Jump to content

Talk:Jordan Peterson

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Atshal (talk | contribs) at 00:43, 28 January 2021 (→‎Removal of self-promotional material). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article


Removal of book review

Blindlynx's comment below was a reply to Miki Filgranski's comment above (01:14, 25 November 2020). I'm adding a section break since this is getting long and the book review is not the same topic as the content above Springee (talk) 02:50, 25 November 2020 (UTC) [reply]

As was my initial comment. Newimpartial (talk) 19:13, 25 November 2020 (UTC) [reply]

  • Your removal of a recent critique of Peterson's book in a Jungian journal, at full article length, does not leave me with much faith about your ability to assess the reliability of sources in this domain. Smells like IDONTLIKEIT, from here. Newimpartial (talk) 01:27, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how neutrality works! We don't just assume people are reliable sources until proven otherwise, if we did i'd be a reliable source on everything because you won't find anyone saying i'm not. blindlynx (talk) 01:47, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Newimpartial: are you aware you are making an accusation about an experienced editor with an obvious lack of WP:GOODFAITH to an unrelated comment and discussion? First, you need to understand what WP:WEIGHT and WP:BLPBALANCE is nevertheless the quality and reliability of the source, secondly that numerous times was discussed we are not going to have a criticism section either about him as a person either for the books because each of these books has their own criticism section at related articles and nobody is going through editing hell about which criticism should be or not included. The new editor who included this criticism in the book's section and not in the book's article obviously wasn't familiar with it. If you think it should be different then you are free to start a discussion and reach a consensus.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 01:56, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was intending that that consensus be established here, as part of a discussion to which you just contributed and which concerns the same issues of quality sourcing and attribution; do you think it requires its own section?
Otherwise, I would recommend that you concentrate on contributions, not contributors and I will do the same. While sitewide policies do indeed criticism sections, the inclusion of criticism of a BLP subject's public positions - when they are an important part of the subject's Notability, as in this case - is essential to WEIGHT and BLPBALANCE. This is especially true with public figures taking WP:FRINGE positions, like Peterson. Newimpartial (talk) 02:11, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain why you removed that article then? I just read it and it is a peer reviewed reliable article, doing exactly what you asked for in your initial comment namely refuting Peterson in a reliable philosophical source. blindlynx (talk) 02:31, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Newimpartial, it is a separate issue which needs a separate discussion and especially for a consensus. Is there any other RS whose author has expertise in the field which had come to the same conclusion as Gary Clark? What's Clark by expertise exactly by the way? @Blindlynx, it was already explained. No, that's criticism of a book and if we're going to include a book's criticism then we need to have a new consensus to have it for all of them and then we must decide which parts will be cited according to the proportion of both positive and negative reception. Sections about the books need only a short and balanced abstract. Citing several sentences from a single RS isn't how it's done and it's out of scope for this article.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 03:03, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have not read the review article in question and don't know the author's precise specialty, but he is a Jungian writing in a high-quality Jungian journal and Peterson's professed specialty is - you've got it - Jungian psychology, so this is about as relevant as it gets.
More generally, you appear to be dismissing the element of source quality in assessing the proportion of both positive and negative reception. In a case where a book is panned by professional peers and receives a mixed reception from general interest publications, it may be relevant to separate out the specialist reception from the generalist reception, but it would never be DUE to ignore how the most qualified reviewers evaluated the work in question. Newimpartial (talk) 04:11, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear i'm taking issue with you asking for something that you removed from the article. I think it should be included because, it has to be clear that he is not an expert on many of the things he is known for writing about and faces strong criticism from actual experts, and that article is a good example of taht. blindlynx (talk) 06:57, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, jumping from step 1 to step 10 without a proper discussion, didn't read the review, doesn't know the author's specialty. What a bunch of POV pushers.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 23:13, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Since there are primary topics on each of the books I would suggest compressing all the books into a single paragraph/section with no more than 3 sentences per book. Any summary of the books reception (both negative and positive) should be very high level and then direct the reader to the primary article on the topic. I support the removal not on the grounds that it is or isn't a DUE and IMPARTIAL review but as it is not a SUMMARY of the primary article on the book. Specific reviews should be in the child article, not here. I think its best when we maintain a hierarchical structure to articles like this. Springee (talk) 02:56, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, same thoughts, including for merging of book sections into a single "Books" section, but for now, I would keep the same text as it remained as such for a long time (WP:SILENCE) and challenging that needs another small consensus.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 03:05, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment current structure appears to best serve our needs, I would leave as is personally. Acousmana (talk) 10:39, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is a misunderstanding of Wikipedia's policies here. Whether we like it or not, DUE and IMPARTIAL or relevant to this section. Other Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources, so we should not assume that those other articles are the best summary of the topic. Any summary of these books must still be supported by reliable sources even if it's redundant with another flawed article. Obviously it is common practice for practical reasons to crib from other Wikipedia articles, but we are not obligated to do so. Instead, both this article and the book's articles should summarize what reliable, independent sources have to say. Since Peterson is ostensibly an academic, this will necessarily include some academic coverage.
Also, this is a discussion, not a !vote, so you do not need to identify your comments as comments. Grayfell (talk) 22:02, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
valid points, so let's reset and see how long it is before someone reverts using BRD as an excuse. Acousmana (talk) 23:07, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On a related note, I previously explained my concerns over false equivalence for reviews at Talk:12 Rules for Life. The best approach for most article and for almost all cases is to find reliable, independent, secondary sources. We then briefly summarize those without editorializing. These sources are not always available for all articles, but Peterson is widely discussed, so I doubt that's the problem. So that would mean we summarize a source which directly discusses his books' claims specifically as they relate to Peterson as an author. Very briefly summarize the books for context and then use sources to explain what they tell us about the author. If the sources which allow us to do this are opinions, they should be attributed as opinions ("according to X..."). Grayfell (talk) 23:34, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Acousmana: are you aware that you made 2 reverts within 24 hours while the article is under WP:1RR sanction? @Grayfell: exactly and current book review isn't any kind of summarization.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 08:16, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Newimpartial: why are you again making WP:POINT revert and substantiating it with a lie that has been present for more than a month while it was included on 1st November and was first time reverted on 25th November - less than a month. WP:SILENCE is also the weakest form of consensus to claim it was part of the stable version. It wasn't and at least isn't anymore. You're pushing POV against BRD and on-going discussion.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 11:29, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Accusing me of lying isn't WP:CIVIL. I said the text has been there for more than a month, not that it was 100% stable during that time. It has been stable enough, as I said. Newimpartial (talk) 11:36, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, we do need to be careful about assuming the intent of other editors. I'm sure I'm not the only editor who has been accused of having a motive that I know wasn't my intent. I'm also certain that some of my edits that were 100% clear to me were not clear to others who couldn't read my mind (which of course is a personal flaw on their part). :D Springee (talk) 16:15, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Grayfell that we shouldn't cite other wiki articles. However, I don't think that means we need to have details/specific book reviews here. WP:SYNC is the relevant guideline here since the books have primary topics. I don't believe SYNC counts as citing wikipedia any more than a lead without citations is considered to be unsourced if the body supports the lead. With respect to including any particular review in this article please keep this sentence in mind, " Whether a detail is important enough to include in the lead of the detailed article is a good rule of thumb for whether it is important enough to be placed in the summary." I haven't reviewed the articles about the book so I will take on faith they are reasonable as stand alone articles vs POV forks that should be reintegrated here. Springee (talk) 16:15, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Newimpartial, I don't think in the article for about a month is long enough to consider it part of the stable version. Also, per ONUS even if this is part of the stable version it is now being challenged so the case to keep and consensus to keep it needs to be established. I think it should go on the grounds that it's not part of a summary of the primary article on the subject. I don't have an opinion on if it is DUE (or not) in the article on the book. Anyway, I think at this point policy says this has been challenged and should stay out until consensus says there is weight for inclusion. Springee (talk) 18:53, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

