Talk:Jordan Peterson/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Philosophy

I think 'philosopher' should be added to his titles alongside clinical psychologist as that seems to be a better description of his activities in the past couple years. For example a wide range of his topics of conversation involved existentialism, empiricism, morality, religion and social philosophy. He also typically quotes a wide range of other philosophers such as Carl Jung and Neitzche--2A00:23C7:D87:3100:E651:B0AB:680B:4DA4 (talk) 01:10, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree, but there's a notion here that for someone to be called a philosopher, they need to have a formal degree in philosophy from a university. That standard would ironically (a popular term here) also disqualify people like Plato or Jung or Neitzche, too. None of those persons held a degree in philosophy, but are accepted to be philosophers. A philosopher, I think, is someone who philosophises. Was Ansel Adams a photographer? He didn't have a degree in art, either, but he's known to have engaged in photography. Is Tony Hawk actually a skateboarder?, etc. This obviously borders on the ridiculous and obvious, but that's Wikipedia. 139.138.6.121 (talk) 11:29, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

That is a very strange criterion, many people with tags in their names do not have formal degrees for those tags, for example Elon Musk is listed as a business magnate and engineer but has neither a degree in business nor engineering. I also agree with you that most of the big names in philosophy did not hold a philosophy degree and I would argue philosophy is one of those fields where a degree in it would do you the least amount of service toward being described as a philosopher. Was Diogenes not a philosopher? I take serious issue with the idea that a degree makes a person something. I'm an engineer and one of the most influential people in my life is Oliver Heaviside, who did not attend education at all! --2A00:23C7:D87:3100:E651:B0AB:680B:4DA4 (talk) 01:14, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps but by contrast if one is to reject formal qualification as a criterion for inclusion into that category then can't you then conversely admit any random person into it? Everybody is a philosopher to a greater or lesser extent. For reasonable inclusion into any category it is also reasonable to ask for reasonable sufficient conditions of inclusion of some kind. Vapourmile (talk) 21:15, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

What RS calls him a philosopher? Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:23, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

It isn't our role as Wikipedia editors to decide who is and is not a philosopher. If the reliable sources we have describe him as a philosopher, then we should too, and if they don't we shouldn't. From a quick Google search, I don't see that reliable sources are referring to him as such, but if there are sources that I'm missing then I'd be open to including it. Srey Sros^talk 01:29, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Interestingly, that very Google search you linked to points to a number of reliable sources that describe him as a philosopher: The Hill, The New York Times ("YouTube philosopher"), The Independent, The New Republic, Newsweek ("YouTube philosopher" again - this seems like a popular description), and so on. Korny O'Near (talk) 02:48, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

"Listening to him is like wrapping your mind with a Paul Johnson history, an interdisciplinary, intercultural, time-traveling tapestry of transcendent themes and truths — where evolutionary biology, history, literature, philosophy, psychology, music, art, religions, culture and myth are all interwoven."[1] So we should call him an evolutionary biologist too? Bus stop (talk) 03:04, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, no one's called him an evolutionary biologist, so... no. Korny O'Near (talk) 03:18, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

The Hill, the Independent, and Newsweek call him a Philosopher only in their headlines. I don't think headlines are normally RS. "YouTube Philosopher" strikes me as some sort of joke, not a serious claim that he is a philosopher. Note that we don't call Freud or Jung philosophers in their articles. But really, the point is sources, and we don't have any sources so far calling him a philosopher. Shinealittlelight (talk) 03:21, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't know what the stance is regarding headlines. It's true that "YouTube philosopher" might be akin to "armchair philosopher" - although, given how popular this description is, it might be worth noting in the article. Still, there are at least two reliable sources that describe him as a regular philosopher, in the body of the article: The New Republic and The Sydney Morning Herald. Maybe Artnet too, if it's a reliable source. Korny O'Near (talk) 03:41, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not seeing 'philosopher' in the body of the NR article; the body only says he has a philosophical brand (which is not the same, I think). The SMH piece is an opinion piece so would have to be attributed, which counts against inclusion, I think. Shinealittlelight (talk) 03:48, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh, never mind, The New Republic mention is also in the headline (well, sub-headline). Again, I don't know what the stance is regarding headlines. Korny O'Near (talk) 04:13, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

