to be a pejorative. But either way, in the article it is attributed as being his argument. North8000 (talk) 00:48, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

if that's him talking then:

• It should be in quotes
• It kinda proves my point about him framing the debate, don't you think?

If it is not him talking it should not be in the article in Wikivoice Elinruby (talk) 00:57, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Can you point to specific texts? Also, if the statement is attributed it doesn't have to be a quote. That said, if we can come up with alternative langauge that all find acceptable it likely means the article is better for it. Springee (talk) 02:44, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I beg to differ. "Political correctness" should not appear in wikivoice. Elinruby (talk) 03:23, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

On what basis? Springee (talk) 13:10, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Right. Political correctness is a pejorative term for inclusive language. Just call it "criticism of inclusive language, which he calls political correctness". — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:10, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

that works for me Elinruby (talk) 02:19, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand why we are putting these terms in quotes. I don't see evidence that PC is a pejorative. Can someone offer a clear reason why these are now quoted terms instead of the stable version? Springee (talk) 13:10, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Also, there were a number of other changes made with the addition of the quotes. I don't see those as improvements and the retention of those changes should be independent of the use of quotes. Springee (talk) 13:15, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I think they were an improvement. Simonm223 (talk) 13:21, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't. The old version of that text has been stable for at least 2 years and I think was established after talk page discussion. Regardless of the use of scare quotes I don't agree with the other text changes (location in the lead is something I'm open to). Springee (talk) 13:23, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't think we need to use quotes around charged terms like "political correctness" if we make it clear that this is a claim or opinion (which in my opinion the previous version was already fulfilling). "inclusive language" is not a neutral term either, and should be treated similarly to "political correctness".

(apologies for my now-deleted mistaken comment about sourcing, I got confused) NicolausPrime (talk) 14:04, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

So there are two views of the term "political correctness", both referring to the same thing. One views "that thing" as fine, the other (the pejorative) views it as being cases of excessive or unwarranted. (BTW the "fine" came first and was where the term came from) ) So we have some folks conflict with themselves. Holding the "fine" view but still calling it a pejorative.  :-) North8000 (talk) 14:17, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

When people who think inclusive language is a good thing use the term "political correctness" they're typically nodding at the pejorative connotations or using the word that's been a [pejorative] part of popular culture since the 80s. I'm sure you can search and find some examples of people using it with no trace of that pejorative just like we can find examples of any pejorative being used in other ways. For those who say "inclusive language" isn't neutral either, what is the neutral term? Could just go with the definition of inclusive language: a language style which avoids sexist, racist, or otherwise prejudiced or insulting language. Alternatively, what is the concise non-pejorative definition Peterson provides for his own use? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:37, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I had debates with Canadian friends where I have argued along the lines of what you just said (that is is primarily a pejorative term) and they say that I'm wrong, that it is primarily a positive term. Also the first ~70 words of the Political correctness article describe it as a positive term and it is only after that the the pejorative view is covered. North8000 (talk) 14:47, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Snort with all due respect to your Canadian friends, er, no. It is not in common use in Canada except by people who are driving their semis to Ottawa and honk their horns in freon of the Parliament Building. It absolutely does not reflect Canadian values. Elinruby (talk) 19:33, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

It certainly doesn't describe it as "a positive term". It describes some of the underlying meaning and then promptly makes clear that In public discourse and the media,[4][8][9] the term is generally used as a pejorative. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:13, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Do we need to use the term "inclusive language" at all? I found no mention of it in the body and the sources. We could instead write "genderless pronouns" (which I think is neutral) while noting that this is only Peterson's interpretation, as there are no specific references to gender pronouns in Bill C-16. NicolausPrime (talk) 15:02, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Need to? No, not necessarily. If there's a more descriptive way to talk about what he calls political correctness we can use that? I don't know how much it matters that it doesn't appear in the text, since most of what we're quoting would be implicitly or explicitly tying the criticism of "political correctness" to Peterson's usage of that term (or use the term because it implies a criticism). For our bios of people who criticize "wokism" or "woke mobs", we don't just say "x is a critic of wokism" but describe what it is they're actually talking about (DEI, affirmative action, complains about sexist jokes, or whatever) plus "what X calls wokism" or somesuch. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:13, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

The reason *I* am saying it should be in quotes is that people are saying it is ok to use it because we are quoting him. If we are quoting him it should be in quotes. If we are describing the root of his employment woes with the University of Toronto then why not simply say that he insisted on using either "he" or "she" to refer to his students? Even if they had asked to be referred t as "they"? Or I personally am fine with "inclusive language".Elinruby (talk) 19:27, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I've restored the long standing version of the text in the lead paragraph. I have left the quotes around PC and IP terms. I don't see consensus for any of the changes but the focus has been on the use of quotes rather than the other changes. Note that this paragraph has been stable for several years. As part of the recent changes the paragraph was moved up in the lead. I did not revert that change. While no argument has been made to justify that change, it would likely be a question of chronological vs notability order in the lead. That should probably be discussed before accepting or rejecting the position change. Springee (talk) 12:35, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Name-dropping Rachel Notley is UNDUE

It adds nothing of significance and is arguably a BLP violation against a once and conceivably future premier of Alberta. I don't think we should judge her just because a town of 2800 people had nobody to date but Howdy Doody. Elinruby (talk) 01:08, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

It just says they were friends, way back. It doesn't say anything about them dating. I don't think it reflects poorly on her, particularly given their youth and that Peterson claims that his politics were progressive at that time. Surely there can't be a person alive who wasn't once on friendly terms with somebody who later turned out to be... a bit... um... you know. So, I can't see a BLP violation here. As for whether it is too trivial to be worthy of inclusion, I'm neutral on that. DanielRigal (talk) 01:27, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

"shared double-dates" is in the sources. So is Howdy Doody. I'll cite it here the next time I travel through the current sources. I can't pull all of them up on certain devices, so I need to check before calling them dead links. I am pretty sure she would rather not be mentioned in the same breath as someone who now says that women just aren't good at certain things, so your opinion of what this might do to her polls... Well. Probably OR. Mine too for that matter, but this is a potential BLP violation with respect to an important Canadian politician. Certainly in the top five or ten female politicians in the country. I don't think we should be guessing. How about we see what NPOVN thinks? I can't articulate any way that this isn't just whitewashing him, but perhaps you can.Elinruby (talk) 02:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

On one hand I don't see it as a claim that requires a strong source. This is just his background history. However, I also don't see it as a critical fact and wouldn't see an UNDUE argument as out of place. I can't see how this is any kind of a BLP issue. Springee (talk) 02:42, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

It's UNDUE with respect to him and possibly defamatory with respect to her. If it isn't a big deal as far as you are concerned, take it out. Rachel Notley doesn't mention Peterson, and Peterson should not invoke her name either. Elinruby (talk) 03:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely no BLP issue here. Springee (talk) 10:21, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

@Springee: why is she mentioned at all? Elinruby (talk) 10:48, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I've already said that I think the weight of inclusion (BALASP) can be argued. I don't see it as inherently important to describing him in the now. It does fill in a bit of background but, as they were both unknowns at the time I can see it being removed as irrelevant (I don't think it needs to be removed). That such a fact could in anyway be a BLP issue is something I can't understand but perhaps it could be raised at BLPN to help calibrate our perceptions of the question. Springee (talk) 11:30, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Peterson's work has generated billions of views from all over the world. Meanwhile, Rachel Notley is some minor politician in Canada. How many people outside of Canada know about her or care about her? Remove her from the article if you want. Obscure people shouldn't be allowed to parasitize on the success of famous people. Trakking (talk) 10:28, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

So according to you, Trakking, his "billions" of views means we can say what we likes about her? Or that she is a parasite because we mention her in the same section as him? Does that make you a parasite if I mention you? I'm so confused. Has anyone ever mentioned to you that "billions" of views even if you could substantiate them are absolutely not the criteria we use to make decisions on Wikipedia? Elinruby (talk) 10:40, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I think it's absolutely wild that you think Rachel Notley, who was premier of Alberta, is "parasiting" on the notability of a self-help youtuber. Simonm223 (talk) 12:05, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I know, right? Elinruby (talk) 12:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Don't forget that the parasiting is caused by being mentionef by us. Do I need to ping you at NPOVN? I am assuming you saw the new section. I don't know who else needs to be notified. I stopped with the two I was talking to last night but feel free to notify whoever else needs to know Elinruby (talk) 12:46, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

we are not required to report blatantly false claims in exquisite detail

First of all, what he said about Bill C-16 is simply false, or so ludicrously looney-tunes that to expound on it is to misrepresent the law ourselves. The sources quote law professors saying that. The court ruled that his protrayal of the law was deeply flawed, to be charitable. Yet we expound on it at length, uncited, as if it were a fundamental axiom like pi. Just no. Canadian courts are competent to interpret Canadian laws. Random dudes on the internet are not. All that uncited OR needs to go. Elinruby (talk) 07:52, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

The article explains what Peterson said then explains what scholars have said. I don't see any issue here. Springee (talk) 10:21, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Btw, the reference to the courts cites something unrelated to bill C-16 so it doesn't add to the topic at hand. Springee (talk) 10:33, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

"Random dudes on the internet"—really? He is a highly cited social scientist, he has written an erudite intellectual work [Maps of Meaning] as well as several best-selling books, he has worked at several reputable universities such as Harvard, and his podcast is often ranked #1 in Education. Trakking (talk) 10:21, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

As with the "billions" of views, his ranking on a download site irrelevant. Elinruby (talk) 10:52, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

For the purposes of coverage Bill C-16 he is a "random dude on the internet" given a complete lack of legal background. Allan Nonymous (talk) 12:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Peterson's critique was political, not judicial. And the man has a bachelor's degree in political science, which gives him some authority on the topic. Trakking (talk) 12:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

No it really doesn't. The minimum basis for treating someone as academically valuable in a field on Wikipedia is a PhD thesis. Wikipedia affords no special expertise to a Bachelor's Degree. Simonm223 (talk) 12:38, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

References

British liberal

Just a comment on some of the recent edits regarding Peterson calling himself a British liberal. A few editors have, not unreasonably, changed the visible text to match the hyperlink. However, we need to keep in mind that the hyperlink was picked by Wiki editors. If the source for the British liberal claim uses the term "British" then we either need to change the hyperlink or get rid of it. The logic here is similar to the logic of MOS:NOLINKQUOTE. Springee (talk) 11:43, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Actively edited article, so I just looked at the diff of total changes from the last few days. It looks like [[classical liberalism|classic British liberal]] was changed to [[classical liberalism|classical British liberal]]. Is that controversial? In general, I agree that when it comes to "described himself as a _____", we should stick to the language he uses. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:32, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

We should probably just follow what he said. I can see the rationale of the person who changed it to align with the real term Classical liberalism but we should follow what he said. North8000 (talk) 20:37, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Now in the limelight at NPOVN

I am going away for a while now. Elinruby (talk) 12:37, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Just adding a direct link: Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Need_some_patient_people_at_Jordan_Peterson — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:29, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks The stuff about Notley being a parasite pretty much blew my fuses. Elinruby (talk) 20:02, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Jubilee medal

