Talk:Jordan Peterson

Oct edits to influence section

Valjean, I don't think the fact that a director claims modeled a movie character after Peterson is DUE for inclusion in his BLP. This[1] is effectively trivia. This is like a twitter spat that gets momentary mention in the gossip columns. This certainly qualifies as RECENT and NOTNEWS. The content has been challenged so please make a case for inclusion. Springee (talk) 17:41, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

At a recent Piers Morgan interview he said, if I remember correctly, that he watched the movie and that he does indeed consider himself some sort of example figure for the incels (which he described as disenfranchised young men). So I guess it makes this addition more than mere trivia. –Daveout(talk) 18:54, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree that it is trivial. Masterhatch (talk) 20:54, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Springee, trivia is stuff that's only mentioned in gossip rags or gets no traction anywhere in RS. This shows his influence is well-known, enough for him to be immortalized as a movie character, for this "spat" as you call it, to be mentioned in multiple RS, for him to consider it worth denying (and his vehement denial and use of "woke" is evidence that she's hitting close to home and partially right), and for him to break down in tears. His denial does admit that "he is “pretty damn pleased” that some of these young men have found “solace” in his work." He's appealing more and more to the fringe and is proud of it. Wow! Peterson takes this very seriously, so it's not trivia.

Some of the other RS where this is mentioned:

• 'It's misunderstood': Jordan Peterson breaks down in tears over Olivia Wilde comments New Zealand Herald
• Did Olivia Wilde Just Make Jordan Peterson Cry? New York magazine
• Why Is Jordan Peterson Crying About Olivia Wilde's 'Don't Worry Darling' Vice
• Olivia Wilde Comments on Jordan Peterson: Who Is the Man She Made Cry? Newsweek
• Jordan Peterson breaks down in tears over Olivia Wilde's 'incel' slam Toronto Sun

This is typical "Influence" section stuff, which is nearly always opinions, so we attribute them. The current removals and attempts at removal appear to violate NPOV by removing content that is critical of Peterson, moving this closer to a hagiography, and we don't do that here. NPOV requires we include the good and the bad, the praise and the criticism. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:32, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

The problem is Peterson is covered by so many different sources. The fact that a few pop culture gossip articles want to talk about how a director claimed they modeled a character after him just isn't significant in the bit picture that we are supposed to be covering. It's like a petty fight that we are trying to claim is encyclopedic. Will anyone talk about this even a year from now much less expect it to pass a 10 year test? Is any of this coverage independent of the PR push associated with this just released movie? Given the release date of the movie this seems more like those behind the movie trying to create some noise/controversy to get people to note a movie (and director) they otherwise may have missed. Again, undue trivia. Springee (talk) 21:43, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. This is worth taking all the way to ANI if necessary, even though it would hurt his reputation even more. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:54, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

No, this shouldn't be here. Are you also really saying you think something going to AN/I would effect a BLP subject? Take a step, or ten, back I think. Arkon (talk) 00:04, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Are you meaning to imply that there are WP:BLP concerns about including this content? I haven't seen any raised so far. Newimpartial (talk) 14:29, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

You appear to be confused, in both your comment here, and in your previous edit summary when reverting. My revert was removal of content that had/has no consensus for inclusion. If you wish to replace/upgrade sources you can do so in a separate edit with my blessing. Arkon (talk) 20:46, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I haven't seen anyone argue that Variety, The Independent and the National Post are not good sources. Has anyone? They are certainly better sources in this context than Australian Business Review, which you re-inserted and to which I objected in my edit summary. Newimpartial (talk) 21:11, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

You still aren't addressing re-adding information that has -no- consensus for inclusion. Do what you will with sources, but at least respond to what is being said. Arkon (talk) 21:12, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

There wasn't consensus for the Helen Lewis material, either, but you reinserted that. Newimpartial (talk) 21:17, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Let's try one last time. An edit was made, I reverted it for the reasons given. I added nothing. Whatever else you are trying to make it about is in your own head only. Arkon (talk) 21:21, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