"Dependency goes against the core tenets of Petersons philosophical brand: stoicism, self-reliance, the power of the will over circumstance and environment" in The New Republic does not confer philosopher status on Peterson. In The Sydney Morning Herald: "He is both philosopher and witch-doctor, constantly lacing reason with voodoo...It was Peterson-the-shaman at work, fuelling that same group hysteria against which Peterson-the-philosopher so eloquently and insistently warns." Should we also call Peterson a witch-doctor and a shaman? As for Artnet, should we include the full wording: "neo-Jungian philosopher of the manosphere"? Philosopher and philosophical are being used loosely in such instances. These usages are casual. But what is being contemplated here is a sentence like "Jordan Bernt Peterson (born 12 June 1962) is a Canadian clinical psychologist, philosopher and professor of psychology at the University of Toronto." I don't think the sources thus far seen support that. Bus stop (talk) 04:17, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

More accurately a "self-help guru," these days, arguably, philosophy is a profession, requires appropriate qualifications, Peterson lacks these so shouldn't be described as such. Acousmana (talk) 11:39, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

That could be. There's a bigger discussion about what exactly it means to be a philosopher, in part revolving around the ironic fact that very few of the world's famous philosophers would be considered a philosopher by the current definition. I don't know whether Peterson should be called a philosopher or a "YouTube philosopher", and if so whether either one should go into the first sentence. I was just pointing out that a fair number of reliable sources have, in fact, referred to him as one of those things. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:02, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

list of 50 most influential living philosophers (allegedly), all are academically qualified, many if not all hold academic positions. Acousmana (talk) 16:07, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I meant philosophers throughout history. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:49, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Philosopher also describes an inclination or a type of personality. Bus stop (talk) 17:09, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

"Philosopher of the manosphere" is quite accurate, IMO, but the connotations of that are very different from those of "philosopher", tout court, which I regard as unsupported by the sources so far. As far as "philosopher" as a "type of personality", I think we're back then to "armchair philosopher" - which has less to do with midcentury modernist aesthetics than I would have hoped. :P Newimpartial (talk) 17:11, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Some words lend themselves more to figurative use than others. For instance Pogo could be considered a philosopher. Bus stop (talk) 17:27, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

We could go on and on about what exactly it means to be a philosopher; there's a massive gulf between Socrates and, say, Judith Butler. Ultimately, of course, all that matters is whether or not reliable sources call him that. Clearly, some do. Whether enough of them do, I don't know. I will say that simply calling him a "clinical psychologist and a professor of psychology", as the opening sentence does now, doesn't seem like enough. Maybe it would be good to add in "self-help guru", at least - that's a popular descriptor for him in the press. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:35, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Have you presented any sources that describe Peterson simply as a "philosopher", outside of a headline? Because I don't recall seeing any. Newimpartial (talk) 17:45, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

So far no non-opinion sources that have been proposed call him a philosopher outside of a headline or sub-headline. Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:51, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Are headlines considered less reliable, by the way? Surely there's some guideline about this? Korny O'Near (talk) 18:23, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

See WP:HEADLINES Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:25, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, that's good to know. Korny O'Near (talk) 19:08, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Let's be philosophical about it. Is it something that requires a degree to be one? Do I need to have a degree in art to be an artist? If the qualification to be an artist is I have to make a part of my living that way, do we have anyone who makes a living philosophizing? OK, that mindlessness aside, it doesn't appear that we have any RSs that describe him as such so I don't think we should either. This sort of thing wouldn't be such a Wikipedia problem if Wikipedia put less effort into trying to label everyone and everything. We could try just describing them and let readers decide which labels fit.... wait, there I go mindlessizing again. Springee (talk) 18:34, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

it's very clear what a philosopher is, relative to say a "self-help guru" or a "spiritual teacher" (the description we supply for a dude like Eckhart Tolle). According to the definition some people hold here, any random dude talking shite at the bar could be called a philosopher, kind of not the case really though is it? Acousmana (talk) 18:58, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I think in-text attribution in the body of the article is acceptable. The reader is thereby immediately apprized that a given person or publication characterizes Peterson as a sort of philosopher, and colorful language, such as "neo-Jungian philosopher of the manosphere", is therefore justified, especially if the source is prominent and well-respected. Bus stop (talk) 19:32, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

"Philosopher", in the context as Peterson is being described, and "self-help Guru" are two different things -- a philosopher is one who philosophizes. Peterson philosophizes (that's not in dispute), and so meets this criteria. The label "self-help Guru" needs to be parsed into two separate pieces. The word "Guru", (applied literally) is someone who has mastered Yoga, and has become a colloquialism for "expert" or "master", much like the word "Ninja" in popular culture (a practitioner of Ninjitsu). Whether people have learned to help themselves, or not, based on Peterson's teachings, or whether or not he's a "master" at this, deserves credible citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.138.6.121 (talk) 11:44, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

"neo-Jungian philosopher of the manosphere", yeah, perfectly usable, this is the very definition of some guy talking shite at the bar. Acousmana (talk) 21:07, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

