Talk:Jordan Peterson

Conservatism

The claim is made in the lead, preceeded by the phrase "often described". We are then given only three sources, none of which are particularly reliable. 2A04:4A43:4AFE:D739:0:0:5160:3989 (talk) 00:08, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I concur. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 17:29, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Well put. Lmagoutas (talk) 10:51, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Jordan Peterson has explicitly stated that he's a conservative. [1][2]

He almost exclusively works with conservative think tanks, organizations, and groups. From rightwing republican Peter Thiel [3], to Chris Rufo's (anti-CRT) Manhattan Institute [4], to his multiple PragerU videos [5], his talks at the Heritage Foundation [6], his association with Ben Shapiro, even visiting Hungarian conservative leader Viktor Orban, his biblical series, and various philosophies preaching traditional gender roles. To quote this biographical article [7]:

“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,” he says. “I thought, Aha! That’s it: it’s resentment.” Anyone who set out to change the world by first changing other people was suspicious.

I don't see an argument for him being anything other than a conservative. Is there any evidence to the contrary? I don't believe it's controversial to say Jordan Peterson is a conservative intellectual.

Here are multiple articles describing Jordan Peterson as a conservative: The Oxford Review of Books [8], Libertarianism.org [9], Toronto99.com [10], The Guardian [11], Vox [12], The Independent [13]. 115.166.9.22 (talk) 06:44, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

It's not controversial. That one political camp thinks the word is second only to "child molester" as a label of shame, and the other thinks it's a badge of honor is somewhat amusing, but the application of the term is not controversial it being addressed in the second sentence of the lead is completely appropriate. Le Marteau (talk) 08:47, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

"second only to "child molester" as a label of shame" In Greece, child molester carries a less offensive connotation than conservative. Self-described conservatives want to restore the ideals of the 4th of August Regime and/or the Greek junta, including the use of torture on political prisoners and the exile of political dissidents to Gyaros. Our right-wingers prefer to self-describe as "liberals". Dimadick (talk) 10:56, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Involvement in, and speaking engagements at various prestigious organizations and institutes.

Jordan Peterson has been involved with, and done speaking engagements at various prestigious global organizations. I was wondering what other editors have to say about including some of the more prominent or prestigious ones. Here for instance, is him speaking at the Trilateral Commission https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqJZeS1wDFc. He's also worked for the UN, the Manhattan Institute, the American Enterprise Institute, and Dennis Prager - but I noticed none of this work is currently presented on his page (despite his speeches at these organizations being publicly available). I think it's good information, which can be covered within the bounds of WP:BLP - what do other editors think? 210.185.122.149 (talk) 13:03, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

They're would have to be secondary sources covering them to show they are WP:DUE. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:08, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

In late 2021 Cambridge University did a U-turn and extended an invitation to him -he spoke at a number of meetings - details at https://www.spiked-online.com/2021/11/26/how-we-uncancelled-jordan-peterson/ CanterburyUK (talk) 14:48, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

and also written about here - https://unherd.com/thepost/jordan-peterson-heals-old-wounds-with-cambridge-return/ CanterburyUK (talk) 14:49, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

"university proctors attended Peterson’s lecture on 23 November to show support for freedom of speech." https://www.newstatesman.com/encounter/2021/12/why-do-students-still-want-jordan-peterson-to-tell-them-how-to-live

"... entered the debating ch"amber at the Cambridge Union to enthusiastic applause and whoops of admiration. ..."

"Questions were opened to the audience... Their interest in Peterson’s opinions approached reverence. When the microphone eventually came to them, some students began by thanking Peterson for the positive impact he’d had on their lives.

24th lecture:

"His entrance to the stage at the University of Cambridge on November 24th infused the packed hall with intense anticipation. The focused audience sat silently, watching the noted academic’s every move and hanging by his every word. It was a level of concentration and attention unlike any I have ever witnessed, and when he paused in contemplation, standing silent on the stage for a good few seconds, the audience froze. Not the faintest, remotest sound could be heard as they awaited Peterson’s highly anticipated Cambridge oratory."

"... The captivating talk that followed illustrated Peterson’s tour de force intellectual prowess and his ability to make us freshly examine the ordinary and the (seemingly) simple...

"... “Meaning,” concluded Peterson, is “the antidote to suffering.”

You Don’t See Objects and Infer Meaning, You See Meaning and Infer Objects CanterburyUK (talk) 15:02, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

https://www.lotuseaters.com/jordan-petersons-return-to-cambridge-is-a-huge-deal-07-12-21 CanterburyUK (talk) 15:02, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

the video of the 23rd lecture is on Youtube - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HgSnS-z4JU&t=0s CanterburyUK (talk) 15:09, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

22nd he spoke to Cauis College, Cambridge University

-- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Twc6T19tap4&t=0s CanterburyUK (talk) 15:05, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Looks like mostly primary sources and blogs - the one reliable source (the New Statesman) is just an anecdotal account of a visit, nothing significant in that. -----Snowded ^TALK 15:36, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. He is a public speaker, so any specific examples specific speeches would need context from reliable independent sources. These sources are pretty flimsy. Grayfell (talk) 23:46, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

more recent activities

The page IMHO perhaps lacks more recent events. I added some notes above abut his Cambridge University speaking engagements in Nov 2021.

