Talk:Jordan Peterson

Peterson's "Acknowledgement and Undertaking" with governing body for psychologists

On March 12, 2018, I added the following text and footnote to the "Career" section of this article:

Peterson entered into an Acknowledgement and Undertaking with the governing body for psychologists in Ontario with respect to a matter considered by the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee, with the decision released on February 7, 2018. The Undertaking, to be in effect for a minimum of 90 days, is to address issues of communications with clients, which may constitute boundary and/or quality of service issues. [FOOTNOTE]

[FOOTNOTE] Peterson, Jordan Bernt (Jordan B.), Public register-member search, The College of Psychologists of Ontario. Retrieved March 12, 2018.

https://members.cpo.on.ca/public_register/show/19846?section=discipline#ui-tabs-12

A couple hours later the text and footnote were removed from the article.

I received an email from Wikipedia about this removal that contained the following note about the reason for the removal:

Rv add of primary source mentioning a decision scheduled to have been made in the past. It says only that it "may" involve certain things.. There is no indication of who filed it, or why this belongs in his biography.

I believe that since Dr. Peterson is a famous clinical psychologist, and since Peterson is famous for preaching personal responsibility, it is relevant that the governing body for psychologists has received a complaint about Dr. Peterson and that Dr. Peterson has acknowledged a failing on his part as regards his clinical practice, and that for at least 90 days from February 7, 2018, Dr. Peterson will be under an obligation to report to the psychologist governing body about his implementation of a plan to remedy his past misconduct.

There is no need for further details about this matter for it to be highly relevant. It is clear from the governing body's statement that Dr. Peterson has acknowledged misconduct on his part.

The identity of the person making the complaint must be kept private and confidential, unless he or she decides to speak publicly about this matter.

The psychologist governing body of Ontario makes rulings like this public as a means of warning the public about clinical psychologists who have been found to have engaged in misconduct. Therefore, this information is relevant and important, and belongs in this Wikipedia article.

This information is an important part of the permanent record of Peterson's professional career. Credidimus2 (talk) 17:43, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Importance is determined by WP: WEIGHT, and a single primary source does not establish any weight on a subject. --Kyohyi (talk) 17:56, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

If this is such a grave issue you make it out to be, you would think there would be at least ONE secondary source discussing this, and making the case for its importance. I have not found one, and it seems neither have you. Until there is at least one, and one which gives grounds for inclusion in the biography, this cannot be included. Marteau (talk) 18:06, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Since mid or late 2017 his clinical practice was put on hold due to other projects, according to Peterson's interview in January 2018, and probably to that refers "Formulation of a plan to prioritize clinical work with clients above other competing interests, including appropriate client communications... the development and implementation of this plan". But we do not know if he already has done it as the decision was released on February 7, or anything specific about it. Under the "discipline & other proceedings" there is no "finding" about "Professional Negligence/Malpractice". However, such things are not uncommon, especially in a practice which has over 20 years, actually, it is intriguing to have happened only now. Nevertheless, you are not informed about the WP:NPOV and WP:BLP editing principles of Wikipedia. The removal was more than justified as it is not relevant or important anyhow and does not belong to the article. Even if was discussed by one secondary source, it probably would not have enough WEIGHT to be included. Considering your argumentation, which is blatant WP:OR, I doubt your WP:GOODFAITH.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 18:25, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate the comments stating the case for not including this information about Peterson's "Acknowledgement and Undertaking." Forgive me for somewhat disagreeing, but I would like to add to this dialogue some further reasons why I think this information could and should be included.

First, I submit that a ruling issued and made public by the official regulatory body for clinical psychologists is by definition a weighty matter. All professionals, such as physicians, lawyers, psychologists, chiropractors, etc., are subject to the oversight of a regulatory body. When a complaint is made that leads to a notice being issued publicly by the regulatory body, that is always a weighty matter, coming from the one and only authoritative source. With a public figure of such immense proportions, such as Peterson, the mere fact that a governing body has issued a notice of "Acknowledgement and Undertaking" regarding Peterson's professional conduct is a weighty matter, coming from an unquestionable source. When you look at the full text governing body's statement on Peterson, it includes this: "Type of Allegation: Professional Misconduct." That is how the professional governing body itself classified this matter. An allegation of professional misconduct that has been made public by the professional governing body is always a weighty matter, since it is matter of protecting the public health.

Second, unless the person who filed the complaint against Dr. Peterson decides to speak publicly about this matter, no other source of information on this matter is ever going to be available, since both the regulatory body and Dr. Peterson are forbidden by law from saying anything about this matter other than what was issued in the statement by the regulatory body on its website.

Third, newspapers & such could report on this matter, but they could not add any new facts about it (except, possibly, in the very rare and unlikely case that the person who made the complaint decides to come forward and speak publicly about this).

Fourth, the Wikipedia policy page on Original Research (OR) defines OR this way: "The phrase 'original research' (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist." I believe that this information does not qualify as information "for which no reliable, published sources exist." On the contrary, the website of the psychologist professional governing body is an extremely reliable, published source. The OR policy page also says that "primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia." This information has "been reputably published" on the website of the psychologist regulatory body for Ontario. For these reasons, I submit that the exclusion of this information is not justified on the basis of the OR policy.

Fifth, given Dr. Peterson's huge teaching emphasis on the value of Free Speech and Truth in society, I submit that Dr. Peterson himself would argue against the exclusion of this factually indisputable information.

For these reasons, I respectfully submit that this article should include some information about this important development in the professional career of Dr. Peterson. Credidimus2 (talk) 19:40, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

WP: WEIGHT isn't determined by our opinion on the seriousness of a subject. Weight is determined by it's prominence in reliable sources. Again, in this case we have a single primary source. --Kyohyi (talk) 20:02, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

You go on and on and ON about why this is allegedly a weighty issue and how that weight allegedly requires that we include it. You simply are refusing to understand that it is absolutely in no way our job to provide that weight. It's basic Wikipedia policy and is not subject to debate, no matter how passionate you feel about it. Please give it a rest, and when or if this receives some coverage beyond an unexplained entry in a bureaucracy's website, we can revisit it. Marteau (talk) 20:18, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

You ignore other editors warning and Wikipedia editing policy, your interpretation of the "allegation" is OR, what you write is a WP:WALLOFTEXT, ignore that Wikipedia is not a WP:FORUM, your comparison to Peterson's teaching and claim about what he would argue is dishonest and pathetic argument to make a defamation. Don't push the line.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 20:25, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

The text that I added to the article, concerning this matter, that was later deleted, contained no intepretation at all. The text I added to the article simply reported, using the exact words of the professional governing body, the information that the governing body has decided to publicly release about this matter. The text that was deleted can be seen above in this section of this Talk page. If this text, or some re-write of it, were included in this article, some readers might not immediately understand the meaning and significance of it. But readers in need of an understanding of the meaning and significance of a disciplinary action by a professional governing body could seek out such understanding through Wikipedia's articles on Professional responsibility, Professional ethics, Licensure, and so on. Perhaps it would be appropriate to mention and link to those articles in this article.Credidimus2 (talk) 21:23, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

It is OR what you are doing, and on top of that, because used exact words, a probable violation of WP:CV.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 22:22, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Hmm. Without getting into the above dispute, I have a tough time reconciling WP:OR and WP:CV. We can have one of the other; not the two for the same piece of text. If I copy a third-party's piece of text verbatim, I might be guilty of violating CV. If I'm using my own unsourced text, I might be guilty of OR. Hair splitting, you think? -The Gnome (talk) 09:12, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

The problem as far as I see it is that the source is purposefully vague about this (private) issue. If it specifically stated it was about gender pronouns, then it could be included (as per WP:DUE) - but it's not. So it can't. --Jobrot (talk) 05:11, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Philosopher

Jordan Peterson
Peterson at the University of Toronto, 2017
Born	Jordan Bernt Peterson (1962-06-12) June 12, 1962 Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Citizenship	Canadian
Education	Political science (B.A., 1982) Psychology (B.A., 1984) Clinical psychology (Ph.D., 1991)
Alma mater	University of Alberta McGill University
Spouse	Tammy Roberts ​ (m. 1989)​
Children	2
Scientific career
Fields	Psychology
Institutions	McGill University (1985–1993) Harvard University (1993–1998) University of Toronto (1998–present)
Thesis	Potential psychological markers for the predisposition to alcoholism (1991)
Doctoral advisor	Robert O. Pihl
Philosophy career
Era	Contemporary
Region	Canadian, Western
School	Analytical
Main interests	Jungian archetypes, criticism of postmodernism, psychology of self
Website	jordanbpeterson.com
Signature

Peterson is clearly known for more than just his work in psychology. It is his philosophical positions that gained him mainstream popularity:

— Opposition to gender neutral pronouns.

— Opposition to postmodernism.

— His views on masculinity.

I suggest we include a module in the articles infobox (example: right) to reflect the philisophical career. — CaptainGirard (talk) 03:29, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I disagree. He's not a philosopher. Calling everyone who writes a thoughtful book a philosopher is wrong. He has a PhD in psychology; what more to argue? Outriggr (talk) 23:02, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

He's not a philosopher in the way other high profile Wikipedia articles use the term. Discussing philosophical topics does not make one a philosopher per se. The issue of what makes one a "philosopher" has been covered many times on Wikipedia in RfCs seeking concensus... in particular I'm thinking Ayn Rand (a hell of a fight, that one... one which ended up with her being deemed a "philosopher") and Stefan Molyneux (who Wikipedia does not list as a "philosopher"). There are, of course, publications which breezily declair Peterson a "philosopher for our times" and such, but in other articles (like the ones I've cited) the thinking has been that a person must be considered a philosopher not just by magazines and such, but by peers... by others recognized as philosophers. Marteau (talk) 08:53, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Marteau. Psychologist, specifically clinical, is a suitable descriptor. The other things mentioned fall under cultural criticism, so they are covered by cultural critic. Hrodvarsson (talk) 21:12, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Having hot takes doesn't make one a philosopher. PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:06, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Insulting the subject of the article is not constructive.77Mike77 (talk) 16:53, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

References

I'd like some clarity on the pronoun issue. Is Peterson against using "preferred pronouns" in all cases? Or does it depend on who expresses a request (and with what attitude/purpose)? Or is he only against being forced by the government to use such pronouns? --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:51, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

you can see Peterson in friendly discussions with transgender people on youtube, and he is willing to use their preferred pronouns. 98.7.192.88 (talk) 23:14, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

It would seem to me that anyone who devotes their life and career to the study of philosophical topics, i.e. the place of religion in a modern society, how to live a good life, the proper structure of the polity, good and evil, etc should be considered a philosopher. In answer to the pronoun issue, Peterson is specifically against using the government to compel speech. It's not relevant to him that it's gender neutral pronouns being compelled. He has been repeatedly and unfairly maligned as a transphobe by the media. (JakeTheKing42 (talk) 06:38, 6 August 2018 (UTC))

Public Intellectual

I am intending on adding his status as "public intellectual" to the lead, and I expect that to be controversial. A year ago I would not have considered him as one, but he is increasingly been cited as one by "those who know" and the categorization is now appropriate.

As background, Wikipedia defines "public intellectual" as "The term public intellectual describes the intellectual participating in the public-affairs discourse of society, in addition to an academic career.[27] Regardless of the academic field or the professional expertise, the public intellectual addresses and responds to the normative problems of society, and, as such, is expected to be an impartial critic who can "rise above the partial preoccupation of one's own profession—and engage with the global issues of truth, judgment, and taste of the time".

Sources:

Perhaps the most prominent source, which has been mentioned numerous times in reviews and criticisms of Peterson. In his blog, Tyler Cowen (considered himself a 'public intellectual') lists him as #1 in his post: The five most influential public intellectuals?.

David Brooks agrees, says Cowen "has a point" and then lays out the case in his NY Times opinion piece, "The Jordan Peterson Moment"

Several writers critical of Peterson also accept his status as public intellectual. Why Jordan B Peterson Appeals to Me (And I Am on the Left) written by Alexander Blum

Arnold Kling (economist and scholar at Cato Institute and the Mercatus Center think tank) in his blog does not admire Peterson, but concedes his status as one in his post Jordan Peterson and other public intellectuals

In The New Yorker, Kelefa Sanneh writes: Peterson, formerly an obscure professor, is now one of the most influential—and polarizing—public intellectuals in the English-speaking world.

In Vox, Zack Beauchamp is another clearly not taken by Peterson, but who nonetheless concedes his status as public intellectual while simultaneously slamming him when he says, This is an early example of what would become a hallmark of Peterson’s approach as a public intellectual — taking inflammatory, somewhat misinformed stances on issues of public concern outside his area of expertise.

Finally, there is The Detraction of Jordan Peterson: Constructive Criticism to a Public Intellectual by Brent Cooper, which is worth a visit just for the picture of Kermit the Frog wearing cultist robes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marteau (talk • contribs)

Do we still want to describe him as a 'cultural critic'? PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:38, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

It's probably redundant. Marteau (talk) 07:44, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

He has certainly risen to the status of a public intellectual. There's no objection to that. I wanted to object to introducing him as one on Wikipedia. I'll try to defend the objection.

When I first saw that edit, I felt it was too congratulatory. He did accomplish this feat almost overnight. I didn't see it as a direct infringement of Wikipedia's NPOV (because it's pretty much a consensus now) but probably more of an indirect corrosive one. If readers start thinking that it is too congratulatory (and too early), then it will have an impact on their perception of the article and Wikipedia as a neutral source. I'm not saying people are thinking that, there's no way of knowing.

I wonder if it's consistent with Wikipedia's standards of encyclopedic writing. Long-standing public intellectuals like Noam Chomsky, Richard Dawkins and Steven Pinker are not currently introduced as one on Wikipedia. Many historical public intellectuals (even the French figures) are also not currently introduced as one on Wikipedia. I predict the objection to that would be that Peterson surpassed them in his reach and influence. Who knows how measurable that is, but I suspect it is to some degree (book sales, interviews, YouTube followers). It is suspect after all; keep in mind we are increasingly living in the digital age.

I predict some would say that he is more of a polarizing intellectual than a "public" intellectual. In other words: "too polarizing" to be introduced as a public intellectual. I could grant that in the descriptive sense (he is polarizing and he has many critics of his own), though I suppose one could resist in the prescriptive sense of him being polarizing (it's not easy for some to understand why he is in the first place). This argument could also be a distinction without difference, and you've managed to defend against it by citing his critics.

I acknowledge that using "public intellectual" is neutral (maybe with a nod to his supporters?), while "cultural critic" is neutral (maybe with a nod to his critics?). I agree that using both in the same sentence is probably redundant, but if we decide to keep "public intellectual" then we should probably specify it as something along the lines of "he is a critic of political correctness" (see Sam Harris's introduction as it currently stands).

I think you've defended your case reasonably and almost persuaded me. You may be preaching to the choir here, so I definitely want other editors (pro, anti, neutral on Peterson) to get on this and assess whether we should keep this edit. I think it's important for us to make sure this article stays as objective as possible and doesn't become a Peterson camp. :)

— DarkFireTaker (talk) 20:22, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Being a 'public intellectual' isn't a status to rise to, and I don't believe we're being congratulatory by using the phrase. Dude's not smart, but being 'public' or an 'intellectual' doesn't require as such. The phrase is pretty much the only word to encompass his showy blowhardiness given his lack of other suitable descriptors. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:14, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I wonder if it's consistent with Wikipedia's standards of encyclopedic writing. Long-standing public intellectuals like Noam Chomsky, Richard Dawkins and Steven Pinker are not currently introduced as one on Wikipedia. I think they should. At least the Political positions of Noam Chomsky article says he's an "intellectual" in the first sentence. I think it's a flaw in those bios, though. I mean, really now... it's kind of embarassing our Chomsky article does not use the term until about 70% into the article, isn't it? Rather than not use the term because other articles don't, I'd rather see the other articles be extended to include the term, if not in the first sentence, then certainly in the lead. I'd do it myself if I had the time, energy or desire but I have none of any of those. It's a useful term, it says and implies a lot in just two words, and all of those implications are appropriate and sourced.

I predict some would say that he is more of a polarizing intellectual than a "public" intellectual. I have no doubt there are plenty of people who will say that not only is Peterson not a "public intellecutal", but will deny he's an "intellectual" at all. Sources I have given above have other public intellectuals and scholars, critics and supporters, admitting to Peterson's status as one, and their opinion should be the given the weight it is due, which is significant.

Regarding "cultural critic"... if editors want to include "cultural critic" I'm not going to object any further. Plenty of our readers will not really know what a "public intellectual" actually is, let alone that they are cultural critics by definition, nor will they click the hyperlink to find out. So I'll not protest it further, and will be happy to ignore the redundancy in favor of clarity for the reader.

... if we decide to keep "public intellectual" then we should probably specify it as something along the lines of "he is a critic of political correctness"...

I would support a fleshing out of his positions, outside of the first sentence, like is done in Sam Harris's article. That'll take some work though.. his anti PC position is just a subset of his ideas. Although it is certainly the most covered in the press, and his interviewers encourage him to talk about it (like he needs any encouragement, but anyway...) in his lectures and books his anti-PC rhetoric is not as prominent. Marteau (talk) 21:52, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

@PeterTheFourth: Not all intellectuals "rise" to the challenge of public engagement, nor do they become recognized as "public intellectual" when they do. Peterson decided to engage publicly, and has been recognized as a public intellectual by many critics and supporters alike. That was my line of thinking. But fine, let's dispense with the hierarchy. I think it's causing some confusion in our dialogue. So let's try to see it as saliency instead, given it's also a perception. Either of these may or may not be an essential part of the definition. If I think of it from saliency, then my concerns subside - I do recognize his fame and foresaw this counter-objection. I won't respond to the rest of your comment for relevance sake. I don't know what you mean by "smart".

@Marteau: Yes and I don't disagree. The inconsistency with the other public intellectuals' biographies was of concern and could make it feel like there's something special about Peterson. That's made worse when you see it from a hierarchy lens and I was trying to defend this biography from an attack like "...so you're saying the other intellectuals are not public intellectuals?" :P Like I said, if we focus on saliency instead, I can see the argument that Peterson has a wider reach and is more of a celebrity — which I think is what PeterTheFourth means to say. I wish there was some Wikipedia norm on the use of this term.

— DarkFireTaker (talk) 00:20, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

"public intellectual"

Wow. Who put those unsourced bullshit weasel words in the lede? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1:C6E5:94AC:F7A9:4AF5:B6BD:947A (talk) 20:36, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I removed it. Like the IP probably, I didn't realise there's been a discussion. It's still the case that it isn't sourced - sources on the talk page don't count. It's also confusing as was pointed out in the earlier discussion. Which, I note, came to no definite conclusion. Please don't restore it without agreement. Doug Weller talk 13:46, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

His status as public intellectual is widely accepted and is not controversial, as any Google search will show. Even many of his haters call him a public intellectual. I have restored the categorization, with cites by two scholars. I could add a dozen more but those will do. Marteau (talk) 14:35, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I have no position on whether Peterson is or is not a "public intellectual", but I do have a position on the term "public intellectual" itself. This term seems like a jargon-y neologism and I think we ought to avoid it if possible. NickCT (talk) 16:16, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

First know usage of the term was 31 years ago, in 1987. If that makes it a "neologism", then so is "world wide web" which was 1989. It is a useful term because it conveys not only their status as an academic but their participation in the public discourse of the matters of the day. That is why a google search of '"jordan peterson" "public intellectual"' returns 32K+ results, and a google news search of the same returns 766 results. By using that term not only are we not lapsing into "jargon", we are in fact reflecting popular usage by reliable sources which is actually one of the core principles of the encyclopedia. Marteau (talk) 17:01, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

@Marteau: Pretty specious argument. Whether or not something is a nelogism is probably not just a function of its first mention. It's also a function of how frequently the word gets used. World Wide Web has obviously entered the common vernacular. "Public Intellectual" probably hasn't.

If you look at your 32K+ results, few of them represent mainstream media using the term in regular "narrative voice". The ones that do, treat the term with quotation makes (e.g. here). A lot of hits seem to be articles seeking to explain or define the term (e.g. here), which further suggests it's jargon.

I appreciate that you, as a well educated and well read person, may be comfortable with the term. We ought to remember though, we don't write Wikipedia for ourselves. NickCT (talk) 12:35, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

OK, I just did a google search on "public intellectual" site:wikipedia.org and I went through the results. I'm going to list the bios where the subject is called a "public intellectual" in the first sentence. I am not including occurrences where "public intellectual" happens later in the article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornel_West https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard-Henri_L%C3%A9vy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirayuth_Boonmee https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_McLuhan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuval_Levin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Bourdieu https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gore_Vidal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Hofstadter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_Eagleton https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Said https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enrique_Krauze https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clive_Hamilton https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Tacey https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillip_Adams https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alister_McGrath https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Walzer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Sutch https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Fish https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azmi_Bishara https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_P._George https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thandika_Mkandawire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilfred_M._McClay https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olivier_Ferrand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandrashekhar_Patil https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_M._Schlesinger_Jr. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahma_Chellaney https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Puplick https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aritha_Van_Herk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gurcharan_Das https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Phillips_(editor) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeshayahu_Leibowitz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xu_Youyu https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabriel_Rockhill https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bryan_W._Van_Norden https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_Shahak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alain_Finkielkraut https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyarimohan_Acharya https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S._Irfan_Habib https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wang_Tuoh

...and that was when I encounterd ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordan_Peterson

... on page 9 of about 1,300 results. And I stopped there. Given that it is not uncommon for "public intellectual" to be used to describe the subject of a bio in the first sentence in Wikipedia, and given that it's solidly sourced, I'm going to have to remain in support of having the first sentence remain as it is. Marteau (talk) 18:01, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

If you confine your search to article space I make the number of unique pages 406. But hey, who's counting.

"public intellectual" site:en.wikipedia.org -site:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk -site:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia -site:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal

Anyway, your point is taken. Yes we do use the term on a lot of other pages. Yes other stuff does exist.

If you play around with GoogleTrends, you'll see that compared to terms like "Political commentator", "art historian", "movie critic" or "rhode scholar", "public intellectual" is pretty rare.

I'm not all that against the term. But if there's a dispute about whether it's appropriate (which there seems to be), I'd argue that that dispute, plus the opaqueness of the term should probably make us consider just dropping it. NickCT (talk) 17:37, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

@Calton: Regarding this edit, your reason for requiring attribution for "public intellectual" because it is not a "title"... I invite you to page up from here to see a subset of the hundreds of articles where biography subjects are categorized as "public intellectual", all without attribution. It's just a couple paras above... you can't miss it. Besides that, public figures are often categorized in the first sentence in words which are not titles, for e.g. Neil deGrasse Tyson a lower-case "science communicator". Carl Sagan a "science popularizer". Cornel West "social critic" all without attribution. [Terence McKenna] an "advocate for the responsible use of naturally occurring psychedelic plants." in his first sentence, all without attribution. Also, per WP:BLOG, Tyler Cowen is an expert. He's a widley respected scholar and is considered himself a public intellectual. As an expert, his blog is acceptable as a reliable source and your removing it was inappropriate. Marteau (talk) 18:38, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

No Chapter on Criticism of Jordan Peterson

Hi everyone,

I have never edited an article here, but I just noticed that there was no chapter on criticism of Jordan Peterson's work, as it is usual for people with controversial publications.

Was there one and it was deleted? Should I write up one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bossemel (talk • contribs) 21:37, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

@Bossemel: "criticism of" sections are deprecated, since they tend to become unbalanced battlegrounds. Better is for the mix of praise and criticism (from reliable sources) to be reflected in the body of the article close to where the object of praise or criticism is being discussed. Statements to be added to articles about "controversial" figures should be hashed out on the talk page to seek consensus before being added to the article directly. When you know in advance that something is likely to be controversial, this is a better approach than BRD. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:36, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Unless the subject of a biography is a true scoundrel, it's not common to have a general "chapter" about criticism about them and their works in their bios. I chose some people I thought might be considered "controversial" at random, and found that Karl Marx, Pope Francis, Richard Dawkins, Gloria Steinem, Michael Moore and Hillary Clinton do not have a general "Criticism" section of any sort. Sometimes, if a person is subject of something particularly notable and controversial, they will have a dedicated section to that (e.g. Hillary Clinton's article has an "Email Server" section) but having a general criticism section is not common for writers and thinkers where their actions were not part of a scandal per se, but where other thinkers simply disagree with them.

Much more common is to have criticism in-line in the section pertaining to specific works and events, e.g. this article already has criticism of Peterson's views on Bill C-16. Criticism of his interpretation of post modernism has been discussed, but no one has come up with a source that was not fringe and was published by a reputable source.

As you have never edited on Wikipedia before, you might want to bring up any ideas about possible sources here, before you invest a great amount of time only to find your sourcing does not meet Wikipedia standards. Although there is of criticism about Peterson on-line, a lot of it cannot be used as a source per policy outlined in WP:RS. Marteau (talk) 01:58, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Criticism?

