Talk:Jordan Peterson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Postmodernism and identity politics - "States" vs. "believes[edit]

There seems to disagreement between at least two editors (see this diff, for example) regarding the first sentence of the Postmodernism and identity politics section. It's a one-word difference, between "states" or "believes".

Peterson [believes] [states] that postmodern philosophers and sociologists since the 1960s have built upon and extended certain core tenets of Marxism and communism while simultaneously appearing to disavow both ideologies.

I propose "asserts" instead, but I wanted to discuss first given the contentious nature of the topic. ;o)   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 20:24, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

@Larry Hockett: and @Acousmana: See Talk:Jordan Peterson#Postmodernism and identity politics - "States" vs. "believes.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 20:31, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
"states" is weaselly, it's unqualified, and unlike what he might "state" in his peer reviewed literature this is nothing more than an opinion stemming from what he believes. That it is something he "believes" is verifiable and incontrovertible. Acousmana (talk) 23:17, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. We shouldn't present a conspiracy theory in the voice of Wikipedia. Either "believes" or "asserts" is fine. Bilorv(c)(talk) 23:58, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Meh, I'm fine with whichever. I usually think of these things in terms of WP:SAY (which suggests "says" or "states" and indicates that "asserts" might not be as neutral) and I don't think that statements always express beliefs, but I won't lose sleep over any of the proposed terms here. :) Larry Hockett (Talk) 06:02, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
hmm, so he is stating something he doesn't believe? an interesting conspiracy, what's he up to here then? Based on the amount of content he has created around his views on postmodernism, all things being equal, it's fairer to assume this is based on a deeply held belief. Acousmana (talk) 11:24, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
from the horse's mouth: "I just say what I think, I just say what I believe to be true...I say what I believe to be true...I'm just setting out to say what I believe to be true." Pretty conclusive there I think on him believing what he says. Acousmana (talk) 13:55, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
This is SYNTH and OR. Out of context.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 17:02, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
"Says" or "states" is more appropriate because it is not only a belief nor the same as "Cultural Marxism" conspiracy theory. What he says is heavily influenced by work Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault (2004) by philosopher Stephen Hicks. He is basically quoting Hicks. This is not exclusively Peterson's personal consideration. See transcript of their interview [1] where talked "about Postmodernism and its relationship to Neo-Marxism".--Miki Filigranski (talk) 17:02, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
nope, he believes it, it's a belief, like all his other beliefs, states this very clearly, on film, using his own mouth. Acousmana (talk) 17:45, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
This is not any kind of a proper argumentation for any consideration. A borderline disruptive editing.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 17:49, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
so following WP:VER is disruptive now is it? good one. Acousmana (talk) 17:54, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Except you didn't as you did not check all the references in the paragraph, of which two are quoting him on state funding. Also, this is not part of this discussion. If you want to have it then open it per WP:BRD.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 17:55, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
actually, Miki, this is an ongoing discussion, with other editors contributing, and specific to the "belief" aspect, not sure why you feel it's your place to shut it down and draw a line under it, but hey, swing your dick, affirm yourself. Acousmana (talk) 18:13, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
What "VER" issue has with this one? Do you want a report for "swing your dick" per WP:CIVIL? I advise you to "strike out" that uncivil comment or else.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 18:18, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Hey Miki, maybe you should consider WP:CIVIL before jumping to accuse editors of edit warring and posting snarky comments on their user page, no? Acousmana (talk) 18:22, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Article talk pages are not used for editors name-calling, yet about the article's content. I will answer you at your talk page.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 18:27, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
aggressively accusing an editor of "warring" is kinda not very WP:AGF wouldn't you say? Acousmana (talk) 18:34, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with the discussion.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 18:47, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

@Miki Filigranski:, perhaps you recall removing the citation for the "belief" component? your edit summary was "we don't need a source for "believes" as there's already several of them". So why remove an RS cite, that complies with WP:VER, on the question of "belief" and then come back later and strip the content you appear to take issue with? And, how can you insist that Peterson has not said that "he states only what he believes to be true," when it's also verifiable? Acousmana (talk) 20:06, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

