Talk:Jordan Peterson

WP:FRINGE

This article needs a some serious rewriting to appropriately contextualize a lot of the things said about Dr. Peterson here. To put it lightly: "he is the very model of a fringey academical". Allan Nonymous (talk) 17:13, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Want to pick an example? North8000 (talk) 18:15, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

The article seems to paint him as largely within the academic and political mainstream, which he clearly is not see [1] or [2]. He is to put it lightly, closer to Andrew Tate, than he is to your typical psychologist. Allan Nonymous (talk) 18:36, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Peterson's academic credentials speak for themselves. He is a highly cited scholar, he has written an erudite intellectual work [Maps of Meaning], and he has worked at several reputable universities such as Harvard. Trakking (talk) 20:28, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

By the way—Peterson and Tate despise each other. Tate has made fun of Peterson several times, while Peterson has been harshly critical of Tate. Trakking (talk) 20:32, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Both are traditionally considered cannonical figures of the manosphere, something that this article's lede, again, curiously omits. Allan Nonymous (talk) 20:39, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

There are no authoritative sources that identify Peterson as an exponent of the manosphere movements. Peterson has called MGTOW "weasels" and pick-up artists "psychopaths". Trakking (talk) 20:59, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

That's, frankly, quibbling over terminology. It's pretty clear he's on the same axis as they are, even if he doesn't agree with specific subgroups, you could say he's a "fellow traveler" (to reflect his sort of thinking back at him). Allan Nonymous (talk) 21:15, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

And yet those same men quote him or share his videos on a regular basis. Maybe not quite so much the Tate-loving incel types as the controlling, narcissistic misogynists, but they're all under the same umbrella. His reputation amongst the general public certainly reflects that but this article does not. His academic accomplishments are factual but they aren't what he's most known for, and the fact that he's on the verge of losing his license for unprofessional conduct certainly supports that. 24.113.229.172 (talk) 23:56, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I think this does a better job of explaining the issues I ever will: [3] Allan Nonymous (talk) 21:13, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I am laughing out loud at anyone calling that trite bit of vacant obscurantism Maps of Meaning erudite. He's no longer teaching and no longer practicing as a therapist because he's so thoroughly WP:PROFRINGE. Simonm223 (talk) 00:36, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

I suspect one can find some good stuff by searching for his name and "woke". That's something he's allergic to, and he's also in trouble. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:26, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I think that he sets his own course on various views/positions. And through the lens of US/Canadian culture wars, that lens puts him generally on one side of those culture wars and for folks on the other side wars deprecating him becomes the main goal. IMO this article should just try to be informative on straightforwards facts regarding him. North8000 (talk) 23:24, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree with North8000 here. Given the culture war associations here it's hard to say if the disagreements are based on true academic issues vs associations with politics. The article covers this but we shouldn't pick sides in tone. Springee (talk) 00:06, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

The side we pick is the side of reliable sources, same as always. Politics can of course be a true academic issue, but Peterson himself has never been an expert on politics, so his own views should not be presented as credible. This is WP:FRINGE at its most basic. Grayfell (talk) 02:28, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

We should document the fact he is controversial and is criticized. We don't write hagiographies here. As the link I posted above shows, his profession itself is at odds with him. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:39, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

The article does include controversies and criticism. We just need to be careful that we are impartial in how it is presented. I'm not sure his "profession" is at odds with him vs the governing body is at odds with things he has said outside of his practice. Springee (talk) 03:04, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Are we presenting his views on politics as credible? His views on topics that are related to his academic background do cross over into areas of politics but so long as they are in areas where he has academic standing we need to be careful about presuming FRINGE etc. Springee (talk) 03:01, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

That ship sailed when he got barred from practicing therapy and stopped teaching classes. So, no, we don't have to be that careful here. He is obviously FRINGE.Simonm223 (talk) 03:04, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Not really. As I recall he was banned because he refused to submit to things that were not related to his treatment of his own patients. It seemed like a very political action vs one of malpractice. Springee (talk) 03:06, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

