Talk:Jordan Peterson

Inclusion of health history of family members

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

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

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

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

• Per WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE, there is no discussion or indication on how his family's health issues are relevant to Peterson himself.
• Both paragraphs rely on a single source [1], which was actually talking about transsexual children.
• Per WP:BLP, care must be taken when discussing living persons, and WP:COMMONSENSE tells me that this is particularly true when it comes to health issues of non-notable persons.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The idea that just because something appears in a single WP:RS (not multiple), it belongs in the article is laughable. Actually multiple. See: [2] [3] [4] [5]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Distinct 'Family' section and diff tool

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

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

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

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

• Several months after treatment in Russia

to

• Several months after landing in Russia

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

and:

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

to

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Girth Summit:

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

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

Hi Shibbolethink

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

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

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

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

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

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

OK, how about:

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

  Wiki has pages giving advice on editing and specifically on helping the Compare Functions feature to be effective
  As far as I know, there is no policy or guideline saying that edits should be made in a specific way as you describe. I would love to see it if so, and especially be made aware if any of my edits violate any such guideline. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:49, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Peterson's views on climate change research in the lead

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

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

2023 Jan- section for the Ontario College of Psychologists demands

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

thanks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

E.g.:

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

Sources

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

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

Thanks Springee.

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

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

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

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

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

requesting it be quashed as his comments were not made in context of treating patients
I could get behind this. I think that is absolutely relevant and doesn't add too much bloat and become UNDUE. Good compromise in my opinion. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:27, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Continued

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

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

So I reverted your change.

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

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

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

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

Hi Firefangledfeathers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi Firefangledfeather

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

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

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

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

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

@Firefangledfeathers:

thanks for the full reply Firefangledfeathers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Looking at the 6 new ones I added today:

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

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

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

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

You wrote:

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

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

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

You wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi Shibbolethink

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

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

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

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

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

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

• I'd propose we move the mention of this controversy to join the earlier paragraph about the Ontario college, and replace the current content with something like:

  In 2023, the college ordered Peterson to undergo social media communication coaching, following concerns about his public comments. Peterson denied any wrongdoing and filed for judicial review.

  I think this text is better because it is
  • briefer (27 vs. 67 words), affording less weight to this recent controversy
  • less reliant on documents posted by Peterson for statements of fact
  • more grounded in reliable sources (less tabloids and primary documents)
  Thoughts? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:46, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

  That looks good to me, Firefangledfeathers. Girth Summit _(blether) 10:32, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

  No opinion on the move but I prefer the current article text over this proposed text. Springee (talk) 11:18, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

  Looks good to me. Succinct, verifiable, and neutral. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:44, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

References

Reliable sources

1. Dawson, Tyler (4 January 2023). "Psychologists' college silent on Jordan Peterson sanction". National Post. Retrieved 9 January 2023.
2. Dawson, Tyler (6 January 2023). "Read Jordan Peterson's tweets that prompted complaints to psychologists' college". National Post.
3. Dawson, Tyler (6 January 2023). "Jordan Peterson asks Ontario court to review disciplinary proceedings that violate free speech". National Post.
4. Rocca, Ryan (4 January 2023). "Jordan Peterson says Ontario psychologist licence may be suspended over public statements". Global News. Retrieved 10 January 2023.

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

• Source 1 links to and briefly describes the OCP website, which announces the disciplinary measure and Peterson's legal response. One of the few shreds of content that isn't based on material released by Peterson. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 05:15, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
• Source 2 is nice because it's a major non-tabloid newspaper and a non-opinion piece. The downside is that it's responding to a document posted by Peterson, and it's careful to qualify that many of the basic details of the case are according to Peterson. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:12, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
• Source 3 is more focused on the Peterson's legal filing. It makes it clear that the part of the complaint that Peterson provided is just 56 of the 446 pages. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:36, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
• Props to SS9 for #4, which mentions more about what's on the college website. Nice to have something that's not from the Post. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:46, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

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

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

I think this version, originally by Firefangledfeathers nicely addresses the concerns raised by Springee with regards to the argument made by Peterson/his lawyers. Aside from potentially adding the dates of a hearing, should the review be granted, I don't believe there's much else to add to this pair of sentences until the review is disposed of either way. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:20, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good questions Girth:

"this text be copied verbatim into the article"

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

"where"

• after the mention of Peterson's court case

"Why?"

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

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

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

THanks Girth

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

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

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

Hi Springee

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think you should ask two questions. First, what secondary source says what we have and do we have a consensus for it? If we have a good source and consensus then the only other question is are editors opposed to linking to any filing in addition to the secondary source? I generally think it's fine/good to link to filings that are mentioned by a RS by only as a reference. Per Primary there are very few reasons we would ever directly cite information from a primary source (as opposed to providing it as an additional reference for the reader. Currently, I think what we have in the article is a good compromise. It provides the basics and a very high level summary of Peterson's reply. Contrary to what Sideswipe said, I do think it's OK to include a summary of Peterson's defense on the grounds that this is an accusation of wrong doing (what the college is doing in this case) should allow for a denial/self defense claims per this recent RfC [6] Springee (talk) 23:15, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Hi Sideswipe9th

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi Sideswipe9th -thanks for responding to me.

Your first point.