Please consider adding this link to a newly published critical article of mine. Or even, add a section "Criticism". Such an enormously popular thinker must be subjected to scrutiny.

https://www.academia.edu/36811944/Critique_of_Jordan_B._Petersons_Neo-Hegelian_philosophy Matswin (talk) 19:07, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

That is WP:SPS and not of interest in Wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 19:57, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't say that one cannot publish a link to a self-published work. It says that one should exercise caution when using such sources. It is a review of his book, not slander of his person. On Wikipedia there are thousands of links to self-published pages. Evidently, people are looking for qualitative critical evaluations of his work. Matswin (talk) 20:31, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I've given you my perspective, and I will add that we generally avoid SPS like the plague. Please see WP:SOAP as well. I appreciate very much that you posted here per WP:SELFCITE (really, thanks for that). But I doubt anybody will support using this. Jytdog (talk) 20:39, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Jordan Peterson: Alt-Right Intellectual

Should somewhere in this page list that Jordan Peterson as alt-right, or routinely associated with the alt-right? A flurry of new articles about him have recently came out, describing this, as well as many previous ones from reputable sources, including NBC. One article from New York Review of Books alleges that Peterson is sympathetic to Fascism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:982:4200:A6C:9459:D3F9:E9FF:76D (talk) 13:36, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Seeing as Peterson has repeatedly condemned Nazis and other members of the "alt-right" I would not say that it is valid to say that he is "alt-right". It is true that members of the "alt-right" have latched on to some of the things he has said, but that isn't the same thing as him actually being "alt-right", and trying to understand/explain where the "alt-right" is coming from isn't the same as supporting them. Several of those sources read like opinion pieces and/or partisan sources, but I haven't had time to go through them all. {{u|zchrykng}} {T|C} 14:07, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Should somewhere in this page list that Jordan Peterson as alt-right, or routinely associated with the alt-right?. None of your sources say he is "alt-right". I find the fact that you ask us if we should label him as such peculiar since none of your sources say such a thing. Putting aside the credibility, motives and qualifications of some of those writers you cite for now (most of whom issue opinion and with large doses of invective) some writers do say that some alt-right types like him, but no reputable source says he is alt-right. Given that most of those writers do not hide their hatred for Peterson, I cannot but assume they are practicing a sort of guilt-by-association tactic which is, unfortunately, too often used as debating tactic in today's culturally divided society. Were we to include the fact that some sources say some alt-right types like him, we would have to include that no reliable source says he IS alt-right...his hatred of identity politics puts him at odds with a rather core tenet in alt-right philosophy and your Esquire source says as much when it says, "But his refusal of the consolations of group identity also puts him at odds with the alt-right." and there are many more sources which say similar. Marteau (talk) 18:09, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

How about saying that so and so called him "alt-right" although Peterson has repeatedly condemned Nazis and other members of the "alt-right". We can distinguish between Wikipedia saying he is alt-right and Wikipedia reporting that his opponents have called him alt-right (or Wikipedia reporting that members of the alt-right claim him as one of them - the former is POV; the latter two are NPOV. --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:47, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

References

Just wanted to add my two cents about the sources listed:

1. I didn't watch the video This video labels him as alt-right, but gives no justification in labelling him as such.
2. According to its Wikipedia page, the Daily Dot isn't a news source, even though they publish current events/opinions.
3. The Esquire article doesn't connect him the alt-right, just through Rebel Media which it describes as all-right. The article even says "But his refusal of the consolations of group identity also puts him at odds with the alt-right."
4. The Guardian article describes him as "alt-light, not alt-right (basically the al-right without its defining characteristic: white supremacy).
5. smh says "He describes himself as a classic liberal, but he's the darling of conservatives, hyper-conservatives and the alt-right." Basically grouping an entire spectrum of conservative beliefs.
6. The sciene20.com link is broken and just redirects to their home page. Even using their search function produced no articles about Peterson.
7. The NYR Daily link doesn't even mention the alt-right.

--Ted87 (talk) 02:14, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Infobox Sidebar

@Pharexia: Not sure about including the sidebar template. It was reverted out a little while ago because it didn't seem that useful. Might want to try establishing some consensus before adding it back everywhere. {{u|zchrykng}} {T|C} 13:11, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Intellectual Dark Web

You are invited to participate in this AfD discussion about whether to delete Intellectual Dark Web. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:10, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Why am I being told this article should not have external links?

Has this been decided somewhere? Doug Weller talk 14:04, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: No one is saying it can't have external links, but this doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion. From WP:ELYES "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons." You would need to show that whatever unique information that this web page contains can't be integrated into the article before it can even be considered as an external link. And then it is likely to fail the "neutral" criteria just based on the title. {{u|Zchrykng}} {T|C} 15:24, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

The source for now was included (see) in the "12 Rules for Life" section.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 15:34, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Guardian article as a source for more than just a 4th citation for popularity.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/feb/07/how-dangerous-is-jordan-b-peterson-the-rightwing-professor-who-hit-a-hornets-nest "How dangerous is Jordan B Peterson, the rightwing professor who 'hit a hornets' nest'?" a Guardian article] has been added a source for popularity, but that is an unnecessary and inadequate use of the Guardian article. Sure it says 12 rules is popular, but the article actually has real content. It discusses his beliefs, his supporters and much more. It says things for and against him.

And it has quotes:

"“It’s true that he’s not a white nationalist,” says David Neiwert, the Pacific Northwest correspondent for the Southern Poverty Law Center and the author of Alt-America: The Rise of the Radical Right in the Age of Trump. “But he’s buttressing his narrative with pseudo-facts, many of them created for the explicit purpose of promoting white nationalism, especially the whole notion of ‘cultural Marxism’. The arc of radicalisation often passes through these more ‘moderate’ ideologues.” Why isn't that being used? Doug Weller talk 16:15, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

You are welcome to add whatever you want to the article, but you are going to need a lot more than one person's opinion to start saying things like "But he’s buttressing his narrative with pseudo-facts, many of them created for the explicit purpose of promoting white nationalism", especially when it is from someone associated with a biased source like SPLC. They do some good work, but seem to paint with way too broad of a brush when someone disagrees with them. {{u|Zchrykng}} {T|C} 16:27, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

It discusses many things which other reliable sources do or do not support and as such, I doubt we should highlight only one source. We also don't have "criticism" or "public image" section, nor seemingly there's consensus to have it. As for the quote, why should it be used? Is it notable or relevant, and in regard to what? Does it sound true and logic saying that he's not a white nationalist and in the same time claiming that he is explicitly promoting white nationalism, considering him as an ideologue of having a narrative with many pseudo-facts? What kind of facts? Does it sound reliable, like when the Center recently claimed few people to be Anti-Muslim Extremists ([1], [2], [3]) or inferred that Sam Harris is related to alt-right ([4])?--Miki Filigranski (talk)

I'm not suggesting a criticism section, why do you even mention one? I don't think you understand what we mean by "notable". Or indeed our sourcing policy. We can certainly use the SPLC as a source, we just need to attribute it - as we should always do with a source that might have a bias. That's been discussed over and over and it's always been agreed we can use them. The Guardian meets our criteria at WP:RS of course. Doug Weller talk 13:40, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I mentioned some kind of "criticism section" because we had a mention of it in the previous discussion above "No Chapter on Criticism of Jordan Peterson". If you are not suggesting that, then in what context and wherein the article that opinion should be included? I did not say that SPLC cannot be used as a source or that The Guardian doesn't meet RS criteria.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 07:40, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

This seems a minuscule tangent, should it be removed?

Under Bill C-16, the last paragraph. Describes a free speech/academic perogative/whatever situation, which may be more appropriately placed on the WLU page. The only connection to this page is that the WLU TA showed a bit of one of Peterson's works. I think it's pretty thin and doesn't merit being on the Peterson page. I think the entire paragraph should be removed.

"In November 2017, a teaching assistant (TA) at Wilfrid Laurier University (WLU) was censured by her professors and WLU's Manager of Gendered Violence Prevention and Support for showing a segment of The Agenda, which featured Peterson debating Bill C-16, during a classroom discussion.[90][91][92] The reasons given for the censure included the clip creating a "toxic climate", being compared to a "speech by Hitler",[17] and being itself in violation of Bill C-16.[93] The case was criticized by several newspaper editorial boards[94][95][96] and national newspaper columnists[97][98][99][100] as an example of the suppression of free speech on university campuses. WLU announced a third-party investigation.[101] After the release of the audio recording of the meeting in which the TA was censured,[102] WLU President Deborah MacLatchy and the TA's supervising professor Nathan Rambukkana published letters of formal apology.[103][104][105] According to the investigation no students had complained about the lesson, there was no informal concern related to Laurier policy, and according to MacLatchy the meeting "never should have happened at all".[106][107]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Familyhandyman (talk • contribs) 08:22, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Rv of Peterson's comments in an interview

User:Marteau reverted User:JCJC777 with the edit summary "The Guardian cite is from a book review and the Financial Times piece is clearly opinion/analysis. Per WP:NEWSORG Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact."

I don't see how anyone can read the Guardian article and not realise that it was an interview and the text added was from a quote by Peterson, partially paraphrase, partially quoted. I think the edit should have made it clear that it was an interview, etc, but the reason for the revert worries me as it just isn't accurate.

@Marteau: did you actually read the FT article? You suggest it was an editorial or an op-ed, which was it? The link doesn't work for me. Doug Weller talk 08:49, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Yes, I read the FT article. It blurs the line, and has attributes of both opinion and analysis with interview. It has lines like, The atmosphere is now a few degrees below convivial. I turn to my aubergine pie, which is peppery and filling. Peterson pours himself water, and leaves the bottle out of my reach. I stare at the unopened wine. which makes it clear it is not a news article. Also, the "happiness is a stupid goal" is not quoted and it is not clear if it is a paraphrase or an interpretation. Marteau (talk) 10:32, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

For the Guardian, it is a book review as I said. Book reviews are by definition opinion pieces and opinion piece which are "rarely" usable for fact without attribution, for which the editor in this case provided none. Attribution was required in some of that. Griping that I think the edit should have made it clear that it was an interview, etc,... how long do you expect editor's edit summaries should be? There were problems with the included text as you admitted, and I sent it back. Also, I discussed on the talk page of the editor who added this info, having a "Philosophy" section which just mentions a subset of his thinking such as "life is suffering" and "happiness is a stupid goal" would give undue weight to those ideas, and would imply that that's all he brings to the table, so to speak. If a new "Philosophy" section were to be added, I'd think it should have more than just that, and should have a more complete coverage Marteau (talk) 10:50, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

@Marteau:, the Guardian piece is an interview. The clue is in the "Interview Jordan Peterson: ‘The pursuit of happiness is a pointless goal’" It is also in part a book review and in part a commentary on Peterson. The edit was "He thinks people should pursue proper meaning rather than happiness, and that happiness is fleeting, unpredictable and "like cotton candy". Peterson is quotes as saying "“It’s all very well to think the meaning of life is happiness, but what happens when you’re unhappy? Happiness is a great side effect. When it comes, accept it gratefully. But it’s fleeting and unpredictable. It’s not something to aim at – because it’s not an aim. And if happiness is the purpose of life, what happens when you’re unhappy? Then you’re a failure. And perhaps a suicidal failure. Happiness is like cotton candy. It’s just not going to do the job.” Your edit summary was misleading, and we now have much longer edit summaries available to us then we did a few weeks ago. It looks as though you copied your edit summary from elsewhere, but it didn't fit these two articles. Please be more careful in your edit summaries and how you refer to sources. These are both sources that can be used in the article with care and attribution. By the way, the diet thing seems correct, there are other sources for that. Doug Weller talk 12:21, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

My revert was proper and my edit summary was accurate. That's all the further time I'm going to invest in this. If the editor wants to fix the problems with their submission and put properly sourced and cited material in with proper consideration for weight, that's great. Marteau (talk) 12:56, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Doug. My feeling is there are some direct quotes in those articles. However I'm out of energy on this one. Best, JCJC777

@JCJC777: as am I at the moment. Doug Weller talk 13:54, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Just to add another opinion of JCJ777's edit, doubt there was enough substantiation to have a separate section titled "Philosophy", however, the part added to the "Personal life" section Peterson eats only meat and vegetables, to control severe depression and auto-immune disorder was mentioned in several other reliable sources hence can be easily verified, and seemingly was alright for inclusion, but don't know if such things are generally included in this type of sections. Do other articles mention people practice vegetarian, ketogenic, paleolithic, or low-carbohydrate etc. diet?--Miki Filigranski (talk) 20:15, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I have seen discussion of the diet (usually vegetarian or vegan) of subjects in other articles, so that information could justifiably be re-added in my opinion. Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:56, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Here's another quote from the FT article says about his diet: "Peterson loathes carbs as much as Marxists". Is that a paraphrase, or is it the author just trying to make his article crackle. Don't know. It's not a news article. It's full of winks and asides and cute one liners and opinions. I support including information about his diet, from a proper news source, or from a direct quote, but not from unquoted, unattributed lines from the FT article. That guy's writing style is far too breezy to trust that his paraphrases are accurate representations of what Peterson said. Marteau (talk) 23:11, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

The FT interview and book review are nowhere near sufficient to create a "philosophy" section in this article, but the FT interview is probably adequate for discussion of the subject's diet. (These "lunch with the FT" pieces are usually meant to be somewhat humorous, and there are a lot of tangents and personal commentary on top of the factual information.) It also mentions that Peterson "worked odd jobs from the age of 13". This information possibly could be added to the early life section. But if there is strong opposition I am fine with not referencing the article. Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:02, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Order of Works section

In my view the order should flow as it did in time, as I made it here. Things flow in time, and the 2nd book makes way more sense after his youtube fame. The abstract ordering by Books followed by Web doesn't make sense in the flow of this particular person's very particular history, where there is a dramatic change mid-career. Thoughts? Jytdog (talk) 06:42, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Marteau if you are going to revert as you did, please discuss. Jytdog (talk) 07:39, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I reverted to the consensus version at 05:32, with a comprehensive rationale in the edit summary, a full hour before you wrote anything about it here. Marteau (talk) 08:25, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

@Jytdog: your major edits have been reverted to a previous consensus revision per WP:BRD and the one who should discuss is you. If I'm not mistaken, somewhere before the section order was already discussed.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 10:10, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for replying I am aware that I should open the discussion... which is why I opened this.

I just re-reviewed this page and its archive. Inclusion of the books and youtubing has been discussed, but not their order.

Please do explain why you think the abstract order is better, or let's go with the re-ordering. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:22, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

? Jytdog (talk) 16:57, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Rejection of NYT article?

User:Marteau -- really? I am very happy to take that to RSN, but do you really want to waste everyone's time that way? Jytdog (talk) 06:45, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Really. Using an opinion piece from the NY Times "Style" section to support Peterson being a "a hero within the men's rights movement and among the alt-right" is completely inappropriate. Marteau (talk) 06:55, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I guess you are not aware that many of the sources here are from exactly that sort of thing. This is exactly as good, if not better, than the Esquire piece already here. Hm. So really? You are going to keep objecting? Jytdog (talk) 07:38, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, really. I will always object when an opinion piece is used to support assertions put forth as fact in Wikipedia's voice. Marteau (talk) 08:12, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I also don't find it, not so much appropriate, as much unimportant and opinion. If we cite such consideration then it should be weighted with the sources which report that the alt-right does not consider him as a hero.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 10:07, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

• I brought this to RSN as mentioned below: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Sentence_in_Jordan_Peterson_and_its_sourcing Jytdog (talk) 14:28, 8 June 2018 (UTC) ~

MRA/alt-right hero

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

In this diff the following was removed with edit note ext not supported by "The Globe". The NY Times cite is opinion from their "Style" section and cannot be used for statements of fact per WP:NEWSORG)

The videos also made Peterson a hero within the men's rights movement and among the alt-right.

References

First please note that this doesn't say that Peterson is on the alt-right or part of MR movement. It says that he has become a hero to people from those groups. Which is a very different thing.

So the Globe Source says:

• "his fans include a strange fringe movement associated with the far-right and a semi-satirical belief in an ancient Egyptian god of chaos called Kek. "Kekistanis" conduct their conversations on the message board 4chan, and particularly its /"pol"/ space, where the movement was born...." That is a description of alt right. It is correct that this ref doesn't support MRA

The NYT ref says:

• "Mr. Peterson is a celebrity in the men’s rights community, a loose collection of activists who feel men have been subjugated or betrayed by social progress."
• "Jordan’s exposed something that’s been festering for a long time,” says Justin Trottier, 35, the co-founder of the men’s rights organizations Canadian Association for Equality and Canadian Centre for Men and Families. “Jordan’s forced people to pay attention.”"

We're good right there. But ..

Other refs already used here support this as well:

• Time
  • "I have irrefutable evidence that I’ve pulled thousands of young men away from the attractions of the “alt-right.” "
• a guardian piece:
  • "He has gained a large following on the American “alt-right”, leading some, he says, to label him wrongly as sympathetic to its views."
• another guardian piece:
  • "His YouTube gospel resonates with young white men who feel alienated by the jargon of social-justice discourse and crave an empowering theory of the world in which they are not the designated oppressors." (that = MRA)
  • "He is also adored by figures on the so-called alt-light (basically the “alt-right” without the sieg heils and the white ethnostate),"
• The telegraph
  • He says: "A lot of the people who write to me say they were desperate, angry, attracted by the alt-right, they’ve been watching my lectures and have moved back into the middle. Because I’m talking about personal responsibility as an antidote to the temptations of ideological possession."
• The fact of the Rebel Media sponsored gofundme campaign itself speaks volumes to this (it really is a blue sky thing)

btw it would be good the stuff where he clarifies that he is not aligned with alt right like

• from Esquire: 'But his refusal of the consolations of group identity also puts him at odds with the alt-right. “The alt-righters would say—and they’ve said this to me directly—‘Peterson, you’re wrong. Identity politics is correct. We just have to play to win.’ I think that’s a reprehensible attitude. But I understand exactly why you would come to that conclusion."

- Jytdog (talk) 07:36, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't have the time right now to address the sourcing. I will just take a moment to point out that having a dedicated subsection devoted to "interactions with the alt-right" is undue weight. Peterson has many different people watching his videos and reading his books, but there is no section about his fan base in any way except with a title just added by you including the word pejorative term 'alt-right'. Completely inappropriate weight. I would support a subsection describing his fans, and including that yes, some conservatives, rights, and alt-rights watch him, but just highlinging alt right in a section devoted to them is undue. Marteau (talk) 08:19, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I would not support any kind of subsection or even a paragraph about "audience" or "fans" due to the amount of media manipulative labeling as well it is out of scope for the article.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 10:03, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

His audience, and his interactions with that audience, is probably the most important thing about him. I'll open an RS on the passage above. That will also deal with the reliability of the NYT here. Jytdog (talk) 14:24, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Sentence_in_Jordan_Peterson_and_its_sourcing Jytdog (talk) 14:28, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Why are you twisting the reality? His audience and interaction are not the most important thing about him, not even close. Where did you get such an idea? You basically said that everything he has done throughout his scholarship career, recent two-three public years, is less or equally important as his audience and their interaction. That doesn't make any sense. RS, for me, has nothing to do with the question of inclusion of this information as a sub-section or paragraph.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 14:48, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

• Commenting here based on a the RSN posting. I don't think there is a question that RSs have said JP's work has been picked up by the alt-right. Given alt-right is often used as a pejorative I would suggest making JP's relationship with the alt-right clear. Does he seek their interest or is this a case of the things he discusses/concludes happen to appeal to the alt-right? Has he commented on the subject or disavowed the alt-right? If the article is going to highlight an association with a controversial group it should be clear if JP seeks or wants the association. As added to the article I would be concerns about an implication that JP is seeking out the alt-right and might be a BLP issue. Springee (talk) 14:58, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Basically, Peterson's opposition to the radical-left and political correctness appeals to the alt-right, but yet again he is highly critical of them and their identity politics. A quick search for already cited sources, The Spectator "Peterson has been saddled by some of his critics with the label ‘alt-right’, which he views as a ridiculous slander. He describes himself as a ‘classic British liberal’ who makes those on both the left and right uncomfortable... ‘Alt-right’ is certainly one of the most inaccurate pigeonholes you could imagine cramming him into", The Observer "This has led him to be branded a member of the alt-right – although his support for socialised healthcare, redistribution of wealth towards the poorest and the decriminalisation of drugs suggests this is far from the whole story", THCE "But when he’s been lumped in with what’s come to be called the alt-right, as happens fairly regularly, Peterson has pushed back, calling it "seriously wrong." The erstwhile socialist considers himself a classic British liberal, and he has castigated the far right for engaging in the "pathology of racial pride".", FEE "His ideological critics have reacted defensively by, among other tactics, trying to cast Peterson as an “alt-right” figure. Having listened to all of the lectures and interviews included in his 37-episode podcast, I can attest that that is a gross mischaracterization", and so on. It is typical polarized political and cultural media spin, as described by Roger Scruton, "once identified as right-wing you are beyond the pale of argument; your views are irrelevant, your character discredited, your presence in the world a mistake. You are not an opponent to be argued with, but a disease to be shunned. This has been my experience, as it has been the experience of all the dissidents I have known".--Miki Filigranski (talk) 15:36, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Putting aside the issue that Jytdog cites opinion for the linkage of Peterson with the alt-right for the moment, Peterson's work "has been picked up" by a hell of a lot of other groups besides the alt-right. Simply having an alleged linkage to the alt-right, with it's own sub heading ffs... giving several paragraphs to that alleged linkage, while mentioning NOTHING about other groups who like Peterson videos, is completely inappropriate and full of undue weight. Marteau (talk) 15:45, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Revert: section 1

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Miki Filigranski in this diff you reverted the addition of the Chronicle citation in the following sentence:

Peterson studied at the University of Alberta and McGill University. He remained at McGill as a post-doctoral fellow from 1991 to 1993 before moving to Harvard University, where he was an assistant and then associate professor in the psychology department. In 1998, he moved back to Canada, as a faculty member in the psychology department at the University of Toronto, where he is currently a full professor.

References

Please provide your reason, under the policies and guidelines, for reverting the addition of that citation there.

There is a lot here; this discussion and each one below can unfold leisurely. Jytdog (talk) 16:33, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

The source in question is cited as a reference for the statement because it is mentioned that he was "hired as an assistant professor of psychology at Harvard University", "received an offer from the University of Toronto, and he took it" and so on. If anything, it can be put as a reference for the second sentence. I don't understand your reasoning for the removal of the citation, there were no excessive citations that some needed to be removed.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 19:46, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes I read this backward. Your re-adding the ref is fine. My apologies Jytdog (talk) 21:13, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Revert: section 2

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Miki Filigranski in this diff you reverted the change from "mankind" to "humanity" in the sentence As a result, he became concerned about mankind's capacity for evil and destruction..."

Please provide your reason, under the policies and guidelines, for reverting the addition of that citation there. Jytdog (talk) 16:33, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

No reason, if you find "humanity" more suitable word it is fine with me.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 19:48, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Again, not acceptable behavior. Please self revert Jytdog (talk) 21:09, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Could you stop commenting editors and focus on the content, we agreed to have a discussion on each issue to understand your concern? It's totally irrelevant who will revert the edit, your or me or someone else when we found a conclusion.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 21:15, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Again please self revert. I will not ask again. Jytdog (talk) 21:20, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

You can ask, but if you insist on with such a harassing approach by which you demand another editor to do something, especially such a trivial thing, the other editor will not find it friendly, nor will accept it, nor is obliged to do it.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 21:26, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Revert: section 3

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Miki Filigranski in this diff you reverted the update to his career:

Where the content formerly said

Peterson has over 20 years of clinical practice, seeing 20 people a week, but in 2017, he decided to put the practice on hold because of new projects. In 2004, a 13-part TV series based on Peterson's book Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief aired on TVOntario. He has also appeared on that network on shows such as Big Ideas, and as a frequent guest and essayist on The Agenda with Steve Paikin since 2008. Since 2018, he has also appeared on BBC Radio 5 Live, Fox & Friends and Tucker Carlson Tonight, ABC's 7.30, Sky News Australia's Outsiders, and HBO's Real Time with Bill Maher among others.

References

I had removed the list of appearances in the media, as we don't do that in WP as it is WP:PROMO (see WP:Identifying PR, and had moved the TV series to the section on the book, and had brought the career section up to date with the dramatic change that happened in 2016, so the section read as follows:

For most of his career Peterson had an active clinical practice, seeing 20 people a week. He had been active on social media, but in September 2016, he released a series of videos that changed his career and life.