adds interest to the article, gives our readers additional context, it's informative, they can reach their own conclusions, don't see the problem. Acousmana (talk) 21:32, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Convenience break

For clarity, this is the content which is disputed:

An article published in 2020 in the International Journal of Jungian Studies, entitled ′Carl Jung, John Layard and Jordan Peterson: Assessing Theories of Human Social Evolution and Their Implications for Analytical Psychology', offers a sustained critique of Peterson’s thought as outlined in 12 Rules for Life.[1] In this critique it is claimed that Peterson fails to take account of research in paleoanthropology, evolutionary anthropology and ethnographic studies of egalitarian societies. Such societies, which are believed to represent the ancient forager adaptation of H. sapiens, are both matrilineal and lacking in social hierarchy. The author argues that a major sociocultural transformation occurred from this ancient adaptive complex with the onset of agriculture giving rise to modern patrilineal and hierarchical cultures. This view contrasts with Peterson’s which postulates modern social and economic structures are an outgrowth of the hierarchical impulses of our premammalian, mammalian and primate ancestors. This led the author to conclude that Peterson seems to have ‘projected his own cultural biases back into the deep past.’[2]

As presented, this paragraph is specifically about Peterson's thought as outlined in 12 Rules for Life. It is not explicitly about the book itself, and the cited article is not presented by its journal as a book review.