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

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

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

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

After all:

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

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

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

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

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

IMHO an editors first question is always:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Perhaps I've missed something, but having read the request from the College, I'm not seeing any implication of wrongdoing on the part of Peterson, and it is pretty clear that it is not an allegation of professional misconduct (which is mentioned as a possible outcome if Peterson does not agree to the undertaking) nor is it a disciplinary action. This reading is also supported by at least one RS; Globalnews.ca. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:23, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

It seems clear the college felt Peterson was doing something they didn't like [7]. Springee (talk) 00:41, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Agreed that we can (and have already) included a limited denial to comply with BLP. But we probably should not include much more than that, or risk becoming a newspaper. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:29, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Sideswipe9th

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

> No more than you are in trying to predict that the court will accept it.

Forgive me, but I don't see the 'prediction' you suggest is being made.

Just asking a logical thinking question. - not a Wiki rules question.

The proposal is a bald statement of a PAST event: - (therefore not a prediction of anything)

• "Peterson has petitioned the Court... states his Grounds as.."

If the court takes weeks / months to decide - the Wiki reader gets the benefit of the state of play as it is during that time. CanterburyUK (talk) 10:42, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

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

Hi Shibbolethink

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

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

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

Hi Shibbolethink

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@CanterburyUK please read WP:1AM. Among all the editors here, you are the only one advocating for the inclusion of this text. Whereas, all these other editors with >100,000 edits on wikipedia, are advocating against it. What does that tell you about your position and its relationship to the wikipedia community? — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:31, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

• OR

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

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

Hi ScottishFinnishRadish

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks Girth

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can anyone find a Source that supports the College of Psychologists of Ontario - in their case against Peterson?

I am still googling, but unable to find one.CanterburyUK (talk) 10:50, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

The Protest Rally outside the College of Psychologists - does it merit attention in the page?

There's been 2 Reverts regards the Rally - so lets talk about it here.

Two editors (one was me) added and edited the mention of the Protest Rally on Jan 11.

One editor deleted it. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jordan_Peterson&oldid=1133182687

So I reverted it - commenting "so 2 (editors) in favour of it"

Now {[Reply to|Sideswipe9th}} Sideswipe9th has deleted that reversion, commenting:

• "Per WP:ONUS, the sentence on the protest seems to be undue, as does giving the rest of the content a stand alone paragraph. The last edit also reintroduced non-neutral text. There is a consensus on the talk page to reduce and move the content as Firefangledfeathers had done."

Taking those points (no special order): A) "There is a consensus on the talk page to reduce and move the content as Firefangledfeathers had done."

• Not true - FFF referred to months-old discussion on the talk page - ie before the Rally happened. So FFF cannot have been referring to consensus about text on the Rally.

B) "the sentence on the protest seems to be undue"

• Sideswipe9th - could you expand on your thinking?

C) "The last edit also reintroduced non-neutral text."

• Sideswipe9th - which exact words where in your view non-neutral?
• do you think the factual content behind those words can be rephrased to make it neutral? Or it's impossible?

CanterburyUK (talk) 23:48, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

the sentence on the protest seems to be undue There's a reason why I wikilinked the word undue, as it quite clearly states my objections to the sentence on the protest. I suspect, given the similar language, that Firefangledfeathers has the same objections. It's also quite clearly afoul of WP:NOTNEWS. Per WP:ONUS you need to seek a consensus for it to be included, and to do that you'd need to demonstrate that the protest is more than a storm in a teacup.

which exact words where in your view non-neutral? The sentence as a whole was non-neutral. I think the factual content is already covered in sufficient depth in the shortened version of the sentence. Any more info than that risks it becoming undue by giving too much prominence to an event that in the long term may be meaningless. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:04, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Sideswipe9th:

Thanks for the link to Undue - it's a big page - what parts specifically are you referring to? CanterburyUK (talk) 01:48, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Unless you have anchors disabled in your browser somehow, the link should have taken you to a section titled "Due and undue weight", consisting of 4 paragraphs and a short list. I am referring to that entire subsection. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:00, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

• The sourcing is terrible. The Toronto Sun is a tabloid, and that's the best source - the others are a primary document and what looks like an activist's website with no reputation, plus an opinion piece that is also from the Toronto Sun. That's not really enough to support the idea that this is WP:DUE. --Aquillion (talk) 01:45, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

  The Toronto Sun is a tabloid, and that's the best source
  100% this is a major issue with including this content. It needs to have a demonstrated landscape of sourcing which shows it deserves a mention on the page, on the level with the large amount of sourcing we have for other content on the page. That is the nature of DUE and especially WP:RSUW. I'm not actually saying it doesn't have that sourcing, but I haven't personally seen it. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:28, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

  RSN discussions seem to be on the fence about the TS. I would be inclined to allow this content because, if several hundred people did protest that would be in my view a notable, public response. It also isn't a claim where I would be concerned about factual accuracy. That said, I would suggest anyone who wants to add the content should take the claim and the source to RSN just in case. Springee (talk) 21:56, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Meat-only diet

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

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

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

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

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

What do you think of this -

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

And for Peterson himself, pare it down to:

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

reduce a whole lot of words ( it does rather overdue the diet thing - including analysis by 3rd-parties of the cons of such a diet has been overkill for some time)
Completely disagree with this entire comment.

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

We cannot remove the discussion of the main-stream viewpoint and then keep the discussion of the diet, as this would violate the above guideline. And we cannot remove the entire thing (discussion of the diet and the mainstream view), as this would violate WP:DUE. So the best we can do is trim a bit, as I mentioned above. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:21, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Meat-only diet and consensus of experts

Re: this passage:

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

Sources

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

The International Journal of General Medicine is an open-access journal with a pretty abysmal scimago rank. And an impact factor of 2.445 which is pretty low for medicine. This particular paper is WP:PRIMARY, whereas the sources we use to represent the medical consensus are secondary, journal review articles which represent the consensus opinion of medical experts. Including a systematic review and meta-analysis. E.g. [8] [9][10].