In this diff, you added (back) In 2021, Helen Lewis of Australian Financial Review argued that Peterson's "appeal is that he is every one of us who couldn't resist that pointless Facebook argument, who felt the sugar rush of the self-righteous Twitter dunk or who exulted in the defeat of an opposing political tribe." Check for yourself - no gaslighting plz. Newimpartial (talk) 21:25, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

You are right, there was an intermediate edit that got caught while reverting Valjean's edit. Feel free to do as you wish there. However, it would be helpful if you stayed on the point of this actual section, which the revert was meant to be. No one seems to be arguing against what you are talking about on that front, and this section isn't about that. Arkon (talk) 21:27, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

But my edit summary, to which you referred above when you said You appear to be confused, contrasted the poor sourcing of the material you added with the good sourcing of the material you removed. (I wasn't confused.) Newimpartial (talk) 21:32, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

FFS, I was trying to give you a graceful out. Fine, your revert was improper because you re-added material that had nothing to do with your edit summary (somehow the addition of 1k+ text that had already been reverted didn't warrant a mention). If you were so concerned about this sourcing situation, you could have, and should have done that separately. I hope that's clear enough. Arkon (talk) 21:41, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

As I said, I was comparing the sourcing of the material I was re-adding with the sourcing of the material I removed. That is literally what my edit summary says, and it is also what I just said above (q.v. contrasted the poor sourcing of the material you added with the good sourcing of the material you removed). That most certainly "mentions" the material I re-added. Please stop the gaslighting; it hurts. Newimpartial (talk) 21:52, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

OK, I don't see we have a consensus to include here. Absent any changes I will remove this content in a day or so. Springee (talk) 14:18, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Add my voice to the consensus. Nobody is going to remember these news stories in 10 years, much less this movie. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:31, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Nobody is going to remember the opinion of Helen Lewis of Australian Financial Review, so let's not put that back in, either. Newimpartial (talk) 18:43, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

That is actually a comment about Peterson rather than an attempt to use a manufactured controversy to promote your movie. Springee (talk) 18:58, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

It is not my movie, and I doubt very much it is Valjean's. The discussion here had been about WP:DUE and the 10 year principle, not about PROMO. Do you need any help dragging those goal posts around?

You yourself had said The problem is Peterson is covered by so many different sources. The fact that a few pop culture gossip articles want to talk about how a director claimed they modeled a character after him just isn't significant in the bit picture (sic.) that we are supposed to be covering. It's like a petty fight that we are trying to claim is encyclopedic. So why do you think a random comment clipped from Australian Financial Review would merit inclusion? The sourcing is not nearly as good as the film discussion. Newimpartial (talk) 19:17, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Again, it's a comment about Peterson. The other is a comment that references Peterson but isn't about him. If we want to include how others obliquely reference him then we need a source for that. Springee (talk) 19:21, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

You don't think Peterson rejected the characterization, calling it "the latest bit of propaganda disseminated by the woke, self-righteous bores and bullies who now dominate Hollywood" is at least as encyclopaedic an inclusion about Peterson as, Peterson's "appeal is that he is every one of us who couldn't resist that pointless Facebook argument, who felt the sugar rush of the self-righteous Twitter dunk or who exulted in the defeat of an opposing political tribe"??? Newimpartial (talk) 19:27, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

No, I don't. Springee (talk) 19:50, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

• He also appears to have inspired Ta-Nehisi Coates's Red Skull in the Captain America comic books, or at least Peterson thought so.[2][3][4] This is sort of silly trivia though, so I'm not entirely convinced we should mention it. It's strange to read trivial stuff about inspiration for fiction characters next to content like Peterson "is now one of the most influential—and polarizing—public intellectuals in the English-speaking world". Endwise (talk) 04:29, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Discussed in archived threads JordanPeterson/RedSkull (April 2021] Depiction as Red Skull (October 2021). Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:27, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Maybe this is precisely what influential means, in the context of Peterson. Personally, I prefer all the memes that came out of the Peterson/Zizek debacle. Newimpartial (talk) 13:33, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