Commentary about his professional views is obviously relevant to the topic. I would argue that it's more relevant than much of the article's current information. The article is, however, organized in such a way that there is no obvious place for this information.

The article has a trivia problem which preserves some info while making it harder to make positive changes. The article's many sections tend to present information without any context. For example, the article mentions that he has debated Harris and Žižek in the "career" section, but provides no explanation for why this is important for his career. If this is important enough to mention, it should be clear to reader why it is important. That importance comes from sources, not editors.

Another trivia example is that he was introduced to specific authors when he was a teenager. Since a huge number of teenagers are introduced to the exact same authors at that age, this is almost meaningless, and needs context. Passing mentions are not enough to demonstrate encyclopedic significance. I have trimmed that bit, since it was not even properly supported by the cited source. (The source didn't mention Rand, nor did it mention a specific age). Going through those sources, I suspect there are many other examples of this. Grayfell (talk) 22:40, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Clark, G. ′Carl Jung, John Layard and Jordan Peterson: Assessing Theories of Human Social Evolution and Their Implications for Analytical Psychology.' International Journal of Jungian Studies 12 (2020) 129–158.
  2. ^ Clark, G. ′Carl Jung, John Layard and Jordan Peterson Assessing Theories of Human Social Evolution and Their Implications for Analytical Psychology.′ International Journal of Jungian Studies 12 (2020) p. 136.

Semi-protected edit request on 27 December 2020

In "Early Life": 

Change:

In junior high school, Peterson became friends with Rachel Notley and her family. Notely became leader of the Alberta New Democratic Party and 17th premier of Alberta.[8] Peterson joined the New Democratic Party (NDP) from ages 13 to 18.[9][10]

To: In junior high school, Peterson became friends with Rachel Notley and her family. Notley became leader of the Alberta New Democratic Party and 17th premier of Alberta.[8] Peterson joined the New Democratic Party (NDP) from ages 13 to 18.[9][10]

Summary: Change Notely in "Notely became leader" to "Notley became leader" 131.150.178.140 (talk) 22:14, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done RudolfRed (talk) 22:34, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jordanbpeterson

Could someone politely inform the jordanbpeteraon account about the COI rules and editing about oneself? That isn't really my area, and sooner would be better. Newimpartial (talk) 00:43, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it more likely the account is not Peterson but the practical effect is the same. If they are Peterson then they are prohibited from editing their own article. If they aren't then claiming they are is a problem and again the edits should be reverted. Springee (talk) 01:13, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the edits made reasonable points; I reinstated what I thought was of value. I don't know much about COI, so I'll leave notification at the user talk page for someone else. Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:35, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't review any of the changes. I'm fine restoring any good content. I reverted solely on the COI/false pretense basis. Springee (talk) 01:50, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophy

I think 'philosopher' should be added to his titles alongside clinical psychologist as that seems to be a better description of his activities in the past couple years. For example a wide range of his topics of conversation involved existentialism, empiricism, morality, religion and social philosophy. He also typically quotes a wide range of other philosophers such as Carl Jung and Neitzche--2A00:23C7:D87:3100:E651:B0AB:680B:4DA4 (talk) 01:10, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but there's a notion here that for someone to be called a philosopher, they need to have a formal degree in philosophy from a university. That standard would ironically (a popular term here) also disqualify people like Plato or Jung or Neitzche, too. None of those persons held a degree in philosophy, but are accepted to be philosophers. A philosopher, I think, is someone who philosophises. Was Ansel Adams a photographer? He didn't have a degree in art, either, but he's known to have engaged in photography. Is Tony Hawk actually a skateboarder?, etc. This obviously borders on the ridiculous and obvious, but that's Wikipedia. 139.138.6.121 (talk) 11:29, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is a very strange criterion, many people with tags in their names do not have formal degrees for those tags, for example Elon Musk is listed as a business magnate and engineer but has neither a degree in business nor engineering. I also agree with you that most of the big names in philosophy did not hold a philosophy degree and I would argue philosophy is one of those fields where a degree in it would do you the least amount of service toward being described as a philosopher. Was Diogenes not a philosopher? I take serious issue with the idea that a degree makes a person something. I'm an engineer and one of the most influential people in my life is Oliver Heaviside, who did not attend education at all! --2A00:23C7:D87:3100:E651:B0AB:680B:4DA4 (talk) 01:14, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What RS calls him a philosopher? Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:23, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't our role as Wikipedia editors to decide who is and is not a philosopher. If the reliable sources we have describe him as a philosopher, then we should too, and if they don't we shouldn't. From a quick Google search, I don't see that reliable sources are referring to him as such, but if there are sources that I'm missing then I'd be open to including it. Srey Srostalk 01:29, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly, that very Google search you linked to points to a number of reliable sources that describe him as a philosopher: The Hill, The New York Times ("YouTube philosopher"), The Independent, The New Republic, Newsweek ("YouTube philosopher" again - this seems like a popular description), and so on. Korny O'Near (talk) 02:48, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Listening to him is like wrapping your mind with a Paul Johnson history, an interdisciplinary, intercultural, time-traveling tapestry of transcendent themes and truths — where evolutionary biology, history, literature, philosophy, psychology, music, art, religions, culture and myth are all interwoven."[1] So we should call him an evolutionary biologist too? Bus stop (talk) 03:04, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no one's called him an evolutionary biologist, so... no. Korny O'Near (talk) 03:18, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Hill, the Independent, and Newsweek call him a Philosopher only in their headlines. I don't think headlines are normally RS. "YouTube Philosopher" strikes me as some sort of joke, not a serious claim that he is a philosopher. Note that we don't call Freud or Jung philosophers in their articles. But really, the point is sources, and we don't have any sources so far calling him a philosopher. Shinealittlelight (talk) 03:21, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what the stance is regarding headlines. It's true that "YouTube philosopher" might be akin to "armchair philosopher" - although, given how popular this description is, it might be worth noting in the article. Still, there are at least two reliable sources that describe him as a regular philosopher, in the body of the article: The New Republic and The Sydney Morning Herald. Maybe Artnet too, if it's a reliable source. Korny O'Near (talk) 03:41, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing 'philosopher' in the body of the NR article; the body only says he has a philosophical brand (which is not the same, I think). The SMH piece is an opinion piece so would have to be attributed, which counts against inclusion, I think. Shinealittlelight (talk) 03:48, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, never mind, The New Republic mention is also in the headline (well, sub-headline). Again, I don't know what the stance is regarding headlines. Korny O'Near (talk) 04:13, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Dependency goes against the core tenets of Petersons philosophical brand: stoicism, self-reliance, the power of the will over circumstance and environment" in The New Republic does not confer philosopher status on Peterson. In The Sydney Morning Herald: "He is both philosopher and witch-doctor, constantly lacing reason with voodoo...It was Peterson-the-shaman at work, fuelling that same group hysteria against which Peterson-the-philosopher so eloquently and insistently warns." Should we also call Peterson a witch-doctor and a shaman? As for Artnet, should we include the full wording: "neo-Jungian philosopher of the manosphere"? Philosopher and philosophical are being used loosely in such instances. These usages are casual. But what is being contemplated here is a sentence like "Jordan Bernt Peterson (born 12 June 1962) is a Canadian clinical psychologist, philosopher and professor of psychology at the University of Toronto." I don't think the sources thus far seen support that. Bus stop (talk) 04:17, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More accurately a "self-help guru," these days, arguably, philosophy is a profession, requires appropriate qualifications, Peterson lacks these so shouldn't be described as such. Acousmana (talk) 11:39, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That could be. There's a bigger discussion about what exactly it means to be a philosopher, in part revolving around the ironic fact that very few of the world's famous philosophers would be considered a philosopher by the current definition. I don't know whether Peterson should be called a philosopher or a "YouTube philosopher", and if so whether either one should go into the first sentence. I was just pointing out that a fair number of reliable sources have, in fact, referred to him as one of those things. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:02, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