Was curious about the Queen Elizabeth II Platinum Jubilee Medal mentioned at the bottom, supported just by a primary sourced-list of thousands of names without context plus a tweet. A google search for even just '"platinum jubilee medal" "jordan peterson"' returns no reliable independent sources at all. I would think that given Peterson's celebrity this would've been covered somewhere, but I can't even find anything confirming it was awarded to this Jordan Peterson (not that I doubt it -- it's just surprising). I searched the talk page archives and it doesn't look like it's ever come up. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:26, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah it happened but nobody cared because, frankly, nobody really cared about the provincial Jubilee medals that were mostly a way for premiers to give a prize to people they liked. The premier at the time in Alberta was Jason Kenney. Simonm223 (talk) 19:42, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Offtopic and way too vitriolic. NicolausPrime (talk) 19:52, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
For the Americans playing at home, think Trump wannabe. Elinruby (talk) 20:04, 16 May 2024 (UTC) A premier so broadly unpopular by the end of his term that Alberta did something unprecedented and elected an NDP provincial government. Simonm223 (talk) 20:07, 16 May 2024 (UTC) (translator-to-Americans hat on) Think Bernie Sanders getting elected as governor of Texas. But on Kenney, it is even more telling that when they found dozens of unmarked graves of indigenous small children at a residential school in Kamloops, Kenney wrote an editorial to say that the outcry needed to stop because the country had to move on. (It's probably even more telling of the state of Canadian media that that National Post ran it on the front page) Elinruby (talk) 04:40, 17 May 2024 (UTC) Per the Wikipedia article on the subject, there are no positively identified graves [10]. But I'm not sure why any of this is relevant to this article. Springee (talk) 11:53, 17 May 2024 (UTC) You didn't read that article closely enough - everybody is perfectly aware that there are graves at Marieval with the present estimate being around 600 unmarked graves - but there isn't any interest in digging them up except among genocide deniers. Because they're interred human remains. However you are correct this is getting off topic. The point is simply to situate that the reason there is minimal coverage is because it was an award of minimal significance. A hollow honour given out to the friends of a hated politician. Simonm223 (talk) 12:17, 17 May 2024 (UTC) Oh are they spamming that poor article again? I'll have to try again to get it protected. Dude, you really want to support the idea that people are supposed to dig up Aunt Marge just to provide additional proof to people who aren't listening to the proof that there is? There was an investigation by a trained archaeologists, and it found graves where the indigenous government said there would be graves based on the living memory of its citizens. Nobody credible questions what happened. The Truth and Reconciliation Report, for all of its flaws, hadn't even ever questioned what happened at that school. The ground radar merely confirmed it, with the very same technology that was used a couple of years later in Ukraine. Listen to yourself. You are whitewashing the murder of children. And what that has to do with this article is that I don't have a lot of respect for a Crackerbox prize trinket awarded by a politician who shamelessly wrote that people who were grieving over the confirmation of massive numbers of murdered children should grow a pair and move on. Okay? I am going to assume that this crap got into the article again and you are from Texas or something and don't know any better, but man. What Simon said. Elinruby (talk) 12:38, 17 May 2024 (UTC) Sounds off topic. Regarding this article, deciding on what we think of the significance of the medal isn't relevant, North8000 (talk) 13:01, 17 May 2024 (UTC) Nobody asked you. I explained to someone who asked why there is not coverage in reliable sources. Since there is no secondary source, it should be deleted. Elinruby (talk) 13:23, 17 May 2024 (UTC) Ripping a contributor for commenting without being "asked" is wrong to put it mildly. And giving that as a basis for removal is not correct. North8000 (talk) 20:06, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Works

Do we need a whole Works section with three subsections for each of Peterson's books? These have own articles already, I suggest trimming that off. NicolausPrime (talk) 13:14, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Go ahead and propose some cuts. Simonm223 (talk) 13:16, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

support I also support cutting all the articles where he is the third or fourth author. Elinruby (talk) 13:20, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

I've made a start. Simonm223 (talk) 13:20, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm wondering if we could remove the Works/Books section altogether and integrate the book releases in the Career section, since there's already a Bibliography section at the bottom that lists all the books. NicolausPrime (talk) 12:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

It's both normal and also informative content. I can't imagine why anyone would want it removed. North8000 (talk) 14:11, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Articles about J. K. Rowling and Noam Chomsky, both high-profile and controversial Anglo public figures, don't have separate subsections for multiple works. But just now I noticed that the article about J. R. R. Tolkien does have such, though even there these aren't duplicated in a Bibliography section at the bottom. Not sure if these articles are comparable. I'm on the edge. At the very least it would be good to deduplicate. NicolausPrime (talk) 14:32, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

There is no universe where Jordan Peterson has even one percent of the lasting impact as an author as J.R.R. Tolkien. About the only thing they have in common is that they were both conservatives and they both taught in universities at some point in their career. Simonm223 (talk) 18:56, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

If someone is an author, we write what books they wrote. If someone is a band, we write what albums they made. There is no ultra high bar that that info has to have "lasting impact". North8000 (talk) 20:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Telegraph should not be used as a source for transgender issues

Per this thread at RSN it is pretty mush SNOW on its way to being deprecated. Elinruby (talk) 13:41, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

What specific claim is in question in this article? Also, is "deprecated" the outcome in question? Springee (talk) 13:46, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

As an example, this use "In May 2022, he became chancellor of Ralston College, a liberal arts education project.[unreliable source?]" was recently tagged but there seems to be no issue with the source and this rather straight forward claim. A second Telegraph article is used several times but this appears to be the only claim that is remotely related to transgender issues "Peterson has said that "confused gay kids are being convinced they're transsexual. Well that's not so good for gay people, is it?" and that "there's certainly a lot of confused adolescents who could be enticed into narcissistic abnormality as a consequence of attention-seeking."" In that case the source is quoting Peterson's views so I see no issue with this inclusion either. This isn't a case where we can claim the source is misrepresenting some aspect of a trans issue. Springee (talk) 13:52, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

(patiently) no, it is quoting Peterson misrepresenting some aspect of a trans issue. As for Ralston College, surely there is another source if it is as self-evident as all that. Ditto the Facebook page. Elinruby (talk) 15:09, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Please FOC and avoid things like "patiently". So let's go with the first one. What do you see is the issue with citing the Telegraph for a claim like "he became chancellor of Ralston College"? In the second example, it doesn't matter if Peterson is correct or not since the source isn't being used to support such a claim. As for the Facebook page, well is that cited to a Telegraph article? Springee (talk) 15:15, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

(patiently) we can talk about the Facebook page when you find it. As I just now typed in the other thread, If it is a blindingly obvious statement then it should be a trivial matter to find another source. Have you looked at the RSN thread yet? I would start there. Also, you appear to be better versed in acronyms than I am. Please refrain from making me like up stuff like FOC.Elinruby (talk) 15:21, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

WP:FOC. Focus on content, not contributor, and avoid patronizing emotes. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

thank you for that sir. Elinruby (talk) 16:04, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

You are welcome to talk about the facebook page in this section if you wish but since it's not relevant to the question I was asking... As for finding another source, that burden is on you as the person who wishes to make the change. Per RS, the quality of source required is a function of the claim being made. For example, a self published source is often fine for a BLP's birthday. Springee (talk) 15:36, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Springee, you just now asked me if the Facebook page is sourced to the Telegraph. I tried very hard to answer you when you yourself brought it up. The short answer is no. The use of the Telegraph is a parallel issue. I try to leave meaningful edit summaries, yanno, and yet you ask me a question like that. It is also not a very good source, one that should be easy to replace Elinruby (talk) 16:04, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

I think a better source exists. He's a public figure and I know for a fact that several of the references already in use do in fact cover this point. Are we done here? I think we are done here for now. I need to go see about that content fork you linked to. I know you didn't know, or I assume you didn't know, but it's pretty bad. Elinruby (talk) 16:09, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Looking at this discussion I see you were the first to mention Facebook. Are you confusing this with a different discussion? I don't see why we would say link to his general FB page but FB would be sufficient for something like establishing his birthday. Springee (talk) 16:15, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

It's context-specific. And the question is simply: Is it sufficiently reliable to support the text which cited it? And for a quote, that simply means that he said that. North8000 (talk) 16:21, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Addition of various sourcing tags

A lot of sourcing tags have been recently added to the article. Absent justification on the talk page most of these should be reverted. The tags range from questioning sources used to make uncontroversial claims to self published source tags used in cases where the self published source is used only as a reference to the RSs in the adjacent tags as well as tagging the use of Youtube to provide view counts which seems to be common across many articles. Springee (talk) 14:31, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

This page is full of peacockery and overly promotional material. It does depend very heavily (too heavily) on WP:ABOUTSELF. The tags are appropriate and not an unexpected outcome of the number of noticeboards that are alert to the POV issues going on here. Simonm223 (talk) 14:35, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Peacock is not the same as inappropriate use of the tags in question. Springee (talk) 14:38, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Springee; there is nothing wrong with most of these sources. Trakking (talk) 14:46, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to take this up at RSN. They are going to tell you the same thing I just did; I've put the years in there to know. If these statements are uncontroversial you should not need ABOUTSELF. If that's the only source you can find, what does that tell us? Elinruby (talk) 15:14, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

RSN does a pretty good job of following the intent of wp:ver. Which is context related. And the question is simply: Is it sufficiently reliable to support the text which cited it? North8000 (talk) 16:18, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

C2C Journal doesn't look very RS either

Stealth-owned by the Manning foundation, funded by banks and oil companies, uses pictures of Somali refugee camps for yucks, and calls protesters"unnerving".

Media Bias/Fact Check says their traffic is "minimal" and considers their bias "medium", which may not sound too bad until you realize that their definition of this includes "may publish misleading reports."