References

Please justify your re-addition of the PROMO violating content and removing the statement of the change to his career that happened in 2016. Jytdog (talk) 16:33, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Here are two issues: 1) I cannot find anywhere in the PROMO guideline that mentioning his appearances on TV shows is a promotion or PR violating the policy. That's a neutral and objective fact. As an intermediate decision, the sentence "In 2004, a 13-part TV series based on Peterson's book Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief aired on TVOntario" could be integrated into the relevant book section (as you did), while all the other TV appearances since 2008 could be, for now, removed, but integrated into some kind of future "Public image and popularity" section because it would add to describing his popularity phenomenon. 2) The part about the events in 2016 is related to the broad context of his criticism of political correctness and as such "Bill-16" is currently included there as a sub-section. Also, you removed the part of the sentence which said that "in 2017, he decided to put the practice on hold because of new projects", for which didn't find substantiation as it gives exact chronology and reasoning. Your sentence, "He had been active on social media, but in September 2016, he released a series of videos that changed his career and life", can be integrated into the paragraph, perhaps with addition "(see sub-section [link])" as it would be explained separately in the current position of the sub-section.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 20:16, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

There are several issues here. Dealing with just one at a time. With regard to stopping his practice because of "new projects" - that is euphemistic. More importantly it is also not accurate; as the NYT article notes, he is still seeing patients. I do not know (and we do not have a source that makes it clear) what his patient load is. Do you see what i mean? Jytdog (talk) 21:51, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Peterson put on hold his clinical practice per [5], as well teaching position at the university per [6] due to current projects (public lectures, tours, and so on). Which NYT article, this? It does not mention he is seeing patients, especially not as a clinician. Not a euphemism.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 13:35, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

The NYT ref absolutely discusses him seeing patients via Skype. The reporter is present for a session and narrates what happens and even cites the price. The post interview was in January; the NYT piece is May. So perhaps something like: "Due to his attention to his work following his new fame, by January 2018 he had he temporarily stopped teaching and had closed his clinical practice; by May 2018 he had started counseling people via Skype." Something like that perhaps? This assumes we include the sentence summarizing the 2016 seachange in his career first. Jytdog (talk) 17:56, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

That NYT article states "some of his supporters pay $200 a month for a 45-minute Skype conversation", it does not say this is a continuation of his clinical practice or that the supporters are his patients. This $200 Skype conversation refers to what once was a reward tier on his patreon. The NYT article also mentions it "has since been discontinued". Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:00, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

As I, and Hrodvarsson, already said - it has nothing to do with his clinical practice. That's a fact. End of this discussion, move to the second.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 22:39, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That may be but that is not in the sources under discussion. The NYT piece describes it as therapy. "Mr. Peterson is a celebrity in the men’s rights community, a loose collection of activists who feel men have been subjugated or betrayed by social progress. Some of these supporters pay $200 a month for a 45-minute Skype conversation with Mr. Peterson to discuss their problems.". I see how that could fit with what you say. The piece also right after that, that he discontinued this. (Mr. Peterson says this service has since been discontinued.)"

So revising again:

For most of his career Peterson had an active clinical practice, seeing 20 people a week.

He had been active on social media, but in September 2016, he released a series of videos that changed his career and life. After that he stopped seeing patients, except for a brief period advising people over Skype, and he temporarily stopped teaching.

How is that? Jytdog (talk) 22:44, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Where is "therapy" mentioned in that NYT article? Also, as I said, it does not state the supporters were his patients. Presumably some of the Skype conversations were similar to psychological counseling, but the NYT article does not state they were. So the conclusion you are making is WP:OR. Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:01, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Revert: section 4

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Miki Filigranski in this diff you reverted the move I had made of his efforts against Bill C-16 up into his career, as opposed the section dangling at the bottom. In addition to what I said at my edit note, the content here is the change in his career, and it is essential for understanding the discussion of his works that follow. History matters.

Please explain that revert Jytdog (talk) 16:33, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Due to the broad context I disagree, see an intermediate alternative in the "Revert 3".--Miki Filigranski (talk) 20:17, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

In your remark above you describe this as part of his set of ideas. The part about the events in 2016 is related to the broad context of his criticism of political correctness and as such "Bill-16" is currently included there as a sub-section

In my view this is very concrete description of events in his career; the events that changed his career. They belong in his career. Do you see what I mean? (not asking if you agree, but just if you see what i mean) Jytdog (talk) 21:55, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I understand what you mean by chronological viewpoint and I already said my alternative. The whole sub-section, for me, makes much more sense to be part of that context. We can ask other editors, who usually edited this article, for their opinion.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 13:39, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Revert: section 5

User:Miki Filigranski in this diff you restored the material about Wilfrid Laurier University that I had removed in this diff - my edit note there explained that this is about him. (That is all the more clear btw, with this section incorporated into his career per section 4 above.

Please explain that revert Jytdog (talk) 16:33, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Per previous discussions on the Bill-16 and WLU articles it was decided to keep the information on this article because it is directly related to Peterson and the whole topic.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 20:19, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

So reviewing the past discussions here the discussions were:

• April 2018 here, pretty long, no clear consensus but obviously it came in.
• May 2018 here it was suggested to be removed. no response there

at the "Bill-16" talk page I see this discussion where the other person argued UNDUE when you wanted to add it there, and suggested it go here.

I reviewed the discussions atTalk:Wilfrid_Laurier_University and do not see any place where somebody suggested it be given more full treatment here.

Copying the content here to better be able to discuss it:

In November 2017, a teaching assistant (TA) at Wilfrid Laurier University (WLU) was censured by her professors and WLU's Manager of Gendered Violence Prevention and Support for showing a segment of The Agenda, which featured Peterson debating Bill C-16, during a classroom discussion. The reasons given for the censure included the clip creating a "toxic climate", being compared to a "speech by Hitler", and being itself in violation of Bill C-16. The case was criticized by several newspaper editorial boards and national newspaper columnists as an example of the suppression of free speech on university campuses. WLU announced a third-party investigation. After the release of the audio recording of the meeting in which the TA was censured, WLU President Deborah MacLatchy and the TA's supervising professor Nathan Rambukkana published letters of formal apology. According to the investigation no students had complained about the lesson, there was no informal concern related to Laurier policy, and according to MacLatchy the meeting "never should have happened at all".

References

I believe I understand the desire to report this in such detail here, as it is such a good fit with with Peterson's message. The fact that video was of Peterson is the "hook" upon which this is hung. I could see there be a sentence about this, but the length of this makes it what we call a WP:COATRACK for his argument and that is not what we do here. Would trimming this down to something like the following be acceptable?

In November 2017, a teaching assistant at Wilfrid Laurier University first year communications course was censured by her university for showing a segment of The Agenda, which featured Peterson debating Bill C-16 with another professor, during a classroom discussion. The TA does not agree with Peterson's ideas about gender pronouns, but wanted to teach students how important pronoun choice is, in some contexts. The censure was later withdrawn and the university apologized to the TA. The events were discussed by Peterson as an example of the kind of atmosphere at universities that he has criticized.

References

Thoughts? Jytdog (talk) 23:08, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

If we decide for a trimm on this article propose an intermediate: "In November 2017, a teaching assistant at Wilfrid Laurier University first year communications course was censured by her professors for showing a segment of The Agenda, which featured Peterson debating Bill C-16 with another professor, during a classroom discussion about pronouns. The reasons given for the censure included the clip creating a "toxic climate", being compared to a "speech by Hitler", and being itself in violation of Bill C-16. The censure was later withdrawn and both the professors and the university formally apologized. The events were criticized by Peterson, as well as several newspaper editorial boards and national newspaper columnists, as an example of the suppression of free speech on university campuses."--Miki Filigranski (talk) 13:55, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Hm. In the existing version, the stuff you pulled in is sourced to the Brown/telegraph source. It is not there, but it is in the Platt/National Post piece. You omitted that the student does not agree with Peterson, which is important. There is also some missing information there, so how about this:

In November 2017, a teaching assistant at Wilfrid Laurier University first year communications course was censured by her university for showing a segment of The Agenda, which featured Peterson debating Bill C-16 with another professor, during a classroom discussion. The TA does not agree with Peterson's ideas about gender pronouns, but wanted to teach students how important pronoun choice is, in some contexts. The reasons given for the censure were that playing the clip without presenting a framework was like playing speech by Hitler as though it were morally acceptable and created a "toxic climate," especially in light of Bill C-16. The censure was later withdrawn and the university apologized to the TA. The events were discussed by Peterson as an example of the kind of atmosphere at universities that he has criticized.

References

I am summarizing "neutrally" in "playing a speech by Hitler neutrally" with the "as though it were morally acceptable". I understand people might summarize that differently. Jytdog (talk) 16:04, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

"morally acceptable" is a big leap from the source, I disagree with that wording. What is the quotation to verify the TA "does not agree" with Peterson? A search for "agree" in that Maclean's article yields someone named Leibold stating they "don't agree with Peterson's views", but no direct quotation from the TA. "toxic climate" should come first, as it is in the source, and the comparison should come afterwards. Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:05, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

So what do you propose instead of "morally acceptable"?

About Shepherd:

• the HuffPO report says: "In Shepherd's recordings of her meeting with superiors, which she shared with The Canadian Press, she is heard arguing that she tried to present the situation neutrally in order to foster debate and discussion, and states that she herself does not support Peterson's views on gender-neutral pronouns."
• Mcleans: "And while Shepherd, in the leaked audio, says she doesn’t share Peterson’s views on this issue.... " This source has the actual recording. You can listen to it. She says it between 11:50 and 12:00. "The thing is, I disagree with Jordan Peterson. I disagree."

btw the context for the "Nazi" reference comes in the 9th minute. Rambukkana (who is clearly the professor in whose class she is a TA) is trying to explain the context for the concern, and Shepherd is upset that she has been called into the meeting for showing the video at all. At around 9:00 she says, "I don't see what is transphobic about showing a video. He is a real person. He is out there." Rambukkana says: "He is a real person. But he is a real person who has engaged in targeted behavior that.. targeting of trans students, in a particular... basically doxing them (if you know the term), like giving out their personal information so that they will be attacked and harassed. So that death threats will find them. This is something he has done to his own students. He has done it other students. And this is also something that the students are aware of. So this is... this is basically like playing ... not to, kind of, doing the thing where everything comes down to comparing things to Hitler, but this is like neutrally playing a speech by Hitler, or Milo Yiannopoulos, or gamergate. This is the kind of thing, that departmentally, in terms of critical communication studies, and in terms of the course, of what we are trying to do... is diametrically opposed to everything we've been talking about in the lectures. Was this why you wanted to do this, because this was a reaction to the lecture content?" So that is the context for the Hitler quote. fwiw. The press really jumped on that and skipped over the other two comparisons. Jytdog (talk) 01:04, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. That article is quite lengthy, and arduous to read as I am already aware of the incident. I listened to the audio recording back at the time, but most of it has slipped from my memory. I would suggest: "The reasons given for the censure included the clip creating a "toxic climate"—one of the TA's professors compared uncritically playing the clip to uncritically playing a speech by Hitler—and being itself in violation of Bill C-16". The Hitler comment does not seem to be a distinct reason for the censure, but a comparison made to expand upon the "toxic climate" reasoning. On the topic of C-16, it probably should be mentioned in the article that the bill passed as this detail may be confusing otherwise. Hrodvarsson (talk) 23:57, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Revert: section 6

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Miki Filigranski in this diff you removed the addition of the following to the section about "Maps of Meaning"

Jungian archetypes play an important role in the book.

References

Please justify that revert based on the policies and guidelines Jytdog (talk) 16:33, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

No reason, it can be reverted.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 20:20, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Right, so the revert was unacceptable. Please self-revert. Jytdog (talk) 21:11, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Revert: section 7

User:Miki Filigranski in this diff you removed the addition of the following to the section about "Maps of Meaning"

The hardover book initially sold less than 500 copies. In 2018 Peterson said: "I don’t think people had any idea what to make of the book, and I still think they don’t. No one has attempted to critique it seriously."

References

Please justify that revert based on the policies and guidelines Jytdog (talk) 16:33, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't find it particularly notable for a separate paragraph or mention, several critical reviews can be found in the "Reviews" section, one of which ([7]) is seemingly quite serious enough.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 20:24, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

WP:N is about articles, not content within articles. There is nothing here about "seriousness." This is not a valid reason to revert. Please self revert. Jytdog (talk) 21:12, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Notable is a word with an obvious meaning. I didn't say anything about "seriousness" except that what Peterson considers a "serious critique" doesn't need to be considered as such by editors. Is this information, and opinion, significant and cited by other sources? Sorry, I don't find it important to be mentioned in both articles.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 21:39, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

"Notable" is a word with specific meaning here in Wikipedia. You wrote: seemingly quite serious enough. Please self revert. I will not ask again. Jytdog (talk) 21:58, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

We don't speak only in Wikipedian language on Wikipedia. I won't self-revert. Will not repeat again.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 13:57, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Will wait for other input here. Jytdog (talk) 16:30, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Hardcover*, and the information about sales should be added to the article for the book before being considered to be added here. But it is probably useful information, as it is currently mentioned that his next book became a bestseller. Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:07, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Already included in the book's article. I don't find it such an useful information to be included in both articles. It's trivial fact and opinion.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 20:14, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

You have argued for long quotes giving his opinion about things, but now his opinion is just an "opinion" and should not be mentioned. That is a valuable diff. If it is not obvious, the proposed content shows that he was obscure before the Bill C-16 thing. It is a very relevant piece of the story and not "trivia". Jytdog (talk) 00:24, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

As I said above, I think the information about the sales would be useful to the reader, at the least as a comparison to the success of his next book. But the quote is better left to the separate article, in my opinion. Hrodvarsson (talk) 23:54, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Revert: section 8

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Miki Filigranski in this diff you restored the following to the section on "12 Rules for Life"

Peterson has appeared on The Joe Rogan Experience, The Gavin McInnes Show, Steven Crowder's Louder with Crowder, Dave Rubin's The Rubin Report, Stefan Molyneux's Freedomain Radio, h3h3Productions's H3 Podcast, Sam Harris's Waking Up, Russell Brand's podcast, Gad Saad's The Saad Truth and John Anderson conversational series, as well other online shows.

References

Like some of the matter discussed above in section 3, this is PROMO and does not belong in WP, as I said in my edit note.

Please justify your addition of this PROMO-violating content. Jytdog (talk) 16:33, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Again, see my reply at "Revert 3" for the PROMO guideline.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 20:25, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I understand that you do not see this as a PROMO violation. We will probably need an RfC on this passage and the other, to get wider community input. Jytdog (talk) 22:24, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Revert: section 9

User:Miki Filigranski in this diff you restored the old content about "self-authoring", which was

Peterson and his colleagues Robert O. Pihl, Daniel Higgins, and Michaela Schippers produced a writing therapy program with series of online writing exercises, titled the Self Authoring Suite. It includes the Past Authoring Program, a guided autobiography; two Present Authoring Programs, which allow the participant to analyze their personality faults and virtues in terms of the Big Five personality model; and the Future Authoring Program, which guides participants through the process of planning their desired futures. The latter program was used with McGill University undergraduates on academic probation to improve their grades, as well since 2011 at Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University. The Self Authoring Programs were developed partially from research by James W. Pennebaker at the University of Texas at Austin and Gary Latham at the Rotman School of Management of the University of Toronto. Pennebaker demonstrated that writing about traumatic or uncertain events and situations improved mental and physical health, while Latham demonstrated that personal planning exercises help make people more productive. According to Peterson, more than 10,000 students have used the program as of January 2017, with drop-out rates decreasing by 25% and GPAs rising by 20%.

References

I had revised this to better sourced, removing low quality blogs, unsourced content, and content about outcomes not supported by WP:MEDRS sources, clarifying that this is a for-profit enterprise, and providing the date when the company launched, so the content read like this:

In 2005 Peterson and his colleagues set up a for-profit company and website called selfauthoring.com to provide a web-based writing therapy program. It includes the Past Authoring Program, a guided autobiography; two Present Authoring Programs, which allow the participant to analyze their personality faults and virtues in terms of the Big Five personality model; and the Future Authoring Program, which guides participants through the process of planning their desired futures. The latter program was used with McGill University undergraduates on academic probation to improve their grades, as well since 2011 at Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University. The Self Authoring Programs were developed partially from research by James W. Pennebaker at the University of Texas at Austin and Gary Latham at the Rotman School of Management of the University of Toronto.

References

Please justify that revert based on the policies and guidelines Jytdog (talk) 16:33, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Partially agree with you about the usage of the website and blog as a reference; Toronto Life also mentions it as a "Self Authoring Suite" so it's a replacement for the blog, but don't understand why the reliable source Toronto Life was removed, and why the verifiable, reliably sourced and attributed information "According to Peterson, more than 10,000 students have used the program as of January 2017, with drop-out rates decreasing by 25% and GPAs rising by 20%.[5]" was removed. I am still trying to understand the situation for the sentence "Pennebaker demonstrated that writing about traumatic or uncertain events and situations improved mental and physical health, while Latham demonstrated that personal planning exercises help make people more productive.[4]".--Miki Filigranski (talk) 20:39, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Your response here does not address the problems, that you removed the information about it being a for-profit founded in 2005.

With regard to the last two sentences about the efficacy of the method - please read WP:MEDRS - claims about the efficacy of a treatment must be sourced per MEDRS. Attributing them does not make them OK. (or else WP would be full of all kinds of crazy health claims - truly crackpot stuff like "According to Joe Mercola, wearing magnetic bracelets helps with depression and anxiety" (what peterson is doing is not crackpot - i am just showing that the principle that "health claims are OK if they are attributed" does not work in WP - this is one reason why there is broad and deep consensus about MEDRS. Do you understand? Jytdog (talk) 21:36, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

You did not mention the problem hence I did not mention it in my response. Also, it is not a medical method or treatment nor it produce such results. Peterson is a clinical psychologist and social scientist, writing academic papers using scientific approach the numbers have credibility. The same thing goes for the info which can be found at NPR regarding the co-authored Nature paper A scalable goal-setting intervention closes both the gender and ethnic minority achievement gap , "Overall, the "self-authoring" students greatly improved the number of credits earned and their likelihood of staying in school. And after two years, ethnic and gender-group differences in performance among the students had all but disappeared" i.e. "But for minority students who had done this set of writing exercises, that gap dropped to five credits the first year and to just one-fourth of one credit in the second year".--Miki Filigranski (talk) 14:22, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Dealing just with the MEDRS issue -- the nature paper fails MEDRS. Please read MEDRS especially WP:MEDDEF. Jytdog (talk) 17:54, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

I would agree this would need a medical source if it was Peterson saying that the program had increased serotonin levels in the bloodstream or something similar, but I am not sure how it is a claim about health as the claims pertain to academic performance, with no mention of positive or negative effects on health. Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:12, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Same.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 20:15, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

the content makes claims about improved output. The argument both of you are making is how people promote snake oil in Wikipedia. I work on health stuff every day and this is not acceptable content, especially not for an explicitly commercial product like this. The edit removing the fact that this is a commercial product and keeping the promotional, badly sourced content is a very clear violation of WP:PROMO. I will post at WT:MED to get more input but the position of both of you is not sustainable. Jytdog (talk) 17:54, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Is there a MEDRS issue here? I'm not sure there's consensus that MEDRS covers psychology topics. This sentence, for example, is helpful: "Pennebaker demonstrated that writing about traumatic or uncertain events and situations improved mental and physical health, while Latham demonstrated that personal planning exercises help make people more productive." (If "demonstrated" is not supported, swap it for "argued" or similar.) The point is simply that writing to yourself (talking to yourself) is a form of therapy, just like talking to an analyst. People used to be helped by keeping diaries. This isn't a new idea. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:08, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I highly doubt it, the actual issue is pedagogical-psychological-sociological, not medical. It is about academic performance, not health in general, that's a striking difference. For now, I removed the sentence and made it more focused on the program's intention and academic paper: "Peterson's co-authored 2015 study showed significant reduction in ethnic and gender-group differences in performance, especially among ethnic minority male students.[46][47] According to Peterson, more than 10,000 students have used the program as of January 2017, with drop-out rates decreasing by 25% and GPAs rising by 20%.[11]".--Miki Filigranski (talk) 18:38, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

The Pennebaker stuff about the mental health benefit of just writing is well described in the literature: there should be enough to satisfy MEDRS there. I'm not certain how that helps this article though. Bondegezou (talk) 19:09, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Jytdog, it sounds like it might be helpful to other editors if you could make a list of the exact phrases or sentences that you think should be handled as Wikipedia:Biomedical information in this article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:30, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, there is a WP:MEDRS issue here, notwithstanding a WP:PSTS issue. The consensus is that the requirement for secondary sources applies to all Wikipedia:Biomedical information used in articles. That supplement clarifies what information is considered biomedical and what is not. I am firmly of the opinion that any claim that a particular course of action aimed to bring about an improvement in a human's performance or condition (i.e. a treatment by any other name) requires good quality secondary sourcing. There is no doubt that Pennebaker demonstrated that writing about traumatic or uncertain events and situations improved mental and physical health, while Latham demonstrated that personal planning exercises help make people more productive needs secondary sources, as "improved mental and physical health" is patently a health claim, and "[making] people more productive" is arguably more borderline. Nevertheless the requirements at PSTS that "[a]ny interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation" means that we should not be using authors' own analyses of their experiments to support the claims they are making. There are simply far too many cases of initial judgements, based on one set of trials, being proven false or inconclusive later for Wikipedia to be taking the word of primary authors on the efficacy of their own new discovery. The plural of anecdote is not data. If these techniques can really be shown by means of independent analysis to produce the claimed improvements, then let's see the quality secondary sources that back that up. --RexxS (talk) 19:43, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

yes seems to be WP:PSTS issue--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:15, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Is that the only sentence (or two-thirds of a sentence) that is a biomedical claim? Are we all agreed that claims such as "According to Peterson, more than 10,000 students have used the program as of January 2017", which seems to have been removed, are not biomedical content and are therefore correctly supported by the same kinds of sources that we would accept for any other business about how many customers they have had? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:31, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

User:WhatamIdoing the content is hard-selling a for-profit therapy service. The claims about the success of the service are absolutely biomedical claims. We do not "sell" the efficacy of health services in WP using non-MEDRS sources. You know this. Jytdog (talk) 23:32, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm trying to figure out exactly which phrases are "claims about the success". Does "more than 10,000 students have used the program" count as a claim about success? What I would really like is a complete, bulleted list of everything that you think is a biomedical claim, so that there can be no doubt in anyone's mind about which things do need MEDRS-style sources, and which things don't. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:38, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Revert: section 10

User:Miki Filigranski in this diff you removed the following from the Critiques of political correctness section

In a January 2018 column, David Brooks said of Peterson's ideas, "Much of Peterson’s advice sounds to me like vague exhortatory banality. Like Hobbes and Nietzsche before him, he seems to imagine an overly brutalistic universe, nearly without benevolence, beauty, attachment and love. His recipe for self-improvement is solitary, nonrelational, unemotional. I’d say the lives of young men can be improved more through loving attachment than through Peterson’s joyless and graceless calls to self-sacrifice. But the emphasis on strength of will, the bootstrap, the calls to toughness and self-respect — all of this touches some need in his audience.... The Peterson way is a harsh way, but it is an idealistic way — and for millions of young men, it turns out to be the perfect antidote to the cocktail of coddling and accusation in which they are raised."

References

Please justify that revert based on the policies and guidelines Jytdog (talk) 16:33, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

It is not related to the Peterson's criticism of political correctness at all, yet the book 12 Rules for Life. It is cited in the book's review section.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 20:42, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

That is a reason to move it, not revert it. The removal was unacceptable. Please self revert. Jytdog (talk) 21:09, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

The source is already cited in the reviews section and previously we decided to not keep the book reviews in this article.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 21:12, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

The content was not in the page. Brooks column is not a book review. Please self revert. I will not ask again. Jytdog (talk) 21:37, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Part of the quote is cited in that article, Brooks consideration is about what Peterson wrote in the book, for now, we didn't include reviews&opinions on this article section. I won't self-revert. I won't repeat again.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 14:01, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

This is non-responsive. Will wait for other input here. Jytdog (talk) 17:55, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

That passage of the article is largely a review of the book, see "The implied readers of his work" and the regular interspersion of quotes from the book. The quote also seems quite lengthy in comparison to other quotes already in the article by people who are not Peterson. Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:14, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

That is not valid either. The Brooks piece is about Peterson's work overall; the then-new book is clearly the hook for the piece, but it is not a book review. It is one of Brooks' columns. There is also no reason this page should preferably quote Peterson. It quotes him too extensively as it is, which we'll need to deal with another RfC I guess. I appreciate the comments from each of you, which are useful. I will keep looking for further input on this. Jytdog (talk) 22:27, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

A book is of course not going to write itself, so there will be naturally be discussion of the author. The preceding paragraph of the article is explicitly about the book, quoting or paraphrasing the "rules". This is the "advice" being referred to. It is better suited to the article for the book, as we do not have other reviews or commentary on the book in this article, particularly of that length. Hrodvarsson (talk) 23:52, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Revert: section 11

User:Miki Filigranski in this diff you removed the following from the Postmodernism and identity politics section:

At the same time, Peterson has clear ideas about identity and gender roles. He said: “The people who hold that our culture is an oppressive patriarchy, they don’t want to admit that the current hierarchy might be predicated on competence.” With regard to the Toronto van attack and the incel ideology of its driver, he said: "He was angry at God because women were rejecting him. The cure for that is enforced monogamy." He uses notions of Jungian archetypes to discuss gender roles: "You know you can say, ‘Well isn’t it unfortunate that chaos is represented by the feminine’ — well, it might be unfortunate, but it doesn’t matter because that is how it’s represented. It’s been represented like that forever. And there are reasons for it. You can’t change it. It’s not possible. This is underneath everything. If you change those basic categories, people wouldn’t be human anymore. They’d be something else. They’d be transhuman or something. We wouldn’t be able to talk to these new creatures." Naureen Shameem, who works at a Canadian organization called Association for Women’s Rights in Development, said that Peterson's post-2016 activisms are part of a backlash against gender equality and said: "It’s an old story, really. In a lot of nationalistic projects, women’s bodies and sexualities become important sites of focus and control."