The statements and quotes already have reliable sources, doesn't need citation WP:OVERKILL, doesn't need a citation for one word, in this case, "belief". I didn't insist anything, nor what you're saying about it has any importance for the article whatsoever. I'm not playing this cherry picked straw man game. Read WP:FORUM (specifically point 4. Discussion forums).--Miki Filigranski (talk) 23:49, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
I mostly agree with Peterson on this topic and this section seems to summarize his views accurately. I like the section's current use of the verb "say" or "says". I forgot that "asserts" can connote skepticism -- good point.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 06:13, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

A Criticisms section[edit]

I'm surprised there's no Criticism section yet. One such criticism is that he has promoted Koch Bros. organizations via his twitter. This accusation has been made publicly on twitter by a Political Science Professor; David Tabachnick [2], of Nipissing University (Ontario), as well as from Brenden Gallagher, the political reporter for the daily dot [3]. Surely there are other distinct criticisms of Peterson that can be worked into an WP:NPOV section? -- (talk) 20:55, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

"reception" might be more appropriate (although Zizek gets a "Criticism" section so why not here?), also, demarcation between his professional and "popular" personas might be appropriate, plus there is no mention anywhere of: the "Peterson phenomenon" (broadly construed); his association with the so-called "intellectual dark-web" (multiple sources for that); his growing prominence as a "leading" public intellectual; his hugely successful global-book tour, his popularity on the public debate circuit, his "no meat" diet etc., it would seem that in terms of the amount of popular coverage he has received in 2018, across a range of usable sources, the article is badly in need of updating.2A02:C7D:2E54:3F00:F048:EE89:2F6:70D0 (talk) 23:06, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
Criticism sections are not ideal because criticisms should be naturally spread throughout the article. Wikipedia pages shouldn't have sections which look like hit pieces, or conversely which segregate criticism so that people reading fringe views do not see them being challenged. The article does include criticism; take for instance the third paragraph of the Bill C-16 section. Are there any particular sections in which you think more criticism should be added? Bilorv(c)(talk) 03:34, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Most of the things are already mentioned or mentioned in other related articles of his books. The book articles already include criticism. Also, we already had a discussion about this joint reception & criticism section of him as a person, and the consensus was there's not enough rationale nor it's commonly practiced such a section on biographical articles. Slavoj Žižek#Criticism is not a good example for a proposed section because it is about Žižek's ideas, not him as a person. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 09:14, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
you're mischaracterizing the issue, there's an ever growing body of critical material from multiple WP:SECONDARY, WP:RS sources that address the ideas, not the man, ignoring this body of material runs contrary to the encyclopedic aims of the article.
You also seem to support the inclusion of WP:PRIMARY sources and blatant WP:OR in a WP:BLP article, are you sure you don't have a personal agenda here? 2A02:C7D:2E54:3F00:11A5:D70A:AD42:28EF (talk) 15:53, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Already answered. Also, comment on the content, not the editors. Primary sources can be cited in several scenarios, there's no issue there. There's no OR, that edit was about correct attribution. If anyone's showing a particular suspicious agenda then that's you whose ignoring editors replies.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 20:07, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
demonstrably, there are multiple instances of WP:OR and inappropriate usages of WP:PRIMARY sources, denying this is not constructive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:2E54:3F00:11A5:D70A:AD42:28EF (talk) 20:41, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Article's talk page is not a WP:FORUM, and for that there's already a discussion below.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 10:04, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Use of primary sources and original research in BLP[edit]