C2C seems fine for the uncontentious claims it is supporting. Springee (talk) 16:16, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

References

Too long, off topic material

This article is way too long - 145k already. A lot of the content is subjective, poorly sourced, or simply off-topic. I would suggest to cut all the "views and works" stuff into a daughter article, and just put a summary thereof in the main article - which otherwise seems largely innocuous. We can then clean up the daughter article, with a lot of deletion, if we keep it at all. Wdford (talk) 09:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

[11] says the article is 5431 words long. WP:SIZERULE states that below 6 000 words Length alone does not justify division or trimming., so I don't think it's too long. NicolausPrime (talk) 11:12, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Many other articles on high-profile individuals are significiantly more extensive than this one. No need for trimming. Trakking (talk) 11:36, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

This isn't a long article, and therefore not even close to "too long". When it gets over 500k, then ping me. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:23, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Cruft

It's entirely irrelevant to list the former research areas of a self-help writer and conservative YouTube influencer. Peterson is not a researcher. He's not a teacher. He no longer has a clinical practice. A puffy list of every topic he ever wrote a paper on is WP:UNDUE. Simonm223 (talk) 20:51, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Peterson was a researcher and a teacher for many, many years—on the highest level as well, being active at Harvard. He is a highly cited academic in the discipline of psychology. And an article is not supposed to be occupied with WP:RECENTISM but ought to cover the topic in question from a historical perspective. Trakking (talk) 21:05, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I may be wrong, but I don't believe that the Jungian mashups characterizing Peterson's work within academic psychology have had much impact on the field. To the best of my knowledge, they aren't even well-regarded among Jungians. Newimpartial (talk) 21:15, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

@Newimpartial that's because he leaves out any parts of the unconscious that are inconvenient to his arguments. He's no James Hillman, that's for sure. Simonm223 (talk) 21:19, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I'd call "Impact on the field" high, but it really doesn't need to be argued. It's not a criteria for including what areas he studied in, what books he wrote etc. North8000 (talk) 21:20, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

@Trakking it's an undue level of detail. Simonm223 (talk) 21:21, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Trakking said it well.North8000 (talk) 21:14, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

@Newimpartial: According to Google Scholar, Peterson’s Jungian work Maps of Meaning has been cited almost a 1000 times, and his articles on creativity and personality psychology have been cited even more. Trakking (talk) 21:56, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Citation counts are a poor metric for influence IMO. I prefer to look at what is actually said about an author's work in assessing impact. Newimpartial (talk) 22:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

@Newimpartial also the reason people so often stop looking at Peterson's impact factor around 2021 is because his citation rate has fallen off a cliff since the induced coma and the unusual behavior that followed. Peterson us a fringe academic whose ability to garner attention through political grandstanding is in decline. Simonm223 (talk) 23:05, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

For my money, because Peterson's notability does not stem from his research or other academic pursuits, they don't need to be exhaustively detailed. Combine that with my mother's favourite aphorism, that brevity is the soul of wit, and I think some trimming would be appropriate. As ever though, reasonable minds can certainly differ. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 00:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Let's assess and annotate.

Peterson's areas of study and research within the fields of psychology are psychopharmacology,

Cited to two papers written by Peterson. Primary sources only. No evidence of third party analysis of his contribution to psychopharmacology. Not due inclusion on such a slim basis.

abnormal,

Again citation is just an essay Peterson is a co-author of. No evidence of third party analysis of his contribution to abnormal psychology. Not due inclusion.

neuro,

The same thing again as the first two. This is a pattern of citing one of his papers and then saying it was one of his areas of study. All this is WP:PEACOCK writing. There's absolutely no assessment of whether he made any significant contribution to the field.

clinical,

No citation given.

personality,

Same as the others with a citation given. Exactly the same.

social,

This paper is being used twice for two entirely different fields of study. Disgraceful.

industrial and organizational, religious,

No citation for either of these.

ideological,

Ah yes, Ideological psychology, totally a thing that exists and not just a lampshade for the fact that he regularly writes about ideology despite him not being trained in political philosophy or any other domain of study that would normally cover ideology.

political,

No citation given.

and creativity.

This is a speakers list for a conference - I don't think it even constitutes a reliable source at all - but beyond that little issue it still does nothing to establish he made any significant contribution to the field.

Peterson has authored or co-authored more than a hundred academic papers

Peterson got his PhD in 1991. He was working in academia from then until 2021. That's 30 years later. If he was writing or co-writing four papers a year it would bring him over 100. I could boast that level of output myself. It's not notable, not remarkable, it's normal. Calling it out here plays on the reality that most people don't work in academia and don't write any papers but, within the bounds of his profession, it's entirely non-notable. WP:PEACOCK

and was cited more than 18,000 times as of 2022.

Likewise this is WP:PEACOCK - and I called out above that the reason so many sources cut off at 2021 or 2022 for Peterson's h-index is because it's had a steady decline in the intervening two years. And, as has been mentioned by others, h-index is a weak actual measure of ones influence on the field. Getting your name on a bunch of multi-author papers is kind of easy and doesn't mean that many people really care what you think. Simonm223 (talk) 12:29, 22 May 2024 (UTC) Simonm223 (talk) 12:29, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Please make sure to include recently removed citations. I think a lot of Research Gate links were recently removed. The RG links may not be enough to establish weight but if weight is already established they may be enough to support facts. Springee (talk) 12:50, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Weight is most certainly not established.

This section has zero secondary sources. Except for Christie Blatchford mentioning his citation count. This paragraph should be blanked. Simonm223 (talk) 13:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

As a Prof at several top universities I see his areas of research as inherently notable. I don't think the whole topic should be wiped. Springee (talk) 13:06, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Your opinion doesn't change the fact that the paragraph, as written and cited, does not establish that he has had any significant impact on any area of study. Simonm223 (talk) 13:22, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

His birthday didn't have any lasting impact on that particular date or day. Does that mean we don't cover it? His high citation count does suggest his work has had an impact even if we don't have a source stating that explicitly. Why are we so concerned with removing uncontroversial material? Springee (talk) 14:04, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

The inclusion of WP:PEACOCK material violates our policies about biographies of living people. The sentence Peterson has authored or co-authored more than a hundred academic papers and was cited more than 18,000 times as of 2022 strikes me as an obvious PEACOCK violation, particularly given the primary/poor sourcing. (Also, the part of the paragraph preceding that sentence strikes me as something a university website would publish to attract incoming graduate students, not an appropirate part of a tertiary biography.) Newimpartial (talk) 15:06, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Because I don't find it uncontroversial for a Wikipedia article to be drafted such that a WP:FRINGE academic is treated like some sort of poly-expert in contravention of WP:PEACOCK and when I uncontroversially removed this fancruft I was reverted on the basis that it had sources. As I've demonstrated, no, it has citations but none that actually are appropriate to WP:RS for demonstrating what it claims to demonstrate. Simonm223 (talk) 15:10, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

”Peterson’s citation rate has fallen off a cliff since 2019”. No, Google Scholar demonstrates the exact opposite: it has been higher than ever the last couple of years.

Big Five is one of the most scientifically substantiated models in all of the social sciences, and Peterson participated in developing its facets—for example, the important distinction between Orderliness and Industriousness in trait Conscientiousness. This is mainstream psychology nowadays.

There is nothing peacocky about the sentence ”Peterson has authored or co-authored more than a hundred academic papers and was cited more than 18,000 times as of 2022”—it is just the facts. Trakking (talk) 16:05, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

See this thing about the big five is an exact example of what I meant. Per our page on the topic, Peterson's involvement was a "subsequent development" in which In 2007, Colin DeYoung, Lena C. Quilty and Jordan Peterson concluded that the 10 aspects of the Big Five may have distinct biological substrates. This was derived through factor analyses of two data samples with the International Personality Item Pool, followed by cross-correlation with scores derived from 10 genetic factors identified as underlying the shared variance among the Revised NEO Personality Inventory facets. Now do I need to link to Eugenics to suggest where Peterson was going with this line of reasoning? Regardless he was not significantly instrumental to the development of the theory. He played a questionable, fringey, and ultimately negligible role. Simonm223 (talk) 16:16, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Juat on the "Big Five" claim: the enwiki article on the big five mentions Peterson once - as third author of a paper - and cites two papers with his name on them - as second and third author, respectively. Of the four other authors on these papers, besides Peterson, two do not seem to have wikipedia articles at all, and the article on Colin G. DeYoung (first author of the main paper) contains no equivalent to the paragraph under discussion here.

My sense, based on the sources I've seen, is that in co-authoring a couple of papers Peterson has not, in fact, made an important contribution to mainstream psychology.

My sense is also that there is no convention concerning psychology professors that their enwiki biographies should be enhanced by publication or citation counts, whether the intention of editors doing so is to make the BLP subject seem more important or not. Newimpartial (talk) 16:23, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

It's not clear his research was considered FRINGE. Springee (talk) 16:17, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

His body of work is largely fringe - the question of "was" is irrelevant. It is now pretty well recognized that the man is not a strong scientist. And frankly those Harvard anecdotes about him jumping onto any research project no matter how bizarre should have been a bloody warning sign from the start. Simonm223 (talk) 16:19, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

But here's the thing: the ferocity by which this poorly sourced paragraph of say-nothing cruft is being defended so vehemently stems directly from the realization that even Peterson's defenders have that he's not ever going to be a James Hillman, a Wolfgang Giegerich or a Jacques Lacan - profound figures within psychoanalysis have bodies of work and theoretical bases that stand the test of time and that have a significant impact on the field.

Peterson doesn't have that. He's got one book of obscurantist pseudo-philosophy and a couple of self-help books. His hundred-odd bog-standard papers are the only bulwark he has against the irrelevance of his career to the broad thrust of his profession. Simonm223 (talk) 16:26, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Wolfgang Giegerich? How many people know about this random guy—a hundred? Although famous, Lacan is widely criticized and denounced in the intellectual community.

The fact remains that Peterson is more cited than 99% of his academic peers. And his articles have not been controversial. Trakking (talk) 16:41, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Listen bud I don't know what to tell you but I pointed to those three rather specifically: Hillman is one of the most significant post-Jungians. Giegerich is probably the most significant orthodox Jungian. And, love him or hate him, but Lacan is the most influential single person to psychoanalysis post-Freud. Your lack of knowledge of the three isn't my problem. Simonm223 (talk) 16:56, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Along with Dumuzid I can see a question of how much to devote to this area of Peterson. I can't see removing it entirely. I would suggest those who wish to reduce make a proposal as to what to remove here so we get consensus on the changes and avoid any of the recent back and forth. Springee (talk) 11:36, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

This is sensible. Riposte97 (talk) 00:42, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

The The Harvard Crimson is a student newspaper, and is hardly a reliable source for such an inflammatory comment. Maybe it was edited by a student who got a poor grade from JP at some point? Considering WP:BLP, I would suggest that we exclude all "newspaper" comments, because they are not necessary accurate nor objective, and summarise from there? Wdford (talk) 12:48, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

No. Simonm223 (talk) 12:02, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Interesting attitude. Projecting such determination to protect the use of unreliable sources, it hardly a display of a neutral POV. Wdford (talk) 12:45, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Wrong. Simonm223 (talk) 13:47, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

So now we clearly have a POV-pushing problem. Wdford (talk) 13:56, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

No we don't. Aside from the POV pushing you are doing. Please come back when you have something policy driven to complain about. Simonm223 (talk) 14:05, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

In an article about him we need to cover what he studied, taught, wrote etc. That coverage is not conditional on showing that those items are of of epic importance, recognition or prominence.North8000 (talk) 14:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Frankly how his area of study is addressed in this article is highly dissimilar from the treatment of most academics. How many times does the Lacan article mention how many people cited him? Where in the Freud article does it enumerate every sub-domain of psychiatry he wrote about? Where is the h-factor of Miguel Nicolelis? It is unusual to include these sorts of lists, absent detail or context, in an article about an academic. If he made a significant contribution to a domain of study then that should be described as per reliable secondary sources. This list is not how Wikipedia does things. Simonm223 (talk) 14:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

References

Disputed paragraph

Today I removed the disputed paragraph [12], citing its dependence on primary or low-quality sources, which is a violation of BLP policy (namely WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:BLPSPS). The paragraph was then restored by North8000[13] with the mistaken edit summary, Rationale given was "pending discussion" - that was not my rationale; my rationale was the poor sourcing. Others have also noted that the paragraph violates WP:NPOV through the inclusion of material, unsupported by independent or secondary sources, that exaggerates the importance of the BLP subject.