References

Please justify that revert based on the policies and guidelines Jytdog (talk) 16:33, 8 June 2018 (UTC) (fix source, per note below - Shameem mentioned in NYT not globe and mail Jytdog (talk) 23:18, 10 June 2018 (UTC))

It sounds to be taken out of context and easily misunderstood, like WP:SYNTHESIS with the second paragraph which cites an opinion by a personality which both lack notability and once again the opinion sounds like a biased.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 20:49, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

There is no SYN here, and the context is very clear; it is the paragraph on his views on identity politics and gender.

On the second paragraph, the page had no responses from the rest of the world to his ideas. No page is complete without responses, so this is not a valid objection either. Jytdog (talk) 23:11, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't agree anyhow. Per BLP policy we must be very cautious with criticism, while responses i.e. opinions should also follow WEIGHT.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 14:05, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

This is not valid but thanks for your reply. Will wait for other input here. Jytdog (talk) 17:53, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

"Naureen Shameem" is not mentioned in the Globe and Mail source. Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:16, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes that is correct. It is the NYT source. Have fixed that above. My bad. Jytdog (talk) 23:18, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. The quote implies Peterson is a nationalist or a member of a "nationalistic project", which is problematic. The source also does not state "activisms", which could mean an action, but "philosophies", and mentions a "bigger global backlash", while the proposed wording using just "backlash" could be taken as a one-man backlash. There is also the question as to why include that quote in particular. Surely there are more notable persons than Naureen Shameem giving opinions about Peterson and his views. Hrodvarsson (talk) 23:49, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

No, it doesn't imply he is a nationalist. That is a useful response, however.

I am going to draft something pulling together the critical content and will post an RfC on it.Jytdog (talk) 23:30, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Revert: section 12

User:Miki Filigranski in this diff you removed the addition of the "interactions with the alt-right" section

In his interactions with his fanbase in the alt-right, he has tweeted their memes about kek and Pepe the Frog, attempting to connect these memes with his work on mythology; he has said: "The mere fact that we are having this conversation about Pepe the frog and Kermit the frog is just an indication of how surreal this is, and the fact that something strange is happening at a symbolic level." He has said that he is not responsible for the behavior of people on forums like 4chan where his detractors are attacked, nor for the threats made by his fanbase against his detractors. He has shown letters with people's names and emails in his videos and tweets, for example tweeting one with a text: "A complete list of the 250 most ideologically possessed SJW's at the University of Toronto, compiled by themselves." Some of the people who were subsequently targeted by his fanbase were harassed online for months and sought counseling to deal with the trauma. He offers counseling to some of the men who follow him, charging $200 per month for a monthly 45 minute videoconference with him. He said that he has helped some of them to moderate their views.

References

Please justify that revert based on the policies and guidelines Jytdog (talk) 16:33, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

This is discussed in another discussion, don't find it suitable and notable enough for inclusion (per WP:SCOPE) in any current section or that it needs another section. The article is already big enough. If we make some "Public image and popularity" section which would also include this kind of information I don't know where will be the end, the scope becomes lost, and other public personalities don't have such extensive coverage about things for which are not and cannot be directly responsible.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 20:56, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

It is completely in SCOPE - it is about Peterson and his interaction with his base. This is not a valid objection. Jytdog (talk) 23:12, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

It is your personal opinion to not be a valid objection. I don't find it within the current and basic scope. As already said, it would be the scope of some other section which we do not currently have, and is about Peterson's public image and criticism, which is per BLP policy very problematic for inclusion.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 14:07, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply but this is not valid. Will wait for other input here. Jytdog (talk) 17:53, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

The term "interactions with the alt-right" in not mentioned in the sources given, and is a borderline BLP violation. A direct connection between the "A complete list of the 250 most ideologically possessed SJW's at the University of Toronto, compiled by themselves" and the other information does not seem to be made in the source. So the use of "for example" seems to be WP:SYNTH. Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:22, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

The specific term doesn't have to be "mentioned" explictly - we summarize sources here. This is not even close to a BLP violation and if you were to bring that it would boomerang on you very hard. What is a BLP violation is the lack of anything outside of Peterson's message. That is going to be fixed. Jytdog (talk) 22:52, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

"Bring that"? What do you mean by this? Altright is some sort of racial nationalist movement/group, to say a LP has "interactions" (I have rarely seen this term used before in this way) with it is a borderline BLP violation. Especially with those sources, which combined have one mention of "alt-right". Hrodvarsson (talk) 23:48, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Revert: section 13

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Miki Filigranski in this diff you reverted the following changes to the end of the Personal life section.

It used to read

Peterson collected more than 300 Soviet-era paintings as a reminder of the relationship between totalitarian propaganda and art.

References

I changed that to read:

Starting around 2000, Peterson began collecting Soviet-era paintings as a reminder of the relationship between totalitarian propaganda and art. The walls of his house are covered with this art, which he keeps as a reminder of how idealistic visions can become totalitarian oppression and horror.

After he became famous in 2016, he changed his style of dress and his manner of speech from the tweedy professor look to more old fashioned clothes and speech style, which he calls "prairie populism."

References

Please justify that revert based on the policies and guidelines Jytdog (talk) 16:33, 8 June 2018 (UTC) (NOTE -- added globe and mail ref for "tweedy professor" bit Jytdog (talk) 22:49, 10 June 2018 (UTC))

No reason. The first sentence is alright, the second find a bit irrelevant and cannot verify he changed them after he became famous in 2016 (the provided video is from 2008, is it an evidence for such a change and that never endorsed such style before?). Regarding the section, there was a discussion about the inclusion of information about his diet at "Rv of Peterson's comments in an interview" above, so whoever does edit on this section can also do that (while citing other RS).--Miki Filigranski (talk) 21:04, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

"No reason" is unacceptable. Please self revert Jytdog (talk) 21:36, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

No reason meant as not having particular individual reasoning because it was part of the whole "mammoth revert" of your "mammoth edit". I explained my viewpoint, you did not, saying "is unacceptable ... please self revert" is not a constructive discussion, hence I won't self-revert.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 14:09, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

This is not valid but thanks for your reply. Will wait for other input here. Jytdog (talk) 17:52, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

"Tweedy professor look" is not mentioned in the source, and it is not stated he changed his style of attire after a specific date. Did you read this in another source which you have forgot to cite here? Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:24, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Ah yes the NYT ref talks explicitly about the change; the globeandmail ref -- Chiose, Simona (June 3, 2017). "Jordan Peterson and the trolls in the ivory tower". The Globe and Mail. -- is the one that describes the former look: A picture on his web page posted prior to his stratospheric rise to fame showed him broadly smiling, a tweed jacket draped over his arm, looking every bit the contented professor at Canada's top university. He hadn't yet tapped into his nascent fan base, although he was more media-savvy than your average university lecturer.. I should have cited that before, and have added it above, with a note. Jytdog (talk) 22:49, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC - media appearances

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should we include the two passages listing media appearances below? Jytdog (talk) 16:25, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Content

In Jordan_Peterson#Career, there is:

He has also appeared on that network on shows such as Big Ideas, and as a frequent guest and essayist on The Agenda with Steve Paikin since 2008. Since 2018, he has also appeared on BBC Radio 5 Live, Fox & Friends and Tucker Carlson Tonight, ABC's 7.30, Sky News Australia's Outsiders, and HBO's Real Time with Bill Maher among others.

References

In Jordan_Peterson#YouTube_channel_and_podcasts there is:

Peterson has appeared on The Joe Rogan Experience, The Gavin McInnes Show, Steven Crowder's Louder with Crowder, Dave Rubin's The Rubin Report, Stefan Molyneux's Freedomain Radio, h3h3Productions's H3 Podcast, Sam Harris's Waking Up, Russell Brand's podcast, Gad Saad's The Saad Truth and John Anderson conversational series, as well other online shows. In December 2016, Peterson started his own podcast, The Jordan B. Peterson Podcast, which has 45 episodes as of April 26, 2018, including academic guests such as Camille Paglia, Martin Daly, and James W. Pennebaker, while on his channel he has also interviewed Stephen Hicks, Richard J. Haier, and Jonathan Haidt among others. Peterson supported engineer James Damore in his action against Google.

References

!votes on media appearances RFC

• no. This is typical WP:PROMO content that we find in WP pages influenced by advocacy of various kinds. This kind of thing is common on the websites of companies and people, but it is not encyclopedic. It is typical PR writing -- see WP:Identifying_PR#In_the_media. The content about his podcast might be OK but should be sourced to a secondary source; the name-dropping without secondary sources is also promotional. Jytdog (talk) 16:27, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
• Weak oppose I'm not sure it's WP:PROMO per se, but it's certainly WP:TRIVIA to get so far into the weeds of which shows a given celebrity or figure frequents. A few mentions of shows that are directly and substantially linked to an individual's notability are sometimes appropriate when we are talking about an entertainer, but this level of obsessive detail about appearances is clearly not consistent with the kind of encyclopedic summary of the subject which we are meant to be striving for. Snow ^{let's rap} 06:31, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
• Neutral or Weak oppose. I doubt if it's really a violation of WP:PROMO, however, support for the inclusion of the content of his podcast.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 16:04, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Discussion on media appearances RFC

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC on section order

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

In what place in the article should the content about his opposition to Bill C-16 be described?

Options:

• As a subsection describing his "Critiques of political correctness", like this;
• in the section about his career, like this; or
• Others?

-- Jytdog (talk) 16:47, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

!votes on C-16 content location

• Career section. This describes historical events that are part of his career, not abstract ideas per se. It was the events around his opposition to this bill (now law) that made him famous and famous polarizing and the article makes no sense for a reader who doesn't know much about him already, with these key events stuck away down at the bottom, even after the description of his books and other output. Also the description of his output comes before the description of his ideas, and having these events narrated at the very bottom of the page, before his personal life, leaves that historical context out as well. History should go with history, which contextualizes what follows. Jytdog (talk) 16:52, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
• Separate section. To be honest, the difference between the options is marginal to me, but I lean slightly towards this one. While it's true that Peterson's social advocacy and ideology have become somewhat entangled, I'd still say this aspect of his notability is discrete and worth it's own subsection. I also feel that a career section (covering primarily his research interests and academic notability) followed by a works section (which displays his transition towards a public intellectual) and then a section on his current role as an anti-PC ideologue, strikes a good balance and helps with continuity. All of that said, the main issue that sticks out to me is that each of these sections, but particularly the sections on political correctness broadly and Bill C-16 in particular, are way, way too long and unbalanced with regard to WP:WEIGHT and inconsistent with summary style. We really don't need 12 paragraphs to discuss his opposition to one bill, including details on multiple speaking engagements and grants which he may or may not have been denied per his own suspicions. Some pairing down here would be very useful, and would make it even easier for this content to fit in whatever section consensus decides that it should abide in. Snow ^{let's rap} 06:54, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

• Critiques of PC section, or Separate section, the series of videos were called "Professor against political correctness" and it makes more thematic sense to cover this aspect of his ideas/claims as part of the 'PC' section. Otherwise I agree with Snow Rise, everything presented at present is far too long. The fact that this controversy may have magnified his fame/notoriety, does not automatically make it 'career' and placing it there is borderline WP:POINTY IMO. I could see the sense of moving the whole 'critiques' section up, and possibly renaming, but not by artificially adding it to career and breaking thematic and chronological sequence. Pincrete (talk) 18:23, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

• Critiques of PC section.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 15:59, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

• Critiques of PC section (Summoned by bot) This seems to be the most logical placement. Agree with one commenter that there is only a shade of difference between the various options. Seems weird to have an RfC on a minor organizational issue, as well as to see multiple RfCs on secondary issues on this page. Coretheapple (talk) 13:28, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
• Critiques Giving it it's own section to me seems undue. ^{cinco de} L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:52, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

discussion on C-16 content location

User:Snow Rise would you please clarify -- a separate section where? I moved this up into the career section for the following reason -- I came to this page primarily to start learning about this person. I had to read the whole page twice and read the sources before I actually understood the story.

The stuff described in the C-16 section is the pivotal historical matter here; these are the events through which his career was transformed and he started saying and doing the things that brought him into the public eye - through which he became as it were a "public intellectual". These events -- what he did and said and how people reacted -- "made" him.

Here is the history of how this page developed:

• this is how the page appeared at the end of Sept 2016 (before all this stuff was picked up in WP)
• At the end of October, it looked like this, with a "controversy" section at the bottom exactly about this stuff.
• By the end of November in this version, the Works section got built in between, and that section (eventually renamed to what it is now, stayed down at the bottom.

Over time a bunch of other content was added, pushing this yet further down the page.

The growth was organic, but it has left the storyline broken.

Having that material at the very bottom of the page is very unhelpful to a reader, in my experience of coming to this page, to learn about him. I believe they belong in his career as they are historical, telling his story. They aren't abstract ideas, and are not "works". Hence my argument for including this in "career", which is where we put the stuff that people do.

(I've now read all the sources here and more btw.) :) Jytdog (talk) 23:13, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, I guess I hadn't thought of it from the perspective of someone coming here to learn specifically about his ideological advocacy. I liked the format placing it at the bottom because it appealed to me for the clear progression of the phases of his notability, if you follow my meaning. I will have to review the matter again when I have fresher eyes and and then re-comment, as soon as I may. Regardless of placement though, I'm pretty sure I'm going to continue to feel that the C-16 content needs to be paired down a little. Wikipedia is not a blow-by-blow digest of every engagement a public figure has with a given idea or government initiative, and this section could summarize the same basic details with half as many paragraphs. Mind you, I'm not ambitious enough as to try to insist upon such a drastic change, but there's a paragraph or four there that are ripe for reduction or removal, in my opinion. Snow ^{let's rap} 07:06, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for considering. I just wanted to learn about him, not his advocacy per se. The Bill C-16 stuff is a turning point in his life and is just weirdly divorced from the story of his life. I agree the detail in that section is excessive. Jytdog (talk) 16:27, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, so I've reviewed the competing formats and I do think there are two ways of looking at this: One (which is your view, if I more or less read you correctly) is to judge the order of elements/sections as being dependent upon (or at least significantly informed by) their relative weight as topics in the sources. And concordantly, this view would hold that, because Peterson's notability has swelled since his vocal criticism of "PC culture" became a topic of mainstream media and social media attention, and a great deal of the sources concerning him are now focused upon this topic, it leaves the article feeling uneven that these events are buried near the end of the page. That's a compelling point, I agree. The alternative argument is that all of the events covered in that section have transpired since 2016, and represent just a sliver of Peterson's lasting notability, which was well established in both GNG and NACADEMIC terms well before these events. Collateral support for this approach also arguably comes from A) the fact that it has the benefit of conferring a continuous chronological order ot topic discussion throughout the article (aside from the "personal life" section, which is moved to the end in all proposed edits). Strict chronology is by no means a requirement of any article, but it can be a boon to certain articles where attainable--and I think that is arguably the case here, where we have someone who has gone through "phases" of different notability in different types of sources for different (if clearly interrelated) reasons. And B) it keeps the C-16 subsection anchored in a section which pertains to his publicly espoused views and socio-ideological advocacy generally, which is a good context for it.

Now, I gave a little more weight to the second option there because it has a few more moving parts, but I don't mean to be dismissive of your stance; I view both approaches to be grounded in some substantially relevant arguments about what is best for flow. That said, I think I still lean towards the latter option. But I think either can be made to work, honestly. And my notions about what goes where could fluctuate depending on how the content of individual sections changes; as noted previously, there is room for improvements to several sections and subsections which would necessarily play into that analysis. I know that is all somewhat non-committal, but those are my thoughts! Snow ^{let's rap} 08:18, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts User:Snow Rise. I am somehow not getting this across. If a person reads the article from top to bottom, like people do when they are reading (!) -- like I did the first time I read this -- having the career stuff all in one place makes total sense. Finding essential events in his career at the bottom makes no sense. This is why I had to go back and re-read the whole thing a second time. His second book for example is completely in the context after those events. It sold a ton, while his first book sold almost nothing. Likewise his youtube channel took off after those events. His body of work should be encountered by the reader already knowing the guy's career - having already read that, travelling from top to bottom. Do you get it now? it is a page-order thing. What the reader finds, at what point while reading. Jytdog (talk) 23:26, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I think the failure to convey may be on my part as well, because I do recognize that what you are emphasizing is the order and flow of the content and tried to address that above. But addressing the more specific point you raise about the second book above, I would note that the content covering that book is a short three sentences and there's nothing in our coverage of it to suggest that it is any more linked to his current anti-PC notability than to his earlier academic topics (for me, our description actually makes it sound closer to the latter than to the former, honestly), so I'm not sure that's cause to completely shake-up the order the other subsections relatively to eachother to address that one concern. And no matter how we order the content, there is likely to be some discontinuity, so it's a matter of trying to get the narrative to flow as as strongly in one direction as possible, given these constraints. However, I may be misreading what you are proposing; if you are suggesting that the "Books" section be moved lower, such that the new order is: Education-->Career-->Works (minus the Books content)-->Critiques of political correctness-->Books-->Personal life, then, while I'm not sure that change is totally for the best, I don't think it would break the article either and would be within what I would consider to be a reasonable ordering of the content. But I suspect your proposal is not quite that simple and we may still be talking past eachother a little here. Snow ^{let's rap} 23:42, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Snow Rise (sorry to ping, i don't know if you are watching). Thanks for replying. Per the RfC question, I think it should be like this. A subsection of his career. The story of his life should be told clearly and together. The stuff he did opposing Bill C-16 made him famous and changed his life. Independent sources, and he himself, say this. The globe and Mail says:

• "Until last fall, Prof. Peterson's primary claim to fame outside the classroom was a "self-authoring" program, a guided series of reflective written exercises shown to improve academic performance and mental and emotional health. A picture on his web page posted prior to his stratospheric rise to fame showed him broadly smiling, a tweed jacket draped over his arm, looking every bit the contented professor at Canada's top university. He hadn't yet tapped into his nascent fan base, although he was more media-savvy than your average university lecturer....The ascent of Prof. Peterson's social media persona began on Sept. 27, 2016. That is when he posted a YouTube video of himself speaking out against Bill C-16, legislation introduced by Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould, and intending, among other things, to expand the definition of hate speech in the Criminal Code to include discrimination on the basis of gender expression...." (the article even has graphs showing his following on social media bending dramatically up in response to that stuff.
• The Chronicle of Higher Ed piece says: "Then there’s the actual Peterson, a guy who Ping-Pongs between exuberance and exhaustion, a grandfather who is loathed and loved by a public that, until very recently, had almost entirely ignored him. Now he has more than a half-million YouTube subscribers, nearly 300,000 Twitter followers, and several thousand die-hard disciples who send him money, to the tune of $60,000 per month." And really importantly, it says right after that: "Even the man with all the answers appears stunned by the outpouring, and at the sudden, surreal turn in his life. "When I wake up in the morning, it takes about half an hour for my current reality to sink in," he says. "I don’t know what to make of it."

Those events are essential for understanding him and his work. His first book sold fewer than 500 copies in hardcover (chronicle) - just the preorders for his second book, after all that and addressing his new audience, were huge. (chronicle) -- it ended up selling 1.1 million copies between its release in Jan and May (NYT ref) and was supported by a book tour.

Do you see what I mean? The C-16 events changed his life, what he does everyday and in his work, how people read him, etc etc. They are what made him the "public intellectual" or whatever else you want to call him, that he is now.

It needs to be up in his career, not down at the very bottom of the page, so that when someone reads the article, they read about his works and ideas with the concrete history in their mind. So they have actual context. His ideas are not abstract but grew from actual things that happened. Jytdog (talk) 16:02, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikilinks in quotes

There was very liberal wikilinking in quotes, and went through and removed them. We generally don't do this, and are conservative when we do, per MOS:LWQ. Jytdog (talk) 16:25, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Oppose per "Be conservative when linking within quotations; link only to targets that correspond to the meaning clearly intended by the quote's author".--Miki Filigranski (talk) 16:46, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Right so one has to very careful; not liberal. I don't think for example when Peterson says "socialism" he means what is in the socialism article (and it is a huge waste of time to work out. You might think he means exactly what socialism says......) In general each one would require asking what does Peterson really say about X throughout the everything he says (does he even use "X" consistently?) and what does article X really say and are those the same thing? Endless arguments. Sometimes if it is a very concrete thing, a WL is OK, but most of the WLs in this page were to broad concepts like "socialism". Jytdog (talk) 21:36, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but arguably, almost all if not all the wikilinks you removed were clearly meant by Peterson. He was not explaining some rocket science, it is basic comprehensive language. Your argumentation is not an argument, and broad or not concept, wikilinks are used for that and it is helpful for people who never checked these concepts to understand the topic.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 00:16, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

That is your judgement and neither you or me want to do an analysis of every one of them. Hence the guideline. If you think the WL is very important for understanding please use paraphrases instead of quotes; then you can WL within reason staying clear of WP:OVERLINK of course. Jytdog (talk) 00:19, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

If you do not want to have an analysis i.e. did not do one and are not sure whether they are or not clearly meant then do not remove the wikilinks. It is more than obvious, as well constructive to wikilink them, for me. We cannot explain terms and concepts on every article, that is pointless, because of that we have short solution like wikilinks.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 01:17, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I did look at them. If you want wikilinks, paraphrase instead of quoting. Jytdog (talk) 02:43, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

No, quoting in this case is better.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 06:38, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

We should remove the wikilinks in quotes. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 05:19, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Per what guideline? LWQ supports wikilinks in quotes.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 06:38, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Edit Request in re "his manner of speech and his style of dress"

Please change 'After he became famous in 2016, he changed his manner of speech and his style of dress to a more old-fashioned style, which he calls "prairie populism"' to 'Recently, he changed his manner of speech and his style of dress to a more old-fashioned style, which he calls "prairie populism"'

Rationale: Neither source uses the word "famous" in any context. The use of the word "famous" and the association of his rise to fame with his change in fashion sense seems to be an editorial presumption made by Wikipedia's editors; the only association the source makes to this change of his is time and his rescuing his "father from the belly of the whale". AG Farquharson (talk) 17:38, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Both sources make it plain as day. We do not look for the exact words to be supported but the idea.

The Globe and Mail ref says: "A picture on his web page posted prior to his stratospheric rise to fame showed him broadly smiling, a tweed jacket draped over his arm, looking every bit the contented professor at Canada's top university. "

the NYT ref says: "He is wearing a new three-piece suit, shiny and brown with wide lapels with a decorative silver flourish. It is evocative of imagery from a hundred years ago. That’s the point. His speech too is from another era — stilted, with old-timey phrases, a hypnotic rhythm. It’s a vocal tactic he came to only recently. Videos from a few years ago have him speaking and dressing in a more modern way. I ask him about the retro clothes and phrases. He calls it his prairie populism."