Another interesting conversation - 2M people have watched him being interviewed by the UK high profile comedian: Russell Howard https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYM-sS-0-yg Howard is not a noteworthy name in psychology or academia of course. But the 15 minute chat is not trivial in content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CanterburyUK (talk • contribs) 15:26, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

As mentioned at #Involvement in, and speaking engagements at various prestigious organizations and institutes. this will need reliable, independent sources to explain to readers why these numbers would be important. There is no agreed-upon point at which a number of views becomes encyclopedically significant. We need reliable sources to explain this for us, even if it might seem obvious to us as editors. Grayfell (talk) 23:55, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2022

In the Religion section:

Peterson says, “The ultimate mentor is Christ.” [This is a 2021 official documented quote from Peterson, on a page about his faith and the way he sees the influence of Christianity on society] https://byfaith.org/2022/04/25/jordan-peterson-and-the-quest-for-a-mentor-in-the-post-truth-age/ Minion Life Kevin (talk) 10:15, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. You'll need reliable sources discussing this to show that it is WP:DUE. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:30, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Each quote from Peterson includes the original source. Minion Life Kevin (talk) 10:27, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Please do read WP:DUE... the issue is not whether or not he said such and such a thing... the issue is, whether the statements in question received coverage by reliable sources, and if so, how much? The more something is covered, the more weight it has. In this case, "byfaith.org" seems to be a non-notable blog of a non-notable book publisher, and that does not give much weight at all for inclusion in this article. Le Marteau (talk) 11:45, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Your thoughts are important on the neutral point of view. I am suggesting the addition of one quote of seven words: Peterson says, “The ultimate mentor is Christ.” This is not controversial, we know Peterson said it, the source is correct. The page is certainly a religous publisher, who has studied and quoted the religous thoughts of Peterson. It's an important addition. Minion Life Kevin (talk) 06:01, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

It isn't up to us as editors to decide something is important. It is up to reliable, independent sources. Since Peterson has said countless things, and we cannot possibly include them all (even those which have been supported by publishing blogs) we need a specific reason, based on sources, to include this one. Without a well-sourced reason, the addition of this quote would be a form of editorializing, as its inclusion, and it's relative importance, would be based on your personal opinion as an editor. Grayfell (talk) 22:48, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

To phrase it another way, in case it helps with clarity. Peterson, as a philosopher, says many things. Some may argue he even says too many things, as philosophers are often wont to do. Some of those things are important, and some are not. How we determine whether a statement made by Peterson, or any biographical subject, is based upon what reliable secondary sources say about it. This is usually in the form of print media, academic research, or biographies. Ideally such sources will be transformative of Peterson's commentary in some manner, explaining why it is impactful for good or ill (the statement may or may not be controversial for example), as that would help us assess its due relevance.

At the moment, the only source provided is from a religious blog, owned and operated by two brothers who seem to be authors of little renown, relatively speaking. Leaving aside the reliability concerns of the source for now, while the statement is clearly important to one of them, we cannot from this source assess the importance of the statement relative to other statements Peterson has made. For that, we need more sources, demonstrating why it is important and impactful. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:10, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate everyone elaborating on my rather short reply. Y'all making me look bad! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:25, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Views

@Springee:, you reverted my edit to this section by saying that it does not describe his views, but there is already a quote from Current Affairs in the section describing how others view him, so how is that okay while my quote isn't? As for his connection to the film, he is featured in the film. X-Editor (talk) 20:28, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

X-Editor, no problem and thank you for opening the discussion topic. As for the view section, I think it's one thing to find sources that say, "based on his comments/actions we think his views are this...". It's another when the source just says, "people call him a Nazi". Nazi is one of those labels that gets thrown around a lot when someone wants to make it clear they don't like someone but I don't think in this case it tells us anything about his views. Is he a Nazi because he is a nationalist? Does he want to take over France? It's just not an insightful comment. I'm not sure that the Current Affairs quote is that useful either but it avoids saying he is labeled a Nazi. As for the movie, if we are going to have something that is similar to a see also, the link should be clear. He may have been interviewed in the film or footage of his statements may have been used but unless the film was by him or he had a major hand in it's production I'm not sure why it would be included. Springee (talk) 01:03, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Good points. Thanks for explaining. The term Nazi is tossed around a lot, so it's better not to use it. X-Editor (talk) 04:14, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Recent addition of quote about Elliot Page

Do we actually need to quote the tweet, even in part? Even without the name it is still misgendering Page. Per the final example in MOS:GENDERID, which ironically also involves Page, we could and I think should paraphrase it. Something like On June 29th, Peterson's Twitter account was suspended after misgendering and deadnaming transgender actor Elliot Page in a tweet which said that Page had his breasts removed by a criminal physician. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:58, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

With this edit, I hope to have clarified that the reason to include the quote was to specify the manner of the misgendering (which I suspect would not be clear to all of our readers, but which is pointed out with "sic."). I am certainly open to other perspectives on this, but I think our readership in general benefits from the reminder that this is what misgendering is - the same argument does not apply to the deadname, for reasons that I think are obvious. Newimpartial (talk) 16:17, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