So this paragraph has now been removed twice [14] [15] based on good-faith objections to its inclusion rooted in BLP policy, and it has been restored twice [16] [17] by North8000 without a clear basis in policy. WP:BLPRESTORE specifies as follows:

To ensure that material about living people is written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies.

North8000 has apparently restored the paragraph in violation of BLPRESTORE. Therefore I suggest

• that North8000 revert their latest restoration of the paragraph;
• that North8000 not re-revert this material into the article without consensus to do so;
• that no other editor restore this paragraph without consensus.

I have no objection to including a paragraph that briefly discusses the subject's scholarly work in this section, but it must be a DUE reflection of what independent, secondary sources say about the subject and thus comply with our BLP policies. Also, for editors to revert material into the article once good-faith BLP objections have been raised is a violation of a core enwiki policy and a bad look for the editors concerned, IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 14:54, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree and have reverted. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:01, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Given the paragraph is actively being discussed above and there is no consensus for it's removal, it shouldn't have been removed after N8k restored it the first time. Springee (talk) 15:12, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Springee - you have reverted material back into the article after three (!) other editors have raised good-faith BLP objections to its content, as documented in this section. You are in violation of WP:BLPRESTORE: please self-revert. Newimpartial (talk) 15:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, the original removal was BOLD (as were the removals of some of the sources several days back). Once it was restored and given there is an active discussion with several editors supporting keeping at least some version of the content, additional removals moved from BOLD to unhelpful. Springee (talk) 15:14, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

That's not how it works. When serious BLP objections are raised, the content is deleted, at least temporarily, until a consensus has been reached. BLP trumps in these cases. There is no rush. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:43, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

You are making a leap when suggesting this is a serious BLP concern. If this were an accusation of a crime or such I would agree. However, this is a statement, with sourcing, regarding areas of academic research. As there is no harm concern the BLP concern goes away. This is especially true given there is already an active discussion related to the material in question. Springee (talk) 16:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Folks are mis-applying/ mis-claiming policies and guidelines to try to delete a description of what his fields of study were / are. Also removal from context. The quoted items is when the contents themselves are contested. I.E that those were not his fields of study. The sources are appropriate to merely establish what his fields of study were/are. North8000 (talk) 15:21, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

That's not what is happening here. You've been told multiple times that primary sources are insufficient and that this section is inappropriately structured to describe the influence of a BLP involved in academic research. Find reliable secondary sources that discuss his academic impact and we can discuss replacement text. Simonm223 (talk) 15:26, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

We use primary sources to establish a birthday in most BLP because we feel that birthdays are inherently notable. Given Peterson's academic background, his areas of research are also inherently notable. Springee (talk) 15:30, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

This is disputed. Him having written papers about a variety of topics is not notable. Simply put this list is WP:UNDUE because it doesn't establish he's been influential to any of those fields. Find better sources. Simonm223 (talk) 15:33, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

The material is not about describing "influence"; it is about covering what his fields of study were/are. And sources simply to establish that. North8000 (talk) 15:33, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

That is undue and unimportant. Nobody except for his hardcore defenders is likely to care. At all. Simonm223 (talk) 15:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Academic publications don't work that way. I'm a co-author on an article that is way outside my area of expertise. I just helped with the statistical analysis and prepped the data section. You cannot cite PRIMARY academic journal articles to claim that a co-author has expertise in that area. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:37, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Right? Simonm223 (talk) 17:49, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

• At least as a placeholder, could we use this Vox source (already used in the article) to mention that he has published research on personality and creativity that has been influential? How about using this National Post piece to put his citation count at 8,000 as of 2017? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:39, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

  If you're asking me, my sense is that Vox is not a relaible source for the influence of academics, and citing Christie Blatchford for a citation count isn't really evidence that it is DUE for article inclusion. Newimpartial (talk) 15:44, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

  I am asking you (and others), so thanks for your thoughts. I think Vox is reliable enough for a (AFAICT) fairly unexceptional claim, especially since they did the legwork and spoke to subject-matter experts. I see citation counts so ubiquitously in biographies of academics (or former academics) that I don't personally have a high bar for DUE.

  I'm not pushing hard for either bit to be included, but I think it's sensible to include some bare-bones language on his academic work while discussion on a more detailed version proceeds. I'll repeat this below, but I'm fine also with Simonm223's proposed "Peterson's research has focused on personality traits such as creativity." Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:56, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

  Both seem due and well-enough-sourced to me. Zanahary (talk) 02:41, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Why do a few people keep talking about sourcing for "influence"? There's nothing related to influence the material that some people are trying to delete. It simply says what his fields of study are. North8000 (talk) 16:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

This is the critical point. When describing an academic it's perfectly reasonable to say what their areas of research are/were. Contrary to some of the claims above, these are not BLP concerns as these are contentious or potentially harmful claims about a person. Springee (talk) 16:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

So, I agree that it's reasonable to say what those areas are or were (and I think tense is an issue here), but the way this paragraph does it falls afoul of WP:SYNTH to me. There's an unspoken inferential leap that says "he published in this area, so it's a notable area of study for him," and I am not sure that is warranted. Academics can and do publish outside of their core areas, and I think this is bringing too much Wikipedian analysis to bear. Happy to see something like this in the article, but would definitely want secondary sourcing. As ever, that's just an old guy's opinion. Happy Friday to one and all! Dumuzid (talk) 16:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Exactly correct, Dumuzid. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:52, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

There seems to be a large amount of secondary sources validating the claims made in the paragraph, as demonstrated by a quick search on Google.

• A Glitch in the Matrix: Jordan Peterson and the Intellectual Dark Web (2019) by Leonard Payne: "His main areas of study are in abnormal, social, and personality psychology, with a particular interest in the psychology of religious and ideological belief." (p. 39)
• The Path to Meaning: The Philosophy of Jordan Peterson Explained (2023) by Julian Gen: "He has made significant contributions to the field of psychology, particularly in the areas of personality, social psychology, and the psychology of religion." (p. 15)
• Vox article "Jordan Peterson, the obscure Canadian psychologist turned right-wing celebrity, explained" by Zack Beauchamp (2018): "Peterson’s research specialty is personality traits; one of his most prominent papers is a study of what makes people more or less creative."

Etc. Trakking (talk) 16:55, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

It would probably be best to add some of those secondary sources. The primary sources can also be included but adding the secondary sources would address the RS issues as well as the BLP claims. Springee (talk) 16:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, without endorsing any (simply because I haven't looked at them), those are the types of sources I would want to see--and we should restrict the areas of study to those listed in such sources (which might even be more than are listed in the disputed paragraph, I don't know). Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:12, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Much better. It's just patently wrong to say he researches psychopharmacology. He studies personality and religion. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:17, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

The Payne book appears to be self-published. Simonm223 (talk) 17:52, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

The Path to Meaning is also self-published. It is highly unlikely that either of them constitutes a reliable secondary source. Simonm223 (talk) 17:53, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

However, based on the vox article, I'd be willing to include, "Peterson's research has focused on personality traits such as creativity." Simonm223 (talk) 17:54, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Addendum, GPTZero says there is a 100% chance that The Path to Meaning was produced using LLMs. It is absolutely not a reliable source. Simonm223 (talk) 18:01, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

And as for A Glitch in the Matrix, the author has a history of plagiarism and that history applies specifically to this book. So these three sources are:

1. A plagiarized "curation" of other sources, likely including Wikipedia from the looks of some of the contents.
2. A book made on ChatGPT
3. An article in Vox that appears reliable. Simonm223 (talk) 18:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Scratch "likely" - Payne's article about the IDW in the Glitch in the Matrix book is obviously a direct copy of the Wikipedia page. He didn't even delete the citation formatting. That means, notwithstanding the self-pub and plagiarism problems, it is not viable as a source per WP:CIRCULAR Simonm223 (talk) 18:12, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I was just listing some of the first sources that showed up; I hadn't time to scrutinize them at the moment. My point was that there's a plethora of sources that included this piece of information—some are better, some worse. Trakking (talk) 18:19, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

"Sources exist" is not sufficient to draft specific copy. And haphazardly suggesting sources from "a quick google" is unhelpful when those sources are obviously and patently inappropriate for Wikipedia. Simonm223 (talk) 18:25, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I'd be fine with Simon's proposal. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:56, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

This is an area where I would suggest even a university bio page is sufficient. We aren't trying to establish notability in the field, only that these are his general areas of academic work. I do get the concern that sometimes academics might contribute to work outside their normal fields (I have such a case on my CV) but, like birthday, I don't see this as a contentious subject and thus the standard for evidence should be low. Springee (talk) 19:15, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

This is going to hit WP:DUE again if you try to use low-quality or primary sources to create an extensive list of poorly defined "research areas". I know you don't think this is contentious but it is significant to maintaining a neutral position on his impact as an academic. Whether intentional or not the old passage was patently WP:PEACOCK text that tried to inflate Peterson's mediocre overall contributions to psychology. His notoriety, as a BLP, is not his academic career but rather his media hijinks, his youtube career, his dalliances with far-right politics and his self-help books. Simonm223 (talk) 19:18, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

DUE and PEACOCK would require some level of consensus. As someone who was in academia I do pay attention to areas of research when looking up bios of academics. Like age, this is good, boiler plate background information. If I were to look up information on a former race car driver I would want to know what their record was and in which racing series. I would be fine with it coming from a primary source so long as the source was reliable. That is the real issue here. If you think the source isn't accurate or doesn't support the claim in question then I agree, there is a problem. However, if the issue is just that you feel weight isn't established, I would disagree. The moment we discussed his academic career, his areas of research became DUE as background information. Springee (talk) 19:25, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

It's undue to make a list of multiple sub-domains of psychology and claim them as part of his domain of study based on a primary source. These claims require secondary sources to establish that his research was of any significance. And most of the academics I have looked up on Wikipedia use secondary sources to describe their fields of study - in fact I've yet to find one that depended on primary sources, let alone one with a list structured like that para was.

