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)

requesting it be quashed as his comments were not made in context of treating patients
I could get behind this. I think that is absolutely relevant and doesn't add too much bloat and become UNDUE. Good compromise in my opinion. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:27, 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)

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)
Completely disagree with this entire comment.

To remove the mention of mainstream views would run afoul of WP:FRINGE. See: Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community...

We cannot remove the discussion of the main-stream viewpoint and then keep the discussion of the diet, as this would violate the above guideline. And we cannot remove the entire thing (discussion of the diet and the mainstream view), as this would violate WP:DUE. So the best we can do is trim a bit, as I mentioned above. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:21, 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)

One is a WebMD page that does not even contain the word meat! One is an opinion piece from Healthline, mostly about Mikhaila.
The HealthLine piece is actually not an opinion piece. It's a news report that is editorially reviewed by the publication's editorial team. This is actually an extremely high quality source as far as news sources go, per WP:BESTSOURCES. I would actually agree the WebMD piece is probably not relevant or verifying the content and should be removed. Though it is true, as an aside, that a deficit in short-chain fatty acids is one major drawback of a meat-only diet (as described in the other listed sources).

What do you think - those 2 were always Undue?
I don't think you're understanding what DUE/UNDUE means. DUE/UNDUE refers to content, not sources. If our sources refer to the subject (and by limited extension, their direct relatives in relation to them), and the sources are good, and many sources do so, then we mention it. The more high quality sources, the more we mention it. The fewer high quality sources, the less we mention it. It's not "Is a source DUE?" It's "Is this content DUE, according to the sources?"

And the final source was "Frontiers of Cardiovascular Medicine" ?

Frontiers of Cardiovascular Medicine has a higher impact factor at ~6. Its more important, however, that the publication itself is a systematic review and meta-analysis. This is the highest quality form of a source for medical questions according to WP:MEDASSESS. This is exactly how we determine consensus in the expert community according to WP:MEDSCI. See: Even in reputable medical journals, different papers are not given equal weight. Studies can be categorized into levels of evidence,[13] and editors should rely on high-level evidence, such as systematic reviews.(MEDASSESS) and Wikipedia policies on the neutral point of view and not publishing original research demand that we present prevailing medical or scientific consensus, which can be found in recent, authoritative review articles, in statements and practice guidelines issued by major professional medical or scientific societies. (MEDSCI; emphasis mine)

One link is to "Current Opinion in Endocrinology & Diabetes and Obesity " - I know nothing about scimago ranks - how does that compare? Current Opinion in Endocrinology & Diabetes and Obesity has a higher IF at ~3, but not as high. However, this publication is a SECONDARY peer-reviewed expert literature review of this exact topic. With this and the systematic review above, it literally does not get much better. The only better source we could have is a consensus opinion statement from a professional body, and I couldn't find one on this topic.

The PRIMARY source you linked, however, is the lowest quality type of evidence for this question. See: WP:MEDASSESS and WP:MEDANIMAL. Particularly: Using small-scale, single studies makes for weak evidence, and allows for cherry picking of data. Studies cited or mentioned in Wikipedia should be put in context by using high-quality secondary sources rather than by using the primary sources. (MEDANIMAL; emphasis mine) and The best evidence for efficacy of treatments and other health interventions is mainly from meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).[14] Systematic reviews of literature that include non-randomized studies are less reliable.[15] Narrative reviews can help establish the context of evidence quality. (MEDASSESS; emphasis mine). The study you cited is actually none of these things. It's a primary scholarly publication that is not secondarily covered here. It could even be a violation of WP:NOR if the interpretation is so intricate as to typically require secondary coverage. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:06, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Even if the IJGM were a top-notch source, this should be removed because it's completely irrelevant. Unless I'm missing something, it says nothing about a meat-only diet - it's comparing vegetarian diets with diets that contain some meat. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:03, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

100% my thought as well, forgot to say it. It's what-about-ism to say "oh meat diets are bad?" "The association between a plant-based diet (vegetarianism) and extended life span is increasingly criticised"

We are not here in this article to debate meat vs. plant diets. We are here to describe what Petereson does, what his daughter promotes, and then what the consensus expert opinion is. That is the essence of WP:FRINGE and WP:DUE. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:26, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Shibbolethink

would you be able to respond to the specific questions I asked? CanterburyUK (talk) 17:47, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Asked and answered. See above — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:24, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Let's summarise and end this meat-diet section, that I kicked off

This section has undoubtedly improved the page, it now no longer contains the factual error that Peterson is 'promoting' his meat diet.

I had hoped to reduce the 'bloat' further: following Shibbolethink's lead who had written this week:

• "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."

Despite discussion, editors didn't agree on a shorter set of words. It IMHO still contains too many words and sources about whether a Meat-only diet is healthy.

Given that the page has for a long time wrongly stated that Peterson promoted it, I requested to include the quotation from an existing source that: "Peterson reiterated several times that he is not giving dietary advice" as that would help redress the prior mis-information here.

Shibbolethink at minimum was not in agreement.

So the page is left pretty much unchanged.

I don't know what other editors think: But my view is that page still suffers from bloat, overall.

It may be helpful to hear from wider editors- I'll start a section to invite views.

Regards the overall dialogue with Shibbolethink - it stopped when they avoided the 'fade into history' question I put to them in regards to their statement: "Time will tell if that content should remain or fade into history as most of these little controversies do" (I'd asked: which will fade away first - the College of Psychiatrist's issue: or film maker Oliva Wilde's statement?).

Instead of giving their view on that - they accused me of saying something I had not. And asked me not to ping them (I guess that means contact on their talk page? I googled and found nothing obvious) so I was not able to chat privately with them. And they said they would not continue the dialogue.