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

Hi Shibbolethink, thanks for taking the time to comment.

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

What do you think - those 2 were always Undue?

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

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

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

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

Frontiers of Cardiovascular Medicine has a higher impact factor at ~6. Its more important, however, that the publication itself is a systematic review and meta-analysis. This is the highest quality form of a source for medical questions according to WP:MEDASSESS. This is exactly how we determine consensus in the expert community according to WP:MEDSCI. See: Even in reputable medical journals, different papers are not given equal weight. Studies can be categorized into levels of evidence,[11] and editors should rely on high-level evidence, such as systematic reviews.(MEDASSESS) and Wikipedia policies on the neutral point of view and not publishing original research demand that we present prevailing medical or scientific consensus, which can be found in recent, authoritative review articles, in statements and practice guidelines issued by major professional medical or scientific societies. (MEDSCI; emphasis mine)

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

The PRIMARY source you linked, however, is the lowest quality type of evidence for this question. See: WP:MEDASSESS and WP:MEDANIMAL. Particularly: Using small-scale, single studies makes for weak evidence, and allows for cherry picking of data. Studies cited or mentioned in Wikipedia should be put in context by using high-quality secondary sources rather than by using the primary sources. (MEDANIMAL; emphasis mine) and The best evidence for efficacy of treatments and other health interventions is mainly from meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).[12] Systematic reviews of literature that include non-randomized studies are less reliable.[13] Narrative reviews can help establish the context of evidence quality. (MEDASSESS; emphasis mine). The study you cited is actually none of these things. It's a primary scholarly publication that is not secondarily covered here. It could even be a violation of WP:NOR if the interpretation is so intricate as to typically require secondary coverage. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:06, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

Hi Shibbolethink

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

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

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

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

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

• "we are not Peterson's website, advocate, editorial, or opinion page. We should only give what is necessary for encyclopedic summary here. Doing otherwise would bloat the page."

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

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

Shibbolethink at minimum was not in agreement.

So the page is left pretty much unchanged.

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

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

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

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

So as above - I will open a section to wider editors; to give views on bloat overall on the Jordan Peterson page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CanterburyUK (talk • contribs) 14:39, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Regards the overall dialogue with Shibbolethink - it stopped when they avoided the 'fade into history' question I put to them in regards to their statement
Please stop casting WP:ASPERSIONS and focus on content, not contributors. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:22, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

"Peterson promotes meat-only diet" - the page had incorrectly stated that for some time

There was an untrue claim made in the page - quite some time ago - a statement of the form: "Peterson does X".
Last week the untrue claim was removed: the page no longer says "Peterson does X".

That is good. However for an extended period of time (perhaps years?) -

• all readers to this page have been misled
• Peteson has been misrepresented.

I propose that to help rebalance the bad influence the page has been: that a statement be added of the positive truth : "Peterson does not do X".

That helps because:

• many readers have read the false claim - and trusting wipedia some will have promoted that untruth about Peterson wider. If those people ever say: "look for yourself, it's on Wiki" referring to this web page: then anyone following their lead will come here and immediately see : "ah, that claim is in fact not true at all"
• whereas currently, they come here; and are NOT better informed: the page is silent on the matter.

The untruth that we removed last week:

• that "Peterson promotes his Meat Diet"

There is a source already in the page, that we can quote from:

• "Peterson reiterated several times that he is not giving dietary advice"
• https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2018/08/the-peterson-family-meat-cleanse/567613/

PS - it throws a bad light on the quality of the editorship of this page (on all of us who ever edited it) - that we allowed an Untruth to be stated despite the actual truth being there in a Source the page referred too. Staring us in the face. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CanterburyUK (talk • contribs) 11:15, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Disagree, it is not wikipedia's job to pursue truth, justice, or "balance". See: WP:NOTTRUTH, WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, and WP:FALSEBALANCE. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:17, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

CanterburyUK, Shibbolethink is correct. As an extreme example, if for 6 months the article said Peterson was an arsonist. When correcting that entry we wouldn't say "Peterson isn't an arsonist" since, presumably, we don't have sources that say he isn't. Basically we don't "publish corrections", we just correct. If too much emphasis has been placed on his diet it would be reasonable to cut that content down. I don't personally think it's overly notable, especially if he doesn't actively promote it. However, I haven't looked to see what many of the sources say about it. Springee (talk) 13:56, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Right, the only reason I think it's okay to leave the article as-is, with a paragraph on his diet, is the sheer number, depth, and overall quality of sources which discuss this fact about him and his daughter in relation to him. These are some of our highest quality sources: [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19].

And there are actually more that we haven't cited: [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26]

The other aspect of this is, sure, Peterson has said he "doesn't promote" the diet. But then we have more than a dozen sources showing him doing exactly that: extolling its benefits, describing to his audience how it's helped him, how great he feels, etc. Clearly we have a guy who has his audience's attention, talking about how great something is for himself. So how do we deal with such controversial things, where we have conflicting evidence of what someone says they do and then what they actually do? We report the facts. Peterson's daughter has actively promoted it. He himself is on the diet as an attempt to treat his health problems. And we just don't report or describe or touch such subjective interpretations whenever possible.

This is the best course of action except where our sources overwhelmingly say X thing. Which they don't overwhelmingly say "Peterson promoted X." but they also don't say "Peterson didn't promote X." — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:06, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi Hob Gadling.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi Girth Summit -

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

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

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

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

Hi Girth

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi Shibbolethink

I find myself agreeing with Springee and not you.