In accordance with WP:BLP guidelines on sourcing, a number of WP:PRIMARY sources were excised, [4], [5], [6], [7]. In addition very clear instances of WP:OR were removed, [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]. All of these edits were reverted by a single editor and no attempt was made in talk to address the concerns highlighted in the edit summaries.   - My IP (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:34, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Follow WP:BRD process and do not make WP:POINT reverts. Some of these complains are done due to wrong understanding of the specific editing policy. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 18:41, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
please address the individual diffs as presented above if you are disputing them, thanks.  - My IP (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:2E54:3F00:DC78:A146:2B0E:E92A (talk) 20:19, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
I warned you about the POINT revert, and you or your sock IP did it again ([14]). Don't do it again if you don't want to get reported at the admin's noticeboard for intentional start of edit-war (see note above You must not make more than one revert per 24 hours to this article). There was a silent consensus about the old revision information and references, don't revert it to new revision until for each issue is reached a consensus per WP:BRD. With some I don't agree, with some I don't, with some can be found secondary sources and hence removal of information is pointless (as stated in editing policy). I advise you to go point by point (10).--Miki Filigranski (talk) 10:01, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Not only were the IP's edits all reverted, Miki Filigranski also reverted edits by Grayfell and Bilorv. PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:40, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

What edits are you referring to? I don't understand why I've been pinged. Bilorv(c)(talk) 20:58, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
@Bilorv: Whoops! It looks like when Miki undid a long string of edits by different users, he skipped yours. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:01, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

@Drmies: Why did you revert ([15])? The IPs edit has multiple issues, including of "public intellectual" which was previously discussed and there was no consensus for inclusion. Great, instead of first engaging in the discussion and showing the IPs an example how to properly follow the process, reach a WP:CONSENSUS and then making edits, you literally joined edit war the IPs started. Fantastic, and we didn't even start to discuss the major edit point-by-point. There was no rush, no patience, and completely irresponsible the situation we made for a bunch of IPs who are most probably sock puppets of an editor which already edited the article. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 19:48, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

  • I reverted your edit because in my opinion it made the article worse, which I explained in my edit summary. Drmies (talk) 21:40, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
  • BTW I don't know what you're talking about with sock puppets and stuff. Did you file an SPI? Is this a known sock? Are they blocked? Etc. As for edit war--well. Drmies (talk) 21:41, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
The birth date is unsourced again, as the primary source supporting it has been removed. Some other information is also now unsourced, such as the Norwegian great-grandfather detail that was sourced to a reddit comment by the subject. These sources seemed fine to include per WP:DOB and WP:SELFPUB. I have not looked at all of the other removed sources. Hrodvarsson (talk) 02:03, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
^ This among others which was not even mentioned because IPs did not follow BRD, or continued the started discussion, as we were bothered about POINT reverts and edit-war IPs started, 1RR and reports to admins. Another way it could have been handled was having placed templates tag about the need for a better source, verification and so on which would have been explained in the talk page, as it is stated in WP:EPTALK, but no... I will file an SPI.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 13:26, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Few days have passed, what are we going to do with the major edit?--Miki Filigranski (talk) 15:55, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
As there exist several problems with the major edit I will revert to older revision and those who want should continue the discussion without any edit war and similar schemes.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 17:39, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Look, dude, at some point you're beating a dead horse. You've already been blocked for your continued insistence on reverting several editors contributions. It's not your article; these things are collaborative, and you need to take into account what other people have to offer. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:11, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Look, dude, you are again ignoring to accept and acknowledge there exist issues with the IPs major edit, stop fooling around and blaming something on me. Actually, let's play your game - why are you making WP:POINT revert just to oppose me, because, your behaviour became blatantly obvious. This is not the first time you're doing it. Stop doing that. Instead to constructively engage in the discussion you're intentionally provoking another edit war, which I shouted out above to not be done, why? Why are you doing that? There's no consensus to keep these edits, there was no constructive discussion about the issues, both you and IPs don't follow BRD, you are again playing the IPs game. Why? Also, please, what "contributions from editors with accounts" did I revert? I will revert again the IP's edit to the old revision which has SILENCE consensus, I won't allow you to push IP's edit inclusion without a previous discussion about it, there exist an exact order of how things are handled and edited on Wikipedia. After that I will continue the discussion, point-by-point per BRD, but if you're going to revert, I won't engage you and we will see each other again at admin's noticeboard because your behavior is not considerate and friendly at all.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 17:42, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