That's silly - there are various reasons to truncate or modify a quote, but censorship is not one of them; see WP:CENSOR. And if he was blocked from Twitter for saying something, readers deserve to know exactly what he said. Korny O'Near (talk) 01:39, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Censorship would be removing all reference to the reason why Peterson is currently banned from Twitter. Respecting the dignity of the person that Peterson is deliberately being hurtful to is not censorship. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:43, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

This seems very RECENT. I would suggest removing the whole quote (just say "X happened because Y" or include the full sentence. Springee (talk) 02:11, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree with that. And yes, bowdlerizing Peterson's quote is indeed censorship - especially because he was trying to make a socio-political point, not trying to, say, smear a random celebrity. Korny O'Near (talk) 02:45, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Including the full sentence would mean including the actual deadname, directly counter to a widely-participated RfC that closed less than 18 months ago. I see no good reason to do that. Including only the misgemdering phrase, with sic. is aligned with all policies of which I am aware, and serves the use for our readers that I specified above.

By the way, Springee and Korny: the two of you are unlikely to engineer an exception to MOS:DEADNAME just because you find it inconvenient or even objectionable. Sorry, not sorry. Newimpartial (talk) 02:53, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that policy applies - it says, "If a living transgender or non-binary person was not notable under a former name..." But Elliot Page was obviously notable (actually, probably more notable) as Ellen Page, than they are under the new name. Korny O'Near (talk) 03:01, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

The relevant part of the guideline, which does apply to notable deadnames, is Paraphrase, elide, or use square brackets to replace portions of quotations to avoid deadnaming or misgendering, except in rare cases where exact wording cannot be avoided. This does not seem to be one of those rare cases. Newimpartial (talk) 03:08, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I missed that part - you got me there. Well, I think it's a dumb guideline, but it is indeed a guideline. In this case, though, it directly conflicts with WP:CENSOR, in that Peterson's use of the name "Ellen Page" and the pronoun "her" were directly aiming to make a point, and the precise reason (apparently) why he was banned. So perhaps Springee's suggestion to remove the entire quote is the only real solution. Korny O'Near (talk) 03:15, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Censorship done for a noble cause is still censorship. Quoting someone but not really quoting them seems wrong, and if we must resort to grammatical sleight-of-hand in order to half-assed quote someone we should instead just state the facts of the matter and leave it at that. Le Marteau (talk) 06:58, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't think "censorship" is generally a useful framework within which to discuss Wikipedia content. Instead, we should ask: does the reader benefit from knowing this information? If so, what's the best format to present it in? We generally avoid quotes where paraphrasing is possible; however, in this case, I believe there's important subtext to the tweet. It reads, in full: Remember when pride was a sin? And [Elliot Page] just had her breasts removed by a criminal physician. (I've replaced the deadname because we can agree that MOS:DEADNAME prohibits it.)

Here, I can only see pride as a deliberate pun, signalling Peterson's opposition to LGBT identity more widely. But to point this out without a source is original research. There is other subtext to the tweet, too, that is hard to convey through paraphrasing. So I think we should quote it verbatim, except with the substitution of the deadname like I've done above. We need to give a reason for the suspension; that reason is the full text of the tweet; and Independent/Indy100 decline to analyse it in enough depth for us to use that. — Bilorv (talk) 14:12, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm aware calling "censorship" censorship here is not a "useful framework" as it has pejorative connotations, and no one wants to consider themselves censorious. But it actually is... the community has carved out an exception to WP:CENSORED and that's fine. But although I support the community's decision in WP:DEADNAME, as I do all community decisions, I'll not be participating in the munging of Peterson's quote and will step aside and let those more suited to such work, proceed. Le Marteau (talk) 15:51, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't see that DEADNAME supports altering the quote. Altering the exact quote negates much of the original issue with the quote. If we say Twitter blocked him for deadnaming then we say "Elliot" instead of "Ellen" then the quote no longer deadnames Page. The example quote says if the changes are overly disruptive to the quote don't do it. If the quote needs to be altered to be on Wikipedia then we should simply remove the quote. Honestly, we should probably remove the whole thing since this seems like a NOTNEWS and RECENT issue. If the objective is to say he doesn't support altering common speech to placate revisionist language (or how ever his objections would be summarized) then include it. That he said something about Page that upset Twitter censors seems like a minor thing by itself. Looking into my last comment a bit I did find this Newsweek bit on it (I know Newsweek isn't blessed by RSP)

[14]. It says Peterson was comparing how pride used to be seen as something like vanity or other character flaws but is now taken as a good thing. It also says Peterson used "she" since using "he" as the subject of a mastectomy would be medically odd/wrong. Anyway, right or wrong I think his explaination gives insight into his views on these subjects. However, I think it might be better to trim this all way down and just say Twitter blocked him for what Twitter says is "[Twitter claim here]". We should not be altering this quote as has been done since that removes the controversy in question. Springee (talk) 17:23, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