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

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

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

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

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

Hi Shibboleth

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

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

Whereas :

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

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

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

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

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

Hi Shibbolethink

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

According to Olivia Wilde, the sinister character Frank in her 2022 movie Don't Worry Darling was inspired by Peterson, whom she described as "a pseudo-intellectual hero to the incel community

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bringing this to a conclusion- and summarising the thread

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

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

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

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

Editor Girth Summit: had advocated the film is notable.

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

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

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

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

Hi Girth

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

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

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

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

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

Sure.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks Girth

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

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

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

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

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

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

• "we are not Peterson's website, advocate, editorial, or opinion page. We should only give what is necessary for encyclopedic summary here. Doing otherwise would bloat the page"

But the consensus on those achieved little bloat reduction.

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

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

Hi Shibbolethink

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

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

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

Shibbolethink

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

This page under-informs readers - and inaccurately represents Peterson - he is the most read Canadian Author

The page starts with:

• Jordan Bernt Peterson (born 12 June 1962) is a Canadian media personality, retired clinical psychologist,[5] and author.[6]

Specifically - describing Peterson as merely 'an author'.

In reality he is much more: as the sources here show:

• a Best Selling author and
• world’s most-read Canadian author.

That is not nothing (to use one of his own phrases).

And in fact, the source has speculated:

• Could Jordan Peterson become the best-selling Canadian author of all time?

So the page can be easily criticised regards status as an 'encyclopeadic' page right now (IMHO.) CanterburyUK (talk) 23:27, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

To rewrite the first sentence as Jordan Bernt Peterson (born 12 June 1962) is a Canadian media personality, retired clinical psychologist,[5] and world's most-read Canadian author.[6] would be a textbook example of puffery.

Additionally citation 6 is approaching 5 years old, and a quick Google search of "most-read Canadian author" is full of low quality sources which overwhelmingly label Margaret Atwood as the most-read Canadian author. If there are any more recent high quality sources, I'm unable to find them through the sheer volume of lower quality ones. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:38, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Sideswipe9th @Sideswipe9th: You didn't object to the use of 'Best Selling', then.

Regards Puffery: the wiki guidance says:

• "Words such as these are often used without attribution to promote the subject of an article, while neither imparting nor plainly summarizing verifiable information."

which does not apply in this case - as the page DOES impart 'verifiable information' - the 5 year old source verifies it. That source exists in this page, ergo no editor has objected to it being low quality source'

But maybe you would propose selecting some other phrase from that source than: "world's most-read Canadian author" ? CanterburyUK (talk) 00:01, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

The term "best selling" is puffery, and covered under the MOS entry I've linked to.

But maybe you would propose selecting some other phrase from that source than: "world's most-read Canadian author"? I will not. I do not see any reason why we should call Peterson anything other than an author. Compare your proposal to the leads for William Shakespeare and Agatha Christie, the top selling male and female authors of all time, and note that both of those articles state plainly that they are a an English playwright and an English writer respectively.

the 5 year old source verifies it Incorrect. It verifies that, at the time of publishing (7 March 2018) that 12 Rules for Life was Amazon's most read (and most sold) nonfiction book, however by the end of that year there were four non-fiction books which sold more copies on Amazon than 12 Rules. Even if we were having this discussion in late 2018/early 2019, the National Post piece was already out of date. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:16, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Sideswipe9th @Sideswipe9th:

Thanks for replying.

You can find 2 best selling authors where wiki does not use that phrase

Likewise I can find that DO: Dainelle Steele, Linda de Suza.

Or pages that say:

• XYZ has also been an actor, a basketball coach, a best-selling author,

In any case -the two you mentioned are so extremely well known!

Whereas with Peterson - I would guess that a much higher % of Wiki readers have not heard of him at all.

So it would IMHO be helpful to those readers to see his level of success first thing, at the top of the page.

After all -the word 'author' is very meaningless without additional clarification: it ranges from

• self=published on Amazon, not on paper: sold less than 10 copies
• through to the remarkably successful (not dwarfed by JK Rowling / Shakespeare): Peterson.

Would you be agreeable to taking a page out of the Wiki book for sports people - who mention the details of the success up front, eg

• "Jack Alexander Draper is a British professional tennis player. He has been ranked as high as world No. 40 ..."

OR

• Frederick Beasley Alexander ... was an American tennis player in the early 20th century. He won the singles..."

Eg, the page would say:

• "Jordan Bernt Peterson born ... and author, including a 2018 best seller."

CanterburyUK (talk) 01:26, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

No, it's still puffery. The core problem is that he's not famous for how well his books sold, so it's not central to his notability - the sales are downstream from (and the result of) his notability rather than being something significant enough about him to put in the first sentence. --Aquillion (talk) 01:36, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Would you be agreeable to taking a page out of the Wiki book for sports people I've already stated I see no reason to call Peterson anything other than an author. To do otherwise would be to engage in puffery, to which I've already linked the guidance against. Peterson isn't notable for being a "best selling author", his notability seems to largely stem from his commentary on social media surrounding political correctness, postmodernism, identity politics, and gender. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:41, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Stephen Edwin King (born September 21, 1947) is an American author of horror, supernatural fiction, suspense, crime, science-fiction, and fantasy novels. Maine is almost in Canada, and he's sold a few more books than Peterson, and it's still just "author." ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:44, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: King is not quite comparable - Peterson is notable because he has had success in two fields: Professor of Psychology AND a best selling author- that double-success makes him note-worthy: and therefore worth having near the top of the article, (I would argue). CanterburyUK (talk) 00:14, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