He was barred for potentially bringing his profession into disrepute. That is an example of fringe behavior. Simonm223 (talk) 03:11, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Let's assume he did something like stealing from a patient. Would you call that "fringe"? I mean stealing from a patient would certainly be a reason to bar someone but it doesn't mean their work was otherwise fringe. You have taken the reason he was barred, which appears to be that he said things the college did like, outside of his actual practice, the then leapt to the conclusion that his work in practice, when he was dealing with real patients, was fringe. That is a leap too far. Springee (talk) 03:20, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Granted, this thread is labeled "fringe", but there are other practices and views of his that are controversial, unprofessional, bring disrepute to his profession, and are a danger to the public. Those things should also be documented, even if they are not labeled "fringe". We don't even have to label them, just describe them the way mainstream sources describe them.

The College of Psychologists of Ontario, has as its mandate “to protect the public interest by monitoring and regulating the practice of psychology”.[4] Peterson's public statements, which he admits are deliberately offensive, have gotten him in trouble. He said transgenderism was a “social contagion”, and that is a primitive view at odds with the profession of psychology, and he is thus subject to the discipline of the College of Psychologists of Ontario.

Whether one calls that fringe or not, it's unprofessional, primitive, unenlightened (IOW not "woke"), and very damaging to patients and the public. "The CPO told Peterson that they felt his comments “may cause harm” and had a significant “impact risk.”[5] The CPO is a major RS on the matter.

I should add one fact related to fringiness. When one tries to find RS content on his views, one discovers he's a darling of fringe and unreliable sources, so that throws a wrench in documenting some of this stuff. That's also a red flag that says a lot about him. Per sourcing, he is fringe. Period. (Not policy, just my opinion.) We may have to depend on the few mainstream sources that mention him. We can also use a few of his own statements on Twitter and other social media (per ABOUTSELF) to document his views. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:56, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree with North8000 and Springee.

Peterson is not fringe; he is anti-postmodern, anti-Marxist, and pro-Christian. "Postmodernism" did not even exist until a few decades ago, and today it still barely exists outside of the Western world, making it a very fringe ideology. As for Marxism, it is another fringe ideology, especially in the Western world, where no parties have dared openly to identify as Marxist for many decades. Meanwhile, Christianity is the exact opposite of fringe, as it is the most global ideological phenomenon with billions of adherents all over the planet. Conclusion: Peterson is non-fringe, indeed he is explicitly anti-fringe and quite mainstream from a global and historical perspective. Trakking (talk) 07:34, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm gonna hard disagree with you on "no parties have dared openly to identify as Marxist for many decades". There are loads of marxist parties in the west, some electorally successful, such as the Communist Party of Spain (currently in government), and the Progressive Party of Working People (part of the government in 2013). OTOH "Cultural Marxism", something Jordan Peterson defends [6], is a conspiracy theory. Allan Nonymous (talk) 21:14, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I think that this conversation is about whether or not he is real-world fringe. IMO he is not. And wp:fringe is a different set of guidance which is clearly not applicable here. This is an article about a person, not about theories. North8000 (talk) 13:11, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Peterson may be controversial, but he's not fringe, at least not in the mainstream media these days. In the assessment of this profile in the Washington Post Andrew Tate makes "Jordan Peterson look like a cuddly old uncle.” So, some secondary sources see the figure as almost mainstream. In an assessment made by The New Yorker Peterson is "the Internet’s most revered—and reviled—intellectual". And I think that's how mainstream news platforms regard Peterson now.

MatthewDalhousie (talk) 05:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Is Jordan Peterson "controversial"?