The opinion of an art critic on the matter of what sort of philosopher he is--written on a site (Artnet) that has no discussion at RSN that I can find, in an article that is not really about Peterson--seems to me obviously undue. Shinealittlelight (talk) 21:18, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I basically agree about skepticism relating to Jung. Jung's theories and ideas (while I find them interesting) don't seem anymore credible or scientific to me than those of L. Ron. Hubbard. (You urinated in your bed at 13 so you hate your father, etc.) 139.138.6.121 (talk) 11:48, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Peterson's areas of study and research are in the fields of psychopharmacology, abnormal, neuro, clinical, personality, social, industrial and organizational,[1]

The reference supplied is merely a broad link to his ResearchGate personal page. I would like to see this link improved so each of these declared fields of study is undergirded by more pointed references to specific examples of research performed or reports published in credible journals. Otherwise, because his fans are apt to declare him expert on almost any random topic he deigns to talk about, he cannot be assumed to be a credible researcher in any number of these areas. Vapourmile (talk) 21:15, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

good point, had spotted this before, it is problematic and should ideally be addressed. Acousmana (talk) 23:05, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

complete. Tomacpace (talk) 03:37, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Academia and Political Correctness

Place the following under Academia and Political Correctness:

In Psychoanalysis, Politics and the Postmodern University, psychologist Daniel Burston argues that Peterson conflates and confuses Marxism with postmodernism, and that his presentation of Left-wing intellectual history – notably, of Max Horkheimer, Jean Paul Sartre and Jacques Derrida – is riddled with factual errors, and betrays a very poor grasp of his subject matter. He argues, further, that Peterson overlooks how much the current decline of the humanities and social sciences actually furthers the neo-liberal agenda for higher education that he himself appears to favor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhilPsych (talk • contribs) 23:39, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

PhilPsych (talk) 00:32, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 2 March 2021 (2)

Change 'Canadian YouTube personality' to

Jordan Bernt Peterson (born 12 June 1962) is a Canadian clinical psychologist and a professor of psychology at the University of Toronto. He began to receive widespread attention in the late 2010s for his views on cultural and political issues. 2A00:23C5:ED09:3101:316E:A7F8:B016:203 (talk) 06:50, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: see MOS:CONTEXTBIO, Peterson is notable for his YouTube work, so it should be included. I think he is most notable for being a psychologist (even in his YouTube fame), so I've changed the order around though. Volteer1 (talk) 07:02, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 March 2021 (3)

(Informing you that the article has been linked on Jordan Peterson's Reddit page which explains the surge in vandalism).

Numbers of recent edits following the reddit post are placing "psychologist" before "canadian youtuber" in the first section. One argument being "Jordan Peterson came to public attention via Youtube activities, prior to this he was not widely known for his clinical psychology practice, or his academic work.". I think this is valid.

The opposing argument being "His youtube videos are primarily from his works as a professor.". I think a source is needed on that one.

Could we settle on the old phrasing from February 11th 2021‎, replace "Jordan Bernt Peterson (born 12 June 1962) is a a professor of psychology at the University of Toronto, Canadian YouTube personality," by "Jordan Bernt Peterson (born 12 June 1962) is a Canadian YouTube personality, clinical psychologist, and a professor of psychology at the University of Toronto."

I don't think so. Peterson is a psychologist who YouTubes, not a YouTuber who does psychology. Wikipedia had a page on Peterson before he started YouTubing. He was, evidently, well-known enough then to sustain a page here before he began putting his lectures and speeches on YouTube. That he has become more well known since then because he has chosen an additional means of transmitting his work beyond the classroom and the printing press is not reason enough for me to support having "YouTube personality" be the first vocation in his bio. SaltySaltyTears (talk) 22:38, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, most of his YouTube fame is in the capacity of him being a psychologist/professor, e.g. uploading videos of his lectures or talking about psychology. We had an article about him long before we deemed his YouTube channel notable enough to put in the lead sentence. I think the way it is now is fine, so I'm closing this request. Volteer1 (talk) 13:22, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 March 2021

Two minor edits in last paragraph under "Religious Views":

Writing in Psychoanalysis, Politics and the Postmodern University, Daniel Burston argues that Peterson’s views on religion reflect a preoccupation with what Tillich calls the vertical or transcendent dimension of religious experience but demontrate [SPELLING ERROR - CHANGE "demontrate" to "demonstrate"] little or no familiarity with (or sympathy for) what Tillich termed the horizontal dimension of faith; [GRAMMATICAL ERROR; CHANGE ";" TO ","] which demands social justice in the tradition of the Biblical Prophets. 2601:140:9100:15A0:8DFB:E4EF:749A:C112 (talk) 21:23, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Volteer1 (talk) 01:24, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

self-help author

Can we put "self-help author" in the lead, he is notable for 12 Rules for Life which is described as a self-help book in the first line of that article. Troll Control (talk) 09:37, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Calling him an "author" is possibly accurate, but for instance I don't really think Maps of Meaning is exactly a self-help book. Volteer1 (talk) 10:14, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Religious Views