list of 50 most influential living philosophers (allegedly), all are academically qualified, many if not all hold academic positions. Acousmana (talk) 16:07, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I meant philosophers throughout history. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:49, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Philosopher also describes an inclination or a type of personality. Bus stop (talk) 17:09, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Philosopher of the manosphere" is quite accurate, IMO, but the connotations of that are very different from those of "philosopher", tout court, which I regard as unsupported by the sources so far. As far as "philosopher" as a "type of personality", I think we're back then to "armchair philosopher" - which has less to do with midcentury modernist aesthetics than I would have hoped. :P Newimpartial (talk) 17:11, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Some words lend themselves more to figurative use than others. For instance Pogo could be considered a philosopher. Bus stop (talk) 17:27, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We could go on and on about what exactly it means to be a philosopher; there's a massive gulf between Socrates and, say, Judith Butler. Ultimately, of course, all that matters is whether or not reliable sources call him that. Clearly, some do. Whether enough of them do, I don't know. I will say that simply calling him a "clinical psychologist and a professor of psychology", as the opening sentence does now, doesn't seem like enough. Maybe it would be good to add in "self-help guru", at least - that's a popular descriptor for him in the press. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:35, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Have you presented any sources that describe Peterson simply as a "philosopher", outside of a headline? Because I don't recall seeing any. Newimpartial (talk) 17:45, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So far no non-opinion sources that have been proposed call him a philosopher outside of a headline or sub-headline. Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:51, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Are headlines considered less reliable, by the way? Surely there's some guideline about this? Korny O'Near (talk) 18:23, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:HEADLINES Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:25, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that's good to know. Korny O'Near (talk) 19:08, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Let's be philosophical about it. Is it something that requires a degree to be one? Do I need to have a degree in art to be an artist? If the qualification to be an artist is I have to make a part of my living that way, do we have anyone who makes a living philosophizing? OK, that mindlessness aside, it doesn't appear that we have any RSs that describe him as such so I don't think we should either. This sort of thing wouldn't be such a Wikipedia problem if Wikipedia put less effort into trying to label everyone and everything. We could try just describing them and let readers decide which labels fit.... wait, there I go mindlessizing again. Springee (talk) 18:34, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
it's very clear what a philosopher is, relative to say a "self-help guru" or a "spiritual teacher" (the description we supply for a dude like Eckhart Tolle). According to the definition some people hold here, any random dude talking shite at the bar could be called a philosopher, kind of not the case really though is it? Acousmana (talk) 18:58, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think in-text attribution in the body of the article is acceptable. The reader is thereby immediately apprized that a given person or publication characterizes Peterson as a sort of philosopher, and colorful language, such as "neo-Jungian philosopher of the manosphere", is therefore justified, especially if the source is prominent and well-respected. Bus stop (talk) 19:32, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Philosopher", in the context as Peterson is being described, and "self-help Guru" are two different things -- a philosopher is one who philosophizes. Peterson philosophizes (that's not in dispute), and so meets this criteria. The label "self-help Guru" needs to be parsed into two separate pieces. The word "Guru", (applied literally) is someone who has mastered Yoga, and has become a colloquialism for "expert" or "master", much like the word "Ninja" in popular culture (a practitioner of Ninjitsu). Whether people have learned to help themselves, or not, based on Peterson's teachings, or whether or not he's a "master" at this, deserves credible citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.138.6.121 (talk) 11:44, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"neo-Jungian philosopher of the manosphere", yeah, perfectly usable, this is the very definition of some guy talking shite at the bar. Acousmana (talk) 21:07, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The opinion of an art critic on the matter of what sort of philosopher he is--written on a site (Artnet) that has no discussion at RSN that I can find, in an article that is not really about Peterson--seems to me obviously undue. Shinealittlelight (talk) 21:18, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I basically agree about skepticism relating to Jung. Jung's theories and ideas (while I find them interesting) don't seem anymore credible or scientific to me than those of L. Ron. Hubbard. (You urinated in your bed at 13 so you hate your father, etc.) 139.138.6.121 (talk) 11:48, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for JP's religion

The Religion section states that JP is an Orthodox Christian. However, after checking both given sources I found than none of them support this claim. In fact, the article on Helleniscope writes that he is

not a Christian himself but certainly a faithful person

while the article at Engage Orthodoxy argues with a citation

And yet Peterson himself is not a Christian, at least not in any traditional sense of the word

in both cases the sources contradicting not only the denomination but also the general religion. Nxavar (talk) 18:26, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Following your change here, the Religion section now simply states: "Jordan Peterson has favourable views on the teachings of the Orthodox Church". That seems fair. But it's still only Peterson himself who has said he's a Christian, and even then that he doesn't "properly" believe in God. None of the Categories link him to any religion, including Christianity. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:42, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of self-promotional material

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

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

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

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

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

There is a lot of further information that supports this that is probably not necessary for me to reveal here (doxxing etc.)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jordan_Peterson&oldid=1003228041"