When I imagine "Peterson's influence", the things that come to my mind are more like his influence on the public's understanding of psychology, his influence on young men as a kind of self-help guru, or his influence as a warrior on the conservative side of the culture wars. Which to this article's credit it seems to mention. That he was inspiration for the personality of a movie (or comic book) character is I guess tangible evidence that he is culturally relevant, but trying to demonstrate he is culturally relevant through movie trivia just reads as irrelevant and silly. For an over-the-top example just to explain the feeling I get reading it, it feels like if I was to read a few paragraphs about the genuine influence/legacy of Kurt Cobain or Nirvana, and then have it finish with "Also one time they were parodied in The Simpsons, which Cobain said was 'dumb'". That's a bit more over-the-top than this, but it's the same feeling I get. Endwise (talk) 21:02, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Very well said. Masterhatch (talk) 21:43, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

I have to disagree with this - I think the references to him in Don't Worry Darling and, yes, Captain America are notable and should be included. For a pop icon like Kurt Cobain, minor references like this might be undue, but for a public intellectual like Peterson, they are exceedingly rare and underscore his celebrity and influence. (What other public intellectual from the last, say, 20 years has had fictional characters modelled on them?) I think an "In popular culture" section makes sense to have, just as exists for Marshall McLuhan and maybe others. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:33, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Well said. I agree entirely with Korny about this. Newimpartial (talk) 17:32, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't agree but if we had sources that said this was evidence of Peterson's wider impact or influence etc I would be more inclined to agree. Instead these additions come off as "look, this person insulted Peterson". The validity of those insults or their significance isn't included. So, I'm not opposed in general to including mention of these things but focusing on the inflammatory statements but not the validity of the comment is wrong. Springee (talk) 18:02, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

What do you mean by focusing on the inflammatory statements but not the validity of the comment? Newimpartial (talk) 18:34, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Totally agree with Korny, having a movie character modeled after you is not a small accomplishment and it's a sign of influence. And it's well sourced enough. The only opposition with a real and, imo, valid rationale is Endwise's. All the other ones are variations of "bc I don't like it..." or "the future will forget 🧙‍♂️🪄🔮..." These type of arguments should not have much weight in the consensus building process. ____{(it's just my opinion and I definitely dont want to diminish or disconsider anyone's contribution, if you felt like that, it wasn't my intention)} –Daveout(talk) 00:25, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely agree with @Valjean, @Newimpartial, and @Korny O'Near here. Removing this content is a bad idea, and goes against WP:NPOV. Peterson has been mentioned in multiple independent reliable sources as a model for this character in this movie, and it deserves a mention here. The fact that Peterson does not like it, or that other characters are modeled after him or whatever, has no bearing here. What matters is that independent RSes mention it, and therefore so should we.

Longevity arguments are misplaced here, as wikipedia's work is never done. if this truly fades into obscurity in 2 or even 10 years, then you can come back and remove the content in 2 or even 10 years, and I will even agree with you at that juncture. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:51, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Inclusion of health history of family members

I would like to request the deletion of two paragraphs in the "Personal life" section, specifically:

Mikhaila had suffered from juvenile rheumatoid arthritis, which required a hip and ankle replacement when she was 17-years-old. She also suffered from chronic fatigue and depression. Mikhaila adopted a diet that she calls "the lion diet", consisting of beef, lamb, salt, and water, which she claims helped reduce the negative impact of her multiple disorders.

In 2019, Tammy was diagnosed with a rare type of kidney cancer. After two surgeries, she survived the cancer.

Although WP:BLP and WP:BIOFAMILY don't explicitly discuss how much of a notable subject's family is "fair game" for inclusion, I think a few inferences of the spirit of both of these, plus that of WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE, indicate that extreme care must be taken when discussing otherwise non-notable family members, such as children and spouses. The issue I have with these two paragraphs are:

• Per WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE, there is no discussion or indication on how his family's health issues are relevant to Peterson himself.
• Both paragraphs rely on a single source [5], which was actually talking about transsexual children.
• Per WP:BLP, care must be taken when discussing living persons, and WP:COMMONSENSE tells me that this is particularly true when it comes to health issues of non-notable persons.