So as above - I will open a section to wider editors; to give views on bloat overall on the Jordan Peterson page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CanterburyUK (talk • contribs) 14:39, 8 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)

It makes me think this page has not been well curated - one of the sources for the the Wilde text is Interview Magazine! Really? Celebrity tittle tattle magazines? CanterburyUK (talk) 17:02, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

You're not asking the right questions. The assertion, that she based a character in a film on him, is uncontroversial in and of itself. The question is whether this information is significant enough to include in the article about him, or just a bit of trivia that should be left out. If it were a minor film by an little-known director, it would almost certainly be undue, but this was a pretty famous film, and the fact that Peterson himself saw fit to comment on the film would probably tend to add to the significance. I'd be inclined to leave that in. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:13, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Also, the article does not even quote the "insane" remark. If it did, your reasoning would be appropriate. (He has spread several crazy and hateful anti-science ideas, but that does indeed not make him insane. Otherwise, half the United States would belong in a padded room.) --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:32, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Hob Gadling.

You are right -the article does not quote it. But the fact that Wilde said it publicly is the issue - it undermines her credibility. CanterburyUK (talk) 17:36, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

By that reasoning, we cannot quote Peterson either. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:46, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

how do you reach that conclusion? CanterburyUK (talk) 17:49, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Because he undermines his own credibility all the time, starting with his climate change denial, via his Jungianism (see The Jung Cult) to other misrepresentations of science including evolution. This only scratches the surface. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:54, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

But why is it relevant if he undermines his own credibility? . This page is about him - what he does and says. Credible or not. CanterburyUK (talk) 18:00, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

We don't determine whether or not a person is "credible" to determine whether or not to include something. Only whether or not it is due inclusion. We determine credibility based on whether our sources trust or reference or quote someone as credible or notable. Not our own gut feelings about what they said. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:29, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Girth Summit -

a) what makes you think 'this was a pretty famous film'?

b) and why do you think it should be left in - when nothing in the film trailer, content or etc has any bearing on Peterson. She simply choose to drop his name in promoting the film. In venues like Celebrity Magazine! CanterburyUK (talk) 17:39, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

a) Several factors. First of all, it's notable, as is she. Also, I've seen it, which is pretty unusual these days! More significantly, the reason I saw it was because I heard reviews of it on culture shows on BBC Radio 4 (major national radio station here in the UK), and read reviews in major newspapers. In other words: it's pretty famous.

b) That's a judgment call. It seems relevant to me, as a piece of high-profile social commentary. In general terms, if sources assert that a character in a major film was based on a real life person, I would consider that the be a relevant piece of information to be included in our articles about the film, and about the person. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:46, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Girth

"if sources assert that a character in a major film was based on a real life person".

But this source says the character is based on an insane person. Clearly Peterson is not insane. So whatever her character is based on- it is not the Peterson in the real world.. It is the fiction in her own head: which is fundamentally out of kilter, as proven by the fact the fictional Peterson in her head is insane. CanterburyUK (talk) 17:52, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Replied more fully below, but for the record, I am not persuaded by this argument. Girth Summit _(blether) 18:45, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I would characterize this argument as fundamentally WP:WIKILAWYERING. DUE and RSUW take precedence, and recommend inclusion, but a pared down inclusion as discussed. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:25, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

This was discussed above. I think it's UNDUE and should be removed. I don't think we had quite reached consensus level above and it is recent enough that, in my view, it can be removed as never really establishing consensus to include. This certainly is something I don't think will have any real staying power. In my opinion this was something Wilde said to drum up some controversy as a way to get people talking about her just released movie. But that is my opinion. Springee (talk) 17:28, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

In my opinion this was something Wilde said to drum up some controversy as a way to get people talking about her just released movie. But that is my opinion
I agree, that's why we should definitely remove the part that says "whom she described as..." but I would actually leave the rest as pretty DUE and covered in multiple RSes. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:32, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Shibbolethink

I find myself agreeing with Springee and not you.

It was your own words advocating to avoid bloat above - and yet weirdly here you seem reluctant to let go of something very transitory.

Which contradicts your stand on Petersons new court case and College disciplinary events. You reverted entirely my opening addition of that - a choice you had instead was to have edited it down to something you prefer.

Do you not feel that is doulble standards? CanterburyUK (talk) 17:44, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

It was your own words advocating to avoid bloat above - and yet weirdly here you seem reluctant to let go of something very transitory... Do you not feel that is doulble standards?

I think you may be confused about my position. In both cases, I'm advocating to include a trimmed down version of the content. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:02, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Shibboleth

Not at all, you're showing 2 contradictory behaviours.

A) you're advocating leaving something in that doesn't seem to meet your requirement to be "what is necessary for encyclopedic summary here. Doing otherwise would bloat the page".

Whereas :

B) on the Ontario Psychologist issue and court case you initially deleted the whole theme - and wrote: "Time will tell if that content should remain or fade into history as most of these little controversies do."

Question: If people were asked which of these two is a "little controversy" that deserved to "fade into history" which way do you think people would respond? CanterburyUK (talk) 18:33, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Not at all, you're showing 2 contradictory behaviours.
Please refrain from telling me what I think or feel, thanks.

The last thing I'll say, is that we or people don't determine what is DUE. Whether or not they are covered in multiple high-quality sources is the way we determine this.

Overall, I don't find this line of inquiry particularly beneficial or productive, and thus will no longer respond. Please do not ping me. Have a great day. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:26, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Shibbolethink

"Please refrain from telling me what I think or feel, thanks."

I have not done that - my very words that you quoted are explicitly about your behaviours not you thoughts/feelings:

"Not at all, you're showing 2 contradictory behaviours."