He acknowledges that he changed his style; this is part of the whole before/after of his entire career; his opposition to Bill C-16 and people's responses to that changed things for him, and he has changed too. Consciously. Jytdog (talk) 21:31, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Cultural Marxism

Regarding recent edit, is there enough evidence and reliability in associating Jordan Peterson's critique of postmodernism/identity politics with Frankfurt School#Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, without being some minor (media) opinion and guilt by association (possibly violating WP:BLP)? Regarding the sources which were used, Mic (formerly PolicyMic) has previously been rejected on RS/N.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 21:18, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Have added a few additional refs. This is a perspective that is out there; undeniably so. Yes Mic is no good and was easily pared away. Jytdog (talk) 22:48, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the Guardian, Mic, etc. are RSs. --CartoonDiablo (talk) 23:17, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Does Viewpoint Magazine even have a Wikipedia page? Is it reliable? It is an opinion source which is not mainstream. Should be removed. Vox also does sound like a hit-and-miss piece but is more reliable although it does not mention Cultural Marxism by name only an opinion by "Harrison Fluss, an editor at the Marxist journal Historical Materialism, tells me. “He connects the two in [an] overarching conspiracy theory.”" - however, they all have in common to be left-leaning media. Do we have other RS which are not left-leaning?--Miki Filigranski (talk) 23:38, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't know about Viewpoint, but I'll add the Politico piece that says the same thing, it's widely said among reliable media. CartoonDiablo (talk) 23:44, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

It is not widely said nor all the sources pass reliability criteria nor are mainstream nor are politically diverse. They are all left-leaning, Vox for the conspiracy claim quotes editor of Marxist journal, Viewpoint Magazine is Marxist, The Guardian and Pacific Standard are openly left-leaning or "social justice", Politico is far fron mainstream and is liberal-conservative. So no, there is no balance, your removal for being "left-liberal media" is unsubstantiated, as well should not be promoted "see also" wikilink.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 00:04, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Regardless of the political lean of a source, they are widely considered to be reliable sources (with the possible exception of Viewpoint which I agree should be removed given it's uncertainty). If you want a comparison, this would be like citing National Review which is conservative but, as far as I know, is reliable. CartoonDiablo (talk) 00:13, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

You said "widely said", that means it is widely reported by mainstream media, of cited only The Guardian belongs to that criteria, and itself reports "His bete noire is what he calls “postmodern neo-Marxism” or “cultural Marxism” with such a "reliable" and contradicting opinion It’s true that he’s not a white nationalist,” says David Neiwert, the Pacific Northwest correspondent for the Southern Poverty Law Center and the author of Alt-America: The Rise of the Radical Right in the Age of Trump. “But he’s buttressing his narrative with pseudo-facts, many of them created for the explicit purpose of promoting white nationalism, especially the whole notion of ‘cultural Marxism’. The arc of radicalisation often passes through these more ‘moderate’ ideologues.”. This quote was discussed in previous discussions.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 00:26, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Politico, Pacific Standard, and Vox are all reliable in addition to the Guardian. And the article isn't claiming Peterson is a white nationalist, it's that he's his critiques are similar to the cultural Marxist conspiracy. CartoonDiablo (talk) 00:43, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Are these, and the content itself, all secondary RS without being an opinion? That quote is insinuating exactly that, and per WP:BLPSTYLE "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of small minorities should not be included at all. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased, malicious or overly promotional content".--Miki Filigranski (talk) 06:48, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes and none of the other things are a problem here. CartoonDiablo (talk) 18:07, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. Miki should feel encouraged to present sources with counterveiling opinions and we can add or reconsider content in that light, but this is a clearly a view expressed by reliable sources and bears a brief mention (and it couldn't be much briefer), provided said reference is reliably WP:ATTRIBUTED (which it explicitly is). Or rephrasing to more expressly address Miki's last post, I see no indication that the mention is outsized, relative to the number of sources, nor much ground for the argument that we are introducing something non-neutral via Wikipedia voice (again the mention is brief and attributed).

As the arguments that our sources are too "left", that has absolutely no basis in policy or how we form content on this project as a reflection of WP:WEIGHT; we don't throw our own personal, idiosyncratic analysis of the political leanings of this or that news outlet into editorial decisions, which would be WP:Original research through the back door, and that would be an actual abrogation of WP:NPOV. So long as the community has judged a given source to be reliable (which has more to do with editorial controls than how they present this or that "right" or "left" issue and who their readers are supposed to be) then that source is exactly that: reliable for purposes of citation, provided its relevance to a cited statement is established. And here, no matter how you slice it, there are multiple sources which are clearly reliable which converge on this description. Again, if Miki can find contrary perspectives in sources, we can entertain adding such claims and/or modifying the current wording, but the notion that we should reject multiple reliable sources because they are collectively "too far to the left" has no traction in policy or community consensus on such matters--and for good cause, since if this was the permissible standard on Wikipedia, it would constitute an unwarranted introduction of editor POV into the content, allowing for original research through cherry picking of sources. To say nothing of the intractable fights it would engender across each and every remotely controversial article of the encyclopedia. Snow ^{let's rap} 09:01, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Wrong, the sources political leanings are well-known, not my personal OR, and as they have an obvious ideological bias we cannot ignore that for proper balance and is not neutrally appropriate to describe i.e. attribute all of them as "some in the media" when the cited sources are mostly (3/4) left-leaning media, that the expressed opinion i.e. comparison is not necessarily by the news outlet when they quote "Harrison Fluss, an editor at the Marxist journal Historical Materialism" (Vox), "David Neiwert, the Pacific Northwest correspondent for the Southern Poverty Law Center" (The Guardian), which itself are not mainstream and belong to leftist bias. I did not say we should reject the RS because of political leaning, don't put words in my mouth, yet their reliability in comparison to content in question without proper analysis of the context so we can make a proper attribution and wording which will not violate BLP.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 09:50, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, although I find some of what you say out of step with fundamental policies and community consensus on sourcing, if the discussion is about proper attribution and wording, then we may not really be all that far apart in our perspectives regarding the content itself. Snow ^{let's rap} 11:46, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

This has basically already been said, but I'll summarize this my own words in case it might be helpful to read another perspective:

The encyclopedic significance of an outlet's political lean must also be supported by sources, otherwise it's editorializing. To be crystal clear: this must be supported in relation to this exact issue. It's no good to find sources documenting the outlet's lean, because that's not necessarily relevant. Emphasizing ideology in a way that is not supported by sources would be inserting an editor's personal opinion on what is important. That's not neutral at all. If sources are reliable, they are reliable regardless of their ideology. If not, this shouldn't be mentioned. If this is part of the controversy, that should be supportable with sources, in which case it can be contextualized, such as with attribution or whatever. Grayfell (talk) 07:26, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

This is a good way of putting it. The reliability of the source is what matters which is why conservative sources can be included and reliable as well. Only insofar as the political slant of the source is topic-worthy and itself sourced by an RS, say, "[Article] has accused the sources of being left-wing" it is irrelevant to the topic/article. CartoonDiablo (talk) 22:55, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

@Miki Filigranski: You have two options to expose the bias of the sources: (1) add a rebuttal from Peterson himself see WP:WELLKNOWN & WP:ABOUTSELF, or (2) add a reliable source--perhaps even the aforementioned National Review--that says something like "Peterson is being assailed by left-wing media blah blah blah." – Lionel^(talk) 10:20, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Feminism/Views of Women?

I feel like there should be a section on Peterson's views on women and feminism since it's a major part of his thought and distinct from BIll C-16 and postmodernism etc. CartoonDiablo (talk) 20:42, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Could you supply the sources you would imagine forming the basis for this section? At present the article makes but one oblique reference to feminism and very little else that relates to gender equality. Obviously he is vocal on identity politics and gender pronouns (which is more a transgender issue, really) but we just don't have content at present representing any particularly strong views on women that we could move into your proposed section, meaning we would need to carefully consider it wholecloth. I'm not in support or opposed; this is not a topic which I have previously heard associated with Peterson, though I should not be terribly surprised if he is antagonistic to some elements of contemporary feminism, knowing his views on related issues. We would certainly need to see the sources and proposed content before making a call though. Snow ^{let's rap} 23:52, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm thinking of, among other things, his comments on equal pay and sexual assault in various media. I might put some RSes together. CartoonDiablo (talk) 00:14, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, sounds feasible, but just be careful of WP:SYNTH; we don't want to string together a number of comments on related topics in such a way that we seem to be making a claim about his views (that they are misogynistic or antagonistic to women's issues, for example) unless reliable sources actually connect those dots themselves and make such a statement. I wouldn't be surprised if there are some sources that do just that out there somewhere, but if it turns out that we can't find them, I expect any such section will be opposed as POV pushing. Honestly, it could be an uphill slog regardless, but I don't want to pass judgement until I see what you find. Snow ^{let's rap} 02:45, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

• See above at Talk:Jordan_Peterson#Revert:_section_11 for my intitial shot at that. Jytdog (talk) 03:00, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Well honestly I can see why that was reverted--you kind of set yourself up for it by framing the whole paragraph with that first sentence; that's just not the sort of thing we can say in Wikipedia's voice, but rather has to be attributed to someone. That said, the references you employed in that section would be useful to CD's revived effort at something similar here, particularly the Naureen Shameem source. I also think that comment regarding the Toronto incel mass-murderer is fruitful for retention; I think it speaks volumes about the subject's perspectives without our needing to insert ourselves via editorializing. It's always useful when BLP subjects provide their own words to frame themselves in a way that we would want to represent but would struggle to accomplish under policies regarding synthesis. Snow ^{let's rap} 03:52, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

I'd wonder if the section should be limited to feminism and women, or should we have a broader section on his ideas of gender and gender roles. --Kyohyi (talk) 15:43, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

That could work too, it would just be a matter of separating his critiques of postmodernism etc. as a mode of politics from the content of his thoughts on gender by itself. CartoonDiablo (talk) 21:50, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not saying it couldn't work under any circumstances, but I think we need to be careful here and not conduct "WP:OR by section header", if you follow my meaning. Organizing disparate isolated comments together under the header of "views on gender" if we don't have a single source noting that he has views on gender could be interpreted as WP:synthesis. I mean, it could just be that the man throws haymakers at anything that resembles a conservative bugbear. Or it could very well be that he has expressed strong views on gender which he is becoming a consistent proponent for. We have to choose the way we frame his comments in a manner that is consistent with the WP:weight of what is said explicitly in the sources (which in this case would ideally be independent WP:Secondary sources)--not with any editorial narrative in which we ourselves connect the dots (mostly from primary statements) and arrive at our own conclusions as to what all of these various comments mean about the man as an individual and a public figure, and how we can label his beliefs. I'm still waiting to see a list of proposed sources. I think, from a policy inquiry perspective, it is putting the cart before the horse to decide what the content should look like and then ask what sources can we use to support this description. We should rather look first at the sources and ask, what are they saying? So, what are our sources here? Snow ^{let's rap} 09:49, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Agree, that's basic editing principle. Would add that the talk page is not WP:FORUM and the discussions should be about specific content. Perhaps merge this as a sub-section of discussion "Revert: section 11". --Miki Filigranski (talk) 10:07, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Meh, I favour leaving the discussion here; the discussion is likely to get cluttered again soon enough, without our first smashing two threads together. As to WP:FORUM, I don't think I've seen anyone say anything yet that gets anywhere near that off-topic. In order to debate what are likely to be very nuanced editorial decisions, some degree of discussion of the record of the man's statements will be necessary. So long as as the ultimate content itself reflects only the perspectives of the sources, and not our own, that's what I think is most important. Snow ^{let's rap} 10:24, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I believe there's quite a bit of WP:PRIMARY material on Peterson's view of radical feminism, but it's a topic he certainly does throw haymakers on. Here's one such haymaker from his twitter [8] in which he claims radical feminism is Marxism "in disguise". He's also echoed the (right-leaning) claim that feminists don't criticize Islam (I'm not sure why he believes this) out of a secret desire to be dominated [9]. I'm sure there's WP:Secondary discussion of these tweets. Here's a Vox world news article from this year which includes discussion of his views on feminism: [10] (it discusses the Islam tweet and others). Here's a more general source from the Irish Times which could create a good lead to a section on feminism and women [11]. Here's a slightly WP:PRIMARY transcript of his Cathy Newman interview presented by The Atlantic (although I believe the original interview was done by Channel 4), in which he states that Radical Feminists are wrong on the wage gap [12]. It seems his arguments rest on what he perceives as a feminist push for "equality of outcome"... which explains why he believes radical feminism is a form of Marxism. As perverse and ridiculous as I myself find that understanding of those two discourses, I can see his "logic" (going from a low level understanding that Marxism = equality in all things, to seeing "equality of outcome" = Marxism). The question is; what onus do we have on us to point out that feminism is generally about equality of opportunity, not forcing some "equality of outcome"? Frankly I don't see feminists, per se, looking for "equality of outcome" - I think that's more a bureaucratic response to feminism. At any rate, the material regarding Jordan Peterson's controversial views on feminism and women's liberation is out there awaiting documentation. --Jobrot (talk) 17:29, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

This video gives a generalized background of Peterson's view of the world (from the horses mouth). --Jobrot (talk) 17:47, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

The topics covered in a section on feminism would be better covered by a stand alone section on Identity Politics DirkDouse (talk) 00:48, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Enforced Monogamy

Why does the phrase "Enforced Monogamy" redirect to the Jordan Peterson article? Esp. when it isn't mentioned in the article. Fredo699 (talk) 13:16, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't anymore; I deleted it.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:23, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Author

In light of Maps of Meaning and 12 Rules for Life, I propose adding to the opening sentence:

Jordan Bernt Peterson (born June 12, 1962) is a Canadian clinical psychologist, author and a professor of psychology at the University of Toronto.

Also he's in Category:Canadian non-fiction writers.--45.72.201.251 (talk) 01:48, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I tend to feel that adding 'author' to the lead sentence would be just a tad too WP:UNDUE. As a general rule, we only add the most central professional roles to the lead sentence. Peterson's books are certainly an important extension of his theories as an academic, but I do believe they are a secondary aspect of his notability. And the books are mentioned prominently in the lead, so their contribution to his notability is recognized early. Snow ^{let's rap} 02:50, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

First being an academic book, and only the second arguably making him an author, it's too recent to generally describe him so.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 10:37, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Teaching question

I use wikipedia a lot, mostly for general information before digging deeper. While reading this page I noticed something that I thought should be addressed. Though the professor has stopped giving lectures and teaching at a university, he still teaches using more modern methods. I thought this was a nitpicking misnomer.

Thank you ClintonB89 (talk) 22:57, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Youtube channel

I think there should be something a box about his Youtube channel. How many subs and things of the sort. I also think his YouTube Channel should have it's own a Wikipedia page. Throwing the conversation let's see your thoughts.Filmman3000 (talk) 15:45, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Climate change

Two editors have removed a short paragraph on Peterson's climate change skepticism.[13] The content is sourced to the Financial Times, Sydney Morning Herald and the London Review of Books, all of which are WP:RS. The content is also covered by Peterson in his own writings. There is sufficient sourcing for WP:DUE, and the content also fits into a broader theme of skepticism towards academia and concern that academics are causing harm to students and society. The content therefore fleshes out his views in a way that helps readers understand the man and his views. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:33, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

One paragraph in the Financial Times, one individual sentence in passing in the Sydney Morning Herald, and one individual sentence in passing from a blog on the London Review of books, does not make WP:DUE weight. If we're taking what he's self published on the topic into consideration, we should be comparing that to his full collection to determine it's weight. --Kyohyi (talk) 17:11, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

No, we don't need to understand the context or watch a 5 hour lecture to have a decision on this. It's easy to trust the 3 reliable sources we have here - it isn't undue to chuck a paragraph in on it. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:41, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Context is crucial for WP:NPOV. I don't agree for the inclusion of this info which is not related to the section's topic. So-called skepticism towards academic and political correctness, as well as relating climate change and environmentalism&depression, is WP:SYNTH.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 08:09, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

If that's your genuine concern, then the section "Critiques of political correctness" can simply be re-named "Critiques of academia and political correctness", because that's what the section is more about. The accusation of WP:SYNTH is false, as the text fully adheres to the cited sources. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:30, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

No it cannot. Where in the RS the relation is not SYNTH?--Miki Filigranski (talk) 10:40, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

He's literally criticizing the field of climate science, says the data in the field is unreliable due to "too much ideology" and argues that students are being harmed by the teachings of environmentalists. It falls perfectly under both a section titled "Critiques of political correctness" and an alternative section titled "Critiques of academia and political correctness". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:45, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't fit perfectly. The RS can be eventually used to reference the intro sentence of the section where is mentioned environmentalism.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 00:35, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Please elaborate on what you're trying to say. Are you saying that we're not allowed to cover Peterson's views on climate science, even though they are covered by several RS, except to briefly and misleadingly say "Peterson's critiques of political correctness range over issues such as... environmentalism"? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:27, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

How is that misleading? Did he make some remarks, which are really minor views compared to his other viewpoints, or not about environmentalism?--Miki Filigranski (talk) 07:44, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

It's misleading, because it does not flesh out his actual views, which is that climate data is unreliable, that he doubts the scientific consensus on climate change, and that he believes without evidence that students are being harmed by environmentalists. Criticizing "political correctness" among environmentalists could be everything from opposing radical environmentalism to denying the scientific consensus on climate change. We do our readers a disservice by not specifying his views. It's like saying "Ken Ham disagrees with political correctness in academia" without specifying that he believes that the Earth is 10,000 years old and that multiple scientific disciplines are engaging in fraud on a massive scale. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:02, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

If the only objection to this content is that it's in the wrong section, it can be moved to a different section. This is a lot better than removing it constantly. PeterTheFourth (talk) 14:46, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm new to this article, but shouldn't there simply be a "Views" section in the article (where 'Postmodernism' is one sub-section)? For instance, I see no mention of "enforced monogamy" or any of his views on more specific political topics (despite his extensive commentary and RS coverage of his commentary). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:53, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Minor views should not be included nor have separate section. Learn how to edit according NPOV and WEIGHT.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 00:35, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Again, this is covered by RS, substantiating that it's WP:DUE. To me, it just sounds like you're whitewashing content that you believe reflects poorly on Peterson. Your desire to keep a sentence that misleadingly says "Peterson's critiques of political correctness range over issues such as... environmentalism", but not content which fleshes out Peterson's actual views on environmentalism and climate science indicates that there's a strange inconsistency. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:27, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

This isn't a 'minor view', we have three reliable sources covering it. Jee whiz. PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:16, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Being covered by RS per se does not make it notable for detailed citing and sub-section. An advice, if you want to get support for your opinion then don't comment other editors per FAITH and PERSONAL.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 07:39, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

@Miki Filigranski: Have you read WP:DUE? PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:57, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

"Jee whiz"? Edit warring with "Yikes, buddy" as an edit summary? Please read WP:EQ. Hrodvarsson (talk) 23:47, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

FreedomGonzo There is no requirement that sources be freely available. See WP:PAYWALL Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:20, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

And even if there were, there are two other sources. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:26, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

it would seem notable to mention that this high profile public intellectual is a climate change skeptic, particularly when he so often defers to scientific 'truth' when it suits his argument. I think we should include this paragraph. Moreover, we need a 'Reception' section that covers the significant commentary critical of Peterson's ideas, there has been plenty in the press etc. in the last 12 months, the majority of it RS, but I don't see it represented in the article. It's unbalanced right now. Acousmana (talk) 17:45, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

The two sections describing his views at the moment are the ones that brought him to prominence and are main points that he delivers in his messaging over the last few years: Bill C-16 controversy and criticism of "Postmodern Neo-Marxism". These are his key talking points and hence is relevant. He is not a climate-change scepticism activist, he made a few comments in passing. It is as relevant as his meat-only diet, controversial trivia. If we want to list some of trivia about Peterson in a separate section, I guess we can. But I see no reason to do it in section that summarises his main points that he as "public intellectual" preaches, because it will misrepresent him as active climate change denier, who is engaged in constant propagation of these views. Clearly not the case: most of his videos and articles are bashing "neo-marxism", "big 5 personality traits", "christianity" and then he retweeted two things about climate change a couple of times and mentioned in interviews. If you want a criticism section, we can have it, but mentioning it as major viewpoint that he brings to the table would be excessive. FreedomGonzo (talk) 07:03, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps Acousmana is right and things like that belong in "Reception" section, but a separate section for just climate change scepticism is excessive, as his meat-diet would be, as they are not the key messages, that he is known for, not even close, as you can see from 99% of articles describing him in any light. Certainly better than "Critism" section, which are, as far as I know, discouraged. FreedomGonzo (talk) 07:07, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

'Reception' would seem adequate, and what's clear is there are two JPs: the academic (who publishes peer reviewed research) and the 'public intellectual' (who riffs on a wide range of "controversial" topics). Let's not confuse the two, but do let's give equal coverage to both. Peterson, having stepped out of academia and onto the public speaking circuit, has said a lot of stuff, publicly, most of which amounts to little more than opinion. None of it should be viewed in the same light as his scholastic output. We cannot avoid the fact that his views, expressed publicly, have resulted in significant press coverage. Dismissing this coverage, and the commentators responsible for it, by saying "it is out of context...they don't understand...they haven't watched the videos" is nonsense. JP said stuff, commentators responded in RS publications, there's enough of this material out there to begin a "Reception" section, without it, the article is unbalanced. Acousmana (talk) 10:41, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I think any "reception" of Peterson's views should be integrated into sections about those views, not split off into a separate section. As WP:CRITS states: "... sections within an article dedicated to negative criticisms are normally discouraged. Topical or thematic sections are frequently superior to sections devoted to criticism." Also "reception" doesn't sound right. Peterson isn't a TV series. And I agree with FreedomGonzo that climate change is so far down on Peterson's list of favoured topics, and so far outside his areas of expertise, that it is probably not worth covering here. - HappyWaldo (talk) 10:58, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

First of all, my client never borrowed the vase. And the vase was broken before they borrowed it. And when they returned the vase, the vase was in perfect condition. As you can see, there is no way my client could have broken the vase. PeterTheFourth (talk) 11:02, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I'll try clean it up for you. "Criticism of Peterson's views should be included in sections about those views, per WP:CRITS. Given how rarely Peterson mentions climate change, it probably deserves one sentence at best, per WP:DUE." HappyWaldo (talk) 11:18, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

"Also 'reception' doesn't sound right." Really, contrast and compare with another academic who became a "public intellectual" and has strong sociopolitical views (Noam Chomsky). A "Reception and Influence" section wouldn't be out of place here also (not that Peterson's academic career compares to Chomsky's, it doesn't; Peterson is famous for his public engagement activities, not his scholarship). Acousmana (talk) 11:42, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• BTW WP:CRITS is an essay, it's not policy. But if you do want to follow its advice it clearly says, for example "if a politician received significant criticism about their public behavior, create a section entitled "Public behavior" and include all information – positive and negative – within that section." Seems pretty clear. Also, "alternative section titles which avoid a negative connotation include "Reception", "Reviews", "Responses", "Reactions", "Critiques", and "Assessments". Again, pretty clear, so not sure why we are avoiding what the essay tells up to do. Acousmana (talk) 11:51, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Chomsky has a reception section. Christopher Hitchens doesn't. WP:Other stuff exists. I'm just saying in this case, it would be better to address criticism of his views in sections about those views. This is also a length issue. Why two sections when one would suffice? - HappyWaldo (talk) 11:57, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Sure, other stuff exists, but you are also citing an essay like it's a guideline while at the same misinterpreting it; not to mention pretending same doesn't offer the word 'reception' as an perfectly acceptable section title. Sorry, you argument just doesn't stack up. Acousmana (talk) 12:04, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

WP:CRITS , "Often the best approach to incorporating negative criticism into the encyclopedia is to integrate it into the article, in a way that does not disrupt the article's flow. The article should be divided into sections based on topics, timeline, or theme – not viewpoint. Negative criticism should be interwoven throughout the topical or thematic sections." There's nothing to misinterpret here. If anything, you misinterpreted the example about the politician's "public behaviour", which would be for anything unbecoming and potentially career-threatening. - HappyWaldo (talk) 12:32, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Pal, it's an essay. If we're going to continually refer to things other people wrote to back up our argument, could it be Wikipedia's policies and guidelines?PeterTheFourth (talk) 12:46, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

There is no policy or guideline against referring to essays during discussions. WP:ESSAY encourages the practice if it helps editors better understand certain positions and arguments. - HappyWaldo (talk) 14:02, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

You're linking to an essay about essays to support yourself, but you're yet to actually explain why we can't use content from reliable sources in the article. PeterTheFourth (talk) 14:38, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

An essay WP:POLICIES encourages us to read. And there are reliable sources covering Peterson's views on a wide range of topics. The guy probably has thousands of hours of livestreams and interviews at this point, so he's bound to touch on climate change and other stuff. Do we include it all, or do we give due weight? If Peterson actually did a lecture devoted to climate change, then that would be worth mentioning. - HappyWaldo (talk) 14:54, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Simple: We include the stuff that has RS coverage. "If Peterson actually did a lecture devoted to climate change, then that would be worth mentioning." That's absolutely not how this works. If Peterson does or say something that receives RS coverage, we include it. This whole discussion is absurd anyway, because the Peterson article currently contains vague critiques of environmentalism and academia, so his views on climate science absolutely fits within the broader themes that are already in the article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:03, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

So then we need to include all other trivia about his views and lifestyle supported by RS: his meat-only diet, the collection of soviet-era propaganda posters, his daughter's health problems, him being honorable member of native american tribe, how many other little things we need to cover, just because they have RS? He said and done a lot of stuff over 56 years of life and much of it covered by RS. Do we add it all now and throw in the kitchen sink for that matter? FreedomGonzo (talk) 15:10, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