73.239.149.166 (talk) 10:53, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done. Sorry, but no. This is notable as it includes mention of one of Peterson's most discussed talking points, his crazy meat diets. It's also mentioned in independent reliable sources secondary to the subject. It does not matter what the title of the article is about, it devotes several paragraphs to the subject of Mikhaila and is therefore pretty good depth coverage of this suitable for this mention. The fact that WP:BLP and WP:BIOFAMILY do not discuss how much it's fair game to include details about the family should actually clue you in to how misguided your proposal here is. On wikipedia, if reliable sources cover it, so do we.

Reliable sources talk about his child in relation to her diet and disease, and so shall we. That's the essence of WP:DUE and WP:RSUW. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:59, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Reliable sources talk about his child in relation to her diet and disease, and so shall we... huh? This is an article about Jordan Peterson, not Mikhaila Peterson. I don't see why we should include detailed information about the personal life of people's children on the articles of their parents. What does Mikhaila's arthritis have to do with Jordan Peterson's personal life? Endwise (talk) 16:47, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

It is described in relationship to Peterson (and in the context of him) in the sources, and so we include it here. That's how WP:RSUW works. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:22, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to reopen this as there does not seem to be consensus here. Further, I think there is a mischaracterization of both WP:DUE and WP:RSUW in the original response. Both of those policies are talking about presenting an WP:NPOV when discussing opposing viewpoints. That really isn't the issue here. This is a WP:BLP issue, not an WP:NPOV issue. The idea that just because something appears in a single WP:RS (not multiple), it belongs in the article is laughable. (Also, saying "It does not matter what the title of the article is about" is also laughable and frankly disqualifying as a response.) In fact, WP:BLP is quite explicit about this. See the entire section WP:BLP#Presumption in favor of privacy and, again, WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE. The health issues of his spouse and daughter are not relevant to the subject, or at the very least it is not expressed how they are relevant to the subject. Given that this discusses the health, and specifically the mental health, of a non-notable third party, WP:BLP takes supremacy. 73.239.149.166 (talk) 20:50, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

I've marked it closed again, as edit requests should only be used when there is consensus for the edit. You should place a brief, neutrally worded notice at WP:BLPN linking to this discussion of you'd like more eyes on it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:12, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

saying "It does not matter what the title of the article is about" is also laughable - see WP:HEADLINE — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:25, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

The idea that just because something appears in a single WP:RS (not multiple), it belongs in the article is laughable. Actually multiple. See: [6] [7] [8] [9]

Peterson and his daughter kind of lost the fight on their privacy about this particular thing when they began promoting their meat diet together in multiple public venues, leading it to be covered in multiple reliable sources. I actually agree the section could use some trimming, but it does need to be mentioned given how prevalent it is across Peterson-related sources. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:30, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Removed edit request until consensus is reached, per ScottishFinnishRadish. Your sources are not cited in the article itself and doesn't really address the WP:BLP issues presented, such as the mentions of mental health struggles. Further, the mention of his wife's cancer remains completely unaddressed. Let's keep the discussion going until there is consensus. (Update: As an aside, I misunderstood your mention of the 'title of the article' meaning the Wikipedia article, not the source. Apologies for the confusion.) 73.239.149.166 (talk) 22:58, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

You are now, in my estimation, edit warring. Please stop. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:00, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Uh. No. That's not what's happening here. 73.239.149.166 (talk) 23:03, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

I went ahead and added some of the sources indicated above, as well as the mainstream consensus on meat-based diets. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:09, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

I think that's a step in the right direction. Personally, I would move the mention of this diet closer to where it is relevant in the "Heath Issues" subsection and perhaps trim off the details that are not directly relevant to this diet, such as the mental health issues. Further, I would remove mentions of his spouse's cancer until relevance to the subject can be established. 73.239.149.166 (talk) 23:15, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Looks like the mentions to mental health were removed. Excellent. I think the only thing left is the cancer. Thoughts? 73.239.149.166 (talk) 23:27, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

• The article still makes zero reference to how this is at all relevant to Jordan Peterson's personal life. The material in the personal life section should either discuss Jordan Peterson's personal life, or be removed. Endwise (talk) 05:29, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