I think the general consensus from most media sources (heck, even some of those on the right), is that Peterson is a controversial figure with controversial views. I think the article and lede should reflect this. Allan Nonymous (talk) 21:39, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't think there would be any issues with this change. Peterson is a popular YouTube influencer who says controversial things for views. 166.198.21.32 (talk) 18:24, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I am not opposed to controversial, but I would also consider polarizing, the adjective used in the article, or a synonym like contentious or polemical. I like some of what Peterson has written, and in the past he did a great job educating people about the (mostly positive) role of religion in society (and to a more nuanced understanding of the Bible), and he has introduced younger people (Gen Z)) to Nietzsche, Jung, Dostoevsky, and other important late 19th and early 20th century thinkers. But boy does he like to provoke arguments for the sake of argument (or for getting more clicks). Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 19:29, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

No. We have already discussed this topic and the consensus was that the label was unnecessary and unprofessional. Wikipedia guideline explicitly states in MOS:LABEL that we must avoid contentious labels such as ”controversial”. Trakking (talk) 19:50, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Being controversial is his job as a YouTube shock jock. It would be silly to skip this Nest of Chum (talk) 21:07, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

MOS:LABEL says, "Rather than describing an individual using the subjective and vague term controversial, instead give readers information about relevant controversies." So we have to do that unless someone wants to get the guideline changed. Otherwise, I see no reason to make an exception here. Peterson is far from the only controversial individual with a biography. TFD (talk) 23:05, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Trakking and TFD for pointing out MOS:LABEL, a guideline I surely read in the past, but forgot about when replying here. I am glad to see that someone removed controversial. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 11:40, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Paywalled source

Not sure what wiki policy is on paywalled sources, but citation 4 is behind one. Public source would be preferable.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2021/04/what-happened-to-jordan-peterson/618082/ 24.113.229.172 (talk) 00:04, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

See WP:PAYWALL. Difficulty accessing a source is not a reason to reject it. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 00:26, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 August 2024

Original: Nutrition experts point out that such a diet can result in "severe dysregulation"[183] and Mikhaila later claimed that Peterson experienced a "violent reaction" to this diet.[185]

The violent reaction was an allergenic reaction he had from a stew before he adopted the lion diet.

Change: Jordan Peterson suffered a severe allergenic reaction which caused many symptoms but primarily severe akathisia. His doctor then prescribed him benzodiazepines to alleviate these symptoms. At the same time Jordan grew in notoriety and his wife was diagnosed with cancer. His prescription was then increased. Eventually he tried to get off it but suffered severe withdrawal. He couldn't find anyone in America who could detox him without putting him on other drugs. Eventually he found a place in Russia that was willing to detox him without the use of other drugs that were making his akathisia worse. This reaction would go on to cause him to he adopt the elimination diet dubbed the lion diet to avoid such problems in the future. For the full story watch Mikhaila Peterson explain what happened to her father in the following video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGi5zorf5is Brian543d (talk) 00:00, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: 1. This is a primary source which is generally inappropriate for BLPs. 2. This gives WP:UNDUE weight and is promotional with the final sentence. TheWikiToby (talk) 23:59, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

References

Climate change continued

@Connor Behan and Rhododendrites:, in looking at these recent changes [7], [8] I thought it was worth asking if there is a better way to address this content. Honestly, I think this is an example of The Independent showing itself to be a poor source and injecting a lot of bias into their reporting (beyond using biased language like "Dressed in a tuxedo, Mr Peterson croaked out a cascade of other questionable claims" Why do his clothes matter? Why use the condescending "croaked" instead of "said"? So the claim by Peterson is that the solar industry takes more lives per year than nuclear. Per The Independent this appears to be a case where two different sources provide conflicting answers, likely due to what which deaths each includes. I'm not sure why we should trust "Our World in Data" more than a Forbes contribution. The Independent doesn't seem to say they think one or the other is correct and they note that OWD's information is rather old. Where I think The Independent shows their strong bias is when they go on to imply it's misleading because both are low compared to fossil fuels. Why would that matter? If two people are arguing alternative energy sources, solar vs nuclear, why would it matter if carbon is much worse? This is a good example of a source showing bias in a way that should have us downgrading it's reliability for this topic. Once the bias is removed they basically say, depending on your source, Peterson may be correct. However, The Independent frames this factual content with a lot of biased tone and the larger negative claim regarding carbon deaths almost implying that Peterson ignores those. At the end of all this I would suggest we simply remove this example as it isn't a good example of Peterson being misleading. What do you think? Springee (talk) 15:54, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