Place the following under Religious Views:

In Psychoanalysis, Politics and the Postmodern University, Daniel Burston argues that Peterson’s views on religion reflect an almost exclusive preoccupation with what theologian Paul Tillich called the vertical or transcendent dimension of religious experience, and little or no familiarity with (or sympathy for) what Tillich termed the horizontal dimension of faith, which demands social justice in the tradition of the Biblical Prophets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhilPsych (talk • contribs) 23:41, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

References

I will be updating this section because Burston's claims are poorly substantiated, refutable.Tomacpace (talk) 16:52, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Removal of self-promotional material

This is my second attempt at this - the first was deleted. I assume this was due to my revealing to much info regarding the editor in question. I've removed names and links this time.

I have removed the previously discussed book review of 12 Rules of Life. This is because the editor who added this text (Divinecomedy666) is almost certainly intimately linked to (or is) the author of that paper. The edit has been made as an act of self-promotion and thus violates wikipedia rules. There is the fairly extensive evidence of this.

Edit in question: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jordan_Peterson&diff=prev&oldid=986541830

Editor contributions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Divinecomedy666

The contribution history of Divinecomedy666 is confined exclusively to the pages of Jordan Peterson, Carl Jung, Arpidithecus ramidus, human evolution, the origin of language and self-domestication. In every single page the editor has contributed to he has inserted citations to work by one (and mostly only one) individual as the main contributions. In the case of the only other bio this editor has extensively edited, it is readily apparently that there is a strong connection outwith wikipedia that further supports the editor as being strongly linked to the articles he has edited and information he has added.

The editor has previously been called out for violating self-promotion rules e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Divinecomedy666#January_2018.

With this new evidence - along with the various other points made below - it is safe to remove this edit as a rule violation. I see no reason for it to remain as there is no valid reason for a non-notable academic piece of work to have three times as much text than the text that actually describes the book in that sub section. If we want to include some criticism of Peterson in that section there are large number of more high profile and notable publications that can be added.

There is a lot of further information that supports this that is probably not necessary for me to reveal here (doxxing etc.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atshal (talk • contribs) 00:48, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Not a fan of JP, but still find it baffling that this removal was reverted. Eliminating this from the biography should be a complete no-brainer. One may argue about due weight in the sub-article, but it is plainly absurd to even consider that this would be an appropriate summary of 12_Rules_for_Life#Reception. Please just remove it on technical/stylistic grounds from here (WP:DETAIL) and any real content discussion can be had on the sub-article where this may possibly belong. Vesal (talk) 15:36, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I saw that (this has been discussed), but that discussion does not make sense to me. Jungian psychology is core to JP, but this journal is really the bottom of the bottom in terms of journal quality metrics. This should not outweigh genuine heavyweights, such as David French, and all other commentaries. What is the policy-based reason to cherry-pick this one review from a journal that meets the astonishing criteria of having a lower h-index than me? Vesal (talk) 15:59, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

The review in question is, however, more reliable than the broadsheet reviews on which 12_Rules_for_Life#Reception generally depends. Newimpartial (talk) 16:06, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

The question here is giving due weight and fairly summarizing the reaction to the book. Anyway, I will not argue further because I don't even disagree with the content, but Wikipedia's fundamental goal is to represent views fairly and proportionately to their appearance in reliable sources. This sort of debunking, including a fairly low-level technical objection, is not encyclopedic. Do you really think including this makes the article more balanced? I think it makes Wikipedia look unprofessional and petty. Vesal (talk) 16:29, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

"Jungian psychology is core to JP, but this journal is really the bottom of the bottom in terms of journal quality metrics." How many peer reviewed Jungian psychology academic journals are there? Citing metrics for journals across all disciplines is hardly accurate. With respect to Jungian theory, there appear to be two main academic journals, above, published by Taylor Francis, and Journal of Analytical Psychology, published by Wiley-Blackwell. Both sources are WP:RS, I fail to see why they should be excluded. Perhaps a trim would be in order, but removing mention is unwarranted. Acousmana (talk) 16:33, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Vesal. The issue isn't whether this is RS. The issue is that it's clearly overweighted in this article. There's a ton of critical reaction to Peterson (see the very long list of reactions to his book in our article for his book). Why then should we have this one reaction from an obscure journal? I would agree with a short paragraph here summarizing the overall critical reaction, but a huge paragraph on this one reaction (out of like 15 or so by my count that we include in the 12 Rules article) is clearly giving this one source undue weight. Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:24, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