@Miki Filigranski: as I am now the fourth editor to revert your reversion, you certainly do not have silent consensus. Please make a point-by-point list of the content you added back and why it should be included. Comments on editor behaviour will only muddy this process. If you were to justify each of the changes, then we could have a discussion to establish consensus one way or the other. Bilorv(c)(talk) 17:55, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

What "my" revision? There's no "my" revision, there's an old pre-IP revision and new IP revision. What "my" silent consensus? There's no "my" silent consensus, I'm an editor, not an article, nor the old revision is "my" revision. There's a silent consensus about the old revision until arrived IP whose new revision didn't and still doesn't have any consensus for inclusion nor silence consensus. I will go to write now point-by-point issues, but this way of editing and discussing where the new revision is pushed without any proper discussion is really unreasonable and irresponsible. Why in this case the inclusion is pushed without respect to the order of BRD process? We had countless discussions on this talk page.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 18:31, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Per 10 points provided by the IP above, and additional 3 not provided:

1) Removal of a primary source substantiated with a misunderstanding of BLP guideline, specifically ignoring WP:BLPSELFPUB and WP:BLPSPS. However, there are already cited more reliable secondary sources.

2) Removal of a source which reliability cannot confirm due to current "maintenance mode", but a web podcast (?) doesn't necessarily indicate an unreliable source, and really don't understand what PRIMARY and OR have to do with it.

3) Removal of a primary source with which the claim "Norwegian great-grandfather" is now unsourced. Again ignorance of BLPSELFPUB.

4) Removal of a primary source only because the IP considered it "unnecessary", again partial ignorance of BLPSELFPUB because it is published by ResearchGate.

5) Removal of information about Peterson's podcast and academic guests, as well primary source, again because of ignorance of BLPSELFPUB. As the podcast was started in December 2016 perhaps there already exist secondary and tertiary sources for additional verification. Don't understand what it has to do with OR.

6) Removal of info and primary sources (Scopus and Google Scholar) for which don't understand what it has to do with OR or why it not suitable per WP:BLPPRIMARY.

7) Removal of primary sources (ResearchGate and Google Scholar) which are used for the basis of a reliable and verifiable inclusion of the listed journal papers, instead of Steven Pinker#Articles and essays which doesn't cite for what reason these articles and essays are noteworthy for listing.

8) Removal of a sentence and primary source because it "needs" a secondary source instead of finding and citing a secondary source.

9-10) Removal of a sentence and primary source, but again it has nothing to do with OR and is ignorance of BLPSELFPUB.

11) Removal of a primary source for his date of birth, again a misunderstanding of BLPSELFPUB and WP:DOB.

12) The inclusion of RS for a claim of a "public intellectual" which in the previous discussion (Talk:Jordan Peterson/Archive 3#Public Intellectual) didn't reach any consensus for inclusion.

13) Unsubstantiated editing of sourced "There he developed an interest in the psychological origins of the Cold War, particularly 20th-century European totalitarianism, and was plagued by apocalyptic nightmares about the escalation of the nuclear arms race. As a result, he became concerned about humanity's capacity for evil and destruction, and delved into the works..." into a simple "There he began studying psychological origins of the Cold War, 20th-century European totalitarianism, and the works of...".--Miki Filigranski (talk) 20:07, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