  In fairness, Shibbolethink made a valid point about his daughter's development and promotion of her fad diet which was then further promoted by Peterson himself. I would have restructured it so that it was perhaps its own subsection and bring the direct relevance into the same section, but I'm not hard up over it. The stuff about her fatigue and mental illness were removed, so that's fine. I still have concerns about his wife's cancer though, which no one seems to be addressing. 73.239.149.166 (talk) 13:12, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

  Okay how is it now? I integrated all the health stuff including her diet, her JRA, his wife's cancer, etc. into the section below which was in extreme detail about Peterson's benzo stuff. I also removed a lot of excessive detail from tabloids. I think it's still too much detail but it's a work in progress. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:35, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

  I think that looks pretty good. Certainly addressed my main concerns. Thanks for your help. 73.239.149.166 (talk) 15:51, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

  happy to help and bring it closer to NPOV, Cheers — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:05, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Peterson's views on climate change research in the lead

DCcantabrian, please review ONUS and BRD. The material you added is UNDUE in the article lead. It's debatable if Peterson's views on global warming policy belongs in the article body as his views on the subject aren't considered notable in terms of the GW public discussion or in terms of things Peterson discusses or is notable for. If you look at the length of this article there is a subsection on climate change. Your new content might be due there. It is not due in the lead and it was rightly removed as as UNDUE. Please self revert. If you feel the content is due then add it to the appropriate subsection. Springee (talk) 22:29, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

I moved the recent content to the "Climate change" section. I agree that it's obviously undue for the article's lead and I also trimmed it substantially because some was redundant (e.g. Peterson's criticisms) or unverifiable (e.g. the "psychogenic" quote). Antiok 1pie (talk) 23:40, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

The guy is also a conspiracy theorist

EVEN INFOWARS said so 2600:6C50:4000:27D0:C964:9163:D63E:D7D3 (talk) 04:13, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

https://www.infowars-dot-com/posts/jordan-peterson-threatened-by-ontario-authorities-over-political-tweets/ 2600:6C50:4000:27D0:C964:9163:D63E:D7D3 (talk) 04:13, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Not a reliable source EvergreenFir (talk) 05:09, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Seconded. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 05:31, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

2023 Jan- section for the Ontario College of Psychologists demands

I'm sure this issue will run for months -and is significant whether Peterson is ejected from his professional body - or if he overthrows their demands and the body is discredited in the affair, or something else. It's a serious Freedom of Speech affair - if it drags on through the courts it may need it's own page, at some future point.

So I added a new Section in the Article: titled "2023 January- Ontario College of Psychologists demands that Peterson submits to mandatory social-media communication retraining".

It's early days yet - the bigger names in the MSM have not picked it up yet, but as they do, feel free anyone to add them. I won't have much time myself to add content, for more than a couple of days. CanterburyUK (talk) 23:03, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

ScottishFinnishRadish - please will you revert your deletion of the new content I added.

Whilst you are right that "it's clearly not ready for prime time, with bare links, over quoting" - it is better to have a messy start that anyone can help clean up: (many hands make light work!): than no mention at all. Wiki encourages adding content over merely deleting, after all. CanterburyUK (talk) 23:06, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

The prose you had in place was more than half the length of the entire career section, and placed in its own section giving it significantly undue weight, which isn't great when dealing with a controversy in a WP:BLP. All of the prose is available in the article history and can be easily integrated into the article.

With how recently this occurred, and the lack of resolution I don't think it needs more than a sentence or two at this time, likely in the career section as that seems to be where it will have the most pertinence. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:19, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

OK ScottishFinnishRadish - please go ahead and do as you suggest.

Please do include the various sources I took the time to find - sources are always useful to wiki readers.

thanks

PS - there is no controversy here about what has happened -the professional body HAS taken action against Peterson. So this will always belong in the article - as evidenced by previous such times they complained about him, which have been in the page for some time.