It's a shame that you say you wont respond - as there are questions put to you that remain unanswered.

Its a shame you asked me not to ping you - we could have continued on personal talk pages to try to reduce the heat here. CanterburyUK (talk) 10:00, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Poking holes in individual sources is not productive, it's more important to balance different sources against each other and figure out what the consensus of our available reliable sources is. We also need to determine which sources are reliable for this content.

The bar for "reliability" is different depending on what we're talking about: a mention of Peterson as related to a character in a famous movie, not that high of a bar. The efficacy of his meat-only diet? Very high bar. That is the essence of WP:BESTSOURCES, WP:RSUW, WP:MEDRS, and WP:FALSEBALANCE. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:30, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

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

I agree with Girth Summit, this is absolutely WP:DUE.

I think maybe we could/should remove "whom she described as..." that whole clause, as UNDUE. But otherwise I would leave as-is. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:28, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I tend to agree - trim the description, but leave the fact that the character was inspired by him in. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:40, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

If that were the road ahead -then the sentence should start with: "Olivia Wilde, who has said that Peterson is insane, says she modelled a character.... on her view of Peterson..." CanterburyUK (talk) 17:55, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

uhhhh, what do you mean? Both GS and I were saying that we don't need Olivia's opinion of Peterson in here. Just the fact that the character is inspired by him. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:01, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

That would be a very strange way to start a sentence. A simple, factual statement that she has said that the character is based on Peterson, with links to Wilde's article and that of the film, is sufficient. If we don't like the source currently being used, there are plenty more of them - I just did a quick Google News search, and came up with The Independent, The Insider, Vice, Variety, The Washington Post, Newsweek, The Guardian, Esquire, Spiked, The Spectator, Sydney Morning Herald... take your pick, the comments were widely reported in RSes. Girth Summit _(blether) 18:06, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

And that wide reporting is the essence of WP:DUE and WP:RSUW. Perhaps the fundamental difference between this situation and the one above about Peterson's professional org is that the controversy about Peterson's comments etc. is not widely covered in high quality RSes. Whereas Peterson inspiring this character absolutely has been widely reported. Wikipedia follows, it does not lead. it reflects the most DUE content which is reported most widely and relevant/DUE to the subject. Our high quality sources determine what is relevant and DUE inclusion. We do not. And we do not rely on low quality sources which are not considered "reliable" by wikipedia's standards. We have a very specific set of criteria for determining what is an RS. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:28, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Bringing this to a conclusion- and summarising the thread

I had kicked this off, quoting Shibbolethink about this page:

• "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 had hoped we could reduce bloat on the page regards this film.

Springee's view was close to mine: "This certainly is something I don't think will have any real staying power. In my opinion this was something Wilde said to drum up some controversy as a way to get people talking about her just released movie."

Editor Girth Summit: had advocated the film is notable.

In the 6 months since the film, there is no source that has discussed the implication that a character may be based on Peterson. Wilde's stated view of Peterson is that he is 'insane'. (which clearly he isn't).

Shibbolethink argued that it remains encyclopedic and should stay. As it is undeniably a fact that Wilde made that claim.

So I'll not argue further that it should be removed. Instead - I'll merely extend the quotation of Wilde to the earlier part of the sentence where she describes Peterson as insane. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CanterburyUK (talk • contribs) 11:50, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Is that what you read to be the consensus of the above discussion? Two of us have suggested removing the description altogether. You're being bizarrely literalist about the word 'insane' here. She's not a psychiatrist making a diagnosis, she's using the word informally in the same way you might say that someone is a crack or a crackpot. It just means that she thinks he says crazy stuff. Girth Summit _(blether) 12:04, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Girth

She said it at the start of the same sentence that has been quoted here for some time. Do you have any reasons for wiki editors to decide unilaterally that only the 2nd part of her sentence is worth quoting? CanterburyUK (talk) 14:07, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

It's not unilateral - we are here discussing the best way forward. Your decision to expand the quote was unilateral. Anyway... She is an authority on that film and its characters, so her assertion that a character is based on Peterson is relevant, and its inclusion here DUE for the reasons already outlined. She is not, however, an authority on Peterson himself, so quoting her opinion on him is arguably undue, particularly since it's quite an insulting opinion. It's a judgment call, one could say that her comments are relevant context, and they were certainly widely reported, but my view is that we would be better off without the quote in the article. Girth Summit _(blether) 15:00, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Girth - instead of letting the source's sentence speak for itself: wiki editors have unilaterally decided to exclude some of the sentence (it happened months back).

The sentence is in the page because it contains Wilde's views of Peterson: have you any reasons to exclude her views of Peterson that just appen to be at the start of her sentence? CanterburyUK (talk) 15:13, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

I literally just told you why I think the whole quote should be removed. Girth Summit _(blether) 15:22, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Sure.

I hoped all along (as I said above) to remove the whole thing about Wilde - as had Springee. But didn't get consensus on that.

But to leave it in, yet have no quotation from Wilde .. well, IMHO that is not very helpful to the reader: they are left dangling, wondering what is the connection she is making from Peterson to the film.

So a question - would you be willing now to delete the whole reference?

In the 6 months since the film, no one has commented online about the connection with Peterson: so quoting Shibbeolith, it sounds like it could usefully "fade into history as most of these little controversies do". CanterburyUK (talk) 15:46, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

We use our sources to determine what is DUE, not our feelings. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:48, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

I think I've already set out what I think we should do. My first choice would be to have a straightforward assertion to the effect that she has said the character was inspired by Peterson, without a direct quote. My second choice is the status quo - include the assertion, and the quote. This is less than ideal because her description of Peterson is quite insulting, and since she is not a particular authority on him her opinion is undue, but you are right that it does provide some context so it's not completely out of place. Leaving it out altogether is not a valid option, in my view - it was very widely reported by RSes. Girth Summit _(blether) 16:46, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes I would agree with GS on this. Include without quote > Include with quote >>>>> Not include.