If the objective is to say he doesn't support altering common speech to placate revisionist language (or how ever his objections would be summarized) ... That he said something about Page that upset Twitter censors - Springee, you don't seem to be taking this incident as seriously as Twitter, or the RS, are taking it. Peterson's tweet isn't primarily about language - he is objecting to LGBTQ pride as "a sin", denying Page's trans identity, and objecting to Page's top surgery as something that should be criminalized. This is fairly extreme anti-trans hate speech, and your paraphrase as Peterson not supporting altering common speech to placate revisionist language and saying something about Page that upset Twitter censors suggest, at the very least, that you are tone deaf in this subject domain, and may point to deeper WP:CIR issues. Newimpartial (talk) 17:31, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Throwing out CIR insults is not a good way to persuade others that they should adhere to your perspective. My view that we should either include the still quote or, preferably, remove the quote and impartially state why Twitter blocked him, hasn't been moved by your comments. Springee (talk) 22:29, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, considering that the point of my reply was to draw attention to your tone deaf comment, rather than to persuade others that they should adhere to (my) perspective, that isn't really a result that perturbs me at all. Newimpartial (talk) 22:55, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I think the best way forward is likely to leave the quote out. By including a quote by the article subject we're saying that it's one of the most important and noteworthy things that they've said, which this is not. We should just summarize the reliable sources, which will likely be "Peterson was named from Twitter for deadnaming Eliot Page." If we're worried that a reader doesn't know that deadnaming is, wikilink it. This will avoid deadnaming on our part, and avoid concerns about censorship. I also think using the quote as written by Peterson does not violate MOS:DEADNAME as I think this is a rare case where it cannot be avoided. Providing a quote that is noteworthy because it's offensive and hurtful and removing the offensive and hurtful part changes the meaning. Luckily, summarizing secondary sources is an easy solution. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:10, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't think Peterson was banned from Twitter for deadnaming Eliot Page will turn out to be a plausible summary of the situation. For one thing, the rationale for the ban concerned Twitter's rules against hateful conduct, which several elements of the tweet may have transgressed.

Newsweek summarized the situation this way:

Dr. Jordan Peterson has been suspended from Twitter for calling out the "criminal physician" who removed Ellen, now Elliot Page's breasts.

The controversial tweet was flagged as violating Twitter's rules against hateful conduct, and Peterson has reportedly indicated that he will "never" delete the tweet.

Then Newsweek quoted the tweet in full.

Pinknews said that Peterson was

suspended from Twitter temporarily after violating the site’s rules against hateful conduct with a tweet about Elliot Page, which now appears to have been deleted by the site.

The tweet in question, posted on 22 June, saw Peterson misgendered and deadnamed trans actor Elliot Page, saying: “Remember when pride was a sin? And [Elliot Page] just had [his] breasts removed by a criminal physician.”

gcn included less of the tweet and more about Twitter's policies:

Twitter subsequently took action against the Canadian as the post violated the platform’s rules against hateful conduct, saying: “You may not promote violence against, threaten, or harass other people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, or serious disease.”

The Independent opened with:

A Jordan Peterson tweet about the actor Elliot Page has reportedly been taken down for violating the social media platform’s rules against hateful conduct.

Later in the article, the tweet is quoted in full.

Interestingly, the Western Standard offered a slightly different rationale for the ban:

Twitter said Peterson was suspended for violating the platform’s rules against hateful conduct. Twitter’s rules state people cannot promote violence, threaten, or harass others based on their gender identity.

In any event, the reliable sources do not day that Peterson was "banned for deadnaming Elliot Page", so neither can Wikipedia. Newimpartial (talk) 23:24, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

That wasn't an actual proposal for prose. "Twitter suspended Peterson on $date for violations of their hateful conduct policy after he made post on the platform in which he misgendered and deadnamed actor Elliot Page." is probably a better summary, assuming there's better sources than Newsweek specifically calling it misgendering and deadnaming. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:03, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I think we can say "for violating the site's rules against hateful conduct", which is pretty much universally sourced. Gcn does say, as the article currently does, after he misgendered and deadnamed Elliot Page, but that "after" is ambiguous as to causal vs. temporal sequence, so it can't be used to imply causality. I think we should continue to mention the deadnaming and misgendering - on which all RS also agree - but we can't give that as the reason IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 00:11, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Rewording is fine. My main point is that including the text of the tweet is unnecessary, and not including it addresses both deadnaming and censorship concerns. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:28, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

We should be get careful about any summary as to why he was blocked. It would be best to cite the name of the Twitter policy vs just saying "hateful conduct" unless that is the policy name. If it is the name then it should be quoted. Springee (talk) 00:43, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

That's fine, as long as it's cited to a reliable, secondary source. Newimpartial (talk) 01:04, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Twitter do indeed call it their hateful conduct policy. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:41, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

In that case we should call it that in a way that is clear this is Twitter's name not our description. Given the recent edit back and fourth over the quote it should go. Springee (talk) 23:00, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