And King is notable only for being a bestselling author, yet they're still referred to as an author. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:22, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

It's not a very convincing argument that "other stuff exists" on wiki. e.g. 'other authors have "best-selling" in their first sentence'. Since Wiki, as a project, is always in progress, there will always be places where it doesn't live up to the expected standard. This should not be taken as a reason to make it worse. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:30, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2023

This quote about Jordan Peterson is taken out of context and modified so it is not conveying its original intent and I request it is either full quoted or removed as a opinion piece. The sited quote is also behind a subscription wall discouraging people from selling the original article

psychologist Shelley Carson, former PhD student and now-professor at Harvard, recalled that Peterson's lectures had "something akin to a cult following", stating, "I remember students crying on the last day of class because they wouldn't get to hear him anymore." 2001:1970:4AE6:CA00:FC10:A56B:F943:CA6D (talk) 05:53, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: the full quote from the source is

A graduate student from back then, Shelley Carson, who now teaches at Harvard and writes about creativity, recalled that Peterson had "something akin to a cult following" in his Harvard days. "Taking a course from him was like taking psychedelic drugs without the drugs," Carson says. "I remember students crying on the last day of class because they wouldn’t get to hear him anymore."

I don't think we're taking that out of context, and I don't think quoting the unused bit about drugs is necessary. If it would help you (or anyone else) to have a copy of the Chronicle article, I can email a pdf version, but you'll need to register an account first. Paywalled sources are usable per WP:PAYWALL. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 06:02, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

This page under-informs readers - and inaccurately represents Peterson - he is a Professor

The word "professor" is missing from the initial summary sentence:

• "Peterson is a Canadian media personality, retired clinical psychologist, and author."

And missing from the entire opening summary block. Bizarrely: in the 2nd paragraph it says :

• "permanently join the faculty of psychology "

when it would have used fewer words and been more helpful to the reader to have said:

• "became Professor of psychology "

Given that has been the centre of his career - IMHO it is hard to imagine how it can have happened that current and past editors over the past years have allowed the page to be so unhelpful to the reader. So un-encylopedic. How has the Wiki process broken down so badly ? CanterburyUK (talk) 19:15, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

You realise that it would take fewer characters to say 'I propose that we change sentence X to say Y', without all the grandstanding? Anyway, professor is a title, not a job. My partner is a professor. If you asked her what her job was, she'd say 'historian', or maybe 'historian and author'. Or maybe, on a bad day 'middle-ranking university administrator who occasionally gets the chance to do some research. Girth Summit _(blether) 19:29, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

@Girth Summit:

If 'fewer characters' is important to you - why 41 words on your partner's views? CanterburyUK (talk) 23:39, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm injecting a bit of levity. This talk page is full of verbose, grandiose and sometimes rather snide statements from you about what is wrong with this article, very few of which anyone seems to agree with you on. If you just made proposals, without all the 'this is sooo unencyclopedic' nonsense, you'd probably stand a better chance of persuading people. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:08, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

One is helpful in demonstrating the point with multiple perspectives, the other is repeating the same point multiple times without adding much in the way of convincing anyone. It generally does not help convince anyone of your position if you tell them repeatedly how bad of a job they're doing. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:08, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

For context, the word professor is missing from the lead sentences of Albert Einstein, Michel Foucault and Richard Dawkins. I don't think we are picking on Peterson here. Girth Summit _(blether) 19:41, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

But plenty of other examples where it IS present in the first para. CanterburyUK (talk) 23:59, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: Anyway - it looks like @Shibbelothink: would disagree with you, they wrote:

• "It's not a very convincing argument that "other stuff exists" on wiki. e.g. 'other authors have "best-selling" in their first sentence'. Since Wiki, as a project, is always in progress, there will always be places where it doesn't live up to the expected standard. This should not be taken as a reason to make it worse::CanterburyUK (talk) 00:16, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

  Please don't quote me, especially when you ping me incorrectly so I can't see it and correct you on the incorrect usage. The point of this argument is actually the opposite of how you have used it. It counts against your statement that other articles use "professor" in the first sentence, not in favor of it.

  Something happening in other articles is not a good argument for why it should happen here, when that thing is not supported by policy. The wikipedia is not done. You're reversing the style of my argument, and misquoting it. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:10, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

  @Shibbolethink: maybe I'm being slow - but I don't follow your logic.

  Regards: "The point of this argument is actually the opposite of how you have used it".

  The way the logic flows (IMH) - in essence:

  • Garth had said <paraphrasing> "other pages follow practice X, so this page should too"
  • and your earlier sentence that I quoted said <paraphrasing>: "just because practise X can be found on other pages does not make it correct".

  Ergo - your statement DOES mean that Gareth's comparison was not valid. CanterburyUK (talk) 23:29, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

  This back and forth is tiresome, and I hesitate to add to it, but just for the sake of completeness: the reason why I brought up our articles on those other eminent scholars wasn't to randomly point to other articles and say 'look, it's like this over there'. I was refuting what I took to be the central part of your argument. Your post above complains that we have missed out the word 'professor' from the lead sentence, and goes on to complain about how this was an outrageous oversight on our part, and a failure of 'the Wiki process'. You appeared to be under the impression that the omission of the word professor from the lead sentence was some sort of slight against the subject; my point is that this is how we always write about scholars, and I picked three high-profile examples to make the point. I chose the three I did because of their eminence, but the fact that two of those articles have been assessed as GA is also pertinent: that means that they have been reviewed several times, by people who are conversant with our WP:MOS, and found to be well-written. Wikipedia has millions of bad articles, which is why WP:OTHERSTUFF is often a bad argument; however, if you are pointing towards GAs and FAs, it's often a rather good argument, if you are using it to demonstrate that a particular content choice has wide acceptance. Girth Summit _(blether) 00:59, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