The specific structure of the para and the specific nature of the citations used matter here. I've said, repeatedly, that I'm open to drafting material on this topic based on reliable secondary sources. I even proposed text derived from the Vox source. Please stop arguing that there should be something when what you're really arguing is that we should allow a long list of primary sourced claims of no specific notability. Simonm223 (talk) 19:30, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

You can argue that the specific list was flawed but I don't at all agree that it's UNDUE. This seems to have been the direction the previous discussion was heading before we got sidetracked with a dispute over edit warring. Springee (talk) 19:46, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Let's put it this way: A list built from primary sources does not establish that any given entry on that list is WP:DUE. For information regarding Peterson's research history to rise to the level of WP:DUE it requires more-than-passing mention in a reliable secondary source. Simonm223 (talk) 19:51, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Does it? Do we need a secondary source to establish that his birthday is DUE? Springee (talk) 20:00, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

The problem as I see it, anyway, is that age is an objective measurement while there is sometimes robust disagreement within academia about determining areas of research. All the more so when we start considering different levels of abstraction (e.g., is person X an expert in evolution, or the evolution of nematodes?). This is why I think it is wise to rely on guidance from secondary sources. But reasonable minds can certainly differ. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:02, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Well, actually a DOB kinda does per WP:BLPPRIVACY, or else it needs to be very publicly and unambiguously provided by the subject himself. The problem as I see it (and per my comments at WP:BLPN) is that the disputed paragraph comes off at first glance as rather apophenic and very, very SYNTH-y. Seriously, it's a mess of citation overkill which immediately raises some huge red-flags to the reader. Citing a primary source requires a full understanding of the source, not simply seeing his name and saying, "Wow, he must be an expert in that." For example, sources such as these are more often than not compiled by teams of people who are each experts in different fields, each of which may or may not be a different aspect of the research paper to various degrees, but it doesn't in any way, shape, or form mean that any of the authors are experts in the topic of the paper. Quite often they're just putting their heads together and coming up with a new theory. That's the danger in using primary sources, because they're so easy to misinterpret without some substantial background knowledge. Zaereth (talk) 22:26, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Two cents: because WP:PROFESSOR is a sorta-kinda lower bar than WP:GNG, we wind up including a lot of primary sources to fill out otherwise sparse articles. It's not ideal, but most professors aren't the subject of extensive biographies, news coverage, etc. -- they're notable because of their work (citations, named professorships, awards, etc.). We try to avoid primary sourcing most of the time, but sometimes it seems unavoidable. Peterson, on the other hand, is the subject of a massive amount of coverage, and most of it isn't about his academic work. As a result, the article doesn't have to rely on primary sources -- it can present aspects of the subject in proportion to the attention those aspects receive in the body of literature. People have absolutely written about his academic work (Maps of Meaning, etc.), and we should summarize those sources. There's no need to include material based just on his own work as though we're writing about a typical academic who otherwise has no exposure. No objection to using primary sources for basic biographical details (hometown, alma mater, parents' names, birthyear, etc.). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:55, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

It's been edit-warred in again, leading to a

page lock. Seriously, this is absurd. I guess secondary sources are optional when there's a fringe academic whose reputation needs laundering. Simonm223 (talk) 16:52, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: Good thought, but IMO there is a pretty big issue with that. As you noted, for academics, coverage of the academic material needs the WP:PROFESSOR standard otherwise their academic aspect won't be covered. This issue of nature of coverage coverage of their academic aspects remains if they move into the political public eye. So what you said lead to that if an academic moves into such a public eye, their academic stuff will be removed from / not receive coverage. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:18, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand this response, which may be a result of my own lack of clarity. My point is this: WP:PROFESSOR is a notability standard; it has nothing to do with the content of an article. Because it's a lower standard than GNG, we have a harder time finding the kind of sourcing we typically prioritize -- independent, secondary reliable sources. Hence we turn to lower quality sources in those cases. In this case, there's no need to do that. I don't agree that any particular job title necessitates some fixed minimum of content. Let that be decided by the independent, secondary RS as long as those exist. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:24, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

I think what @North8000 is saying is that, even if someone is a notable academic and a notable something-else, the notability of their something-else career will be easier to support with the kinds of sources we like best—but that doesn’t mean their notable academic career is just as well-supported in that kind of source. So, for JBP the academic, the sourcing standards for academics should be considered. Zanahary (talk) 19:41, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

@Zanahary I mean it's absolutely incorrect in the context of this article, this paragraph and this discussion. Simonm223 (talk) 20:17, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

I mean! Zanahary (talk) 20:19, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that's another was of saying it. To cover the academic portion, we need to use the types of sources normally used to cover academic. North8000 (talk) 13:37, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

This sounds to me like a recipe for creating a false balance between Peterson's public persona and his academic endeavors. The whole reason for taking a bit of a lax approach to professorial articles is because there is often a dearth of secondary sources. There is no dearth here. I would argue the same for any other academic: where there are traditional high-quality Wikipedia sources, we shouldn't bend the rules as we sometimes do. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:04, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't think the disputed paragraph actually does use the types of sources normally used to cover academic. The paragraph uses a combination of primary sources and COI sources to assert a range of expertise and importance through primary citation counts. I've looked at a fair number or academic BLPs since I opened this discussion, and have seen very little use of any of these strategies whether the BLP subject is controversial or not. Newimpartial (talk) 17:02, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to suggest something even though I admit I haven't done it myself... would someone like to post a redone version of the paragraph so we can try to get some consensus while the article is locked? I think most editors agree the paragraph needs to be fixed. The only question is what the fixed paragraph should look like. If I get a bit of time I'll take a shot at it but if someone beats me to it that fine to. Springee (talk) 19:07, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

I did. Based on the only secondary source provided. To whit:

Peterson's research has focused on personality traits such as creativity. With a citation to the vox article. Simonm223 (talk) 12:16, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Frankly the fact that the only other secondary sources presented included circular references to Wikipedia and literal ChatGPT content should be telling on how significant his contributions to psychology have been. Simonm223 (talk) Simonm223 (talk) 12:17, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

There ought to he something better to say based on Jordan Peterson: Critical Responses, one of the many higher-quality sources this article doesn't use. Newimpartial (talk) 12:49, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Marc Champagne, a philosophy professor at Trent University, described Peterson's psychological account of Genesis as amounting "to crediting a stone with flavoring a soup." Simonm223 (talk) 14:50, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

I also found a good quote from Viewpoint Magazine that could help in building out a paragraph on Peterson's research focuses. But Peterson has just released a new book, 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos. It is his first since 1999’s Maps of Meaning, a study of myth in modern thought. In that book, Peterson based his thinking on the mysticism of Carl Jung, following a pattern initiated by Joseph Campbell, whose influence is now primarily seen in Star Wars rather than scholarship on myth. Peterson neglected to engage with unanimously recognized predecessors in the field of study, like anthropologist Claude Lévi-Strauss, who had postulated as early as the 1950’s that myths are based on a recurring structure across cultures and eras. Simonm223 (talk) 15:12, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

No, that wouldn't be acceptable as a replacement for the material in question. That is a critique of his work, not a neutral statement of areas of research. That could be used in a critique of his work presuming the sourcing is sufficient and doesn't cross too far into opinion or is presented as the authors opinion of Peterson's work. Springee (talk) 15:15, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

From the same article Peterson makes a slight adjustment to the narrative in 12 Rules for Life. A Jungian psychologist, he seems to find it necessary to exonerate Freud. There is a brief reference to the Frankfurt School, represented only by Max Horkheimer rather than the more frequently cited Adorno or Marcuse or the still-living Jürgen Habermas (himself a devoted critic of postmodernism as he defines it). Peterson then jumps ahead a few decades and crosses the Rhine. Creating a designation of his own, he identifies not “critical theory,” but the “postmodern neo-Marxism” of postwar French philosophy as his intellectual adversary. Neither Derrida nor Foucault is cited in 12 Rules for Life. Apparently, not only has Peterson never bothered to actually read them, he seems not to have even read their Wikipedia entries.. Simonm223 (talk) 15:20, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

See my reply above. Springee (talk) 15:31, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

I would hope we could do better than just VOX. Stating areas of research shouldn't require much in terms of sourcing. It would be like asking which racing series a driver has participated in. A driver database site would be sufficient so long as the claims aren't contested. For example this institute has a small bio on Peterson [18] "Peterson's areas of study and research are in the fields of psychopharmacology, abnormal, neuro, clinical, personality, social, industrial and organizational; and religious, ideological, political, and creativity psychology.". That would be straight forward and doesn't apply any positive or negative spin on his areas of research. Springee (talk) 15:13, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

This source, a biography of the person from a book review, could also be used for basic claims [19]. Springee (talk) 15:17, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Again, Springee, we're coming up against the question of why it is due to state a long list of purported areas of research without any context regarding how that research has been received. That's why I'm looking at academic and critical responses in this thread now as a basis. I would suggest this would be a more productive thing to do than create a context-free list. Simonm223 (talk) 15:23, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Also I's suggest that the Claremont Institute doesn't represent a particularly reliable source so, while it is secondary, I would hesitate to give that article undue weight. Simonm223 (talk) 15:26, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

It's a perfectly fine since for this background. Why do we cover it? Because his areas of basic research are of interest. If it wasn't important why would sources trying to offer a quick background cover it? What is the harm of including it? Springee (talk) 15:31, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Come on. Claremont Institute senior fellow John Eastman aided Trump in his failed attempts to overturn the election results. The institute publications in recent years have frequently published alt-right and far-right opinion pieces. In what world is this going to forward neutrality? Simonm223 (talk) 15:32, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

This article is good too [20] For example According to Peterson, everything in the world can be quantified and positivist science is the best means to understand people. He believes, for example, there exists a gender pay gap in the West, but that the cause of the gap cannot be reduced totally to the problem of gender. He cites studies in social psychology about male and female traits, essentializing human behavior and placing agency squarely in the hands of fundamental psychological characteristics that determine our lives. Simonm223 (talk) 15:31, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Another good excerpt for an interrogation of Peterson on postmodernism: What’s ironic about Peterson is that, by peddling nostalgia, he unwittingly aligns himself with his enemy, postmodernism, which cultural critic Fredric Jameson maintains is a nostalgic paradigm doomed to “imitate dead styles.” Under the banner of postmodernism, anything truly real slides uncomfortably into simulation and “blank parody.” “[S]tylistic innovation is no longer possible,” Jameson writes of postmodernism, and the upshot is a culture that recycles past tropes in order to ward off the creeping tide of despair. Simonm223 (talk) 15:34, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

There's also an interesting piece about Peterson on postmodernism at university affairs. Where Dr. Stuart Chambers says, According to Dr. Peterson, what constitutes truth has shifted radically on university campuses. Referencing Nietzsche, Dr. Peterson claims that since God is dead and “all value structures have collapsed,” doctrinaire postmodernists have interpreted this to mean that truth is up for grabs. One’s version of truth is simply a “power game” – the product of a specific group’s interests, rather than a consensus. This, Dr. Peterson notes, was the “logical conclusion” postmodernists derived from the Nietzschean dilemma. With all due respect, this is not an accurate description of Nietzschean philosophy. The “death of God” simply refers to the death of absolute values, not the negation of competing values. Yes, postmodernism teaches that immutable truths – those fixed for time and eternity – do not exist, but this does not lead to the relativist nightmare dreamed up by Dr. Peterson in which truths are “equally valid” or “anything goes.” The “death of God” does not mean all knowledge is suddenly deemed untrustworthy. Simonm223 (talk) 15:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Once again, no. That is a critique or interpretation of his work. It might be useful in that context but not to replace a basic list of research topics. Springee (talk) 15:34, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Once again, yes. We need to review the reception of the work for it to have any relevance or validity. "He studied postmodernism" OK here's a long list of professors saying he seems to be shadow-boxing a caricature of Derrida that only exists in his head. "He studied psychology of religion" and here's a professor pointing out that he's trying to draw what isn't actually there out of simple phrases in a play of mock-profundity.