@Miki Filigranski: Could you include the content alongside the reason? One without the other is not much use here. Additionally, could you explain what you mean by 'unsubstantiated editing'? Also, I don't quite understand what 'for which don't understand what it has to do with OR' means in point 6 - clarification would be appreciated. PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:16, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Also, it's important to note that 13 and possibly others were not edits made by an IP. Please stop labeling them as such. PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:19, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
he's very much a public intellectual, and was considered as such years ago in Canada, his international profile went stratospheric in 2018, so yeah, tons of reliable sources now refer to him as a public intellectual, pretty idiotic to argue otherwise, then again, there is some pretty dumb right wing fringe garbage in a big block quote in this article, so literally anything is possible here when fanboys are involved... (talk) 20:49, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
@PeterTheFourth: Look above at the IP's 10 links; this is what Miki Filigranski is ordering based on. Bilorv(c)(talk) 21:49, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
@PeterTheFourth: Why are you constantly WP:ICANTHEARYOU? Did I write "10 points provided by the IP", I did, what's so hard to understand about that? What's the point of duplicating them when the discussion didn't reach a wall of text a repetition would be useful? Why should I clarify IP's lack of clarification? 11 was made by Volunteer Marek ([16]), 12 by the IP ([17]), and 13 by Grayfell ([18]), is it so hard to verify it in the recent revision history?--Miki Filigranski (talk) 08:52, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
@Miki Filigranski: Thank you for clarifying on those 3 other points! I had a few other concerns I noted above before addressing it in full if that is okay; I would like to have a more full understanding before I set to writing a complete reply, but I'd like to say that I agree with you on some points. Let's work together here. PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:55, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Looks like I'm in agreement with (3-5) and (11-12); thanks for the explanations. This wasn't previously clear to me from your edit summary, which was inaccurate in its description of IP editors (and why is it relevant if the editor is an IP?). For (1), as you say, there are other secondary sources so the primary source is not needed. For (2), I don't understand why Future Thinkers is a reliable source. For (3), (4) and (5), I agree that this is fine under WP:BLPSELFPUB. For (6), I can't comment as I don't know whether Scopus and Google Scholar values are generally quoted in academics' bios. For (7), I think 15 is too many journal articles anyway (surely 5 would suffice), but I think it's standard practice to just include the most notable articles without the need to explain the method of selection used. For (8), yes it needs a secondary source but you didn't provide one. For (9-10), I think it's better to quote Peterson directly as his "yes" is very reluctant. For (11) I agree; I thought this was sourced already in "Early life" but misleadingly, the NYT source doesn't cover it. So the primary source needs to go there instead. For (12) I'm agreed. For (13), the problem is flowery and POV language; for instance, "plagued by apocalyptic nightmares" is ridiculous content for an encyclopedia entry. Bilorv(c)(talk) 21:49, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
(6) both Google Scholar, Scopus and ResearchGate are used for establishing scientist or scholar h-index, in that sense, they are highly reliable for substantiating such a claim, and as there exist differences between their list of papers and other, the most neutral viewpoint would be to cite at least two of them. His h-index is high, shows his academic impact, compared to RS like by [19] (The Walrus) which claimed that "he is not, however, is the author of any lasting work of scholarship, the originator of any important idea, or a public intellectual of any scientific credibility or moral seriousness", which is blatant example of a defamation. (7) I don't know how much is too much, I saw various numbers being listed on Wikipedian articles. (8) Maybe [20] is RS for a part of it. (9-10) No, he said that "the most straight-forward answer to that is yes", any kind of analysis like your's "very reluctant" is actually against WP:PRIMARY. Peterson said yes in an interview with Timothy Lott, who also stated in a secondary RS The Guardian that "Peterson is a devout Christian". There's also old discussion Talk:Jordan Peterson/Archive 2#Peterson a Christian. (13) The issue is the sources say that because of Peterson's interest for the psychological origins of the Cold War, totalitarianism, and his fear of Cold War outcome, his concern about humanity's destructive behaviour, he delved in the works of X authors. With the wording is removed context, although the wording could have been a bit less editorial.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 09:41, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm neutral on (6) still. With (9-10), you are still incorrect; taking the word "yes" alone is quoting him out of context, as is deducing "he identified as a Christian". We can say "When asked if he was a Christian, Peterson said: 'the most straight-forward answer to that is yes'". I'm not proposing we say he was "very reluctant" in the article; that's just my personal description of his response. Other interviews are not relevant to the sentence, which refers to one specific interview. For (13), feel free to propose different text. Bilorv(c)(talk) 10:18, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