PPS You've not written to disagree with me when I wrote: "I'm sure this issue will run for months -and is significant whether Peterson is ejected from his professional body - or if he overthrows their demands and the body is discredited in the affair, or something else. It's a serious Freedom of Speech affair - if it drags on through the courts it may need it's own page, at some future point."

thx CanterburyUK (talk) 00:08, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree with SFR, this is UNDUE and RECENTISM. We need more time to pass before its clear if this is notable in the grand scheme of Peterson's life. It definitely DOES NOT belong in the lead. I will add 1-2 sentences to the career section. Overall, I want to remind: Wikipedia follows, it does not lead. We are WP:NOTNEWS. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:21, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Given the quality of the sources covering this (Epoch Times, Toronto Sun, Daily Mail), it very likely is overall UNDUE. We need more neutral and RELIABLE sources to cover this. But nonetheless I've added two sentences to the career section. Time will tell if that content should remain or fade into history as most of these little controversies do. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:32, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

That looks better. We'll see what comes of it. Thanks for that. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:38, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for adding those Shibbolethink. Since that text gave no basis for why Peterson had petitioned the court (but had given reasons the College used to discipline him) -I added a link to Peterson's court filing document: and summarised it.CanterburyUK (talk) 13:28, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate what you're saying here, and agree we should summarize what Peterson is doing with the petition. But I would say summary of his argument is likely WP:UNDUE. We are not Peterson's website or advocate. We should only summarize what he did, not his arguments, because doing so would make this paragraph way too long. Just like how we don't summarize why the College took issue with his comments, or the specific comments themselves.

I will likely revert later today to just the fact that he is requesting the court quash the order, and of course anyone else is welcome to revert if they haven't gone over the 1 revert limit.

E.g.:

In January 2023, the College of Psychologists of Ontario ruled that Peterson should submit to mandatory social-media communication retraining or risk losing his license, due to comments he made on Twitter and The Joe Rogan Experience podcast. In response, Peterson filed for judicial review with the Ontario Divisional Court, requesting the College's decision be quashed.

Sources

Additionally, please be more cautious about punctuation and references. They should appear as above, with a period and then a <ref> tag immediately after, with no intervening space. There should also not be a period after the </ref> tag. Thanks — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:31, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I think this might be a good place to split the difference. Offering a bit more about the response is helpful but perhaps it can be shortened. Something like "requesting it be quashed as his comments were not made in context of treating patients" or something that is more true to the actual argument. We don't need to give much weight to his arguments but more than zero is helpful. Springee (talk) 16:10, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Springee.

You wrote: "Just like how we don't summarize why the College took issue with his comments". But the text DID do just that, it said: "due to comments he made on Twitter and The Joe Rogan Experience podcast".

So to give balance, it was necessary to say more than it did before: which was "In response, Peterson filed for judicial review with the Ontario Divisional Court".

I disagree with your suggested words - why say so little, when only a sentence is needed to help the reader understand? Leaving out the central facts of Peterson's petition is not helpful. Feel free to make the sentence shorter, but lets' not lose the meaning.

Would you prefer this: swapping out the part starting: "requesting the College's decision be quashed..." with:

-- "on the grounds that disciplining Peterson for his "public statements on political issues and public figures that are far removed from the practise of psychology" unduly infringes upon Canadian Charter rights". ? CanterburyUK (talk) 16:28, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Meat-only diet

The article currently states: "She(Mikhaila) and Peterson have promoted the diet..." and quotes 3 sources. None of those sources suggest that Peterson himself promotes the diet: one indeed sates that: "Peterson reiterated several times that he is not giving dietary advice". It is true that he has mentioned his diet when asked about it - eg the Rogan interview 4-5 years ago.

I have googled, and failed to find anything approaching 'promotion' of diet by Peterson himself. Searching his website: jordanbpeterson.com - no mention for ~ 5 years, the transcript of a journalist interview - in the middle of which they had asked him about it. I searched his Youtube channel - no videos have the name of meat or diet.