  Girth said: I don't think we are picking on Peterson here. That was the reason they referenced other pages. It's a very different point. Wikipedia is not governed by mathematical logic. Sometimes X is true but the contrapositive of x is not also true. Girth was not saying "other pages do X, so we should also do X." Girth was saying "we are not specifically singling out Peterson to not say he's a professor". And they are right in that. It's a slightly different argument than OTHERSTUFF. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:03, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I made the change to the 2nd paragraph and a corresponding change in the body. As far as I know that part is uncontroversial. I don't have an opinion on the first sentence. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:01, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I would strongly oppose a change to the first sentence on these grounds. Nowhere do we do that. If someone is a nuclear physicist, or an evolutionary biologist, or a medieval historian, that is what they are for our lead sentence - not a professor. Quite apart from the fact that the word is ambiguous (professor of what?), it also has different meanings in different places, so does not necessarily aid the rader's understanding. Long-standing (and common sense) practice is to mention the field academics are active in in our lead sentence, not the academic rank they attained. The lead sentence is supposed to define the subject, a d outline why they are notable:an academic who has attained the rank of professor is probably already notable for their work, I struggle to imagine a circumstance in which they might be notable for being a professor. Girth Summit _(blether) 20:59, 14 January 2023 (UTC)ng.

@Girth Summit: Stating "Nowhere do we do that" is risky in logical exchanges - as only 1 example is needed, across the whole of the arena, for that statement to be dis-proven.

" the word is ambiguous (professor of what?),"

• that issue was ALREADY covered in the very words you responded to.

"it also has different meanings in different places, so does not necessarily aid the reader's understanding"

• Wikipedia seems to disagree with you - it states clearly: "Professor is an academic rank at universities ... are usually experts in their field and teachers of the highest rank."

CanterburyUK (talk) 00:07, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Did you read as far as the second paragraph of the lead at Professor? And no, it's not risky to make a statement that might be technically wrong in a few badly written articles. If you want to spend the time finding examples of subjects who are described as professors in the lead sentence, I'll be happy to go around fixing them I guess. Girth Summit _(blether) 09:40, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

If you want to spend the time finding examples of subjects who are described as professors in the lead sentence, I'll be happy to go around fixing them I guess
This is the most salient part of why OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a bad argument. It just encourages us to go fix those other mistakes. Not to see them and go "oh wow, I was wrong about the base argument this whole time." if the basis argument is wrong, showing it exists elsewhere does not help. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:13, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Right. Most specifically, these people are professors of something. They are not just "professors." — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:11, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: thanks -that was quick. CanterburyUK (talk) 23:46, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't put professor in the first sentence. That he is a prof emeritus at U of college should be in the opening paragraph but things get awkward when too many descriptors are sequentially packed into the opening sentence. Springee (talk) 03:39, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps the most salient point of this is that he is a professor emeritus - an honorary title with little impact on his current activities. He does not teach any courses, he does not conduct any current university research, and he does not have any administrative duties at any university. So to put it in the first sentence would be improper and elevate a former position to UNDUE prominence. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:19, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Characterization of Peterson: "public intellectual" vs "media commentator" etc

The page previously introduced Peterson as a "media personality," a term which linked to "celebrity."

Then I changed it to "public intellectual," since that characterization was used in the second sentence of the article. (And I removed the second mention of it.)

Now someone reverted my edit and changed it to "media commentator," which links to "pundit."

Earlier the article used to characterize Peterson as a "YouTube personality," which linked to "YouTuber."

I don't think any of these characterizations is perfect, but I'd go for "public intellectual" if I were to choose one of them. Trakking (talk) 20:42, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

So my issue with public intellectual is that the topics Peterson often and frequently comments on are very far removed from his area of expertise. Were he just making commentary on clinical psychology, or the intersections of clinical psychology and other topics, I would believe that label to be relatively neutral, however that is not the case. Media commentator seems to me to a more accurate description of the commentary Peterson makes, both in social and traditional media. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:07, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th:

Regards: "the topics Peterson often and frequently comments on are very far removed from his area of expertise"; is that not true of many prominent intellectuals? Have you wikipedia guidance pages that shed light on how wide is 'far removed' acceptable on wiki?

Peterson IMHO does not really fit 'media commentator' IMHO.

• academic background is strong - had research papers cite above the average, at top notch Unis - became Prof.
• watching his public lectures - he is an intellectual - (watch the Cathy Newman interview to see the complexity of concepts he uses yet explains well
• succeeded in 3 careers - professor and clinical psychologist and best-selling author

Been given considerable attention by respected places/people:

• 20 minutes interview at the UK Channel 4 news: been onto the Podcasts/hosted podcasts with many respected academics and thinkers - invited on to various BBC programmes, including Question Time (twice) Hard Talk: ("In-depth interviews with hard-hitting questions and sensitive topics being covered as famous personalities from all walks of life talk about the highs and lows in their lives.")
• has youtube videos have hundreds of strangers thanking him for the positive input his works have been in their lives.
• has prominent politicians supporting his case for free speech (Canadian and European politicians)
• has sufficient public support for hundreds to rally in his support last week

That combination makes him pretty remarkable - but not a 'media commentator'. IMHO CanterburyUK (talk) 23:56, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

as the pundit (media commentator) article details:

Josef Joffe's book chapter The Decline of the Public Intellectual and the Rise of the Pundit describes a change in the role of public experts and relates to developments in the audience and the media itself. In the second half of the 20th century, foreigners like Hannah Arendt or Jürgen Habermas and others gained a certain position in the US as public intellectuals due to the (over)specialization of US academics.