Notice how neither GS nor I are advocating really to exclude any of the passages in discussion on this page (Meat diet, Toronto Psychologists, or Olivia Wilde).

Only to include them in an appropriate length and context. Only to remove the parts which do not comply with policy. E.g. Wilde's quote is likely UNDUE given she is not an expert on this topic. She is only an "expert" insofar as she is the #1 person who knows her movie and who inspired its characters. But she is not an expert on Peterson's mental state. No RSes recognize her as an expert on Peterson's mental state. And thus we should not quote her on Peterson's mental state.

That is the essence of WP:RSOPINION/WP:RSEDITORIAL. See also: When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:16, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Girth

Thanks for clarifying - but you didn't respond to my comment about the downsides to the reader of that preference:

• "But to leave it in, yet have no quotation from Wilde .. well, IMHO that is not very helpful to the reader: they are left dangling, wondering what is the connection she is making from Peterson to the film."

CanterburyUK (talk) 22:48, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't need to respond to every single thing you say, just as you do not need to respond to every point that other people make. It should be clear to you that I think this concern is secondary to other considerations. Girth Summit _(blether) 01:03, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Invitation to all editors - to share views on approaches to Bloat in this page

A small number of editors chatted above about bloat regards the Meat_diet and the Olivia Wilde statement. I kicked those threads off, following the lead of Shibbolethink who wrote, regards the College of Psychologists thing:

• "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"

But the consensus on those achieved little bloat reduction.

So question to us all - do we think the page is bloat heavy - or it's actually fine, and has space for more content.CanterburyUK (talk) 14:49, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Each situation is different, each piece of content must be evaluated individually. Please stop repeatedly posting these long messages which say the same thing in different places on this page. To do so is to run the risk of WP:BLUDGEONing the discussion. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:48, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Shibbolethink

You've not taken the chance to give your view on this page overall, do you think: " the page is bloat heavy - or it's actually fine and has space for more content".

Just give your overall, gut feeling about the whole Peterson page? CanterburyUK (talk) 22:51, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

As I said, it's a case-by-case basis. I think some parts of the page are too long and others probably need expansion. That is true of most pages on wikipedia. As to the overall page length, no, it does not violate WP:TOOLONG. It is helpfully divided into sections, does not include (currently) any wildly UNDUE information, and has far less than 10,000 words. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:31, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Shibbolethink

thanks, it's helpful to hear your view. CanterburyUK (talk) 23:32, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

College of Physicians

Hi Shibbolethink, You deleted my first attempt to put up anything at all about this issue, a few days ago. Now you have deleted in it's entirety the work I did today to research and put various notable sources that are responding in depth to the issue.

IMHO that content is useful to the reader. Peterson's twitter is full of this issue, so anyone coming to Wiki as a result will find it much easier to see a section about the very thing: and with an easy to scan list of early responses.

So I reverted your change.

I'm sure what's added can be improved - and will be over the coming weeks as more sources comment. How about we two improve it together? I didn't railroad your preferences to not remove the Olivia Wilde statement, nor your preference to not shortedn the Meat Diet content: so I'm only asking for the courtesy in return.

One way you could usefully help - sources that supported the college in detail: I didn't find any despite googling.

Perhaps you will have more success?CanterburyUK (talk) 21:53, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

We don't need to cite any opinion pieces and tweets, and please read WP:HEADLINE. This is a very recent event and it's unlikely to deserve it's own subsection. We'll see how it progresses, but it's better to start small and build it out if needed than to start with an opinion piece dump. It would be nice to know which sources interested editors feel are the most reliable, so we can model our summary on them. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:04, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Firefangledfeathers

So you deleted 100% of the sources I added? in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jordan_Peterson&oldid=1132366278

Would it not have been more helpful to the reader to have left sources that are useful to the reader?

• like Peterson's own detail response: in the text: ""Peterson explained his position in an article in the National Post: "I will risk my licence to escape social media re-education.
• like the reasoned opinions of senior Canadian Politician Pierre_Poilievre

I can't see on what grounds to object to those two. ? Maybe you think it one-sided to quote a politician from one side of the divide? In which case -do google and see if any from the other side have commented at length on this? I have not found any.

You wrote: "but it's better to start small and build it out if needed than to start with an opinion piece dump".

Can you explain that? Why not give the reader helpful, collected sources of opinion - rather than nothing.

A request - in the spirit of friendly co-editing: please will you put back all the sources that you deleted: that you think, as of now, are useful to the reader.

many thanks. CanterburyUK (talk) 22:25, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Best practice on Wikipedia is restore reverted content only when it's clear that it has consensus. I'd prefer to summarize the facts and I don't see Wikipedia as a collection of opinion source headlines for readers to click on. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:36, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Firefangledfeather

My attempt was exactly to gain consensus when I invited you:

• "A request - in the spirit of friendly co-editing: please will you put back all the sources that you deleted: that you think, as of now, are useful to the reader."

It would help to demonstrate that we working towards consensus to each other if you could do that.