The article already includes mention of his meat-only diet and his collection of soviet-era propaganda, as they should in his 'personal life' section. I see no RS coverage of him being a honorary member of a Native American tribe, but I see no reason why that can't be included in his 'personal life' section. I'm not aware of RS coverage of his daughters' health problems, but if RS report that his daughter has had serious health problems, I don't see any reason why a sentence can't be included on that in his 'personal life' section (though there may be restrictive Wikipedia rules specifically on family members that I'm not aware of). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:19, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and none of these points have a separate section and they shouldn't have, since they are minor. So is his climate change scepticism. Unless, it's from a perspective of climate change activist, that uses Wikipedia to promote a certain agenda and sees this as major point everywhere, no matter the person, their background or key areas of interest. But I am not assuming you're one of those, no bad faith assumptions on my part. I am sure it's just a misunderstanding. FreedomGonzo (talk) 15:34, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm arguing that it deserves inclusion per WP:DUE and WP:RS. You have provided zero arguments based in Wikipedia policy for why the content should be excluded, except your own arbitrary and irrelevant assessments of what's notable and what's not. This makes your thinly veiled accusations of bias and bad faith even more absurd. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:41, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I am not arguing the content should be excluded. I am arguing it doesn't deserve a separate subsection, as per WP:COATRACK and WP:KITCHENSINK. FreedomGonzo (talk) 16:04, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

If that was your genuine concern, why not add it to a more appropriate section then? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:07, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I would happily do that, but the article is locked from editing. I can not do it at the moment. I would add it to the bottom of the first section of "Critiques of political correctness" before the "Postmodernism and identity politics" section. And would shorten it too. FreedomGonzo (talk) 16:16, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

"Often the best approach to incorporating negative criticism..." But why are you characterizing what intelligent commentators have written, in RS publications, as "negative criticism"? So, informed critical responses to sociopolitical opinions should automatically be viewed as "negative"? JP right, everyone else wrong? Is that what this boils down to? Acousmana (talk) 13:10, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

"JP right, everyone else wrong?" JP's views, other people's views. Or, WP:NPOV. I really don't follow your point about "negative criticism". - HappyWaldo (talk) 14:02, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

criticism has different forms, it's not automatically "negative," Peterson postulates, others respond, hence "reception," couldn't be any simpler really, it's people engaging in a logico-deductive process. Acousmana (talk) 14:30, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Alright. Having finished this detour, I'll say again that a section devoted to criticism, reception, whatever, is unnecessary, and climate change is very much a peripheral issue for Peterson, therefore worth a sentence at best. - HappyWaldo (talk) 14:39, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm confused about where this discussion is heading. This discussion is supposed to be about Peterson's views on climate science and climate change, yet editors are now debating whether the Peterson article should include a 'reception' or 'criticism' section. Start a separate discussion on that. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:06, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion is as to wether his views on climate change are relevant enough to deserve a whole section and so far no policy-based argument has been made to support a position that it is due weight. One suggestion was to add such esoteric claims of his, that are not central to his key messages in a separate section, but bunch a lot of them together, rather than give undue weight to every single one. That's how the idea of "reception" section came about. Please read the discussion more carefully next time. FreedomGonzo (talk) 15:14, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for that condescending response. A 'reception' section has absolutely zero to do with Peterson's views on climate science, which is why the whole discussion is absurd. There is no "reception" of anything. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:24, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I see nothing condescending in my response, please do not assume bad faith where there is none. So remind me why his views on climate change suddenly deserve a whole section, if they are essentially mentioned in passing a couple of times in a few interviews, plus few RS? Is he a climate denial activist? No proof of that. He expresses a lot of views, why this one is singled out for a whole section? Bill C-16 understandable, his main talking point. "Postmodern Neomarxism" understandable, another major talking point. Big 5 personality traits: another thing he is prominent for. Why suddenly climate change? My point remains, it should be a passing point, a one liner in one of the section. But please inform why it suddenly deserves a whole section all of a sudden? FreedomGonzo (talk) 15:30, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

It should be in the sub-section "climate change" or "climate science" under "Critiques of postmodernism" (which can alternatively and more appropriately just be named "Views"). There's nothing wrong with having four sentences under a sub-section. Again, this is reported by RS, which flies in the face of your own arbitrary and meaningless view of what's "notable" about Peterson's views. This furthermore fits perfectly within Peterson's broader themes criticizing environmentalism and academia, and fleshes out precisely what he means. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:38, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

"your own arbitrary and meaningless view", now that is actual evidence of condescending response, not just empty accusation. Please remain civil on talk pages as per WP:Civility. He is critic of PARTS of academia to an extent (even though he himself is part of academia and interviews many academic he agrees with, so "criticising academia" is unnecessarily broad statement), but not environmentalism, in fact he has multiple times supported, different environmentalist campaigns, including creating one himself: https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/manage-canada-s-oceans-honestly#/ , there are also many tweets and interview qoutes of his, where he is very concerned about state of environment, oceans in partiuclar. I am not sure what flies in the face of what, if you look at the amount of RS overall, this is a minor point in passing, comparing to what he is clearly known for in the press, which are clearly: Bill 16 controversy, critic of left-wing academics, psychology of personality. Please explain, how his few one liners on climate change is relevant enough to change a whole section to views and make it a subsection. It is not what he is known for and is as important as his meat-eating diet. FreedomGonzo (talk) 15:54, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Hey, I can do WP:OR too: JP the environmentalist[14]. Note though that I would of course never throw OR into an article or argue that reliably sourced content should be scrubbed because of my own pointless views about what's notable and what isn't. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:03, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, twitter OR can be done forever both ways: Peterson the ocean saver[15] and I am not including it in the article and not intending to. What I am saying that a whole new subsection devoted to this point is WP:COATRACK and WP:KITCHENSINK. The onus is on you to prove why this suddenly deserves a whole new subsection, since you're adding this. FreedomGonzo (talk) 16:10, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support removal. As other editors have pointed out, his comments on climate change/global warming are in passing and do not deserve a section. Doing so would be a vio of WP:UNDUE. Attempting to put those snippets together to create the appearance of WP:DUE would be a vio of WP:OR as well as WP:SYNTH. And FreedomGonzo is correct about WP:COATRACK as well as WP:KITCHENSINK. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:14, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• Everyone, meet Winkelvi, who has been stalking me to a half-dozen Wikipedia articles that he has never edited before in the last few days only to interject on behalf of whomever I'm having content disputes with. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:29, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

WP:AGF again and again. So what about that coatrack and kitchen sink? FreedomGonzo (talk) 16:44, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Read WP:COATRACK, it has absolutely nothing to do with anything that's discussed here. You're not applying WP:KITCHENSINK accurately, as the content in question is substantiated and covered by multiple RS, meeting the requirements of WP:DUE. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:48, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

WP:COATRACK has everything to do with the add discussed here and I qoute from the policy page: "A Journalist Mentioned It in Passing. Amanda Pubilchep is a journalist. One day she wrote an article about Conspiracy Theory X. The main points of Conspiracy Theory X are as follows... followed by paragraph after paragraph about the conspiracy theory." This is clearly that case. As for WP:DUE, it is certainly NOT due weight, as been mentioned before: of the sources used, the blog, and the Sydney morning herald have one sentence on the topic each, and the financial times has a paragraph, while the coverage of Jordan Peterson is hundreds if not thousands of articles, many of them RS, that never mention his position on climate change (which you tried to pretend is somehow my "meaningless" personal assesment). So it is not only undue, it's actually WP:SYNTH that you are trying to do here. FreedomGonzo (talk) 17:19, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

If you seriously can't understand what that quote is saying, I'm not sure there's any point trying to continue this discussion. The concerns about three reliable sources being insufficient is particularly absurd, given that the sources very simply just quote JP and his publications, and given that JP article currently features a considerable amount of text that is sourced to non-RS. Sourcing JP himself and fringe websites that traffic in falsehoods is perfectly fine in terms of WP:DUE and WP:RS, but multiple RS that quote JP and his publications are not? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:41, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I could very easily find multiple RS that mention Peterson's views on abortion. Does that mean it's worth covering in detail here? No, because it's not WP:DUE. He's not known as an abortion activist, because he rarely mentions it. And he's not a player in the climate change debate, because he rarely mentions it. - HappyWaldo (talk) 22:24, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I just googled "Jordan Peterson" and "abortion", and did not find a single RS about Peterson's views on abortion in the first five pages of search results. The claim that he rarely mentions climate change is incorrect, as shown by RS citing his writings on climate change (see RS in our dispute) and Peterson himself repeatedly promoting climate change denial content[16]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:32, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Climate change is exceedingly rare, in proportion to many other topics. That's our point. Also it's pretty funny that you'd cite Rationalwiki while demanding RS. - HappyWaldo (talk) 23:02, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

At no point have I tried to insert RationalWiki as a source in Peterson's article. I cited its collection of JP climate change denial tweets here on this talk page to contradict your claim that JP rarely mentions climate change. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:27, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Even Rationalwiki notes the "RTs not an endorsement" disclaimer. And that's all it is, a handful of retweets amongst thousands about psychology, mythology, politics etc etc. - HappyWaldo (talk) 23:51, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Jordan Peterson, earlier today[17]: "Even the stalwart Economist is becoming politically correct" and retweeting a climate change denier who is criticizing the Economist for running a front page about climate change and wildfires. And there are editors here who argue that Peterson's views on climate change do not fall under "critiques of political correctness"... Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:32, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Keep References to Climate Change Denial it's important to inform people that a notable public intellectual with a large following doubts the scientifc consensus on climate change due to his belief that the field is biased. Addtionaly the lead should contain information that his attacks on C-16 are not substansiated with legal or actual implementation ie that they were false. Zubin12 (talk) 00:12, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Peterson almost never mentions climate change, I would consider his views on this topic trivia, not a part of his work and certainly not deserving of an entire section. He occasionally expresses a distaste for those radical environmentalists that view humanity as a "cancer upon the earth"[18], but it is the misanthropy he is objecting to, not the environmentalism. 118.209.143.15 (talk) 02:42, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

It might be more accurate to say that Peterson is opposed to radical environmentalism rather than environmentalism per se or of climate change science or activism. He, for example, once cited a teenager's plan to remove a large amount of plastic from the ocean as an example of positive and useful activism. He also believes that Elon Musk and his efforts to reduce carbon emissions are positive and to be supported. His criticism of radical environmentalists is primarily that they overestimate the imminence of the threat, not that the threat is nonexistent. He has said that since we've only known about it for 50 years that we should be proud of our progress and that innovation and creativity will be capable of dealing with it. (JakeTheKing42 (talk) 06:58, 6 August 2018 (UTC))

Where can those examples be found, JakeTheKing42 - do you have links? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:01, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

https://youtube.com/xfZZLSWbY3g Not sure if this link works but it's his video on overpopulation. (JakeTheKing42 (talk) 15:35, 7 August 2018 (UTC))

• Include views on climate change. They have received significant coverage, most recently here. His Twitter history certainly suggests that he endorses the views of the "climate change skeptics" despite the disclaimer. And by the way, the argument that FT should not be cited just because it is behind a paywall is utterly bogus. See WP:SOURCEACCESS. FT is one of the most reliable and objective newspapers there is and can be cited anywhere on wikipedia. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:58, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

@PeterTheFourth: do not make WP:POINT revert when there is still no consensus and the dispute is on-going.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 17:52, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

@Miki Filigranski: What does my reintroduction of the material have to do with WP:POINT? PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:37, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Everything - the discussion did not finish, there's no obvious consensus for the inclusion, and there's no patience for respect of WP:BRD. Hence the disputed section will be removed until the issue is settled.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 21:47, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

@Zubin12: your revert of re-inclusion brought the inclusion to the point of being disruptive - WP:BRD process did not finish nor there's any obvious WP:CONSENSUS as claimed in the edit summary. I call out the administrators to remove the section "Climate change" until the dispute is settled properly, without constant pushing by few editors (who are basically WP:GAMING due to 1RR) with whom others do not agree as shown in the discussion.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 19:56, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Climate change quote

In the climate change section is this sentence:

He has also said, "You can't trust the data because too much ideology is involved."[109]

The citation is:

Callaghan, Greg (2018-04-20). "Right-winger? Not me, says alt-right darling Jordan Peterson". The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved 2018-08-02.

The quote appears, unreferenced, in a "call out" box in the middle of the article. The author of the newspaper article did not interview Peterson, so it is not clear where the quote originated. I searched Google for the quote but found only the Sydney Morning Herald article or references to it. IMHO, we should remove the above sentence unless someone can find a reliable source for the quote. Simply because it is in a newspaper article, does not mean the quote is reliable, particularly given the editorial nature of the article and the fact that the article does not indicate the source for the quote.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 03:33, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

The Sydney Morning Herald is a reliable source. We do not 'fact check' our sources. This is WP:OR. PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:59, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

It's odd that the "call out" boxes in this article aren't highlights from the article itself, but are taken from other sources. The other "call out" boxes state their sources, but this one doesn't. It would be preferable if the original source could be found. Jonpatterns (talk) 12:03, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I understand the rationale for not trying to fact check every reliable source we cite. At the same time, with a highly controversial article like this one, common sense would suggest that we not cite a patently one-sided editorial piece that does not provide a citation for the quote. The quote is probably available somewhere, most likely in a YouTube video, and IMHO it would be better to omit the quote until we find its origin, i.e., a truly reliable source. Parenthetically, I should perhaps note that I disagree with Peterson regarding the causes of climate change and the actions we should take, and I fear that his statements will, along with many other people's skepticism or denial, slow progress toward cleaning our atmosphere and cause irreparable harm.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 15:09, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

What makes you think the Sydney Morning Herald is one-sided and not 'truly' reliable? Would you like to take it to our noticeboard for reliable sources? PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:22, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Question: Cite blog post or YouTube video?

I had removed this sentence:

On the topic of climate change, Peterson has said he is "very sceptical of the models that are used to predict climate change."[109]

explaining, "The reference is a blog post that includes the quote but without any indication of the origin of the quote. Thus, it is an unsourced, secondary reference."

@Snooganssnoogans: reverted my edit, explaining, "it's from this interview, time 30:47: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OD-VCRNIp-U".

Naturally, I have no problem including the quote since anyone can watch & listen to the video and witness Peterson making the statement.

My question has to do with what we cite. Shouldn't we cite the video instead of an editorial blog post?   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 14:59, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

We can cite both, but my philosophy is that all content should be sourced to a secondary RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:24, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

'however he has never denied that climate change is caused by human activity'

Could we get a quick whip round consensus on removing this so an edit request can be made? It doesn't appear to be supported by reliable sources, and is a pretty ridiculous inclusion by an IP who doesn't understand that the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence when it comes to sourcing. PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:50, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Support clearly WP:OR per the edit summary Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:01, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Ah, this has just been done. Thanks Audacity! PeterTheFourth (talk) 10:21, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Wigan Pier

The current text says Peterson 'grew disenchanted with the [NDP] due to what Orwell diagnosed in The Road to Wigan Pier as a preponderance of "the intellectual, tweed-wearing middle-class socialist" who "didn't like the poor; they just hated the rich".[19][20]' The phrasing implies that it is a direct quote from Orwell. I suggest changing it to: Peterson 'grew disenchanted with the party due to what he said Orwell diagnosed in The Road to Wigan Pier. “Orwell did a political-psychological analysis of the motivations of the intellectual, tweed-wearing middle-class socialist and concluded that people like that didn’t like the poor; they just hated the rich.”' TFD (talk) 17:00, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Canvassing on this page

Post has been deleted

See here - https://www.reddit.com/r/JordanPeterson/comments/94tvyg/jordans_wikipedia_page_is_about_to_be_subverted/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.37.149 (talk) archive --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:11, 5 August 2018 (UTC) This might need to be posted on the administrator's noticeboard. Thank you for finding and posting this. Gatemansgc (TɅ̊LK) 21:12, 5 August 2018 (UTC) IP sockpuppetry on this page. IP sock 86.26.37.149, if this is really important to you, please sign in with your Wikipedia account and make the same claim ethically and transparently. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 21:14, 5 August 2018 (UTC) @Winkelvi: I'm 100% willing to endorse the claim, and I'm logged in if that helps. I followed the link and there is a reddit user called 'FreedomGonzo2' that is asking users to come to this page and join him in his efforts to not mention Peterson's unorthodox views on climate change. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:27, 5 August 2018 (UTC) Were you the IP, Peter? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 21:29, 5 August 2018 (UTC) No, I am the IP and FWIW a different person, just don't want to be doxxed by alt-right redditors if at all possible. I am not voting or editing so no forms of socks here, just posting a link, the contents of which you can judge for yourself. 86.26.37.149 (talk) 21:34, 5 August 2018 (UTC) @Winkelvi: Nope! Is it required that I be for you to listen, or is this about your vendetta against Snoogans? PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:32, 5 August 2018 (UTC) What does Snooganssnoogans have to do with this? I never mentioned him or implied anything about him - what, precisely, are you trying to say? (and for the record, I have no vendetta against him - what a strange remark and connection you've made). -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 21:34, 5 August 2018 (UTC) Have a look at this edit. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:37, 5 August 2018 (UTC) @Winkelvi: It turns out I can read. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:39, 5 August 2018 (UTC) Still not seeing the connection. Seems like you're making a mountain out of a molehill that doesn't even exist. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 21:44, 5 August 2018 (UTC) So are FreedomGonzo and Winkelvi the same person? The text from that edit is in the reddit post. Amazing stuff. 86.26.37.149 (talk) 21:41, 5 August 2018 (UTC) The edit was done by Snoogans himself on his own talk page based on my reddit post and assuming, I am talking about him. It is clearly added to the talk page later, than the reddit post is posted. The fact that somebody assumes, I am talking about them on reddit and proudly posts it on their talk page, where a lot such materials are posted, just proves my point: this is an extremely biased account and many people confirmed that before. Are you Snoggans refusing to log in and sock puppeting? You seem to defend that account quite a lot without logging in. FreedomGonzo (talk) 01:22, 6 August 2018 (UTC) That's so ridiculous it doesn't even deserve a blink. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 21:44, 5 August 2018 (UTC) Here they go by FreedomGonzo. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:32, 5 August 2018 (UTC) Yes, I invited Peterson fans, that are Wikipedia editors and happen to be on reddit page to join the conversation. Here is what I wrote in the post: "If you want to contribute, learn the policies and use wikipedia policies to justify reverting their slanderous edits. Currently the page is very objective, but it won't stay like that for long, since these people are veteran wikipedia editors and they know, what they are doing. If you want to contribute to the cause: now is the time!", which is nowhere near request for "doxxing" or "join in him in effort not to mention Peterson's unorthodox views", I want those on his reddit page who are Wikipedia editors to join the conversation. No I am not Winkelvi and not connected to the account. Calling every person on Jordan Peterson's reddit "alt-right doxxers", all 74,000 of them, reveals PeterTheFourth bias and confirms my concerns from the reddit post 100%. All I am doing in the reddit post is asking other editors to join the conversation and fight bias from editors, that clearly have political agenda and want to use wikipedia for slander. Nowhere in the post is request for doxxing or subverting the page. In fact I clearly discourage any kind of trolling or brigading in my post. I am not hiding that I posted the request to join the conversation on reddit, if I would had an intention to hide something, I would be as anonymous as the IP that started this section, who obviously doesn't want to login to reveal his identity on Wikipedia. I am using the same nickname on both platform, as I have nothing to hide with this situation. FreedomGonzo (talk) 01:08, 6 August 2018 (UTC) unfortunately, the truth of the matter is that what you did is engage in partisan and biased canvassing in an effort to create a politicised battleground. In your reddit statement you openly disparage consensus building, one of the cornerstone of creating informative articles. I fail to see how any of this serves Wikipedia's aims. Acousmana (talk) 11:11, 6 August 2018 (UTC) FreedomGonzo you should perhaps learn Wikipedia's policies and guidelines yourself. Particularly WP:FACTION, WP:CANVAS, WP:GF and WP:NOTFACTIONS. --Jobrot (talk) 13:12, 6 August 2018 (UTC) Btw, my reddit post can PERHAPS be seen as canvassing, should you want to see it in negative light, but certainly not meat puppetry: I am not hiding in any way and using the same nickname on both platforms and both platforms are open. I am inviting people from the group to join the conversation and fight unreasonable bias following wikipedia policy to the letter, but I am not inviting any doxxing or trolling, in fact I clearly discourage that in the post, warning that it is against Wikipedia policies. FreedomGonzo (talk) 01:43, 6 August 2018 (UTC) I read FreedomGonzo's post on r/JordanPeterson. In fact, his post on Reddit prompted me to read this Talk page. I am glad he alerted me to this controversy so that I can follow the dialogue and chime in if I feel I have something helpful to add. I was impressed with FreedomGonzo's emphasis in his Reddit post on learning and respecting Wikipedia policies and procedures, e.g., "... engage on the talk page, following all Wikipedia Policies in a very polite way ...."   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 06:52, 6 August 2018 (UTC) The aforementioned policies (WP:FACTION, WP:CANVAS, WP:GF and WP:NOTFACTIONS) are designed to prevent the invitation of divisive and biased editing/groups... and given that your reddit post is titled "Jordan's Wikipedia page is about to be subverted by leftists and we can stop it!" I don't think you can make the case that your canvassing was non-political. It's a completely biased and politically motivated attempt to violate Wikipedia policy, and a ridiculous move in terms of your own credibility. The fact that you're STILL talking about inviting people to 'join the fight' (hello WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND) reaffirms that you still don't understand this very basic matter of Wikipedia policy: We're not here to fight. We're here to protect the journalistic, editorial and factual nature of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. This may mean reflecting Jordan Peterson's genuine viewpoints on controversial issues as best we can (using reliable and neutral sources). --Jobrot (talk) 13:41, 6 August 2018 (UTC) If some be concerned with meat puppetry, they can certainly report this to Wikipedia for investigation. The decision of Wikipedia will be the final judgement on this issue. However, to talk in a demeaning way to a suspect, not the convicted, is hostile if not uncivilized, as every human beings are presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. The issue should be calmly handled according to rules, rather than waging a self-righteous lynching. Zheng18552 (talk) 01:55, 6 August 2018 (UTC) "Innocent Before Proven Guilty" is a legal standard used in certain justice system rather than some sort of the universal moral rule. It's ridiculous to state that it should be applied universally. I mean the tone of discussion in the talk page has probably gotten too hostile but to act as if it's some great indignity for a fairly obvious violater of the rules to be talked badly about is ridiculous. Zubin12 (talk) 01:57, 6 August 2018 (UTC) I respectfully disagree. Neither my view or anyone else's view has any authority upon this issue. To act as if the issue solely depends on one's view, is self-righteous, when there is a clear guidance and reporting mechanism dedicated by Wikipedia. Whatever clear to one, may be perfectly arguable to others. The civilized way is wait for the result of investigation, rather than launching lynching, however tempting it may be. Zheng18552 (talk) 02:06, 6 August 2018 (UTC) Rule must be respected. In the meanwhile, I do disagree that "Innocent Before Proven Guilty" should not be universally applied. To conduct lynching, despite clear authority and reporting mechanism, can be dangerously abusive. One simply must be patient and civilized, in controversial matters. Zheng18552 (talk) 02:10, 6 August 2018 (UTC) To compare mean words on a wiki talk-page with Lynchings, a tool used for almost 2 centuries to maintain white supremacy in america and is still used to this day to persecute minorities is ridiculous hyperbole. I agree that the discourse here has gotten to heated, but saying that people are not allowed to discuss or talk about an incident while reporting mechanism exist is just ridiculous. Zubin12 (talk) 02:16, 6 August 2018 (UTC) To compare different things with the aim to sense the logic behind is the method of seeking truth. In this sense, there is no reason why, for instance, Communism cannot be compared with socialism, as done in the book, The Road to Serfdom. The aim is not to equalize but to detect the subtlety if not simply difference. In this sense, I see no reason why lynching cannot be compared with such a hostile environment when the final verdict is not issued yet. The manifestation may be different in forms or degrees, but the spirit is the similar. In this sense, I am very disheartened by this hostile environment, unfortunately built up by reasons obscure to me, as a swing person. Such a hostile environment can be demonstrated by twisting people's words for attacks and lack of love and clam. Even a person who calls for clam and respect towards rules get such treatments. Sigh, I may very well better devote my time to read books, rather than wasting time here, dangerously hostile as it is now. Zheng18552 (talk) 02:34, 6 August 2018 (UTC) Verbosity isn't a virtue, expressing yourself clearly makes you sound smarter than trying to draw out a very simple point. Comparisons can be enlightening but you haven't done that at all. You have just equated them without any explanation or qualification. Means words or a hostile rhetoric on a wiki-page are very different things from a lynching, unless you explain the source of your similarity your simile remains baseless. Annoucing that you don't care about the debate or that is pointless in an attempt to have the last word is an old and shitty debating tactic that just makes look immature. Zubin12 (talk) 05:41, 6 August 2018 (UTC) I've taken this to WP:AN#Editor canvassing at Reddit to recruit editors for the Jordan Peterson article - we are being plagued with organised off-wiki editing to too many articles. Doug Weller talk 14:09, 6 August 2018 (UTC) I think you mean WP:ANI#Editor canvassing at Reddit to recruit editors for the Jordan Peterson article --Kyohyi (talk) 14:23, 6 August 2018 (UTC) Whoever did this, please don't do it in the future. The last thing we need is having and calling-out for possible or imaginative ideological polarization on Wikipedia. There already were various attempts for the inclusion of minor third-party viewpoints on Peterson or cherry-picking his statements to make some SYNTH narrative, and for now, we managed to deal fairly easily with such things because the Wikipedian policy is quite straightforward.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 14:45, 6 August 2018 (UTC) It's not canvassing and it's not against policy, folks: See Public requests on external websites. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:05, 6 August 2018 (UTC) WP:EXHELP (the document you're linking to) is a how-to-guide (and one that needs some grammar checking). WP:CANVASSING is a Wikipedia policy guideline. The latter (WP:CANVASSING) trumps the former (WP:EXHELP). Further more, the section of WP:EXHELP you're linking to states: "Websites well suited for such requests are the most relevant subpages on reddit, so called "subreddits", for the specific subject area or Internet forums with own categories for the subject area." [emphasis added] ...and Jordan Peterson is not an academic category of information. Categories are things like; Science, Art, Literature. I say this because WP:EXHELP was written in reference to WP:EXPERT. Your statement It's not canvassing and it's not against policy, folks - is entirely false. WP:EXPERT (and hence WP:EXHELP) is intended to help integrate expert users into the Wikipedia experience, it's not intended to be used as an excuse to violate the WP:CANVASSING policy. In case it still isn't clear WP:CANVASSING (particularly the politically partisan kind we've seen above) is entirely AGAINST Wikipedia policies and standards. --Jobrot (talk) 16:50, 6 August 2018 (UTC) It is canvassing and it is against policy. See Public requests on external websites is specifically about getting subject-matter experts to help, not about finding people likely to agree with you. It also explicitly warns you to ensure that you request doesn't result in WP:Canvassing, which is described as 'notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way' - I can't see any other way that this reddit post could be interpreted. Also worth noting the first line of WP:MEAT - Do not recruit... ...communities of people who agree with you for the purpose of coming to Wikipedia and supporting your side of a debate. None of this is OK.Girth Summit (talk) 17:25, 6 August 2018 (UTC) Agreed. --Jobrot (talk) 17:41, 6 August 2018 (UTC) no two ways about it, this was a concerted effort to foment conflict, and that's something that is antithetical to Wikipedia's values. Acousmana (talk) 17:52, 6 August 2018 (UTC) Whatever it is or isn't, the train already left the station, the horse is already out of the barn. If someone wants to warn FreedomGonzo do it, but can't stop the surf from rolling to this talk page's shore. What's done is done. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 18:59, 6 August 2018 (UTC) So let me get this straight, after claiming that it isn't canvassing and being told by many editors that you are wrong, your next step is to say we should roll over and let it happen? The hell? --Tarage (talk) 21:56, 6 August 2018 (UTC) Tarage: Let what happen - new editors coming to Wikipedia/this article and editing it? Yeah, we should let that happen (no rolling over needed). How are you going to stop them? They set up a legitimate new account, start contributing, and that's a bad thing? Considering the fact that Wikipedia is losing editors in droves, I'd say that's a good thing. Now, all we need to concentrate on here at the 'pedia is keeping the good ones who like editing honestly, like policy, and abide by it. Sounds like a win-win-win to me. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:11, 6 August 2018 (UTC) Your obliviousness is astounding. Don't ping me again. --Tarage (talk) 23:55, 6 August 2018 (UTC) How are you going to stop them? You must be new here. Welcome to Wikipedia! If you see the current page to which this talk page relates, you'll notice the lock icon in the top right hand corner. This icon means the article in question cannot currently be edited. Extending on that, I'll point out that this page (called a TALK PAGE, seeWP:TALK) is for discussions of an editorial nature. Talk pages are not for philosophizing about how Wikipedia works, or should work. They're for discussing changes to the page in question. Finally I'll point out that Wikipedia functions mostly on the reputation of its editors, who work voluntarily. There is no desire (on the part of established editors who know the rules, policies, and guidelines, which I suggest you familiarize yourself with) to have a sudden influx of new editors who are politically motivated, unfamiliar with the policies, and all targetting the one page. That would place an undue burden on established editors (who are already prone to burnout). Anyways, I hope that further clarifies Wikipedia to you. P.S As for editors who wish to violate or manipulate policies such as WP:CANVASSING, or WP:EXHELP, they are doomed to lose a degree of credibility when doing so. We all debate as best we can, but how we debate says a lot about us. It's always best to focus on the spirit and intention of a policy; in order to be seen as an honest editor, and not as a wiki-lawyer trying to twist policy to argument. Argument should bend towards policy, not the other way around. --Jobrot (talk) 01:06, 7 August 2018 (UTC) Posting that was wrongheaded, FreedomGonzo. Encouraging participation in a discussion might be acceptable, but not with such a non-neutral wording. Fortunately the post does not seem to have had much of an effect so far but I ask that you remove it. Also please do not post anything similar to that again. Hrodvarsson (talk) 23:59, 6 August 2018 (UTC) Agreed and seconded, FreedomGonzo would be smart to remove the r/JordanPeterson post, should they want to show their support of Wikipedia and its policies. --Jobrot (talk) 01:06, 7 August 2018 (UTC) Erased the Reddit post per your recommendation. FreedomGonzo (talk) 04:34, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Critique of right wing political correctness