See this is what I've been getting at. His research: not well received. Putting his research and citation count out there without that context violates WP:NPOV. And if you think I'm not being neutral I'd suggest finding sources a bit more neutral than a Jan 6 conspiring alt-right book review website to source for a counter-point. Because I'll point out I left the obviously partisan stuff like the Jacobin piece out since I didn't think it would be appropriately neutral. Simonm223 (talk) 15:43, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

It sounds like you are saying that straightforward facts commonly including for biographies have a pro-Peterson bias, and that criticism of Peterson is the context that needs to be added to those facts. North8000 (talk) 16:02, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Please find another academic whose areas of study and citation count are presented in that fashion on this website. Simonm223 (talk) 16:05, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

What to you mean by "that fashion" for a straightforward listing of areas of study? North8000 (talk) 16:07, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

A list of reported areas of study, without any context, using primary sources and ending with a claim about their number of citations. If this paragraph is a straightforward thing that is normal in biographies then it should be easy to find some examples of other biographies that do it. Simonm223 (talk) 16:12, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm supposed to search Wikipedia for a sentence that you would agree matches all four of those criteria as worded by you? And that is required to consider it legitimate to advocate to include a straightforward listing of his areas of study?North8000 (talk)

I mean the argument for inclusion is that this is a normal thing we do for academics on Wikipedia. So I'd think it shouldn't take you that long. Unless, maybe, it's not actually a normal thing we do for academics on Wikipedia. Simonm223 (talk) 16:30, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

A quick search on "cited times google scholar" on Wikipedia generates 11,896 results, meaning that there are thousands of articles in which the citation count of academics is presented. Trakking (talk) 20:58, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

No, (per my post which this was responding to) having to search Wikipedia for a sentence that you would agree matches all four of those criteria as worded by you in order to include a straightforward listing of his areas of study is not a normal thing we do for academics on Wikipedia. North8000 (talk) 14:26, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Broad set of proposed deletions

This discussion is about a broad set of deletions included in Newimpartial's initial large deletion, and then subsequent re-deletions of the same broad range of things. It covers a wide range of things. Fields of study, fields of research, description of his paper publishings, description of how many times he has been cited and the sources for those areas. We'll never get anywhere by treating this wide range of potential deletions as a monolithic "disputed paragraph". There's probably nobody who is strongly for or strongly against every single thing in that big diverse bundle. We really need to be more specific. North8000 (talk) 16:40, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

What are you talking about? It's about that one paragraph you keep reinserting over multiple objections. Simonm223 (talk) 16:43, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, my own view is that a shorter paragraph could, and probably should, be added based on independent secondary sources that mention the areas where he has been published/fields of research. Peer-reviewed HQRS would be best for this, but other independent RS can be considered. In the biographical article of a controversial academic, primary and COI sources should not be used for unattributed statements IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 17:57, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Well, to start dealing with specifics, here are areas covered in that bundle:

1. Areas of study
2. Areas of research
3. Overview of number of published papers
4. Statement about the number of times that he has been cited

North8000 (talk) 23:14, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Any of those topics are fine by me, though I would want to see them cited to reliable secondary sources and some showing that they're WP:DUE (which are obviously entangled inquiries!). Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:24, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

This entire discussion has been that these claims are inappropriately sourced and absent relevant context. Simonm223 (talk) 12:11, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

IMO fields of research is probably a subset of fields of study and so it would probably be best to separate those. A safe start would be to remove "research" from that sentence. And step 2 would be describing areas of research. North8000 (talk) 14:30, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Again, with all due respect, this is entirely unresponsive to the concerns raised. There are many valid ways to structure the content so long as it is validly sourced and due for inclusion. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:38, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Exactly. The structure of the paragraph is not the principal concern - I provided some secondary sources yesterday mostly around Peterson's activities surrounding the topic of postmodernism. Have you got any secondary sources that are more reliable than a Jan 6 conspirator-run alt-right book review site? Simonm223 (talk) 14:47, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I know that some folks would rather that we not write about books that he has written, published papers he has written, what his fields of study are, what his fields of research are, and how many times his works have been cited. I don't think that those folks would be happy with any outcome that covered this these things. And advocate a tougher standard than is normal for including this type of academic information. IMO stated concerns are that this "tougher than normal" criteria has not been met......one can simply disagree with the "tougher than normal" criteria. North8000 (talk) 14:54, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Ok this is approaching disruptive at this point. Yesterday, before you started this sub-topic that tried to suggest a dispute about one paragraph was far grander than a dispute about one paragraph, I asked you to demonstrate with evidence that the paragraph was, in fact, normal. You refused, saying ) having to search Wikipedia for a sentence that you would agree matches all four of those criteria as worded by you in order to include a straightforward listing of his areas of study is not a normal thing we do for academics on Wikipedia. Since I have reviewed several famous and influential academics and literally none of the ones I have reviewed had any paragraph like this one I am contending this paragraph is not, in fact, normal at all. So please stop dithering and present some actual reliable secondary sources. Not, as Trakking alluded a vague handwave in the direction of Google Scholar. Clearly I visited that page for some of the secondary sources I provided yesterday. Find. Appropriate. Specific. Sources. Simonm223 (talk) 14:59, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the scope of the proposed removals, I listed the 4 areas of statements included in that bundle. I am disagreeing with applying the "tougher than normal" criteria, and you are asking questions which pre-suppose applying that criteria. Your previous question as asking me to go though an impossible-to-meet Simonm223-defined gauntlet with the implied premise that that be a requirement for covering his fields of study. I have decided not to step into either of those, and quit the crap of calling that approaching "disruptive" . North8000 (talk) 15:41, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

The criteria would not be impossible to meet if the paragraph were anything even approaching a standard for academics on Wikipedia. This is obviously not the case. Simonm223 (talk) 17:09, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

The one concern that I described so far and proposed set of changes to fix it is that fields of study and fields of research are bundled into the same list. This does not give clarity on which are fields of study and which are fields of research. North8000 (talk) 15:44, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks to this discussion I have read a fair number of academic biographies on-wiki, and I don't recall seeing any significant number that describe "fields of study" for academics that are not also fields of their research or publications. Unless we have good secondary sources describing Peterson's "fields of study" outside of his publications or YouTube videos, I suggest that we follow the more general practice and leave them out. Newimpartial (talk) 16:05, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

The bundle in question is a brief high level summary of the four areas that I listed. Looking at what is useful for the article (using the numbers from my breakdown above), perhaps attempting this for #1 and #2 in the body of the article is less useful, particularly since it currently bundles study and research and thus doesn't provide info on which is which. IMO an overview of the number of publications is useful and appropriate info and pretty straight forward factual, neutral info. IMO the "cited" overview would need more particulars to be really useful info for a typical reader. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:24, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

• I've been busy IRL but wanted to add my view here. I think number of publications and general areas of research (or topics or similar) make sense. They are frequently included in the sort of bios that are given when introducing a speaker before a guest lecture or similar. They aren't meant to endorse the work product but they are the sort of background that's of general topic interest. The paragraph in question should be improved but the bar for such basic claims should be little more than the material is sourced to a 3rd party. When it's time to evaluate the quality of the work or it's impact, then we need a higher standard. Springee (talk) 15:52, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

  We are not doing a guest lecturer bio. We're doing an encyclopedia entry. So no. Primary sources remain insufficient. Honestly I don't know why there's so much resistance to using secondary sources here. Simonm223 (talk) 16:31, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

  Such bios give an example of what is expected. You are correct in so much as the encyclopedia entry should cover more than just that boiler plate content. Also, I've suggested secondary sources that cover much of the material in question. Springee (talk) 17:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

  With all due respect to all involved, I don't think this sort of jousting in the abstract is particularly helpful. We really need a proposed text (whether a paragraph or even a sentence or two) in order to move forward. But I'm just some guy on the internet, so take that for what it is worth! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:22, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

  The Claremont Institute isn't really a reliable source in this context, is it? For a biography of a contraverial figure, I think we have to do better than a right-wing think tank as a source, especally when tone and WP:DUE are at issue. Perhaps you have suggested another secondary source, but I can't seem to locate where you might have done so. Newimpartial (talk) 19:59, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

  It's perfectly fine in this context. Remember, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content." Remember, we are talking about boiler plate sort of facts. We aren't making claims about his qualities as an academic nor his impact in his field of research. We accept many left wing activists sources for contentious claims. Why is this source unacceptable for very benign claims? Springee (talk) 23:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

  To answer your question, any statement that a controversial academic is a specialist in X field should never be cited to a highly partisan source. If it were truly uncontroversial, boilerplate information, better sources should be available. Newimpartial (talk) 23:18, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

  Why wouldn't that same reasoning apply to material from a source like Pink News? Beyond that, no, per BIASED we can use biased sources so long as the claims taken from those sources aren't affected by the bias. Do you really think CRB is going to say he researched in area X if he didn't? And no, often times this sort of back drop information isn't going to be covered by sources like VOX but they are of interest to some readers. That is likely why this content has been in the article for several years. Springee (talk) 23:38, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

  To answer your question I wouldn't cite a left-wing publication (like, say, an anarchist collective) for the fields of expertise of an academic, either. And I have every reason to expect a biased source to apply a lower threshold of expertise to support a sympathetic review than I would expect them to do to accompany a hostile review: that's what biased sources consistently do.

  I also think you have to allow the possibility that the attention of editors sympathetic to Peterson's views - which were rather popular for a hot minute - might represent another reason that his "credentials" might be presented uncritically in the status quo text. I remember some editors even wanted to shoehorn in "philosopher" in the lead, based on rather dubious sources. Newimpartial (talk) 01:13, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

  The CRB is hardly the same as an anarchist collective. They are a respected, conservative institute with multiple publications. It is unreasonable to claim that their high level, basic statement as to areas of research should be treated like a partisan assessment. Again, this isn't the same as claiming Peterson is "a leader in his field" or "has shifted the topic" etc. Your second claim, "editors sympathetic" can just as quickly be reversed, "editors who don't like his POV..." Also, there are different types of credentials. I can try to use the fact that I studied economics to claim I have credentials in the field. It is correct to say I've taken advanced courses in economics while incorrect to present me as an expert in the field. We aren't claiming Peterson is an expert, only that his research has been in the following areas. Springee (talk) 04:08, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

  Hi folks. I'd like briefly add my 2 cents here.

  One thing that's easy to lose sight of in a discussion like this is: why are we editing Wikipedia?

  I think we'd all agree that we're editing Wikipedia to be of service to our readers. We want to volunteer our time to make sure that as many people in the English-speaking world as possible are well-informed.

  So, when I see a discussion about whether or not to remove a piece of sourced content (whether primary or secondary), I ask myself "is this content likely to be interesting and useful to our readers?"

  Of course, we have policies and guidelines. But I would argue that those policies and guidelines, rather than being laws, are better understood as the community's best attempts so far at describing how to achieve the goal, which is something like "create a useful and interesting encyclopedia for our readers". I think that's the spirit of WP:IAR.

  I agree with the editors who have said "there should be secondary sources". They are preferable, when available. But I do not think we should lose sight of the goal. If a primary source is the only source available to provide useful and factually uncontested information to our readers, I think it should be cited.