Or if it is the case that you believe 100% of the sources are NOT useful to the reader in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jordan_Peterson&oldid=1132366278 are in your view not useful to the reader -feel free to say that. CanterburyUK (talk) 22:55, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

I definitely see what you're doing here as an attempt to build consensus, and I'm grateful for it. I brought up what I did in response to your request/invitation. Even if I agreed that one of those sources were good, they've been reverted by multiple editors, and I won't restore them until I know we're in (at least rough) agreement. The most usable of them all, in my opinion, is actually Peterson's op-ed, though I'd prefer to cite it just for convenience while basing most of our summary on the reliable secondary sources, one of which is listed below, that mention the op-ed. I might have some draft language later (about a sentence, I'm thinking) The other tabloid news, tweets, and opinion pieces are not worth including. I'd love to see the Toronto Sun piece currently in the article replaced, and the scribd copy of the court filing removed. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 23:15, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers:

thanks for the full reply Firefangledfeathers.

"I definitely see what you're doing here as an attempt to build consensus, and I'm grateful for it."

• great to hear you think that way. We are all here to serve the readers of the page, and give them the best resources/ over we can.

One area you could help re sources - is to find sources that speak in detail in support of the College - I have been unable to find any so far.

"Even if I agreed that one of those sources were good, they've been reverted by multiple editors, and I won't restore them until I know we're in (at least rough) agreement."

As per your chat on my Talk page - we have established that of the 8 sources I posted today at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jordan_Peterson&oldid=1132437636 - only 2 have been reverted by 2 people:

• Wall Street Journal
• Peterson explained his position in an article in the National Post

If I read you right above - you support the latter article's inclusion?

And the Wall Street editorial - Wiki's reliable source list gives them green light!

Looking at the 6 new ones I added today:

• Jonathan_Haidt American social psychologist tweeted:
• Pierre_Poilievre leader of the Canadian Opposition, recorded a video
• Rex_Murphy seasoned Canadian broadcaster:
• Journalist Bari_Weiss's The Free Press article
• Conrad Black founder of the National_Post
• the Financial_Post's Howard Levitt.

They are of course Opinion pieces - we can preface the list with that handle - do you think that would be helpful?

For an issue of this nature: what else will there be over the coming weeks months except opinions? Eventually I guess there will be Hard Events: the court case, Peterson thrown out of the College, or ...

Can you think of any reason that Wiki readers on the page today (no matter which side of the Peterson fence they are) would not be interested to see a curated list of relevant opinion pieces, on both sides?

You wrote:

"I'd love to see the Toronto Sun piece currently in the article replaced"

• which Sun one? This one:
• "Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre defends..."

It seems to be that among Opinion pieces, a prominent person like him, whose video is reasoned and reasonable - is an ideal source? Surely to be kept?

You wrote:

"and the scribd copy of the court filing removed."

• I know nothing about Canadian legal documents / portals: are you perhaps suggesting that a URL link direct to the PDF at the court website could replace it?

Regards the other sources - could you give your views on each?

E.g. the Opinions of another professional Psychologist are very relevant IMHO ( Jonathan_Haidt)

And Rex_Murphy is such a seasoned, well known Canadian broadcaster, that his Views are of note (and of course those readers who are not fans of his will take his views with a pinch of salt as they always would: the fact that we show them in a Wiki page as his Opinions will not give them any undue weight at all!)

And for non-fans of Murphy, in any case Opinions of other well known Canadian broadcasters can be added as they appear over the coming days/weeks. CanterburyUK (talk) 00:46, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

CanterburyUK, you appear to be a pretty new user. And yet, you have elected for this, an extremely controversial and delicate article (with discretionary sanctions and BLP requirements) to be your only article to edit. And, then you have determined that every experienced user who gives you advice here is wrong, and that you are right. I would recommend that you read WP:1AM, and perhaps find a less controversial area of the wikipedia to edit before jumping headfirst into one with so many restrictions, requirements, and delicate histories. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:42, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Shibbolethink

Can you point to where I wrote 'you are wrong' or 'that is wrong' to another editor? ( To support why you feel that I: "determined that every experienced user who gives you advice here is wrong, and that you are right.")

I see only the asking of questions on content and what would be helpful to readers.

With yourself - I notice that sometimes you chose not to answer such content questions I put to you - questions with the intent to help clarify your perspective.

How about we cooperate more moving forward - to ensure a better dialogue in the future - would you be OK if we both agreed to answer any questions we put to each other (content questions of course)?

Look forward to hearing from you. CanterburyUK (talk) 23:03, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

How about you restrict yourself to making clear, actionable proposals, supported by reliable sources, and allow others to express their views without badgering them with endless questions? Girth Summit _(blether) 01:21, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Reliable sources

1. Dawson, Tyler (4 January 2023). "Psychologists' college silent on Jordan Peterson sanction". National Post. Retrieved 9 January 2023.
2. Dawson, Tyler (6 January 2023). "Read Jordan Peterson's tweets that prompted complaints to psychologists' college". National Post.
3. Dawson, Tyler (6 January 2023). "Jordan Peterson asks Ontario court to review disciplinary proceedings that violate free speech". nationalpost.

Anyone should feel free to add to the list. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:12, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

• Source 1 links to and briefly describes the OCP website, which announces the disciplinary measure and Peterson's legal response. One of the few shreds of content that isn't based on material released by Peterson. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 05:15, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
• Source 2 is nice because it's a major non-tabloid newspaper and a non-opinion piece. The downside is that it's responding to a document posted by Peterson, and it's careful to qualify that many of the basic details of the case are according to Peterson. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:12, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
• Source 3 is more focused on the Peterson's legal filing. It makes it clear that the part of the complaint that Peterson provided is just 56 of the 446 pages. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:36, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

This is one of those topics that suffers from initial interest in both the media and Wikipedia but may amount to nothing in the end. Ideally we would wait until things like this are completely in the past before adding them to the article as it would avoid issues where we are basically speculating on what will/won't be true/significant in the end. There are times when it really would be best to just say "no sources newer than X years old" (I know, that isn't a practical solution and has it's own serious issues). As there is no hurry or time limit in which to add this content it really is better to take a wait and see if we aren't sure how to add it now. That said, what we have in the article right now seems OK though I do think it should be clear that "since his comments were not made in context of treating patients." is an argument made by Peterson/his lawyers not just a simple statement of fact. Springee (talk) 13:50, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Agreed with most of what you say here. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:53, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Request for consensus on bite-sized text - Peterson's court Grounds

In a spirit of lubricating the wheels of editor discussion and making consensus reaching smoother: here is some text that I'm hopeful all editors will find in agreement with.