This article focuses mostly on Peterson's well known critiques of left wing political correctness and neglects his condemnation of white nationalism and Nazism.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/08/20/jordan_peterson_if_the_right_degenerates_into_identity_politics_the_left_wins.html

https://youtube.com/jMqQBLZwRIE

It does not neglect as mentions he explored Nazism atrocities for many years, "In regard to identity politics, while "left plays them on behalf of the oppressed, let's say, and the right tends to play them on behalf of nationalism and ethnic pride" he considers them "equally dangerous" and that instead should be emphasized individualism and individual responsibility", as well he is focused on the left-wing PC because that ideology is far more prevalent in academia than right-wing.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 14:32, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

However, the RealClearPolitics source could be used as a reference for a minor expansion of the cited sentence.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 14:55, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I have asked some Canadians.... cuz everyone's talking about American rhetoric. See what some Centrist Canadians have to say. It's amazing how polarizing American politics is with all the labels. --Moxy (talk) 14:42, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Simply stating that he studied Nazism is not sufficient. Part of his cultural criticism has included a criticism of far right ideology such as that which was on display in Charlotsville. (JakeTheKing42 (talk) 15:41, 7 August 2018 (UTC))

I think it would make sense to make Peterson's critique of right wing political correctness its own subsection under the critique of political correctness section. His commentary on it is significant and deserves a larger space so as not to imply that he merely mentioned this in passing. It's a significant aspect of his work and since wikipedia is the entry level source for many people it's important that this misconception be avoided. Furthermore, the editors deemed Peterson's criticisms of Marxism worthy of inclusion and I think it's only fair that his study of Nazism and the Holocaust be mentioned as well. (JakeTheKing42 (talk) 03:20, 8 August 2018 (UTC))

it's another one of the things said in passing, and this largely in response to allegations he is cosy with the alt-right etc., so how about adding the context for this? maybe we should catalog all the passing remarks, such as those on global warming, feminism, marriage, access to sexual partners, the resurrection of Christ, and all the other eyebrow raising stuff he seems to have a penchant for stating, i mean it's strange there is nothing in the lead about the controversy surrounding a number of his remarks, or about his growing profile as a public speaker etc. the money he is generating from this etc. the lead is strangely cleansed of anything of this, despite the amount of coverage we have seen in the press. he's a public figure now, not some dude stuck in his ivory tower, the article needs to start reflecting this.2A02:C7D:2E54:3F00:2557:DAD:EF83:85F8 (talk) 09:22, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

POV Template

Please revert Snooganssnoogans template because the issue is a content which is not included and it regards a section and not the whole article.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 14:36, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

It's a WP:NPOV issue because the content provided in the section is not balanced and the content misleads readers as to what Peterson's views on environmentalism are. The tag should definitely be changed from an "article" tag to a "section" tag though. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:48, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

It is balanced and does not mislead readers to what Peterson's views on environmentalism are because it doesn't mention any views, including some OR or SYNTH which would mislead the public.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 14:50, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

The section currently says that Peterson criticizes "political correctness" in "environmentalism" when he actually just doubts the scientific consensus on climate change, calls climate science fraudulent and says without evidence that environmentalists are harming students. It's akin to saying a flat-earther or creationist simply "opposes political correctness in academia" without noting that they just believe contrary to all mainstream scholarship that the Earth is flat and the Earth is 10,000 yrs old. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:00, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

So would you be fine with the tag being removed if the article said "Jordan Peterson is a skeptic of man made climate change. He has also criticized political correctness in Academia." - ie making them two discrete statements? --Jobrot (talk) 03:00, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

At the very least, the section would need to note that Peterson doubts the scientific consensus on climate, and has criticized climate science. That he criticizes "political correctness" in "environmentalism" is just WP:WEASEL and misleading. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:24, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

• The template is more than justified since "political correctness" is already a POV term (and really a dog whistle), and should be in square quotes in the article. Drmies (talk) 20:31, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Strong disagree, buddy. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:25, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

PeterTheFourth, am I your buddy? I can't tell who you're disagreeing with. It can't be me, since my point is accurate, well-formulated, and both concise and complete, almost Pulitzer-quality. Drmies (talk) 01:09, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I am reasonably confident "buddy" refers to Miki Filigranksi, because it would make more sense and because this editor has previously referred to Miki Filigranski as "buddy". I think this is a good example of why using words such as buddy in this way on Wikipedia is not a good idea though, as it is usually pointless, confusing and can be seen as condescending. Hrodvarsson (talk) 01:40, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

@Drmies: My apologies, Hrodvarsson is correct. Miki is my buddy in this case - I tend to overly rely on indentation to reply, and should use the 'replyto' tags more often. Sorry again. PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:26, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Hmm I'm a bit miffed that none of you saw fit to chime in with my self-praise. Very sad. Take it easy Peter--it's all good, and I figured that was the case. Drmies (talk) 14:58, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Drmies Would it be better to re-word it along the lines of critiques of ideologies? --Kyohyi (talk) 17:06, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry Kyohyi--I'm not quite sure what you mean. Drmies (talk) 17:17, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

You're statement above, which I'm interpreting as being about the section header "Critiques of political correctness". Do you think something along the lines of "Critiques of Ideologies" would be more NPOV, and fit the content of the section. --Kyohyi (talk) 17:20, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Ah, yes--quotation marks help. Well, no--what seems important here is that he critiques what he calls "political correctness". Replacing that word with "ideologies" actually leads to the conclusion that political correctness is an ideology--it is not. For starters (but I think I used that phrase before), "political correctness" needs to be in quotation marks, both in the section heading, the section itself, and in the lead. Drmies (talk) 17:50, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I suggest "Positions" as the section header followed by "Peterson has criticized concepts such as 'political correctness', postmodernism, postmodern feminism, white privilege, cultural appropriation, and environmentalism." No reason to put all of these under the "PC" or "ideology" umbrella. –dlthewave ☎ 18:34, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I think "Positions" might be a little bit vague, but I think this is a good direction. --Kyohyi (talk) 18:38, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

The big problem is with the title of the section "Critiques of political correctness". The title should simply be "views" or "positions" wherein JP's critique of what he calls "political correctness" is one of many views. It is a NPOV violation in itself for us to put all of JP's views as falling under a critique of "political correctness" in Wiki voice. It would be like titling someone's "views" sub-section "Advocacy for freedom" or "Opposition to radicalism" when it's just the subject himself/herself who characterize their views that way. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:52, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

The article previously described Peterson as a cultural critic (there are sources for this label), so "Cultural criticism" could be an alternative section heading. Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:46, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, considering the lack of overall coverage in reliable sources regarding his views on environmentalism, maybe it would be better to remove that comment. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:57, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

• • No point as political correctness is not a POV term nor a dog whistle nor should be written in square quotes.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 16:14, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

We have three sources talking about it, that's more than enough. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:18, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

This argument of "we have three sources" overlooks just how little those sources actually talk about it. One paragraph and two sentences in passing are not enough. --Kyohyi (talk) 12:59, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Why not? If the sources are reliable and Wikipedia doesn't report what's not there (ie going beyond the sources into WP:OR) then using 3 independent sources is perfectly valid. --Jobrot (talk) 02:53, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

We may be arguing past each other, but I'm going to respond to the argument I think you're making, though I'm not 100% sure that's what you're arguing. Because WP: UNDUE, just because we have reliable sources on certain content doesn't mean including that content is justified. The content we have should be proportional to the overall body of what's published in reliable sources on the subject. The argument we have 3 reliable sources doesn't take into consideration how much, or in this instance how little those three sources actually published on the topic, and is a run-around of actually comparing that content to the overall body of coverage. --Kyohyi (talk) 13:26, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

• The first three sources [21] [22] [23] are uncritical opinion pieces or interviews which share Peterson's point of view, for example "So how would you recommend fighting back against the PC game?" is one of the Daily Wire interview questions. We can use these as sources for Peterson's opinions but we shouldn't be characterizing environmentalism and other concepts as "political correctness" in Wiki voice. "Critique" is also inappropriate as it implies a neutral point of view. –dlthewave ☎ 16:30, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Less reliable and/or WP:PRIMARY sources can be used on talk pages to back up the more reliable and WP:SECONDARY sources appearing in article space. To that end, here's a smattering of sources which probably couldn't be used as reliable in article space, but are reliable (or WP:PRIMARY) enough to discuss as reflecting Peterson's viewpoint within the bounds of this talk page (to reiterate, I'm not saying these are valid for article space, just for discussion here):

• A rebuke from a defender of Peterson [24],
• A summary of Peterson's views, including the claim that he "doesn't trust" climate models [25]
• Peterson's WP:PRIMARY twitter account, sharing a PragerU video and other climate denial material [26], [27], [28]
• Peterson's WP:PRIMARY facebook page, sharing a climate change denial article [29]

I think this is enough material (when combined with reliable sources in article space) to warrant Wikipedia's very brief and editorially conservative mention. Because what appears in article space is currently very limited - and because there seems to be numerous sources available for discussion and investigation on talk, I don't think Jordan Peterson's suspicion of "man made climate change" is really in doubt, is it? It seems to be his genuine viewpoint, one of doubt, denial, criticism or skepticism. The current page is very conservative in its mention of this (his) viewpoint on environmentalism. I'm not sure why it's tagged as disputed. --Jobrot (talk) 02:53, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I have no issue including Jordan Peterson's self published material if we appropriately weight it to his self-published material. --Kyohyi (talk) 13:26, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Strong doubt as on his Twitter is written "NOTE: RTs/follows are not to be read unfailingly as endorsements. I sometimes post material with which I do not agree", and Wikipedia editors deciding which tweet is or not an endorsement and agreement as his POV is WP:OR.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 16:11, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

The editor Miki Filigranski is now edit-warring to remove the NPOV tag, even though substantive reasons have been presented for the tag and multiple editors have argued that there are NPOV with the section. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:20, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Template must be removed because the editor @Snooganssnoogans: who placed it did not "explain on the article's talk page why you are adding this tag, identifying specific issues that are actionable within Wikipedia's content policies" and "It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given" per Template:POV. This discussion is mostly a continuation of discussion "Climate change" above which didn't reach any support and consensus for inclusion, and not a separate issue with the section's neutrality. Having two discussions about it won't change anything. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 16:21, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

What a bizarre comment. There is no need for consensus to include a tag. If there were a consensus on the disputed text, the text would be fixed, obviating the need for the tag. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:27, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Reviewing the comments above, it looks pretty clear that there is a consensus that the tag is warranted. Either the text needs to change, or the tag needs to stay.Girth Summit (talk) 16:30, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

If the text needs to change than we already have a discussion above which didn't bring any consensual support for the inclusion/change, the tag is not needed.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 16:34, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Miki Filigranski - I see any ongoing discussion where multiple different editors are raising a variety of policy-based concerns about the neutrality of this section, and I don't think all of those issues have been addressed. POV tags aren't meant to be a permanent fixture, but it's clear here that the tag is warranted as long as the discussion about this issue is ongoing. Nblund ^talk 16:40, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Edit Just to be clear - the POV tag exists because there is an ongoing discussion. If there were a consensus, we would simply edit the article to make the appropriate changes and then a POV tag would be unnecessary. Nblund ^talk 16:44, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Quick check through the comments above:

• Snoogangsnoogans thinks the tag is warranted
• Drmies thinks the tag is warranted
• Peterthefourth thinks the tag is warranted (if I interpret his comment about disagreeing with you correctly)

There's then some discussion about how the text should be changed, with no one suggesting the tag should be removed before the text is agreed upon. You have arbitrarily removed the tag, without the text being changed. I agree with the others - the tag needs to be put back on until consensus can be reached for the text. It would be a nice gesture if you would put it back on yourself without making others revert you.Girth Summit (talk) 16:51, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Recent edit

A recent addition to this section was quickly removed and challenged as "All of this information was entirely unfounded, the sources referenced in its support did not mention anything claimed in the text and any use of quotations was taken entirely out of context and manipulated to suggest something opposite to what was spoken." Looking through the sources, each statement is well-supported and the quotes refer directly to Peterson's position on climate change. What exactly is the objection to this content? –dlthewave ☎ 12:26, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

The edit summary[[30] is just straight-up false. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:49, 10 August 2018 (UTC)\

I've added the information back as the justification for removal was blantatly false. Zubin12 (talk) 01:04, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

It has again been removed, on the grounds that a single sentence does not deserve its own section. This is a strange reason for removal; a better alternative would be to either expand the section or merge it with another instead of deleting content. –dlthewave ☎ 02:41, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Section title change

Where was any consensus and proper discussion to change the section title from "Critiques of political correctness" to simple "Views"? There was a prolonged WP:SILENCE consensus until now, and now suddenly is forcefully pushed inclusion of some minor POV layout change without discussing it.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 17:49, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

There's an ongoing discussion near the top of this section and it looks like Snoogansnoogans has gone ahead and made a WP:BOLD edit. This article isn't under any special restrictions, so editors are not required to discuss or gain consensus before making changes. Feel free to join the discussion if you have any concerns about the content. –dlthewave ☎ 18:28, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

The title change is an improvement, since "political correctness" is a loaded term. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 20:35, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Is a loaded term according to whom? It's a legit term which has its own Wikipedia article. Both postmodernism and identity politics are directly related to the term, as well as Bill-C16. The change of the title is only because some editors want to include a section "Climate change" on which the dispute is on-going, there's no obvious finish of the discussion nor there's any consensus as they claim i.e. ignore. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 19:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Ancient Discovery of DNA

Unless there's secondary RS coverage of 'Ancient Discovery of DNA', it clearly does not meet WP:DUE requirements and thus does not belong in this article. Stop edit-warring over this. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:38, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Even having secondary RS coverage it doesn't have requirements. What is the most suspicious - all these minor views (from climate change, enforced marriage, DNA...) were previously highlighted on his RationalWiki article. This is a Wikipedian article with specific editing principles, stop pushing unbalanced POV.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 21:52, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Reversions by HappyWaldo

The user @HappyWaldo, has continually reverted the Contributions of myself and other editors on the basis that "Enforced Monogamy" is a standard sociological term, the section on climate change misstates Peterson view on the topic and the section on his view on DNA are irrelevant. The contributions include other aspects such as more critical comments about his view on Bill c-16 that he hasn't voiced an objection too. I would like for him to state his full argument for reversion and to support his claims. Zubin12 (talk) 02:45, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

(1) The DNA stuff clearly does not belong, if there isn't secondary RS coverage of it. I endorse HappyWaldo's removal. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:53, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

(2) The language on 'enforced monogamy' is fine in the last edit by HappyWaldo[31], and I endorse the language. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:53, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

(3) It's unclear if George is commenting on JP's interpretation of the law, so George's view shouldn't be juxtaposed against those of legal experts explicitly commenting on the legal interpretation. George can have his own sentence, but his view should not be used to thin out legal interpretations. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:53, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I've removed the Ancient DNA portions so that issue is closed, I prefer the language of the other revision as the current revision feels passive and a bit disconerting but i'm not too hung up about it. The third issue is most important as including the view of the legal establishment on his complaints is more important than noting that a singular academic supports him. Zubin12 (talk) 03:51, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

If only those sources were more reliable, not some primary stuff or some fringe websites. Learn how to edit according to principles (especially taking into consideration WP:BLP) with proper reference style.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 22:07, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

FYI

A recent Reddit thread discusses perceived inaccuracies regarding climate change in this article. –dlthewave ☎ 22:10, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

The matter has already been dealt with in an earlier section of this talk page, the result being the voluntary deletion of the reddit thread. --Jobrot (talk) 04:04, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

RfC: Climate science

Should the 'views' section in Jordan Peterson's article include this paragraph?:

• Peterson doubts the scientific consensus on climate change. On the topic of climate change, Peterson has said he is "very sceptical of the models that are used to predict climate change". He has also said, "You can't trust the data because too much ideology is involved." He is highly critical of environmentalists, whose rhetoric he argues causes students to "suffer genuine declines in their mental health". Asked by The Financial Times if there is any evidence for that, Peterson responded, "No. There's no hard evidence ... the instruments that people used to assess depression in the 1950s aren’t the same as the instruments now" and it is "more a hypothesis".

References

Please indicate whether you support or oppose something similar to the above text, along with your reasoning. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:56, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Survey

• Support Inclusion It's a notable viewpoint of his that has received coverage in widespread secondment sources, any attempts to explain that he is only critical of "Deep environmentalist" is disingenuous WP:OR Zubin12 (talk) 22:19, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support - If he has a public position on such a major topic, it should be included to some degree. --Jobrot (talk) 00:03, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support inclusion This has sufficient coverage in reliable sources to be due coverage in the article. PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:27, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support because Peterson is an academic and his public position-taking on academic subjects that have become broad matters of debate, within or outside of his area of expertise, is biographically informative. I would prefer it not be its own section, which is the part that seems somewhat UNDUE to me. Also support briefer wording if consensus wants. Outriggr (talk) 04:41, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
• Reject inclusion Per WP: UNDUE. The financial times piece is approximately 32 paragraphs long, and has 1 paragraph on Peterson's opinions on climate change, we shouldn't be using it to cite 3 different sentences solely. The LRB blog has 1 sentence in passing, we shouldn't be using it for it's own sentence as well. The Sydney morning herald piece is approximately 42 paragraphs long, and has 1 quote in passing on climate change, we should not be using that to source it's own sentence as well. --Kyohyi (talk) 12:05, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

The quantity of text published in a source doesn't really effect whether the source is reliable or not. A reliable source could mention a fact very briefly, and that source would remain reliable (and hence could be used to cite the very briefly mentioned fact). WP:DUE is more applicable to pages and topics involving multiple individual viewpoints (eg. Climate Change as a general topic, many viewpoints, one page). In terms of a single WP:BLP individual (such as Jordan Peterson), that person either holds a viewpoint, or they don't (their aren't really minor and major beliefs)... and that information about them holding a specific viewpoint is either from an WP:RS reliable source, or it isn't (regardless of how many sentences/paragraphs are used to describe that fact). --Jobrot (talk) 21:47, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I didn't say the source wasn't reliable, I said including the text was undue. We have a requirement within undue to include content proportionately to how it's covered in sources. Just because something is verifiable, and even potentially written impartially doesn't mean inclusion is warranted per WP: DUE, this is specifically called out in due's subsection WP: BALASP. --Kyohyi (talk) 13:16, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support Obviously. Thoroughly sourced and clearly WP:DUE in an article of this length. Endymion.12 (talk) 15:03, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
• Weak support - It is supported by sources. However, the topic does not seem to be one in which Peterson engages in a lot. Therefore, the paragraph is okay but should not be extended for danger of WP:DUE. Jonpatterns (talk) 15:14, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support inclusion He's a high-profile academic, and the issue of climate change is notable, so if he has made statements about it we should reflect that. Moreover, I don't believe that the WP:UNDUE argument is relevant here. The policy says that we should provide balanced coverage when viewpoints differ. The viewpoint in question here is whether he doubts the scientific consensus on climate change, so WP:UNDUE would only be relevant if there were some other sources suggesting that he agrees with the consensus. There is nothing in the policy to say that we have to consider the extent to which a source discusses an issue to decide whether or not it supports assertions about that issue. Girth Summit (talk) 15:16, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Balancing aspects is also part of undue. For the exact paragraph see WP:PROPORTION, which starts 'An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject ...' Jonpatterns (talk) 15:58, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

My comment was intended to address the argument made above by Kyohyi, not your own - I got an edit conflict with you when adding it and ended up out of order, apologies for any confusion. My point was that UNDUE does not say that we should count the number of paragraphs a source devotes to an issue when evaluating whether the source supports an assertion, as Kyohyi seems to be suggesting. I agree with you that WP:PROPORTION would apply, and I think that the paragraph as proposed is compliant with that; I also agree with you that it doesn't want to be any longer than it is. Girth Summit (talk) 16:49, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Just adding to the above to say that WP:PROPORTION wouldn't justify excluding the topic. Proportion (as the name suggests) determines how much we write about this specific area of his views. It doesn't mean his viewpoint can be excluded as WP:UNDUE (it's not undue) - WP:PROPORTION just means that we should avoid excessive focus on it, and not go beyond what the sources state. --Jobrot (talk) 22:03, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: is there a reason so much detail has to go into the paragraph? It reads very bloaty to me, and I have a hard time seeing why it couldn't be reduced to a single sentence. Just look at this ridiculous redundancy in the first two sentences. "Peterson doubts the scientific consensus on climate change" and "On the topic of climate change, Peterson has said he is "very sceptical of the models that are used to predict climate change"." The opening sentences of the paragraph, and they same almost the same thing! We can summarize much better than this, folks. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 15:22, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
• Weak support per Jonpatterns above. A short mention seems reasonable, but it probably shouldn't be more than that. Ideally, I think it would be preferable to trim this to two sentences and include it in an "other views" section alongside other topics where Peterson has taken a position - perhaps with the sourced-but-nutty stuff about DNA and snakes. FWIW: Peterson's views are also mentioned in this post from The Stranger. Probably not an RS for a statement of fact, but it might help establish notability and the existence of a disagreement. Nblund ^talk 16:05, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose, strongly this wording, which is misleading. I will revote below in a hopefully more bulletproof form I don't oppose inclusion of the topic, I oppose this summarization as misleading. This edit is motivated by climate zealotry and a lack of skepticism about science, rather than by motivation to fairly characterize Peterson's skepticism. His skepticism is entirely based on his perception of the politicization, and the paragraph should represent that (a perception, if you want to go into detail, based on his career as a psychologist and the study of how people form beliefs, and present themselves to the world) He makes no claims as a client scientist and should not be attacked as if he has. 98.7.192.88 (talk) 17:33, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Please assume good faith - don't tell other editors why are motivated to make an edit, limit your comments to the edit itself. Otherwise this discussion will descend into pointless bickering about one another's motives. Girth Summit (talk) 17:44, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't believe zealots act in bad faith, climate zealots are sincere in their belief that the entire planet is endangered. You do more damage to wikipedia be pretending that individuals here don't show patterns of interest. But that does not make this correct. I am making a good faith effort to improve wikipedia by keeping political POV out. Here is Jordan Peterson (back in 2011!) on environmentalism https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08stkynXUlc I am sure that you will hate that clip and you will find him to be a zealot; however, an accurate portrayal of his position would refer to his concern with the motivation of climate zealots and not the science of climate. 98.7.192.88 (talk) 19:32, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Changing your comments so substantially after posting them makes it difficult to correspond - we just edit conflicted, and I find myself rewriting this comment to remove discussion of Jehovah's Witnesses that you originally brought up.