A pundit now combines the roles of a public intellectual and has a certain expertise as a media practitioner. They play an increasing role in disseminating ideas and views in an accessible way to the public.

This describes better than anything the reason why the term "public intellectual" is out-dated, laudatory, and doesn't include the focus on media training and accessibility. Comparing Jordan Peterson to Hannah Arendt is bizarre, but it also shows that "media commentator" is not an overly negative term, and preferable to "public intellectual". It just describes what Peterson does: He comments on public matters in media channels in a way accessible to his preferred demographic. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:24, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

• I don't know about the other terms, but "public intellectual" definitely reads to me as puffery and I'd generally be opposed to using it in the article voice anywhere in the article, let alone in the lead. --Aquillion (talk) 22:35, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

  @Aquillion:

  You say 'puffery' - yet Peterson seems to fit the Wiki definition quite well: (my emphasise):

  • "The term public intellectual describes the intellectual participating in the public-affairs discourse of society, in addition to an academic career.[15] Regardless of their 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""

  CanterburyUK (talk) 00:02, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

First sentence of page - I reverted sources inadvertantly deleted when adding sources

I replaced the source relevant to his status as author) - that had been lost in the change "add refs": &diff=1133838789&oldid=1133824466.

@Shibbolethink: Your edit to "add refs" - added 2 new sources to that 1st paragraph. But had not asked for input here first (unless I've overlooked them - in which case I apologise). Can give your view why those specific sources are signiifcant enough for the 1st sentence. IMHO they're not.

• "With Jordan Peterson, occupational licensing becomes a way to censor" url=https://reason.com/2023/01/09/with-jordan-peterson-occupational-licensing-becomes-a-way-to-censor
• "Jordan Peterson visited ‘Britain’s strictest school’ and it looks like he loved it" url=https://www.indy100.com/politics/jordan-peterson-britain-strictest-school-katharine-birbalsingh

Also - is your view that both sources are RS ?CanterburyUK (talk) 00:46, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

It wasn't inadvertent. That "best-selling" citation verified other parts of the text that is no longer in the first-sentence ("best selling"). And thus is no longer necessary. Per MOS:LEAD we should not have citations in the lead for obvious things (e.g. that Peterson is an author). The "media commentator" label is controversial, hence per WP:V and MOS:LEAD, I added sources to verify its common usage with Peterson. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:07, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink:

Comparing the source you removed - and the sources you added:

The source you removed (and I replaced) was to support the phrase 'author':

• has a title containing the key-phrase 'author'
• has a title purely about status as author "Could Jordan Peterson become the best-selling Canadian author of all time?"
• in the body of the article is the phrase 'author'
• in the body, the central theme is around that phrase.

Whereas the two sources you added for 'media commentator' -

• none of the 4 above are true for the phrase 'media commentator'

So self-evidently: the sources do not support the phrase 'media commentator'.

But they can usefully be applied elsewhere in the page. Would you prefer to move them somewhere more fitting, or shall I? CanterburyUK (talk) 02:01, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

per WP:HEADLINE, titles are irrelevant to determining reliability or verifiability. If you go back and look, you'll see I directly quoted where the term was used in the sources, in the citation itself.

None of the points you have made address the fact that the term "author" is not contentious, disputed, or likely to be questioned, and therefore unnecessary to verify, and therefore should probably not have a citation attached per MOS:LEADCITE. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 02:38, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

"If you go back and look, you'll see I directly quoted where the term was used in the sources, in the citation itself."

I looked - don't see the phrase 'media commentator' anywhere? Can you give a link to look?

"author is not contentious". True - but using the Wiki 5 Pillars:

• "Wiki has no firm rules"

In the absence of firm rules, then the over-riding question is: What is most helpful for the reader:

Is it either:

• use of the plan word 'author'

OR

• ditto plus a single Source - that very directly helps the reader answer the question: "does author mean best seller, academic book writer, self-publisher or what?"

CanterburyUK (talk) 03:16, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink: That is a straw-man:

"per WP:HEADLINE, titles are irrelevant to determining reliability or verifiability. "

as verifiability was not the issue under discussion. CanterburyUK (talk) 03:26, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

If verifiability is not in question, then we should not have a citation there, as we do not typically cite obvious things in the LEAD. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:02, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink:

You have not demonstrated consensus here, yet you have removed the source attached to 'author'. (Or am I missing something?)

And on this topic you've ignored a key question above ("What is most helpful for the reader") and unilaterally reverted as if this talk thread doesn't matter?

