Talk:Jordan Peterson/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Infobox Sidebar

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

Intellectual Dark Web

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And it has quotes:

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

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

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

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

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

This seems a minuscule tangent, should it be removed?

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

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

Rv of Peterson's comments in an interview

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rejection of NYT article?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Public Intellectual

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

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

Sources:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"public intellectual"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Revert: section 1

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

---

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

Revert: section 2

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Revert: section 6

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

---

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

Jungian archetypes play an important role in the book.

References

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

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

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

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

Revert: section 8

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

---

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

Revert: section 4

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Order of Works section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MRA/alt-right hero

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

---

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

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

References

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

So the Globe Source says:

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

The NYT ref says:

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

We're good right there. But ..

Other refs already used here support this as well:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No Chapter on Criticism of Jordan Peterson

Hi everyone,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Criticism?

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

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

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

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

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

Revert: section 3

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

---

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

Where the content formerly said

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

References

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So revising again:

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

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

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

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

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

Revert: section 13

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

---

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

It used to read

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

References

I changed that to read:

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RfC - media appearances

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

---

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

Content

In Jordan_Peterson#Career, there is:

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

References

In Jordan_Peterson#YouTube_channel_and_podcasts there is:

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

References

!votes on media appearances RFC

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

Discussion on media appearances RFC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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