• Regarding whether to censor Peterson's quote, I think this case is an exception mentioned in MOS:DEADNAME (except in rare cases where exact wording cannot be avoided). We are specifically commenting on Peterson's use of she and the name Ellen in the tweet. We cannot refactor it to "[he]" and "[Elliot]" without losing all of the meaning we are trying to convey by quoting it. This is not at all like a case of refactoring a quote from 2010 to "[Elliot] Page is a great [actor]", which doesn't change the meaning of the quote, and is generally what MOS:DEADNAME is talking about. Endwise (talk) 11:22, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

  Just chiming into say that the current version, in which the quote is completely taken out, is probably okay too. It does have the added benefit of reducing the amount of text/emphasis we place on this saga. I do think it will leave readers wondering "okay, so what did he actually say", though. Endwise (talk) Endwise (talk) 15:35, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Responding to the question first asked. It would certainly help, if we had Peterson's tweet in full. Otherwise, how's one to know why Twitter blocked the guy. Something along the lines of "Peterson was banned from Twitter, because he tweeted something mean about somebody, etc...", isn't very revealing. GoodDay (talk) 03:26, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree. We need his tweet in full and unedited (and uncensored). Masterhatch (talk) 06:27, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

If I count myself among the editors favoring complete removal of the tweet, I believe we are now clearly in the majority. Newimpartial (talk) 12:20, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

To answer's GoodDay's question/point of "how's one to know why Twitter blocked the guy", there's two ways that can be done while being respectful to Page. By reading the sources we cite, or paraphrasing the sources we cite.

I cannot think of any good reason to include that quote as Peterson wrote it, when we can easily paraphrase it without losing meaning. Some may wrongly consider that censoring, and that is their prerogative, however censoring is not paraphrasing. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:28, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't really care if the tweet is in or out but being "respectful" to Page should have zero bearing on whether it is in or out. If the tweet is in, it is in exactly as Peterson wrote it. If it is out, then there should be no mention of it at all in the article. Paraphrasing the tweet is not an option; you can't have your cake and eat it too. Masterhatch (talk) 16:14, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Are you under the impression that we include primary sources at all times when we discuss incidents based on secondary source? That isn't what we do, nor is there any WP policy I've ever read mandating that as a recommended practice. Newimpartial (talk) 16:50, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Indeed Masterhatch, I noticed that a MOS is being used to 'censure' the tweet from this BLP. Perhaps that MOS needs revamping, if it's always going to be used in such a manner, concerning such topics. GoodDay (talk) 17:39, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

You're of course welcome to open a discussion on it at the appropriate talk page. But that's kinda off-topic for here. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:41, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, perhaps that time is nearing. GoodDay (talk) 17:48, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, I don't believe Peterson's suspension from Twitter is mentioned at Twitter. For that matter, I don't believe anything is mentioned about any criticism of Twitter's ban/suspension policies, there. But, that's a discussion for that article. GoodDay (talk) 18:34, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Puffery

What is so important about Kelefa Sanneh (which is mainly a music critic) in oder for his opinion on Jordan Peterson warrant a section just for him here? -Daveout(talk) 23:07, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't know who Kelefa Sanneh is, but various people have called Peterson one of the world's most influential public intellectuals (one of them, David Brooks, is even quoted in the intro as saying so), so it makes sense to have a section in the article quoting people's thoughts on the matter - Sanneh and others. Korny O'Near (talk) 23:19, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

In order to claim that someone is an "intellectual", the person making the claim should at least be regarded as an intellectual as well or a specialist in the field (in this case, psychology). This is just a random person judging Peterson's work on face value. It's unencyclopedic. It's just commentary. -Daveout(talk) 23:30, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I think it's pretty well-established that he's an intellectual (not to mention that "only an intellectual can say who's an intellectual" is rather circular logic). As for amount of influence - I think that's pretty easily judged in terms of books sold, audience sizes, ideas that have entered the mainstream, etc. Korny O'Near (talk) 00:03, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't necessarily see it as puffery, as it's independent commentary. I don't understand what the other two sources are doing there though, as they make no mention of Sanneh or the New Yorker. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:22, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

The highest quality source I've found so far on "Peterson as public intellectual" is this one. (We are generally expected to defer to the highest quality sources available, per WP:RS.) Newimpartial (talk) 00:16, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

There's significant sourcing for him being a "public intellectual", see for examples, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jordan_Peterson/Archive_3#Public_Intellectual Le Marteau (talk) 01:10, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

To be fair, those are mostly journalistic sources. Newimpartial (talk) 01:26, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

the term "public intellectual" is pretty standard for an academic entering the public domain and espousing one view or another, it applies to Peterson just as it does to the likes of Pinker and Chomsky, it's incontrovertible. The quality of the intellect on offer is a different matter. Acousmana 10:42, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I get that some people consider him some sort of intellectual. But others don't. I suggest we add the following text for balance's sake:

Nathan J. Robinson describes Jordan Peterson's popularity as "the sign of a deeply impoverished political and intellectual landscape." He goes on to say that Peterson "appears very profound and has convinced many people to take him seriously. Yet he has almost nothing of value to say."