(I know Wiki guidelines don't require an obligatory answer to questions: but reverting without consensus whilst not answering a specific related question is different IMHO). CanterburyUK (talk) 00:13, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

We don't need a citation in the lead for "author". Contentious lead claims or ones likely to be challenged need citations. It is unhelpful to reader to have lead citations attached to uncontroversial facts that are supported by the body of the article. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:24, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Sources supporting "media commentator" label

@Shibbelothink: Of the list below advocating 'media commentator':

• The Forbes article does not contain the claimed text
• one article calls Peterson: "formerly an obscure professor, is now one of the most influential—and polarizing— public intellectuals in the English-speaking world.
• one has no link
• one includes: "Camille Paglia anointed him “the most important and influential Canadian thinker since Marshall McLuhan”
• another " widely cited scholar of personality, and the author of what’s currently the No. 1 best-selling nonfiction book on Amazon in the United States. The New York Times’s David Brooks, echoing George Mason University economist Tyler Cowen, calls him “the most influential public intellectual in the Western world right now.”
• another: "According to Google Scholar, he has been cited more than 10,000 times in academic publications and is one of the 70 most cited researchers in his subfield. I spoke to eight academic psychologists before writing this piece; the feedback I received on his published work was uniformly positive."
• many are negative rather 'hit-piece' articles that editors whether pro or anti-Peterson would not consider NPV (including such claims as Peterson wanting to be " blacklisting fellow professors ", or was antisemitic

All the above mean that 'media commentator' is not a good fit for Peterson. It doesn't have the gravitas that Peterson's success, reaching high levels in four careers (professor, psychologist, author, public thinker) etc. (Yes he has views in some controversial spaces. So did Galileo and etc <smiley face>)

We could revert to 'public intellectual- as it was before. Other RS seem to support that:

• "In an interview, Malcolm Gladwell dismissed these similarities (to himself) as “superficial,” suggesting he and Peterson occupy very different roles — Peterson is a “thinker” who puts forward new ideas, while Gladwell is the journalist who tries to explain them. “I think he’s a lot smarter than I am, and I’m not being falsely modest,” Gladwell said. CanterburyUK (talk) 23:52, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

• The Canadian psychologist and cultural commentator has waded into any number of battles since he first rose to fame several years ago.
• Known for his controversial views on politics, science and gender identity, Jordan Peterson – a psychology professor, author and media personality – worked with the group to develop a “brand story” for his new writing app, Essay.
• Netanyahu made his remarks during an interview with Canadian media personality, psychologist and author Jordan Peterson that was published on December 5.
• noted Canadian icon Jordan Peterson, a distinguished clinical psychologist, former professor at the University of Toronto and more recently a global celebrity commentator who reaches millions through his podcast and public writing.
• Jordan Peterson is a Canadian clinical psychologist, social commentator, author and professor of psychology, who is known for his somewhat controversial comments on political, social and cultural issues
• Last week, Canadian psychologist and conservative commentator Peterson shared a tweet that deadnamed transgender actor Elliot Page
• The Canadian psychology professor and culture warrior Jordan B Peterson could not have hoped for better publicity
• The book is a kind of bridge connecting his academic research on personality and his political punditry. In it, Peterson argues that the problem with society today is that too many people blame their lot in life on forces outside their control — the patriarchy, for example.
• But Peterson has also been criticized by leading climate scientists for his beliefs around climate change and called out by the Human Rights Campaign as “an anti-LGBTQ extremist, using his platform as a media pundit to spread misinformation that stokes dangerous hatred.”
• Soon after the cover’s release, controversial Canadian psychologist and best-selling author Peterson criticised Yumi, writing: “Sorry. Not beautiful. And no amount of authoritarian tolerance is going to change that.” His tweet angered many fans, with some calling him a “mediocre political pundit”.
• in 1999, he was back in Canada—teaching at the University of Toronto, working as a clinical psychologist, and building a reputation, on television, as an acerbic pundit

Sources

See also: Wikipedia:SYNTHNOTSUMMARY:

Summary is necessary to reduce the information in lengthy sources to an encyclopedic length -- even when the information being summarized comes from multiple sources. It's not necessary to find a source that summarizes the information. As long as what's in the article is an accurate, neutral summary, and each of the statements is verified by an appropriate source, then the summary is also verified by the same sources... On the contrary, "coming up with summary statements for difficult, involved problems" has been described as "the essence of the NPOV process".

The term and wl "media commentator" incorporates all of the most salient points of the above labels. I would also accept: media pundit, media personality — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:58, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I suggest we change the characterization to ”pundit” or ”media pundit”. We should NOT use ”media personality”, as it links to ”celebrity”, which seems inaccurate. Trakking (talk) 21:17, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

any reason why not "media commentator" (which links to pundit) ? (and might be seen as less negative by some) — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:35, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I like "media commentator", which captures well a key element of his notability. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:24, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Does this accurately represent him: "Peterson believes that "order" is masculine and "chaos" is feminine, and that these are inherent to human existence."

Yes, Peterson talks an awful lot about 'Chaos' and 'Order': they have archetypal meaning - ie above and beyond those words daily usage.

Likewise has indeed said that, in the realm of archetypes, that for thousands of years in the arts that 'Chaos' has been associated with female.

But this section is very wordy - UNDUE potentially in quantity.

There are 3 links, but only 2 sources to the paragraph. And rather partisan, unNPV sources.

My questions really: A) there are alot of words here on the male-female linking to order-chaos: does that as a % of the page over-represent the prominence/frequency of mentions that Peterson gives it B) even if does - is the subject matter expressed in the sentences as they are, not rail-roading the reader to an understanding that is NOT what Peterson means: that women are inferior because 'chaotic'. Should the text not be more explicit about the abstract, archetypical level of the subject matter.

Given the heat generate in some corners over the (let's call it) Gender debate: I'd argue that we want to reduce needlessly raising emotions. IMHO.

On that basis - are there reasons I'm missing that means it needs to stay as it is. Maybe some think this is a major part of his thinking? If so, would be useful if sources could be shared and added.

My thinking here is primarily: "what is most useful for the reader": with the wiki guidelines to inform that but are not strict rules to constrain maximising value to the reader, for this specific matter. CanterburyUK (talk) 00:38, 17 January 2023 (UTC)