I went to look at the original clip it's talking about. Peterson says some dumb things in there, but the solar/nuclear thing just sounds like a tangential fun fact rather than a rhetorical argument. It is in fact entirely plausible that Peterson would talk about deaths from other sources of energy while sowing doubt about climate solutions -- in fact in this clip as soon as he gets out that fun fact he seems to notice an opportunity to do just that and throws in something like "when you change systems, people think only good things happen" -- as in, this switch to solar isn't all good, folks. In other words, there's something to call out there, but that Independent piece missed the mark a bit. I don't have a problem just removing that line.

I do have a problem with making the lead fail to summarize the body. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:13, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't think the climate change content should have been restored to the lead. First, it was a recent addition and despite the long discussion above, no consensus on the content, much less the inclusion in the lead was reached. Second, the sentence is not encyclopedic; "In particular, he has been widely criticized by climate scientists for..." It's not clear he has been "widely criticized" and what counts as "widely" anyway? Also, why is this "in particular"? Pulling back, the lead should be the high level summary of the person. Most sources discussing Peterson, and there are many, say nothing about his views on climate change because they just aren't an important part of why he is notable yet isn't typical BLP boiler plate like home town etc. Springee (talk) 22:01, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Though tangentially related to your question, I feel the need to echo @Rhododendrites' comment, why did you remove the section on his climate denial from the lead? You claimed that "there doesn't appear to be an [sic] consensus on keeping this material in the lead", but 1) previous discussions were not focused on the lead so I'm not sure where you could find such a consensus and, 2) said discussions here & here determined that Jordan Peterson reliably denies (fully or partially) climate change, so it'd be best to leave that in the lead to better summarize the body's contents. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 20:12, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

The removed text was inaccurate. I'd be all for intelligent coverage of him on this topic and a brief accurate summary in the lead but what we had in the lead was certainly not that. Vague inaccurate epitaphs written by people who are his political opponents. I've not seen anywhere where he denied the main established scientific facts of climate change. He has done a lot of criticism of other policies, initiatives, accusations of sometimes skipping science in the name of advocacy, actions etc. related to climate change. North8000 (talk) 22:13, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I do not see how the text was in any way vague, it very succinctly states "he has been widely criticized by climate scientists for denying the scientific consensus on climate change and giving a platform to climate-change deniers." Any more detail would be undue & honestly unnecessary for the lead.

As for "where he denied the main established scientific facts of climate change", he said “there’s no such thing as climate". Regardless, our job is to write what reliable sources say on the matter & as previous discussions have repeatedly shown, he's referred to in several reliable sources as a climate denier. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 23:16, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

What is the definition of "widely"? How many critics do we need to establish "widely"? The "no such thing as climate" statement was part of a rhetorical argument. The logic of the argument may be wrong but presenting it as if that is his complete view on the topic is mislead at best. CNN, while not trying to summarize his argument does try to include more context to show that he is using that statement as part of a larger argument. Springee (talk) 00:24, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

So is your issue only with the use of the word, "widely"? Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 00:30, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Already answered above. Springee (talk) 07:35, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

That is an accurate statement about what his political opponents have said about him. It's not coverage of him, nor his views and statements on the topic. North8000 (talk) 13:52, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

His political opponents are... climate scientists? Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 14:01, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

As a preface, we're talking about a portion of the text in question. No, a scientist would not write like that. North8000 (talk) 14:14, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I feel like I'm missing something as the article I linked had comments from climate scientists. If there's some miscommunication occurring I apologize, but I'm not clear on what your specific issues with statement are & what changes you'd prefer. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 14:40, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, consistent with that source, do not put in claims that he denies the central established tenets of climate change. Even more ideal would be to find a source that more thoroughly reviews/covers his statements on the topic. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:25, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

We have a whole sourced section regarding his views where you can find quotes like "Peterson doubts climate change is man-made", corroborated here. If your claim is that he shouldn't be referred to as a climate change denier because he only doubts some aspects of climate change, that is also covered here with regards to new denial i.e. the "I'm not a climate denier, but..." argument.