References

Objections? -Daveout(talk) 11:38, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I can understand concern with the current content however the answer is not to insert a scathing claim from a hyper partisan source that is likely ideologically opposed to Peterson. That will read like Wiki editors are trying to persuade rather than inform readers. As for the current text, I can see the concerns with DUE. If we have more sources that support the POV then I can see supporting it. If this is a singular view then it either should either be attributed or removed. Adding Robinson's strongly biased opinion is not the correct solution. Springee (talk) 12:00, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Right. Nevermind then. -Daveout(talk) 12:24, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

From the quality (academic) source I linked above, I think the most promising passage might be this one:

Peterson’s narrative and his misinterpretation of information exemplify how this particular public intellectual filters information for his audience. He creatively assembles pieces of evidence from different scientific disciplines, distorting information in the process. The reassuring narrative that is the outcome goes some way to explain the viability of his rhetorical strategies, yet it cannot fully account for Peterson’s popularity. Therefore, we need to examine his demeanour and performance.

Perhaps a paraphrase is in order? Newimpartial (talk) 12:26, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I think this discussion about individual citations seems a bit unnecessary. This article needs a full "Influence and reception" section, just like exists for other public intellectuals like Michel Foucault, Thomas Sowell, Noam Chomsky, etc. - and it should include the full range of views (from reliable sources, of course), including both detractors and supporters. Korny O'Near (talk) 13:47, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't think "detractors and supporters" is in order. We should rely on sources of the highest quality, regardless of their views. Newimpartial (talk) 14:17, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't know what "highest quality" means, but presumably the standard sourcing guidelines all apply. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:01, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, notably When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources, as specified in WP:SOURCETYPES. Newimpartial (talk) 15:07, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Sure. There's nothing there about using only academic sources, though, if that's what you're getting at. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:09, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Newimpartial is correct here, at least as far as how we should approach this. Achieving an appropriate perspective is discussed at length in WP:NPOV, where I think the most relevant sections are WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:BESTSOURCES. We do not seek to offer a 'balance' of views, good and bad, in order to achieve neutrality. Rather, we seek out the best available sources on a subject, and summarise what they say. Where they disagree with one another, we might present multiple viewpoints, but if all the scholarly sources say one thing, and only lower quality sources are saying something different, we go with the best ones. Girth Summit _(blether) 15:15, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Newimpartial's academic source is less than impressive. Cited zero times and published in the journal "Celebrity Studies". Why would we treat this with more weight than any news article is beyond me. It would be better to look at Peterson's actual publications etc. Springee (talk) 16:14, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I hadn't looked at the source in question - I was commenting on the general approach we should take, not the specifics of a particular source. Having just looked at the source itself, however, I don't see any issues with it. It's written by a pair of scholars in relevant disciplines who are attached to reputable institutions; it's a peer reviewed scholarly journal in a relevant field; it has an editorial panel made up of scholars in relevant fields, attached to reputable institutions. It's pretty obvious that we would afford that more weight than a news article. I would encourage people to look for other sources of equivalent or higher quality, and compare the conclusions they come to. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:14, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

If you disagree with WP:RS policy, the place to discuss that is on the talk page of the policy in question. I am especially concerned about your recommendation that we treat newspaper sources as equivalent to peer-reviewed articles and emphasize primary over secondary sources. Just because you don't like a particular journal isn't a reason to dismiss (or disparage) the source. Newimpartial (talk) 16:47, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

RS says academic sources are generally the most reliable but not in all cases and all sources are subject to discussion and editorial review. IE, what I'm saying is compliant with RS policy. Springee (talk) 19:02, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

What policy supports your comment, Why would we treat this with more weight than any news article is beyond me. It would be better to look at Peterson's actual publications etc.?

I know what WP:RS says; I just quoted it in response to your Korny's (very accurate) comment, I don't know what "highest quality" means. Newimpartial (talk) 19:26, 8 July 2022 (UTC) corrected by Newimpartial (talk) 19:41, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

That "highest quality" comment wasn't mine.[15] While academic sources are generally considered the best sources, per WP:RS, "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. However, some scholarly material may be outdated, in competition with alternative theories, controversial within the relevant field, or largely ignored by the mainstream academic discourse because of lack of citations. " This isn't the journal Nature and that article shows that it has been cited zero times. We can perhaps trust the factual claims in that source but certainly should be wary of giving it's analysis/conclusions much if any weight. I will clarify that I don't mean cite Peterson's work directly, rather look at how often it has been cited by others and in what capacity. Look at the impact his papers have had in his field. Springee (talk) 19:33, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Notwithstanding other issues, Semantic Scholar shows that paper as having been cited once. Google Scholar shows it cited twice, with the second being in a book that I can't access the preview of. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:40, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Error fixed, Springee; sorry.

Re: I will clarify that I don't mean cite Peterson's work directly, rather look at how often it has been cited by others and in what capacity. Look at the impact his papers have had in his field - so you are recommending that we perform WP:OR analysis of our own, then? Do you recognize that your dismissal of the paper is also an original interpretation on your part?