It looks like Miki will not be editing this page for a while. Bilorv, would you like to reimplement his changes that you agree with his reasoning on? I can also take a stab at it later but am unable to now with my poor mobile editing skills. PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:27, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

In this edit, I've implemented (3), (4), (5), (9-10), (11) [now in the correct place in the body] and (12) [and de-linked "professor" per WP:OVERLINK]. Still perhaps actionable are (6), (7) [should we reduce the number of journals cited? Do we need the note?] and (13) [should that content be rephrased?], and I've not looked too closely at the other points. Bilorv(c)(talk) 16:49, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Looking good! I like the simplification that we have for 13 and don't think we should revert - I don't believe the expanded form does us any favours by digging that far into it. I'm not sure we should be describing the subject of a BLP as 'plagued by apocalyptic nightmares' - it's a bit too purple. PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:54, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
re:Scopus and Google Scholar, this is very much OR, and not covered by WP:BLPPRIMARY. If Peterson states these stats somewhere and it's mentioned here, then yes, covered, but a Wikipedia editor searching for stats on the subject on a BLP and then writing it up in the article is very specifically original research, and the question of BLPPRIMARY does not arise. BabaRamDevi (talk) 18:32, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
This does not make sense. The entirety of Wikipedia is written by editors who search for information and then write it in articles. There's no other way content can be added. The process you're describing is not original research. Bilorv(c)(talk) 18:37, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
it makes sense, there's no source, ideally Wikipedia articles are supposed to reference existing secondary sources, i.e. reliably published research/reporting conducted by others. It therefore follows that unless a secondary - or admissible BLP primary source - has published mention of these Google & Scopus stats together, in a single source, and in direct relation to the subject of the article, then it's original research to combine two separate sources of data and write about them here; the editor has to create un-sourced content - combine two separate sets of stats - to actually present it in the article. There is no reference to a source that discusses Peterson in relation to his Google & Scopus stats, unless I've missed something? So how is this not OR? BabaRamDevi (talk) 19:07, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
This is a misconception: a primary source is not "worse" than a secondary one, just permissible in a different set of situations. Per WP:PRIMARY itself: A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts. That would be the case here.
Your notion of "presenting data together" is one I assume you took from WP:SYNTHESIS, but again this is a misreading. Synthesis applies only to cases of material implication, and this is not the case here (we're not implying that Peterson has Scopus X because of Google Scholar Y or vice versa). The idea you use would invalidate every single piece of content on Wikipedia, because using multiple sources requires that we combine the content from them into one coherent piece of prose (and of course an article with only one source has problems of its own). Bilorv(c)(talk) 18:25, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Article needs protection[edit]

The article needs protection from IPs who come here to make multiple edits and then push its inclusion ignoring BRD process and current discussion starting edit-wars, or previous discussions like in the case of influences list of the infobox. The article gathers almost and sometimes even more views than articles by superstars such as Beyoncé or Jay-Z (see pageviews analysis) and yet doesn't have even a basic or semi protection. The revision for which existed a prolonged WP:SILENCE consensus is [21].--Miki Filigranski (talk) 10:13, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

BRD is consistently being misused here to hamper article development, when one disagrees with WP:RS sourcing, it's necessary to address this in the appropriate manner, consistently reverting content you alone disagree with is not progress. Note per WP:BRD-NOT:
  • BRD is not a justification for imposing one's own view or for tendentious editing.
  • BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes.
  • BRD is never a reason for reverting. Unless the reversion is supported by policies, guidelines or common sense, the reversion is not part of BRD cycle.
  • BRD is not an excuse to revert any change more than once. If your reversion is met with another bold effort, then you should consider not reverting, but discussing. The talk page is open to all editors, not just bold ones. The first person to start a discussion is the person who is best following BRD.
  • BRD is not mandatory. Neither are editors obliged to start it nor are they obliged to stick to it just because you started it. They may try one of the alternatives given below, or even an alternative not mentioned here.