So again, he's referred to as a climate denier by multiple reliable sources, he denies a fundamental aspect of modern day consensus regarding climate change (the fact it is a man-made issue), & he has platformed other climate deniers. We are making no exceptional or controversial claims in the lead, so I still fail to see what specifically you're taking issue with. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 18:21, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

The second one is not behind a paywall and I don't see it in there. Can you quote the text to that effect from there? North8000 (talk) 19:41, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Summarizing that second source and the previously provided source, how about this as a summary?: "Peterson has been criticized by scientists for his statements regarding climate change. He has expressed skepticism about climate change projections, the degree of alarm over climate change, and of various mitigation measures." North8000 (talk) 20:23, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

The wording degree of alarm is out of the question. It uses the denialist framing that those who correctly follow the data are just Chicken Littles making mountains out of molehills while those who reject reality for ideological reasons are calm and collected. Wikipedia is not dishonest enough to pretend that attitude has any merit. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:00, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

What is the non-denialist way to express that Peterson claims people (more specific?) are over reacting. It is clear from the sources this is something Peterson believes. Overall the proposed sentence is more specific and more impartial than the current one in the lead. Springee (talk) 10:07, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

The central issue is this. Saying (or using a term that implies) that someone currently denies the central established tenet of climate change (e.g. that the earth is warming and that human activity is a significant cause of that) is the equivalent of accusing them of being a flat-earther and would need very strong sourcing, doubly so in a BLP. All of the other things that he actually did say ((criticizing the modeling projections or ability to do so, criticizing the degree of alarm being raised, criticizing proposed mitigation measures (in essence saying that the proposed cure may be worse than the disease) and which credible people have criticized him for) are in a totally different category. My proposal is consistent with this. North8000 (talk) 13:22, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

as has been firmly demonstrated here, tiptoeing around claiming one "does not deny the central tenets of climate change" while simultaneously denying everything about climate change does make one, in fact, a climate change denier. Lostsandwich (talk) 01:03, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Where do you think that has been firmly demonstrated? It's not a logically sound conclusion so it must be one based on an assumption that the *only* reason to agree with part but not all is to mislead. Springee (talk) 01:41, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Not only has it been reflected in this very talk page, but as, that very discussion demonstrates, it's also reflected in every source about the topic including wiki's own article. Lostsandwich (talk) 03:28, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia's articles aren't considered reliable sources. They reflect a combination of what sources we choose to cite say and the weight applied by the editors who write the articles. This is why people say don't cite Wikipedia. Again, you ignore that what you said is not logically sound. That doesn't mean someone who says "they believe in the basics but..." couldn't be lying or trying to mislead but it doesn't logically mean they are. If it were as clear as you claim then there would be a clear consensus. Still, you returned to this dormant discussion after almost two months. Why? Do you have anything new to contribute? Springee (talk) 03:54, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

That's not correct. A denier is someone who denies the central tenets of climate change. North8000 (talk) 19:56, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Hidden Book

Does anyone know why "ABCs of Tragedy" isn’t listed in Jordan Peterson’s Wiki book list? It's arguably his most controversial work—so much so that it was even removed from his website. Any idea what's going on with this?

YouTube has two good videos about it.

One of him announcing it and the other is a group reviewing the book Pragmatic Person (talk) 00:53, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

https://m.youtube.com/watch?si=JhivLbMyq8w_-Df8&v=ZvfGn4phwlE&feature=youtu.be

And for more information on the book itself. Try:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?si=NKDtYbEbreo3iUBG&v=18O9bap8MgI&feature=youtu.be Pragmatic Person (talk) 00:59, 3 September 2024 (UTC)