Also, I don't see any policy basis for your preference for the analysis offered in broadsheet and magazines over the academic paper, either. That seems to me to be WP:ILIKEIT rather than being based on policy considerations. Newimpartial (talk) 19:41, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

No, not OR. I'm suggesting we do what most academics would do. You see what others say about a person's work. The best way to do that is read what others say about the work when they cite it. As for dismissing the paper you found, we commonly use editorial judgement when deciding if a source is reliable and/or DUE. Springee (talk) 22:32, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

he might be full of shit, but he's a public intellectual, not much more to it, it's properly sourced, very silly discussion. Acousmana 16:53, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

He is or was a University professor & they tend to be quite intellectual & there's no doubt, that he's a public figure. So...what's the problem? GoodDay (talk) 19:49, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

For starters, Kelefa Sanneh's claim that Peterson is one of the most influential intellectuals of the English speaking world. That seems hyperbolic. -Daveout(talk) 22:27, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

The thought that Peterson might actually be "one of the most influential intellectuals" on the scene today seems to have not crossed your mind, evidently. Because on a top five list of "most influential intellectuals" today... I'd say him being on the list is not as on-its-face ridiculous as you seem to think it is, and leave it at that. Le Marteau (talk) 22:42, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

We don't work on opinions and feelings. I'd like to see some proof of Peterson's alleged outstanding influence. Great claims must be backed by great evidence. Sanneh hasn't provided any. -Daveout(talk) 22:53, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

"most influential" is definitely hyperbolic, so unless we have solid sources to underpin this assertion (or we provide appropriate context for claims of 'influence' using RS) we should drop it from article. Stating he is merely a 'public intellectual' isn't problematic in the least. Acousmana 11:59, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Peterson's reply to Twitter block

I think some level of coverage to Peterson's Twitter block is DUE. However, I'm concerned that editors are focused on inflammatory quotes (even if the sources emphasize them) vs the substance of Peterson's reply. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not media press so we should avoid emotive content/phrasing. I don't think we should be quoting the clickbait "would rather die" reply vs simply stating he refused to delete the tweet as the latter is presented in IMPARTIAL tone. The same is true of the "Up yours, woke moralists, we'll see who cancels who!" quote cited to a video gaming blog site Kotaku. Again, a summary of his arguments absent the inflammatory phrasing is informative. Including only the inflammatory parts [16] without the underlying reasoning is partisan media type reporting, not something that should be in an encyclopedia. Springee (talk) 18:04, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

The "Up yours, woke moralists" bit seems to be the only noteworthy thing to come out of Peterson's reply, and that is purely because of memes arising from it (sources: Newsweek, Indy100, PC Gamer) . While Kotaku also mentions the "what rules" part, per other sources that seems less notable. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:14, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

If the quote is all we think is notable then we should just say he replied and leave the quote out. Newsweek is now considered a questionable source. The others are not sources I think we should be using to establish DUE in a BLP with strong political overtones. Springee (talk) 18:30, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Forbes might be a better source to lend WEIGHT to Peterson's reactions, yes? Newimpartial (talk) 18:46, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I saw that source when doing my brief search earlier, unfortunately it's a WP:FORBESCON piece and not a Forbes staff piece. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:49, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Right. I often find it difficult to find the contributor tag, even when I look. Thanks. Newimpartial (talk) 19:22, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

WP:NEWSWEEK says to evaluate current content from Newsweek on a case-by-case basis. In any event, the three sources I've provided were just from a brief search and I think demonstrate quickly that the meme potential is what is notable about Peterson's video and not the commentary within. A more thorough search would be in order, but depending on the context I'm not sure if excluding the quote is DUE given that sources on it do not seem to do so. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:53, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

There may be some decent sources out there and if there are then let's use them to provide an encyclopedic summary rather than a quote selected by sources to drive clicks. Springee (talk) 19:04, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

For "would rather die", we have one of Canada's newspapers of record. For "woke moralists" I think LGBTQ Nation is promising, but it may still be TOOSOON. Newimpartial (talk) 19:22, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Again, we should summarize, not use click bait type quotes. I'm also not sure that LGBTQ Nation would be impartial enough to use them as a source for what we should quote. Springee (talk) 19:24, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Springee. It likely won't be added, at least not in full. GoodDay (talk) 19:34, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

It was just restored to the article [17]. Springee (talk) 19:44, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

For now. GoodDay (talk) 19:46, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

inclusion of quote ("Up yours, woke moralists, we'll see who cancels who!") is acceptable, Newsweek item, in this case, isn't contentious. Acousmana 10:30, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Newsweek post 2013 was downgraded with a warning related to click bait articles. I did a search for coverage of this topic and sadly the Daily Wire was the best since it actually tried to articulate the points Peterson was making (right or wring) [18]. While the Newsweek source quotes the replies of random Twitter users making fun of Peterson (not a sign of quality journalism), the DW provided some of his explanation. The quotes vs substance is the difference between pop journalism and an encyclopedia. It doesn't appear we have consensus to include this new content so it should say out until a consensus is achieved. Springee (talk) 11:23, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Newsweek item is neutral and matter of fact, it's an item on internet culture, in a 'culture' section of Newsweek, by a senior 'TV & Film Reporter', calling it clickbait is a stretch, neutral report on Peterson's Twitter ban, his response, and resultant memeification. It doesn't appear we have consensus to exclude it. Acousmana 16:56, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

"It doesn't appear we have consensus to exclude it" is not how Wikipedia works. Endwise (talk) 04:01, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

While you're correct in saying the Daily Wire piece tried to cover the points Peterson was making in the video, those comments are not what was notable. The notability of the video was/is the memes that have arisen from it, which predominantly use the "Up yours, woke moralists" sentence in other contexts. Reporting on meme culture is not clickbait.