Specifically - The text taken directly from Peterson's Court document regards Grounds:

• "The Grounds for the Application are that the College seeks to discipline (Peterson) for making public statements on political issues and public figures that are far removed from the practise of psychology... which infringes on (Peterson's) free expression in contravention of his Charter Rights (Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms)"

CanterburyUK (talk) 01:03, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

What are you actually proposing here - that this text be copied verbatim into the article? Where? Why? Girth Summit _(blether) 01:18, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Good questions Girth:

"this text be copied verbatim into the article"

• Yes, as it's verbatim from the court filing

"where"

• after the mention of Peterson's court case

"Why?"

• so readers who read that he has gone to court - and think 'on what basis' can quickly get the answer.

CanterburyUK (talk) 19:53, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

WP:BLPPRIMARY would suggest that we should be basing our content on secondary sources. Simply presenting a chunk of text copied from a court document (a primary source) without any analysis is not particularly helpful to the user, and we cannot do the analysis ourselves. Girth Summit _(blether) 20:07, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

THanks Girth

you seem to be making the same point as Shibbolethink ("This is non-neutral text, it tells...").

So the same question applies:- Can you point to your source for arguing that quoting from documents filed in court are unsuitable for inclusion on wikipedia? CanterburyUK (talk) 20:54, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Girth Summit is correct, as a rule we don't use content from primary sources. Unlike a good research paper, Wikipedia basically insists that we need a secondary source to interpret the primary content for us. Please see WP:PRIMARY. While a primary source is a good additional reference (say if a RS says, "in court testimony Mr Smith said X" then it's useful to include a link to a court transcript. However, what we shouldn't do is read the transcript then quote sections we think are important. Springee (talk) 21:19, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Springee

you're right: "as a rule" we don't.

But in the particulars of this case: the question is: what will best serve the reader.

the page does already include a link to "useful to include a link to a court transcript" So the reader can check for themselves the full document.

Regards "we need a secondary source to interpret the primary content for us" - by definition here, by quoting verbatim we are not interpreting.

Tell me if I'm wrong: but I'm assuming that all editors here would agree with the aim to serve the page readers. So when they ask the obvious question, 'on what basis has he gone to court': they can quickly get the answer.

If we don't do that - IMHO we are intentionally with-holding value from the reader for no other benefit. CanterburyUK (talk) 21:46, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I think you should ask two questions. First, what secondary source says what we have and do we have a consensus for it? If we have a good source and consensus then the only other question is are editors opposed to linking to any filing in addition to the secondary source? I generally think it's fine/good to link to filings that are mentioned by a RS by only as a reference. Per Primary there are very few reasons we would ever directly cite information from a primary source (as opposed to providing it as an additional reference for the reader. Currently, I think what we have in the article is a good compromise. It provides the basics and a very high level summary of Peterson's reply. Contrary to what Sideswipe said, I do think it's OK to include a summary of Peterson's defense on the grounds that this is an accusation of wrong doing (what the college is doing in this case) should allow for a denial/self defense claims per this recent RfC [16] Springee (talk) 23:15, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

WP:BLPPRIMARY which Girth Summit already linked states plainly Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. That would include Peterson's filing with the court.

I also agree that your proposed text CanteburyUK is non-neutral, and heavily biased towards Peterson's perspective. The current version of the text In response, Peterson filed for judicial review with the Ontario Divisional Court to request the College's ruling be quashed, since his comments were not made in context of treating patients. is fairly neutral, and factual with regards to the scope of Peterson's request for judicial review. The citation in support of this sentence however should be changed from the court filing on Scribd to one or more of the National Post sources linked above by Firefangledfeathers.

Thinking about this content from an encyclopaedic perspective, the core content points are:

1. The College of Psychologists requested Peterson undertake coaching and training with regards to commentary on social media.
2. Peterson stated he will not undertake this coaching and has requested a judicial review of the proceedings that lead to point 1
3. The future outcome of this judicial review, whether or not it is accepted and whether or not it changes the proposal from the College
4. Any future actions taken in relation to the request by the College

As we don't try to guess the future around here, for now the only information that we need to consider including are the brief, factual descriptions of points 1 and 2. The inclusion of point 3 is dependent on sourcing in the aftermath of a successful or unsuccessful judicial review, and the inclusion of point 4 is dependent on sourcing in the aftermath of any other actions taken in relation to this issue. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:39, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Sideswipe9th

A question: why does your list of core points exclude a central thing: the Grounds that the litigee declared to the court?

If the grounds to the court were very long- then yes a summary is necessary. But when they are short: when not serve the reader by including them?

I also would like to understand your thinking behind: "heavily biased towards Peterson's perspective".

By adding text :" Peterson's submission to the court stated as grounds ..." - that is not biased - merely a statement of fact. the wiki reader is intelligent to see that it is of course from Peterson's perspective.

Wiki does that all the time - quoting what someone said and saying who!

Even in this page we do it: e.g. the quotation above by Shelley Carson, stating, "I remember students crying on the last day of class because they wouldn't get to hear him anymore".