I am genuinely happy to believe that you are making good faith efforts to improve Wikipedia, but you need to make the same assumption about other editors. If I read your comments correctly, you are saying that those of us who support the inclusion are doing so because we are misguided climate zealots - that is not good faith. Discuss the edit, not our motives. For what it's worth, which isn't very much, I have a degree in geology, and spent a lot of time studying palaeoclimatology; I have also spent many years doing geophysical survey work for the oil/gas industry. I would not describe myself as a 'climate zealot'. Girth Summit (talk) 19:53, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I am not labelling you a climate zealot, so you did not interpret my comment correctly. 100%. But that proposed text we are voting on could only have been composed with climate zealotry in mind, so I'm alerting you to the idea that you are voting in favor of propagandizing wikipedia.

Here is wording that I would support: "Peterson doubts the research on climate change, and is "very sceptical of the models that are used to predict climate change", saying "You can't trust the data because too much ideology is involved." That sentence has all the details of the proposed sentence, without the POV that is hijacked into the current proposal. 98.7.192.88 (talk) 22:13, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

You say that the 'proposed text that we are voting on could only have been composed with climate zealotry in mind' - we are back to square one, you are not assuming good faith. You have already said that you don't support the position - that is clear. Your continued ad hominem insistence that the people who suggested the wording are climate zealots is not helping your argument.

There are problems with your proposed wording - for example, replacing 'the scientific consensus' with 'the research' - that does not agree with the sources, or with the actuality. The wording as originally proposed is more accurate. (I've fixed your indenting, I hope that's OK). Girth Summit (talk) 22:31, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I previously did not have access to the paywalled FT article, but Jobrot posted a pastebin of it. While you claim that there are problems with my proposed wording, the problems run MUCH MUCH deeper with the proposal under vote vis a vis what is in the FT article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.7.192.88 (talk) 16:37, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I have retracted (struckthrough) my statements and will revote below. I did not want you to indent my comment, it was purposeful in the interests of clear threading. I might address some additional points on your talk page because I believe your constant references to good faith are covered under the good faith rule as failing the good faith test.

Apologies for the indent interference - I thought that it made the thread clearer, and wasn't sure whether or not you knew how to indent. Feel free to visit my talk page, but note above that I explicitly accepted that your motivation is to improve the encyclopaedia. My only concern was your repeated assertions about the motivations behind the proposed text that we are discussing - I wanted you to focus your comments on the text itself, rather than speculating on the motivations of the author.Girth Summit (talk) 16:36, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

You questioned my rewording of the proposed text, using the current proposed text as basis for a claim of some type of authenticity. Agree? But that text is not in quotes, so I went to the original article to look it up, and the original article does not even contain the root word science in any form; a word you are insisting there is a basis to preserve, it does not even contain, thanks though for your opinion. Furthermore, Snooganssnoogans links the phrase to a wikipedia article scientific opinion_on climate change which text *he* did not preserve but went out of his way to change to "scientific consensus" to make his POV falsely stronger. That article has already had an RfC vote to change its name to "consensus" which failed, but which Snooganssnoogans, brimming over with good faith, changed to suit his own preference in a totally unbiased way /s. I have put in work to become an expert on these matters (including Peterson, including going to read Snooganssnoogans citations) work which you have not put in, and yet you have strong opinions about my opinions? Read Snooganssnoogans cited articles, they are all opinion pieces, none of them on the subject of the environment. It's easy to quote Peterson, why just quote his detractors while pretending that they are not detractors?

I'd genuinely be happy for you to swing by my talk page and we could discuss this further without unnecessarily disrupting this RfC. Briefly though, I don't really understand what you mean by a claim of authenticity - the current proposed text is what we're voting on, so that's why I referred to it. I have no way of knowing how much of an expert you are on any of these matters; you similarly have no way of assessing my expertise - we can and should focus only on the content, not the editor, their level of expertise, or how much work they have put into their learning. Finally, I don't really see how you can describe the Telegraph FT article as an opinion piece - it's an interview, published by the most second most conservative serious newspaper published in the UK. As an aside, please could you sign your posts? Let me know if you're not sure how to do this. Cheers Girth Summit (talk) 19:33, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Apologies again - I confused the Telegraph and the FT. Struckthrough and amended above. Girth Summit (talk) 19:54, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

• Reject inclusion WP:NPOV RS show that Peterson has supported sending a letter to Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper from the President of UoT Marine Life Advocacy in which organisation brings attention to the issue of maritime sustainability. Peterson gave a lecture on the topic, later they got a response from the appropriate Minister. He is also a supporting fan of Boyan Slat and his Ocean Cleanup project. In my opinion all of it is WP:UNDUE in encyclopedic article about Peterson but if we want to include his "criticism of environmentalists" then his own environmental activism cannot be ignored in order to try to maintain WP:NPOV. WP:OR Last two sentences are quote from Financial Times article except for exclusion of ", whom he accuses of wanting fewer humans on the planet" after "environmentalists" - why was there an edit made to WP:SECONDARY source which dramatically changes its meaning? In 12 Rules Peterson's criticism is specifically limited to 'anti-human' rhetoric: one professor for telling students that 'If they wanted to regard themselves as ethical people, they all need to consider limiting the number of children they have to one', David Attenborough for calling humans 'plague' and Club of Rome for calling human species 'cancer on the planet'(all on p268 which is also quoted by Financial Times in the same paragraph). We need to remember that Peterson has written 2 books and given hundreds of lectures and interviews all over the world and never invested even 60 seconds to give his clear opinion on climate change or what should be done about it (we have just two one-sentence quips) - which is in very stark contrast to his other views (like Bill C16 or Communists) for which there are hours/kilometers of sources. He is not shy about his opinions. His concern about ideological influence possibly doing harm to climate science can be noted in other section including 2 short quotes that we actually have. Retweeting of a PragerU video may be sufficient evidence to brand someone as climate change denier on Twitter but Wikipedia articles should be based on multum of hard facts from independent sources and not conjecture Harcerz87 (talk) 18:43, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE doesn't really apply, he either holds a specific belief, or he doesn't. He can simultaneously doubt climate science/models, AND want a clean ocean (for whatever other reasons he might have). After all - he doesn't tell people to clean their rooms for environmental reasons (and yet, he still wants them clean). I believe the proposed text represents his actual viewpoint, and that none of it is a "quip" or joke (it's no joke man). Roughly speaking. --Jobrot (talk) 22:23, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support This is neutrally worded and reliably sourced. I'm sure he has many nuanced opinions about the environment, but this is an encyclopedia so we should briefly summarize according to reliable, independent sources. Isn't one of his 'rules' about communicating clearly? Peterson's statements, according to multiple sources, are perfectly clear. One doesn't need to view hours of lectures to understand this. If independent, reliable sources discuss his opposition to ocean pollution, that would be a separate discussion. Grayfell (talk) 19:48, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

WP:NPOV requires that if we want to note that Peterson criticised 'anti-humanity' environmentalists we don't hide the fact that he admires others (like Boyan Slat of Ocean Cleanup) and also is an environmentalist activist himself (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wE29TM_YtR0, https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/manage-canada-s-oceans-honestly#/). Current last 2 sentences cannot be left as they are as its WP:OR (Peterson in this source criticises only environmentalists that call humanity 'cancer', 'plague' or argue 'you should consider not having children as there are too many people already' - not all environmentalists) and WP:POV --Harcerz87 (talk) 17:39, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

The relevant part of the source reads as follows: Predictably, Peterson doubts climate change is man-made. His book is scathing about environmentalists, whom he accuses of wanting fewer humans on the planet. This, he says, causes students to “suffer genuine declines in their mental health”. Is there any evidence for that? One second, two seconds — 10 seconds pass. “No. There’s no hard evidence.” He suggests the problem is “an epidemiological matter”: “the instruments that people used to assess depression in the 1950s aren’t the same as the instruments now”. So the point is “more a hypothesis”. There is no WP:OR, the source clearly fully supports the last two sentences. Girth Summit (talk) 18:04, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

• As I said, if reliable, independent sources discuss his opposition to ocean pollution, so be it. His own youtube channel and his own indiegogo project are not independent, not presumed to be encyclopedically significant, and not even particularly reliable for this content. Grayfell (talk) 21:29, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

When Petersons opinions on environmentalism are deemed to be worthy to be included in encyclopedia, the section (if it exists - and it's fairly new) should include all the facts, his support and his opposition as long as they are relevant (in this case: Peterson and environmentalism) and reliable sources exist. We can safely determine the fact of his maritime sustainability advocacy (and warm praise for Boyan Slat) from self-published material in compliance with 5 rules of WP:BLPSELFPUB. --Harcerz87 (talk) 23:27, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose He has received much more attention on the other issues listed in the article. Climate change isn't in his purview nor has it attracted significant media attention the way the other topics have. As a clinical psychologist, Academia and political correctness, Postmodernism and identity politics, Bill C-16, Gender relations and masculinity are all areas of relevance. --Ted87 (talk) 00:23, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

That Jordan Peterson comments on topics outside of his academic purview doesn't preclude including those comments. The page is after all about him and his views, regardless of whether his views are 'true' or 'false' by outside standards. We're not here to protect him from himself. If he holds a viewpoint, then Wikipedia should represent it. We're here to represent him as accurately as we can (regardless of whether we agree with his stance). --Jobrot (talk) 05:27, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support inclusion while respecting due weight. It has received significant coverage but possibly should not get a separate section. A few sentences under "views" or "opinions" would suffice. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:32, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion per WP:DUE and WP:BLP. I don't believe I've ever edited this BLP before and am just responding to RfC. The sourcing appears both poor and lacking in depth. One source presented above appears to be a blog; Financial Times is behind a paywall; and The Sydney Morning Herald only includes one quote from Peterson on climate of "You can't trust the data because too much ideology is involved" and no additional context. Did a quick check to see if there's better sourcing by googling "Jordan Peterson" & "climate change" but entire first page of hits is blogs, reddit, twitter, etc with exception of one op-ed from the Guardian titled "How Dangerous is Jordan Peterson?" which seems to be an anti-Peterson opinion piece (scratching because article text actually does not mention climate change or global warming. Seems it only showed up in search based on comments, so there's actually zero reliable sources in first page of hits) Per WP:DUE and WP:BLP it seems this content should be excluded, at least at this point. That an entire section is currently devoted to this content seems unusual. DynaGirl (talk) 02:04, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Here is an alternate link to the ft source, and failing that here is the full text.

The current proposal is for a subsection under the heading 'views' (subheading 'climate change'), this is a common format for Wikipedia, and already present on pages such as Mike Pence, Slavoj Žižek or Milo Yiannopoulos. --Jobrot (talk) 05:16, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

There's also the fact that paywalled sources are fully acceptable on wikipedia, as are sources that are not available on the internet at all. WP:PAYWALL MaxBrowne2 (talk) 11:13, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support: I see multiple reliably sourced references of a public figure's views backing neutrally worded prose. If this was Michael Jordan, who isn't notable for his commentary on politics or sociology, then WP:UNDUE would have relevance, but Jordan Peterson is a popular academic who makes a living from and rose to notability with his commentary on those subjects. →‎ GS →‎ ☎ → 09:55, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support: The content is accurate, adheres to the cited sources and is supported by three reliably sources. The concerns over weight are strange, as the content fits into a broader theme of Jordan Peterson's criticisms of academia and political correctness, and fleshes out those views further (it's absolutely bizarre to claim that JP's criticism of academia is not one of his core themes). Furthermore, the article already notes that Jordan Peterson is critical of "political correctness" as it pertains to "environmentalism" without elaborating on what his precise complaints are. It does our readers a service to flesh out those views, using reliable sources. Lastly, JP is a public intellectual (not a no-name scientist with a niche specialty), so his views (as covered by RS) on social and political issues should be covered in the same way as, say, Noam Chomsky's and Paul Krugman's. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:31, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support: Facts are facts, these ones are newsworthy and relevant, and the wording is almost completely neutral. Perhaps remove the "highly" from before "critical", about environmentalists. Unnecessarily subjective. Rollo (talk) 15:25, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose emphatically because this text is egregiously misleading. I will propose alternative text in a new section below, and lay out the argument for it. 98.7.192.88 (talk) 16:22, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

(replying to myself) not going to follow thru on that because I'm wasting too much time on it. I am quite interested in the topics at hand, so I am willing to devote great attention to the details, but I then realize I can't calibrate my writeup to your (collective) level of interest and detail: most of you have not read the cited sources. You should all go read the pastebin of the FT article that Jobrot posted above, you will see that it is a hatchet job opinion piece--notwithstanding it's in the FT-- written by a satirist and (sub)titled on the topic of gender, not climate. I continue to believe that this proposed change is unwise and inflammatory in its "denial of Jordan Peterson's natural climate". I am going to take my case to a community that will be interested in all the details of my research, /r/JordanPeterson . I will urge them not to meatpuppet this discussion; Wikipedia can handle the few nutjobs who won't listen to me, but the bulk of the people over there are quite reasonable and they actually read a dissection of this broken process with interest. (Peterson talks frequently about speaking precisely and not quoting out of context, which is exactly what is taking place here. Perhaps the article will benefit from that POV as well: when is wikipedia big enough in media that it actually should rightly be a topic of itself?)

Whilst the author of the FT article (Henry Mance) also has a weekly satire column, there is no indication that the Peterson article is intended as satire. Mance has numerous articles which are just straight journalism, and I believe this is one of them. --Jobrot (talk) 20:27, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I think that is sound reasoning. However, do you think another sentence from the same article - "Peterson hates carbs as much as Marxists." is also encyclopedia-worthy? Does it accurately describe Peterson's views? Both are said in the voice of Mr Henry Mance. Do we have other sources of Petersons opinion on how humanity influences climat change to rely on eccept for one sentence from Mr Henry "Peterson hates carbs as much as Marxists" Mance?--Harcerz87 (talk) 22:39, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Here's a 7 minute excerpt from a 2 hour Q&A Peterson did, it details his views on overpopulation and tangentially environmentalism. His viewpoint seems to be - that some environmental biologists and climate scientists may be exaggerating due to "underlying" anti-western, anti-capitalist and anti-humanist philosophies, and that because of this, he can't determine whether their science is good or not. He believes some scientists are malthusians, and are thus according to him, anti-humanists. He expresses the belief that humanity will find a way around climate change should it become an issue, and that cleaning up the ocean is an good thing to do (although he doesn't expressly link this to climate change). He also states that repopulating the oceans with fish could be done quickly "if we left the damn oceans alone for 15 years". --Jobrot (talk) 20:42, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support as DUE because it is also reported in The Guardian; contra what is written above, the Guardian piece is not opinion, is factual, and would be incorporated in this paragraph of the article IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 22:21, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Edit request: climate change

The same Financial Times source is used three times in the climate change section. Can someone please group the three using a ref name --Ted87 (talk) 00:33, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

you should read the original FT article, it is not worthy of even one citation on the subject of climate change. Jobrot linked to this version of it https://pastebin.com/FdALHzNw search for the word "science" to find the small section on climate science... oh, that's right, the opinion piece does not contain the word science, so search for climate, the article does use that word once. 98.7.192.88 (talk) 19:46, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

It's not an opinion piece, it's an interview with the subject of the article, published by a respectable conservative British newspaper. If you can point to a policy or guideline that says we need to assess how much of a particular source needs to be devoted to an issue in order for it to be used to support an assertion, I'd be interested to read it. As discussed above, the source clearly supports the assertion. Girth Summit (talk) 20:05, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

(1)False. That's not an interview. There may have been an interview, it may be reporting about an interview, but interviews are transcripts--sure, potentially edited down--but not paraphrased. Do you disagree with my assertion? to keep you on topic, it's yes or no, and then if yes, citations please, show me definitions or interviews where there is no transcription in some Q/A format. This is not an interview, please correct your assertion. 98.7.192.88 (talk) 20:24, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

(2)"Predictably, Peterson doubts climate change is man-made." Defend the choice of the word "predictably" if it's other than simply the author's opinion. Where in that article is there a basis for predicting what Peterson would say about climate change? Answer: there isn't one, it's an opinion piece. I've gone into detail here--which I could do for the entire rest of that opinion piece--but before we do that, you should answer in detail strictly on this topic. Why did the author say "predictably"? 98.7.192.88 (talk) 20:24, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

(3)"As discussed above, the source clearly supports the assertion." Where? show me where somebody indicates that they read this piece--not FT in general, this piece--and detailed (you know like with quotes) any defense of it supporting this assertion? 98.7.192.88 (talk) 20:33, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Reasonable points - let's discuss.

next time if I label individual points 1 2 3 and sign them individually, reply to them each on their own instead of rolling it all together. Not possible to conduct an orderly discussion your way. 98.7.192.88 (talk) 23:31, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

(1) This is clearly an interview. The author describes the interview, including what they ate, what the surroundings were like etc., but we should be clear that this is unequivocally an account of an interview. Statements by the subject are quoted directly, and framed by the questions put to him. I'd like to turn this around - on what grounds do you say that it's not an interview.

(2)It's not my job to defend the author's choice of words- we use sources as they are, not as we would like them to be. You seem to be implying that this word makes the source unreliable, in which case you can discuss at WP:RSN.

(3)I was referring to my own comments, where I actually quote the source in full. It's in green text, so it should be easy to find. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Girth Summit (talk • contribs) 20:58, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I already laid out what constitutes an interview in my question. Not only do you not know the meaning of good faith, you don't know the meaning of interview (or you pretend you don't) and quite a few other things I now realize; it is pointless to discuss this with you. I believe you are engaging in a "smother dissent" tactic to get your way, obscuring precise points I make with your BS strongly in favor of this proposal. Why so eager to get this proposal, but not eager to discuss Peterson? I'd be happy to reengage on the topic if you delete what you've written and we can have a clean blackboard for discussion to eliminate your "drown the argument in rules minutiae" strategy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.7.192.88 (talk) 23:29, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I have already offered you a substitute text which contains generally the same information, in the same order, and which a Peterson-cognizant person would agree with. Please explain in detail how the current proposed text is better supported by the sources than is my text. Here is wording that I would support: "Peterson doubts the research on climate change, and is "very sceptical of the models that are used to predict climate change", saying "You can't trust the data because too much ideology is involved." Discuss why the current proposal is better than that, supporting your argument with reference to these sources. I believe you might find that your POV gets in the way 98.7.192.88 (talk) 20:41, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Let's be clear - we are not aiming to write an article that a 'Peterson-cognizant' person would agree with - we are writing an article that reflects what reliable sources say about him. The proposed wording under discussion per the RfC is what we should focus on. As for your proposed rewording, I believe I already expressed my concerns about that in our discussion above. You would be very welcome at my talk page, per your earlier suggestion, to discuss this until the cows come home. Girth Summit (talk) 21:13, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

people like you always pick one phrase to go off on, and ignore substantive on topic discussion. Wikipedia is interested in an encyclopedic entry on Jordan Peterson, his views accurately described, criticism of his views labeled as such, etc. I have submitted material here that takes up the actual topic, and your responses are "yeah but here's why we can get away with doing it our way" 98.7.192.88 (talk) 23:34, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

You say "we are writing an article that reflects what reliable sources say about him" - ok. However there is only one source on this (Peterson's opinion of human impact on climate change) and it contains one sentence which is not attributed to a qoute and not represented in any primary (2 books and 700 hours of lectures and interviews) or secondary sources. The article is partly interview - signified by quotes - and partly opinion of Mr Henry Mance of Peterson. And he has no expert opinion on Peterson as he is not his biographer - just met him once. In the article he writes "Peterson loathes carbs as much as Marxists." Do you think we can have 99-100% confidence that Peterson said "I hate carbs as much as Marxists"? The same goes for "[Peterson is like] Frasier without the humour.". Can we attribute this with 99-100% to Peterson, like the 'man-made' sentence? Why this and not the other since none of them are quotes? What is wrong with waiting until we actually have a 1 minute response (or 1 paragraph) from the subject of the biography before his views are described? WP:BLP requires being careful: The idea expressed in meta:Eventualism—that every Wikipedia article is a work in progress, and that it is therefore okay for an article to be temporarily unbalanced because it will eventually be brought into shape—does not apply to biographies. Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harcerz87 (talk • contribs) 21:57, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't really know how you would like me to respond to this (if at all?). It seems that you don't like the sources - OK, discuss at WP:RSN. Assuming the sources are OK, then they support the proposed text. Girth Summit (talk) 22:12, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

You are literally arguing that in order to challenge one article in the Financial Times, we'd need to overturn the entire Financial Times? I hope you live a long happy life, but when your maker takes you that there is a special ring of Hell for people like you to burn for eternity, you are that infuriating. 98.7.192.88 (talk) 23:38, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Secondary sources are by their nature WP:SECONDARY. If a secondary source simply repeated everything Peterson said, it would become a WP:PRIMARY source (it would be a transcript). That's also why journalists use quote marks, to differentiate between things the subject definitely did say, and things the reporter is making observations about (reporting and observing are intrinsically linked). Likewise, if reporters consistently re-affirmed that their own account was mere opinion; perhaps speaking of their account in the third person such as "Mr. Journalist claims this happened next" or "The author of this article believes X" interspersing attributed accounts with undisputed and consensus-based facts, then that would become encyclopedic writing (the kind we intend to do).

So given that the Financial Times has an editorial staff, which overseas articles and is responsible for retractions and corrections should a party find something false (ie. given that the FT is a WP:RS reliable source), and that we are quoting Peterson in the article from direct quotes the reliable source has published; I don't see your complaint as having merit. If we were to quote Henry Mance's opinion that "Peterson loathes carbs as much as Marxists" - we'd have to state something like "Henry Mance of The Financial Times claims that..." but we're not; we're using quotes collected by a well known media outlet with its own editorial oversight - that's what makes the source reliable; that their would be repercussions if they misquoted Peterson.

What counts as an "opinion piece" is a deeper and more philosophical discussion, but given the Financial Times editorial team has not filed this article under its "opinion" section - that's a fair indicator that it's not intended as an opinion piece, and that the quotes we're using are genuine. If we were quoting Mance you might have a point (and our language could be modified to reflect who we're quoting). But we're not, we're quoting Peterson, and the FT is a reliable source to do that from. --Jobrot (talk) 22:55, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I asked that my arguments be addressed on their merits, on the direct topic at hand. Nice wall-of-text dodge, prig, but you don't fool me. 98.7.192.88 (talk) 23:15, 15 August 2018 (UTC)