  With that said, if a reliable secondary source has disputed a claim that our article currently cites to a primary source, we should probably exclude the claim, unless reliable secondary sources exist to support it. Unsourced material should obviously be removed. That's my view. Cheers. Pecopteris (talk) 05:00, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

  After reading all this, I still wonder why is a defamatory comment in The Harvard Crimson being retained and protected, despite WP:BLP? Wdford (talk) 09:23, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

  This is about the 'willingness to undertake unconventional research' comment? Dumuzid (talk) 11:24, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

  Indeed. This and other statements from subjective "journalists". It seems a bit skewed to have a huge argument about demanding reliable secondary sources to describe something as innocuous as the guy's areas of research or interest etc, but to happily accept subjective low-quality sources when they are being critical of the guy. Not only a concern for WP:BLP, but also WP:NPOV. Wdford (talk) 13:39, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

  For the record, I don't think either the statement sourced to the Crimson or the preceding statement based on a PRIMARY source (about alcohol and aggression) should be in the article, primarily on sourcing grounds. The idea held by some editors, that there is a lower sourcing standard to say nice things about BLP subjects then there is for things that are less nice, is not backed up by a plain reading of WP:BLP, IMO. Potentially defamatory material is in a different category, but that isn't what we're talking about here - we are discussing more or less flattering comments about Peterson's work. Newimpartial (talk) 14:06, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, this is my thought too. Perfectly fair to challenge the sourcing there, but to see a benign quote from a fawning article as defamatory is a bit strange. Dumuzid (talk) 18:54, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think the question is "nice things" was the issue but I will come back to that. No, the issue is boiler plate things (taught the following classes, published X number of papers) vs subjective or interpretive claims. RS is clear that the quality of the sourcing varies with the nature of the claim. We don't need a strong source to say "Ms Patel went to school in France". As for "nice" this ARBCOM case makes it clear that BLP should be careful about negative content. "In cases where the appropriateness of material regarding a living person is questioned, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm."". That means we should be less willing to accept negative vs positive material given equal sourcing. Again, that isn't the case here. Springee (talk) 22:53, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

  I disagree with Springee's interpretation of Arbcom's statement, an interpretatuon that amounts to applying a lower threshold for the inclusion of nice things than to less nice things. If the forms of harm that are meant were to include the consideration, "would the content make the BLP subject and their fans feel sad?" - well, that would be a straight-out WP:NPOV violation.

  I credit Arbcom with more wisdom than that interpretation allows - I think they meant actual harm, including harm related to libel and slander, harm from impacts to privacy, and risks to personal safety for example. Deciding to "Do no harm" in this context does not mandate the equivalent of including positive ratemyprofessor reviews while excluding bad (though non-slanderous) ones, which is essentially what Springee is proposing.

  And as far as boilerplate goes, I don't think what courses a professor has taught is typically considered encyclopaedic information - sure it is in cases like G. W. F. Hegel, lecture notes from whose courses had an impact on intellectual history, but that is an extreme edge case. Most academic biographies onwiki do not actually include this information, presumably because it is "kruft". Newimpartial (talk) 23:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

  You are welcome to disagree but the ARBCOM case clearly said, when dealing with BLP material we need to err on the side of do no harm. That certainly doesn't mean don't say bad things that are reliably sourced and factual. Rather it means we need to be more careful when the content is negative. But, as I already said, that is not what is at issue here. I think Pecopteris's comment really gets to the point. Readers may be interested in this sort of content. Per wp:V, no one is claiming the sources can't be trusted. I recall a similar case a while back where editors were getting upset that articles on cars might contain specs like gear ratios and transmission options. Yeah, to many readers that's not interesting information. However, it is interesting to some readers and keeping it in the article causes no harm. That is similar to what we have here. Springee (talk) 01:26, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. If the consensus is that The Harvard Crimson is a reliable source, then we should avoid cherry-picking, and we should reword that sentence properly and neutrally, to read as follows: “An article published in The Harvard Crimson said Peterson developed “a reputation for being an engaging and enthusiastic teacher,” that he was "the perfect thesis advisor," and that his “wide breadth of knowledge allows him to create "beautiful" theories linking together ideas from mythology, religion, philosophy and psychology.”” Why select only the sentences which use the words “unconventional” or “cult following”, and ignore the context? If we are going to include subjective journalism, then surely balance and context are extra important? Or not? Wdford (talk) 22:16, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I have thought neither long nor hard about the reliability of the Crimson, but my gut reaction would be to simply not use it as a source. Happy to go wherever consensus leads, however. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:29, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I would agree. That would be a good start. Then we also need to clean up all the other subjective journalism, and ensure neutrality and balance. Meanwhile, a start must be made. Wdford (talk) 08:11, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

With all due respect, subjectivity is not a problem for sources, assuming they are both reliable and WP:DUE. Per WP:NPOV, we should be as neutral as the reliable sources are. Just an idle thought from me! Happy Friday to all. Dumuzid (talk) 13:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I'd advise we WP:TNT the whole crimson paragraph, it's a mess. Allan Nonymous (talk) 14:58, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Agree with that suggestion by Allan Nonymous. Delete everything after “arising from drug and alcohol abuse”. Stick to the facts, and exclude subjective opinions.

Is a non-neutral source still a reliable source? If reporting objective facts, then obviously yes. If giving a personal opinion, then probably no. Was Donald Trump born in New York? Yes, regardless of who is writing the report. Is Donald Trump a great person? Well that depends very much on who is writing the report. It is interesting that the article on Donald Trump, which is very much larger than this article, and which describes a much more polarizing person, contains fewer examples of subjective journalism. That article is critical of Trump, but it reports all his many flaws and mistakes in a neutral, encyclopedic manner and tone. Why can we not apply the same level of quality here?

For example, there is a lot of subjective journalism in the “Views” subsection. Among other things, in the “Religion” sub-subsection, some editor has seen fit to include the following paragraphs:

• “Writing for The Spectator, Tim Lott said Peterson draws inspiration from the Jungian interpretation of religion and holds views similar to the Christian existentialism of Søren Kierkegaard and Paul Tillich. Lott also said that Peterson has respect for Taoism, as it views nature as a struggle between order and chaos and posits life would be meaningless without this duality.[8] He has also expressed his admiration for some of the teachings of the Eastern Orthodox Church.”
• “Writing in Psychoanalysis, Politics and the Postmodern University, Daniel Burston argues that Peterson's views on religion reflect a preoccupation with what Tillich calls the vertical or transcendent dimension of religious experience but demonstrate little or no familiarity with (or sympathy for) what Tillich termed the horizontal dimension of faith, which demands social justice in the tradition of the biblical prophets.”

Is this WP:DUE? Is it relevant? Is this even about Petersen, or is it the subjective interpretations of arbitrary commentators? All that Petersen actually said on the subject of religion, is that he is a Chistian but does not believe in God. The rest is BS. Bring lots of TNT please. Wdford (talk) 15:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I will just make a couple of brief obvservations: (1) please see WP:BIASED; and (2) objectivity is often in the eye of the beholder. That being said, make any proposals you like and we'll see if consensus can be reached. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:52, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Agreed with Dumuzid. I am aware of the general rules of WP:BIASED, although in this context we need to consider also the specific rules of WP:BLP, which specifically says “Instead use clear, direct language and let facts alone do the talking.” That is what I am proposing that we do for this article too. If we include a few selected in-text-attributed personal views, we will run into problems with balance - which is a BLP issue, and which I believe has happened here already. Rather than a subjective quote-fest, let's just use actual facts. If they could do it in the Donald Trump article, why not do it here as well?

Regarding your invitation to make specific proposals, to start out I already included three proposals in my post above – delete the bulk of the Harvard Crimson paragraph in the "Career" sub-section as described, and entirely delete the two paragraphs in the “Religion” sub-subsection, reporting the views of Tim Lott and Daniel Burston. That's a good start. Wdford (talk) 17:01, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I have already said that I support the removal of the primary sourced statement about the alcohol and violence topic as well as the comments sourced to the Crimson - I don't think either mention belongs in an encyclopaedia.

However, I disagree with the proposal of the material sourced to Burton - this a WP:HQRS academic monograph, one of the best sources hsed in the article, and the current article content is attributed currently to the author. Analysis by HQRS is part of the facts on which an encyclopaediac biographical entry should be built - it is misleading to regard such informed commentary as personal opinion, IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 18:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, as such primary sources and kruft should be removed or replaced per Simonm223's original edit. DN (talk) 06:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

For the sake of the folks that are not as thoroughly deep in on this, maybe we could could start with a small scale specifically defined proposal. North8000 (talk) 17:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I am happy to keep both Burston and Lott in the sub-section on "Academia and political correctness". However this entry in the “Religion” sub-subsection, presenting their own opinions about Petersen's perceived similarity to the theories of Tillich and Jung, is not relevant to an article about Petersen. It is as relevant as having a paragraph in the Donald Trump article where an uninvolved professor of English Literature gives their own personal comparison between Trump's speeches and the soliloquies of Hamlet. Wdford (talk) 11:01, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

I have no strong feeling either way on this but playing devil's advocate just to sort this out....could you not say that this is giving an informative (secondary source) expert description of Peterson's views on religion? North8000 (talk) 13:28, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

I absolutely agree this is a relevant secondary source. Peterson has obviously made religion a notable part of his studies and public persona. Saying religious context is not applicable to the author of Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief strikes me as not particularly compelling, but reasonable minds may certainly differ. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 13:47, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

My point is, did Petersen actually say that this is his religious stance, or is an outside stranger inferring things? I am not a Petersen expert, but does JP actually talk about the theories of Jung and Tillich, or not? Are these actually Peterson's own views on religion? If Donald Trump repeatedly references Hamlet - or Shakespeare - then its a very valid point to make. However if Trump thinks that Hamlet is a deli sandwich, then including a discussion on Shakespeare in the Trump article would be a stretch. If Petersen actually discusses these particular theories, then the article should say so clearly. Did JP actually say that this is actually his stance? Wdford (talk) 18:35, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

With all due respect, it doesn't matter. Experts are allowed to take a look at his work and say "this belongs in tradition X." We certainly shouldn't imply that Peterson has endorsed these views, but it's perfectly reasonable to quote secondary sources this way. Preferable, in fact. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:49, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Again, I don't have much of an opinion either way but to help discuss this. Could those not be terms that an expert uses to describe the nature of Peterson's views? Like saying that someone has Reagan type conservative views or a Friedman type view on economics? North8000 (talk) 20:15, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

"I am not a Petersen expert, but does JP actually talk about the theories of Jung?"