Also for all the focus on disregarding the Newsweek source, for which RSP says to evaluate on a case-by-case basis, it is also the case that RSP states the Daily Wire is generally unreliable for factual reporting due to a tendency to share stories that are taken out of context or are improperly verified. So even if the notability of the video was predominately because of Peterson's meaning and not the memes, the Daily Wire would be a completely unacceptable source to use for that. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:54, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

OK, this is a case where we should disregard it. Any article that highlights a tweet saying a BLP subject sounds like Kermit the Frog is showing they are chasing clicks, not engaged in quality journalism. The exact reason why this source was downgraded. Springee (talk) 03:34, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

actually it's internet users ("people compared") who established this, not the journalist, and you clearly don't know your memes, Kermitification of Peterson started years ago. Acousmana 10:00, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Quibbling about the nits doesn't address the issue. If that Newsweek article is about the memes then it's not DUE, it becomes click bait trash. Also, why did you restore a clearly poor source here [19] Kotaku might be reliable for their reviews of the latest computer game but not for establishing weight a BLP article. Per NOCON the content stays out until consensus says include. Springee (talk) 11:05, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

in your estimation it's click bait trash, the Peterson phenomenon is a product of internet culture, his current career is built on it, responses to his hyperbolic pronouncements elicit reactions in the same domain, memes are part of this, as such they have relevance. Acousmana 13:34, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

• That Peterson said "Up yours, woke moralists, we'll see who cancels who!" doesn't really tell you anything about Peterson/his Twitter block, it's just an inflammatory quote. I would only see reason to include a meaningless quote like this if it got so much attention that we were obliged to. That we have to dig into articles in video game websites, Forbes contributor pieces, and a Newsweek article about memes and how Peterson sounds like Kermit the Frog, shows that this is clearly not something that received widespread attention in reliable sources. Endwise (talk) 03:54, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

  @Acousmana: if you add new content (especially to a BLP with bad sourcing), and four separate people express their disagreement with that material on the talk page, I don't think it's appropriate to re-add it after you are reverted on it. Endwise (talk) 12:06, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

it's BRD, innit. Acousmana 13:34, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

No, what happened was B(X-editor)R(Springee)R(you)R(me)R(you). Endwise (talk) 16:36, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

If we are to include his response (Up yours, woke moralists, we'll see who cancels who!) we must include the tweet in full and unedited that started it all. We can't have one without the other-either both or neither. Masterhatch (talk) 10:42, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Do you have any WP policy supporting that, or is it just something you believe very strongly? Newimpartial (talk) 12:47, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Doesn't it make sense to show the tweet that caused him to be so vulgar? If we're going to include his response, does it not make sense to show the reason for this whole gong show? Do I feel strongly? No. But how I feel has nothing to do with it. Do you take into account how you feel when you edit? I hope not. Masterhatch (talk) 13:21, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Re: the tweet that caused him to be so vulgar? What tweet is that? Newimpartial (talk) 13:34, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

In agreement with you, Masterhatch. GoodDay (talk) 13:56, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree as well. Why put so much emphasis on the quotes of the reply but avoid the original tweet which was also liberally quoted in sources? I think a good solution is to cut the material down and avoid all the quotes. Springee (talk) 14:48, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

There is the distinction that Up yours, woke moralists! isn't a defamatory comment (or hate speech) in the way Peterson's original tweet was. The bar to be passed for inclusion in article text is therefore not as high. Newimpartial (talk) 15:23, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

That seems to be a bar of your own invention. If we feel the need to only summarize the original issue why not for the follow on sources? Springee (talk) 15:30, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Because we have policies and guidelines telling us not to include insulting material like Peterson's original tweet, but those policies and guidelines don't apply to Up yours, woke moralists! If you aren't aware of the BLP considerations pertaining to the original tweet, and don't feel that they have been explained sufficiently in the preceding section, I would be happy to perform another exegesis. :p Newimpartial (talk) 15:34, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

So this is a bar of your own making. Anyway, it looks like we don't have consensus to include any of the quotes so I wouldn't worry about including the original Tweet. Springee (talk) 16:24, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Are you under the impression that I made up the MOS:DEADNAME provisions to remove deadnames and misgendering from quotations, or the WP:BLP provisions that discourage us from quoting anyone calling another living person a "criminal physician"? Perhaps by of your own making you meant "of the community's making", in which case yes, this is a bar of the community's making. Newimpartial (talk) 16:39, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm not, but I also understand it doesn't exclude quoting the original Tweet. You are setting a bar which claims it does. Again, if the original tweet isn't important enough to quote then neither are the click bait quotes carried in click bait articles. Springee (talk) 16:49, 13 July 2022 (UTC)