In this case - the 'who said what' is from a formal court document. CanterburyUK (talk) 21:59, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Simple answer to your first question, because we do not know if Peterson actually has grounds for a judicial review. Peterson has filed for one, but it is entirely within the realm of possibility that the court will not find Peterson's filing convincing.

Conversely, when looking at this from a long term perspective, the initial grounds for a judicial review are largely meaningless. If the review is granted, then the encyclopaedic content will be whatever the final findings of the review are. If the review is not granted, then Peterson will either have to undertake the proposal from the College, or continue to refuse to engage with them and risk further action against himself. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:25, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Sideswipe9th -thanks for responding to me.

Your first point.

Are you not trying to predict the future by guessing 'what if the court reject it"?

We will (in the future) edit the page appropriately as the future reveals itself: but we don't second guess it today.

Regards your second point: the root question seems to be:

• yes, in the long term: much of what is in every Wiki page about living people or a fast changing area of Science or etc - will have been added one year and deleted later on.

After all:

• some things that seemed major, will become of little interest
• conversely - some things that seemed minor will reveal themselves in the passing of time to be major and will get more words

That has happened on this very page regards Peterson's Meat Diet - clearly in previous years editors felt that was a notable point. But now the page says less and less about it.

In fact last week, we even deleted a claim about it that had been on the page for a long time but on checking the sources was clearly untrue.

Many wiki pages (of the types I listed above) are therefore in a state of a steady flow of deletions and of additions.

So, to your 2nd point: in the same spirit as the first point: we do not try to second guess, but merely document today what is notable today.

IMHO an editors first question is always:

• what is most helpful to the reader - don't make them work hard!

So yes, you're right: in mentions of court cases - the text of the initial Grounds do indeed get deleted in favour of a quote from the Judge's closing summary in most every court case, once it is held!

But using the Reader First question: there are two choices to us today:

• hide from the user what the Grounds of the case are
• or don't hide.

I've not been very subtle, you'll have realised, in my advocating the latter throughout the talk page! Sorry if that is a little long-winded. And do let me know if I'm missing something obvious. CanterburyUK (talk) 22:56, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Are you not trying to predict the future by guessing 'what if the court reject it"? No more than you are in trying to predict that the court will accept it. The difference is that you're seeking to include content based on a prediction that the filing will be accepted.

hide from the user what the Grounds of the case are or don't hide Again you are presuming that Peterson's request for a judicial review has grounds. We don't know that. We know he, and I would hope his legal team, believe that he has grounds to bring a review, but we do not know if the court will find that convincing.

If the court finds Peterson's request convincing, then at that time we can write some content about the acceptance of the review, any interim orders that may arise from the review being granted, and the dates for any hearing. But until that happens, we only need to mention that which we already mention; that the College proposed Peterson undergo coaching in relation to comments he has made on social media, and that Peterson has sought a judicial review of proposal. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:40, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

The limited summary of Peterson's reply is reasonable in this case as it's a denial of implied wrongdoing which is something we should include, especially in the case of a BLP. Springee (talk) 23:45, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

This is non-neutral text, it tells the story only from Peterson's perspective (and makes it sound as though it is objective fact). And thus is unsuitable for inclusion on wikipedia. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:29, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Shibbolethink

what else could it be but non-neutral? It is direct from the court document that Peterson filed?

Can you point to your source for arguing that quoting from documents filed in court is "unsuitable for inclusion on wikipedia"? CanterburyUK (talk) 19:56, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

It is direct from the court document that Peterson filed?
Court documents filed by one party are inherently biased in their favor, which is why they are not considered a reliable source. For one, they are WP:PRIMARY and content on wikipedia requires a secondary source. For another, they have no formal editorial review board, they are not peer-reviewed, they represent matters from only one perspective, etc. etc. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:51, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Shibbolethink

that is not answering the question - but is a statement of the general (non court documents) case.

The question to you above remains: "Can you point to your source for arguing that quoting from documents filed in court is "unsuitable for inclusion on wikipedia"? CanterburyUK (talk) 20:56, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

This page: Wikipedia:Reliable Sources. And Wikipedia:Verifiability which states that content on wikipedia should be cited to a reliable source. (AKA, the things on the first page) — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:58, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Shibbolethink - but that page makes no mention of the handling of court documents. CanterburyUK (talk) 21:08, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

But anyway - I'm sure we all are united in wanting the page to be as useful for readers as possible: they will appreciate having Peterson's Grounds available to read. CanterburyUK (talk) 21:04, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Only everyone so far has disagree with that. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:58, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

surely you're not saying that "everyone so far has disagreed" with "we all are united in wanting the page to be as useful for readers as possible CanterburyUK (talk) 22:01, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

No, just the part that everyone disagrees with, they will appreciate having Peterson's Grounds available to read. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:20, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Has anyone here checked the practise across other Wiki pages with regards to court documents?

I have done it. It happens commonly that court documents are quoted verbatim in Wikipedia.

And so far - no one has pointed to a Wiki page that gves specific instruction to say court documents must not be quoted.

Does this boil down to just 1 question Do we give the reader the best experience on the page (no one has disagreed that posting the text would be the best user experience)

• OR

do we follow the generic Rule against Primary sources: even against the evidence of many other wiki pages quoting court documents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CanterburyUK (talk • contribs) 22:17, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

There are uncommon circumstances where court documents are used, and when they are it is because a consensus of editors believe that is the right call. That's the opposite of this situation. A group of editors with around 100,000 combined edits is telling you that this is not a situation where primary court documents are used. With that number of edits you can be certain that we have checked the practice in other articles and been through similar discussions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:27, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi ScottishFinnishRadish

Thank you for contributing that - that is a useful new piece of information:

Could you share a specific example -so we can all read and learn: you wrote:

• "There are uncommon circumstances where court documents are used, and when they are it is because a consensus of editors believe that is the right call."