Yes. A lot. Like, a lot. If you don't understand Jung, you cannot understand Peterson, especially Maps of Meaning. If a secondary source has mentioned this, it should absolutely be included in the article. Knowing about Peterson's intense interest in Jung is key to understanding his thought. Pecopteris (talk) 21:15, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Lead Summary

Newimpartial this [21] is not a WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY issue. I left in mention of his illness, so it was still there, and that guideline is largely about not having novel information in the lead. The reason I removed it is because it is an atrociously bad summary of the main. What you have put back tells us that he had benzodiazepine withdrawal syndrome. It notably doesn't explain what he took benzodiazepine for, nor what that involved. It wikilinks to a page that also doesn't tell us what benzodiazepine is used for, and you have to click benzodiazepine on the linked page to find that out. Which you might argue is fine... someone can find the info if they want. And, indeed, they could find more information by scrolling down this page. But that is the problem. The lead is not a summary at all, if a reader can only understand it by clicking multiple wikilinks or scrolling down the page to fill in the blanks. This does not meet WP:LEAD. Please either put my edit back or rewrite the lead as an actual short and self contained summary. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:13, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I have rewritten the medical passages in the lead[22] and in the body[23], based on the CBC source, to address this concern. I removed the ABOUTSELF dosage details in the body as being less relevant to readers than why the medication was prescribed. Newimpartial (talk) 23:45, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, that is clearer. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:27, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Trakking reverting

Posting this here because Trakking appears to have an issue with the changes I made. He's free to revert specific ones or make changes, but i'm going to need to see policy based arguments as to why you reverted the section about the Newman interview? Given that's what the source says. The source does not say that she was criticized by youtube commenters and journalists for her 'performance'. That is a gross misrepresentation of the source and inconsistent in every way with Wikipedia's core policies. Chuckstablers (talk) 15:37, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Your edits violated many of Wikipedia's fundamental guidelines:

• WP:CON: There has been a consensus in Talk for including information such as the citation count.
• WP:VANDAL: Addition of incomplete sentences such as "He has been criticized" and "He has" in the middle of nowhere is pure vandalism.
• MOS:CLAIM: Changing neutral words like "attribute" and "argue" to "claim" and "assert" is not acceptable. (Changing different neutral verbs to a repetitive "said" is also against this rule.)
• WP:DISRUPTIVE: Removing authoritative sources such as Peterson's reference to Fred Singer is disruptive editing that has no place in an encyclopedia.
• WP:MOS: Your edits are full of typos such as "condemneds" and "teach in" (missing a hyphen), violating the fundamental principle of writing correctly.
• WP:NPOV: You accused Peterson of making "broad generalizations" etc. which is non-neutral wording.
• WP:WQ: Removing sourced information and writing "who cares" is showing a lack of etiquette.
• WP:RS: Propagandistic and ideological sources such as Jacobin are not considered reliable sources.

But don't worry, other people will revert your vandalism and disruptive edits. My reversion has already received thanks from other people as well. I would be surprised if you received consensus for even a single one of your edits. Trakking (talk) 16:23, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Not to nitpick, but per WP:RSP, Jacobin is actually considered a reliable, though biased, source. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: I see that you have already begun the tedious work of cleaning up this disruptive mess. I have never seen a user commit so many violations at one time. We ought to revert back to status quo and let that user seek consensus for any additional edits.

@Dumuzid: Thanks for the information, but the Jacobin source was used to claim that Peterson is a "member of the far-right". It was just ideological propaganda and nothing else. That edit has already been reverted, by the way. Trakking (talk) 16:41, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

It's the old "lots of edits where some look constructive and some don't" conundrum. Hard to say what the best procedure is. Some of the edits look good to me, so I just fixed what I saw as the most problematic of the edits (the fragment and the "member of the far-right" claim per my edit summary). I'm inclined to think cleanup is preferable to just a full-undo in this case, but it's complicated. Regardless, I don't think characterizing obvious mistakes as vandalism is helpful. Ditto characterizing removing reliable sources as disruptive -- just because a reliable source exists doesn't mean it has to be included after all (WP:ONUS and whatnot). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:50, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Rhododendrites, I think you have the right approach. The constructive stuff will find its way back in. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:59, 21 July 2024 (UTC)e

To be clear, I am not vouching for the edit, merely wanted to clear up an apparent mix up. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:58, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Trakking; Jacobin is on the reliable source list. It isn't ideological propaganda; that's false. It's the statement made by a reliable source that he is a member of the far right. I'm fine with it being removed if you feel it's not due, but I'd like to see an argument for it in the future? Thanks. Chuckstablers (talk) 19:27, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

There's a long range of counter-arguments throughout the article:

• Peterson identifies as a classical liberal—a centrist position.
• Peterson has stated that he is usually mistaken as right-wing, supporting some policies that are usually considered left-wing.
• Commentators such as Cathy Young have denounced the accusation of far-right as unsubstantiated.
• Peterson is equally critical of identity politics of the left and right.
• Many of Peterson's associates are centrists or centre-leftists—Joe Rogan, Bret Weinstein, Russell Brand etc.

Trakking (talk) 19:52, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

That isn't a policy based argument. We use reliable sources. A reliable source calls him a member of the far right. Your original research on his positions do not cancel that out. You would need a reliable source SPECIFICALLY saying that he is not a member of the far right. Do you have one? Chuckstablers (talk) 19:57, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

No, the burden of proof lies on the part making a claim. You have only found ONE source in support of your claim—a source identified by Wikipedia as "biased" and therefore problematic. Meanwhile a range of commentators have refuted this accusation. Trakking (talk) 20:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Trakking, could you let me know where the consensus in Talk for including information such as the citation count might be found? The information presented here does not correspond to what I see included in other BLPs. Newimpartial (talk) 17:08, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Newimpartial, someone removed the citation count earlier but were reverted because they did not receive consensus for that edit in Talk. Trakking (talk) 17:14, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

OK, but could you point me to the relevant discussion on Talk? If there wasn't one, then I think it's safe to say the content in question no longer has WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS (if at least three editors have objected). It may of course have explicit Talk page consensus - which is what I'd like to find out. Newimpartial (talk) 17:27, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

We're including citations to his books. That's my issue. I'm fine having it there if we're only including citations to his actual academic articles. Chuckstablers (talk) 19:29, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:CON: Where is the consensus? They're not indefinite.

WP: VANDALISM: Which were fixed by the time I was done.

WP:MOS: teach-in is a term. It's used in the source.... It's a word referring to a sit in on a campus where people come to teach others. In this case it was a teach-in held by a hundred trans and non binary students on campus. That's not a protest. They are different words referring to different things.

WP:NPOV: That was what the source said. The source used those words exactly. But I've since changed it to now make it clear who exactly is saying those words.

WP:WQ: Yes, I removed content that I felt was given undue weight. I think the only real significant section I REMOVED instead of rewrote/replaced was his economic beliefs section, given that it was two sentences sourced I believe to a youtube video of his? Don't really see an issue with that. If you have some argument as to why this is WP:WQ

WP:RS: Jacobin is a reliable source according to the perennial source list.

Your comment that "But don't worry, other people will revert your vandalism and disruptive edits. My reversion has already received thanks from other people as well..." is needlessly inflammatory and inconsistent with a constructive editing environment. Please reassess your approach. I'm open to people changing it (I've already cleaned it up to a large extent) and to policy based arguments. Cheers. Chuckstablers (talk) 19:53, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Reversion of vandalism and restoration of status quo

Yesterday this article was under assault by some new user making a thousand edits that were disruptive and destructive. The user removed large parts of information without explanation, they cluttered the article with typos and grammatical errors, they tried to add extremely ideological language to the very first line of the article referencing a source identified as biased by Wikipedia guidelines, and they violated all sorts of rules such as MOS:CLAIM. They did not receive any explicit support in Talk for any specific edit either. It was just pure vandalism and disruptive editing. If that user wants to make any drastic change to the article, they must argue for it here and seek consensus. We have had major debates about minor edits in the past—some random new user is not allowed to turn the entire article upside down without discussion. Usually there are many different users reverting this sort of vandalism on this article, but Wikipedia is rather dormant during summer and some of them might not be back until a short while, so I decided to take action. Trakking (talk) 09:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I support your revert. And I agree with your suggestion that if User:Chuckstablers wants to make those significant changes, he must come to the talk page first. Masterhatch (talk) 09:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Trakking, you've just violated the great big arbitration remedy at the top of this page. You should self-rv before someone opens an WP:AE. Repeatedly characterizing someone else's edits in extreme and misleading ways (saying chuckstablers did so "without explanation" when there are lengthy edit summaries in nearly every edit, for example, or calling it vandalism or disruption) is not great either in a contentious topic. There are problems introduced in the recent edits, but there are also improvements, and people have been saying for some time that this page needs some trimming/rewriting. It's not clear to me which version has fewer problems. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 11:49, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia policy, one is allowed to revert more than once in instances of vandalism. How is it not vandalism to make vast unexplained removals, rampant grammatical errors, blatant policy violations, extreme ideological accusations such as calling Peterson a fascist in the introduction, and avoiding to reach any form of consensus in Talk? Every time someone else has made this sort of edits they have been reverted immediately. I’ll self-revert just in case all of that madness does not count as vandalism, but @Masterhatch is free to revert my reversion. Trakking (talk) 12:19, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOTVAND (also pinging someone to make an edit on your behalf after you've passed the 1RR threshold is not great, either). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:41, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Rhododendrites, could you please show me a single improvement made by that user? There have been serious attempts by other editors to improve the article quite recently, but I don’t see any signs of it in this particular instance. Trakking (talk) 12:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't know, let's just look at the first big edit here. We had a paragraph that used an op-ed rather than a reliable source to set the tone (that "Newman's performance was criticized") and downplayed the abuse which was central to that story when in fact the sources are pretty clear that the abuse is one of the major pieces of the story. So yes, that one was an improvement. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:41, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Great, so there’s one arguably relevant thing out of hundreds of disruptive edits. Still, the sensible thing is to roll back the onslaught and discuss any possible changes in order to reach a consensus. The latest move that user pulled was to clutter the lede with a bunch of ”citation needed” templates even though this violates the recommendations at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section#Citations. This combined with frequent violations of MOS:CLAIM and other rules indicates that they don’t understand the basic rules of editing. Trakking (talk) 14:13, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Can we just stop with the WP:BATTLEGROUND characterizations here? Still mischaracterizing the edits as "disruptive" when it's obviously not WP:DE (like repeatedly calling them vandalism, when they're obviously not). It's not an onslaught -- it's editing, some of which was sorely needed. I clicked the very first big edit and it was constructive. And it just took me about 10 seconds to fix those cn tags just now -- probably less time than it did to complain about them here. In the sum of the edits I see a few MOS:SAID issues, but also several fixes of MOS:SAID issues. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:47, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. Please read MOS:SAID more carefully though. The first sentence states that ”repeated use of said is considered tedious, and writers are encouraged to employ synonyms.” Not only did the user violate the MOS:CLAIM rule by changing a bunch of neutral verbs to claim and assert, they changed a bunch of neutral verbs to a repetitive said, which is also against the recommendations. Trakking (talk) 15:03, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

You have misread MOS:SAID. In some types of writing, repeated use of said is considered tedious, and writers are encouraged to employ synonyms. On Wikipedia, it is more important to avoid language that makes undue implications.. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Trakking -- very much with Rhododendrites here. Vandalism is not synonymous with "not an improvement" and certainly not with "changes with which I disagree." Good faith editors will often have different viewpoints and different visions of how an article should look. That's a feature, not a bug. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:21, 22 July 2024 (UTC)