2A02:C7D:2E54:3F00:E58D:ADD5:309A:7E24 (talk) 13:11, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Miki Filigranski: complaining that editors are not following BRD is not a substitute for policy-based rationales justifying why the edits made were not improvements. Pages are not protected because they have high pageviews, only when there's a "significant amount of disruption or vandalism" (WP:SEMI). In this case, all the edits I see are good faith edits. A more productive thing to discuss is the content of the edits, so we can reach a consensus. Bilorv(c)(talk) 13:33, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
I didn't question the good faith, however, the faith fades when there is a disruption by the IPs in ignoring the discussion and are going for reverts, I won't allow that. As I already stated in the discussion above, the comments should be about the content, not the editors. We cannot have a constructive and productive discusion with IPs whose are disruptively reverting the revision to theirs, hence BRD in such case is first step, if not we are having an edit war which nobody wants.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 15:15, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Miki Filigranski: there is a consistent pattern of WP:TE#One who accuses others of malice here, it's problematic, and it's hampering the improvement of article content, disagreeing with an edit does not entitle an editor to place false accusations of "disruptive editing", and "edit warring" in edit summaries, and then continue that tone in discussions. 2A02:C7D:2E54:3F00:E58D:ADD5:309A:7E24 (talk) 15:34, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Seemingly the IPs are again ignoring the talk page is not for WP:FORUM comments, there was no false accusation as IPs evidently started the edit warring per revision history, ignoring both the BRD and discussion until is reach a consensus or started a dispute resolution. Also, first who started with "malice accusation" we exactly the IPs against me so, yeah, it's really problematic when IPs are trying to twist the reality and WP:GAME against a confirmed editor. Since the IPs are citing the editing policy a bit too much I seriously suspicion we are dealing with sock accounts as well.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 15:52, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
There is no "game" here, there is only an effort to improve a WP:BLP with WP:RS content. Can you explain why you ignored WP:1RR sanctions rather than state your objections to the properly sourced content that was added? 2A02:C7D:2E54:3F00:E58D:ADD5:309A:7E24 (talk) 16:00, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes, when the IPs stop with POINT and WP:DISRUPTIVE reverts. We cannot have a constructive discussion without a stable revision due to edit-war the IPs as you started it. I'm starting to doubt the good faith of your effort when the IPs are trying to game the system when you FIRST ignored the 1RR sanction, ignored the BRD, ignored to engage in the discussion to reach a consensus, made reverts, and decided to report an editor instead and so on.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 16:13, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
re:"you FIRST ignored the 1RR sanction" -- categorically false assertion, if you have a diff that demonstrates otherwise please present it. 2A02:C7D:2E54:3F00:E58D:ADD5:309A:7E24 (talk) 16:35, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
I don't need to nor you are obviously capable to understand I am reffering to (WP:EDITWAR), you are violating EDITWAR. You are intentionally WP:GAME the system to make traps (with 1RR) for other editors, while you are showing every symptom of WP:DISRUPTSIGNS, WP:CTDAPE, WP:LISTEN as stated above. You're not fooling anyone with this trap seen for a millionth time on Wikipedia.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 16:48, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
the sanctions banner is very clear for every editor to see when they choose to edit the page, you chose to ignore it, exactly how is that entrapment? 2A02:C7D:2E54:3F00:E58D:ADD5:309A:7E24 (talk) 16:59, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Again you are ignoring your use of multiple IPs (with which you superficially avoid 1RR) as well ignore the cited edit war symptoms. Stop commenting on editors, and not the content. This is my last warning abour your WP:FORUM commentary.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 17:10, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
still don't see any dif that demonstrates WP:1RR was violated by anyone other than you. 2A02:C7D:2E54:3F00:E58D:ADD5:309A:7E24 (talk) 17:47, 29 November 2018 (UTC)