Shall I correct the page, to : "She(Mikhaila) has promoted the diet, whilst Peterson has mentioned it only when asked about it by interviewers, he has reiterated several times that he is not giving dietary advice". CanterburyUK (talk) 11:59, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I have googled, and failed to find anything approaching 'promotion' of diet by Peterson himself.
Agreed with this part.
Shall I correct the page, to...
No, I think we should change it to:
She (Mikhaila) has promoted the diet or similar. per WP:DUE. We should just pare it down to being about her promoting it. We could also maybe say that he is on the diet. But again, we are not Peterson's website, advocate, editorial, or opinion page. We should only give what is necessary for encyclopedic summary here. Doing otherwise would bloat the page. I believe firmly that detailing that he "reiterated several times that he is not giving dietary advice". It is true that he has mentioned his diet when asked about it" would go beyond this and into UNDUE territory. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:38, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Shibbolethink. It sounds like on your phrase to avoid 'bloat the page' we could strip out some dead-wood from the article - reduce a whole lot of words ( it does rather overdue the diet thing - including analysis by 3rd-parties of the cons of such a diet has been overkill for some time)

What do you think of this -

A) lets strip mention of Mikhaila down to : "Mikhaila (Peterson's daughter) suffered from juvenile rheumatoid arthritis (JRA) in her childhood, requiring a hip and ankle replacement when she was 17 years-old. She has claimed improved health since being on what she calls "the lion diet" consisting entirely of eating only beef, lamb, salt, and water."

And for Peterson himself, pare it down to:

B) "Peterson has reported benefits to his specific depression and autoimmune disorders from using a restricted diet - since 2018 eating only beef, salt, and water; having first experimented with diet restrictions in 2016. Peterson reiterated several times that he is not giving dietary advice". CanterburyUK (talk) 16:02, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Meat-only diet and consensus of experts

Re: this passage:

Whilst some Nutrition experts, including Jack Gilbert of the University of Chicago, suggest that such a diet can result in "severe dysregulation" including a severe deficit of short-chain fatty acids and calcium, an increase in total cholesterol, and cardiac issues.; other sources criticise this opinion; such as the International Journal of General Medicine which reports that: "The association between a plant-based diet (vegetarianism) and extended life span is increasingly criticised since it may be based on the lack of representative data and insufficient removal of confounders such as lifestyles." based on an analysis of meat intake and life expectancy at a population level based on ecological data published by the United Nations agencies from 175 countries.

Sources

We should not be presenting these as competing views with equal validity. This violates WP:FRINGE which quite clearly states we need to represent the consensus of medical experts appropriately and not give false weight to fringe opinions.

The International Journal of General Medicine is an open-access journal with a pretty abysmal scimago rank. And an impact factor of 2.445 which is pretty low for medicine. This particular paper is WP:PRIMARY, whereas the sources we use to represent the medical consensus are secondary, journal review articles which represent the consensus opinion of medical experts. Including a systematic review and meta-analysis. E.g. [10] [11][12].

We should not be representing a primary opinion piece as though it is on the same level of evidence as a systematic review and meta-analysis. Especially in medical matters. See also: WP:MEDASSESS and WP:FALSEBALANCE. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:53, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Shibbolethink, thanks for taking the time to comment.

The current page really does seem Undue with so much detail about diets. There are too many sources, 4, attached to the paragraph about dangers of meat only. One is a WebMD page that does not even contain the word meat! One is an opinion piece from Healthline, mostly about Mikhaila.

What do you think - those 2 were always Undue?

One link is to "Current Opinion in Endocrinology & Diabetes and Obesity " - I know nothing about scimago ranks - how does that compare? And the final source was "Frontiers of Cardiovascular Medicine" ? CanterburyUK (talk) 16:15, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Other content of this page seems fit to delete - Olivia Wilde's claims

After Shibbolet wrote above: "But again, we are not Peterson's website, advocate, editorial, or opinion page. We should only give what is necessary for encyclopedic summary here. Doing otherwise would bloat the page."

I scanned the page, and immediately this paragraph looks like bloat, by that definition: "According to Olivia Wilde, the sinister character Frank in her 2022 movie Don't Worry Darling was inspired by Peterson, whom she described as "a pseudo-intellectual hero to the incel community"

Olivia Wilde is not a useful RS on psychology or public affairs - merely an actrress and director. She has made ridicouluous claims that Peterson is insane; according to the sources given.

Can anyone find a good reason to include her nonsense? Looks like Undue coverage of a fringe view to me.CanterburyUK (talk) 16:54, 7 January 2023 (UTC)