CanterburyUK (talk) 23:01, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I gave the example before if I recall right: instead of the high number of reverts - it would be more consensual to leave in the 10 or 20 or 40% of some new content that you agree with: delete the rest and start a chat in Talk about why you deleted what you did.

Per WP:BURDEN, the onus is on the editor who wants to introduce new information (you) to convince everyone else why it should be included. This is a fundamental way that wikipedia works. So far, some of your edits have been included in small proportions, exactly as you have said. But they have not looked exactly as you introduced them, mainly owing to parts of your edits that do not comply with the rules. If dealing with that back-and-forth and convincing others is not for you, then wikipedia might not be the best place to spend your time. On the other hand, if you would like to be a collaborative editor who works on compromises and accepts that others around here are trying to improve the wikipedia, then this is a great place for you.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:22, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Our content policies and guidelines exist to give the reader the best experience - well, that and to protect the project from legal liabilities, and to give us all something to while away the winter nights by arguing about incessantly. But mostly, their purpose is to serve the reader by guiding us in writing the best encyclopedic content that we can. I see no compelling reason why we should abandon our normal practices in this instance. Girth Summit _(blether) 23:01, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Girth

I do see that perspective. Rules can be very useful, and a short hand to mutual understanding.

Yet we all know that in the real world, 'the law is an ass': the guilty sometimes get off on a technicality.

In the ethics space: we all instinctively know that the law could be replaced in it's entirety with Do unto others, what you'd have them do unto you.

But no society does away with its rules and laws for that.

But as citizens, we know that the 'moral code' or goals that the rules are supposed to serve are NOT the same as the rules. There is constant debate to change the rules.

As a personal observation (you might well disagree -I'd be interested to hear either way) - it seems to me that we spend less time in this talk page focusing about 'what content would best server the reader, in this specific situation': and more quoting Wiki rules to each other!

Or, as you wrote: there is alot of: "arguing about incessantly"!

Given that some editors of this page have said it is a about a 'controversial' subject matter: it kind of saddens me not to have found a larger number of editors: and a more warm-hearted approach to each other.

I gave the example before if I recall right: instead of the high number of reverts - it would be more consensual to leave in the 10 or 20 or 40% of some new content that you agree with: delete the rest and start a chat in Talk about why you deleted what you did.

I'm not claiming that everything I have done here has been done with perfect consensual tone: not at all.

Phew - apologies, that was a quick reply that went on a little. CanterburyUK (talk) 23:15, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

This discussion is the way it is because of you. We're not blindly quoting rules at you. We told you that you disagreed, you asked why so we told you - quoting policies when we did so. You could have just accepted that we disagreed and left it at that. Next time you make a proposal and multiple experienced editors disagree with you, and nobody agrees, you might just say 'ok', and we won't have all these protracted discussions. Girth Summit _(blether) 23:27, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Changes to add 'Family' section etc

the way the page had been edited meant that it undermined the normal Wiki 'compare versions' feature. Big chunks of content were unchanged: but that tool showed them as changed.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jordan_Peterson&diff=1132593102&oldid=1132469235

So I made the changes again, but in a manner that avoids that problem (or tries too)

It was tricky to ensure that every change I included - The only changes that I knowingly left out were: Shibbelothink had changed

• Several months after treatment in Russia

to

• Several months after landing in Russia

because - IMHO 'treatment' is more useful to the reader than 'landing'

and:

• on an episode of his daughter's podcast recorded in Belgrade, at which

to

• on an episode of his daughter's podcast, at which

because: IMHO no need to remove the detail that he was in Belgrade from that podcast. CanterburyUK (talk) 20:17, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

wiki is harder than I thought - it seems that one content block is still shown in 'compare versions' as changed: although it is unchanged.... annoying. But better than the 3 or 4 before. CanterburyUK (talk) 20:18, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

phew - I wonder if there was a better way to acheive that goal....

You can see now comparing the block around the changes Shibbo (and my redoes) that there is far less problem with 'compare versions'

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jordan_Peterson&diff=1132637600&oldid=1132469235

But I couldn't prevent wiki from handling badly the para starting:

• "He began to receive widespread attention as a public intellectual..."

CanterburyUK (talk) 20:44, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

@Girth Summit:

thanks Garth for cleaning the grammar! CanterburyUK (talk) 21:24, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

it does not matter how the history shows it, this is not a good reason to revert changes. You yourself were able to figure out what the changes were, as would anyone else viewing the page. Not only is this a waste of time, it's creating "empty edits". Edits which do not contribute to actually improving the text of the page and artificially inflate one's editing count. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:53, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Shibbolethink

It would be nice if we two could be a little more gracious in our communication.

For example here, you might have started your comment with:

• "I agree with you that the 'compare versions' feature is useful to editors. it is true that my own edit broke the feature - my fault entirely. However, given that fact, you may also want to bear in mind that reverting changes to clear up the feature does have some downsides: such as ..."

CanterburyUK (talk) 21:37, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Their edit did not "break the feature." ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:10, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi ScottishFinnishRadish - You would prefer a different choice of words?

OK, how about:

• "making the edit in the way it was done - meant that the feature was unable to do a good job of showing the diff in their edit. Instead the feature showed thousands of words as different: when in fact they were not different. Wiki has pages giving advice on editing and specifically on helping the Compare Functions feature to be effective" [User:CanterburyUK|CanterburyUK]] (talk) 22:22, 9 January 2023 (UTC)