"Why then should we have this one reaction from an obscure journal?" it wouldn't perhaps have something to do with the fact that Peterson is heavily influenced by Jungian theory and employs it across his writings? Inclusion is valid, the amount we include is open to question. Acousmana (talk) 21:30, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't agree that this specific citation should be included. It's RS, sure. And it's on topic, I agree. Those things are not in dispute. The question is how much article space in the JP article should be devoted to summary of the reception of one of his two books? The answer, I think, is clearly "not a lot" especially since we have extensive coverage of the reception of that book in the article on that book. I think what would make sense is to produce a paragraph summarizing the whole reception of his book, which of course may be influenced in a small way by this one piece (out of about fifteen cited in the article on the book). But I don't think we need to link all the reaction pieces here. Ideally, if we could find a tertiary source that summarizes the books reception for us, that would be the best. Shinealittlelight (talk) 23:29, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

perhaps we need a "reception and influence" section that can summarize such responses and highlight his "influence" on the manosphere etc.? Acousmana (talk) 14:23, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

The paragraph was copied verbatim to the 12 Rules page, reception section in November; the removal here by user jordanbpeterson was within bounds, but no removal of that same paragraph on 12 Rules for life would be reasonable, however, this on-going discussion might be best focussed for the content of the paragraph as exists on 12 rules book page? Maybe a slimming down, or leave as-is over there. Tomacpace (talk) 18:14, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

More recent activity (23 February and 24 February 2021): Stephen removed the paragraph, Acousmana re-inserted, Korny O'Near re-removed, Newimpartial re-re-inserted. Acousmana and Newimpartial used their edit summaries to urge discussion; I hope they'll explain why WP:BLPUNDEL should not apply. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 02:56, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I haven't seen any bona fide BLP-based objections to the use of this review. Are there any? Newimpartial (talk) 03:03, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't know if there's a serious BLP objection. What there is, however, is a very obvious WP:UNDUE objection. Including just a single review of a book is questionable; having that book be from an obscure academic journal, when the book itself is basically non-academic in nature, is just strange. Korny O'Near (talk) 03:16, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

As a reader of the article foe the first time in awhile, suddenly there's a negative review of his book. Who is the reviewer? What are their credentials? Why does their opinion matter at that point in an encyclopedic description of his work. Why isn't there a positive review also? I'm removing it again. Stephen 03:47, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

not an "obscure" journal, leading academic publication in a field Peterson is considered an authority on, it's WP:RS, and WP:VER, appears relevant to any assessment of scholarship evidenced in said book, inclusion warranted. Acousmana (talk)

Acousmana, you might be right that this material is DUE but currently there isn't a consensus thus, per NOCON policy, it should stay out until there is a consensus. I'm inclined to say exclude on several grounds. First, it appears the material was inserted for self promotional reasons. That should always be discouraged and we shouldn't reward that sort of bad behavior by keeping the review. Second, we have a primary topic on this book where specific notable reviews could be included. Third, which is related, why should we specifically mention this review? This single paragraph should be a summary of information. Is that single review so significant that it alone should be mentioned by name and as representative of all other reviews? Springee (talk) 12:49, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Re:NOCON, this matter was discussed previously, and content stayed. Re:questions: i) it's not clear that it was "promotional," that was alleged, I also trimmed excess from the original text to address concerns; ii) having a primary topic does not necessitate removal of valid "reception" commentary from here; iii) as discussed, this review appears to be notable because of significant overlap with one of Peterson's research interests - Jungian Psychoanalysis. Acousmana (talk) 13:20, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

In reviewing that discussion I don't see there was ever a consensus, just editors got tired of it. Since it seems to have come right back up I would say this is material that never had consensus for inclusion and thus should be removed on NOCON grounds. That is consistent with ONUS. Springee (talk) 14:20, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

For my own part, I would point out again that WP:BLPUNDEL does not apply because, as far as I know, the text in question raises exactly no controversial BLP issues to which it would apply. I don't like to see people CRYBLP. Newimpartial (talk) 14:04, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I think you make a good point but I can't see there was ever consensus to include so the burden would be on those who wish to include it. Springee (talk) 14:20, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Objections have been made above that "journal quality" is poor and that relates to the BLP requirement (repeated four times) for "high-quality" sources. Objections have been made above that the article is self-promotional and that relates to the BLP requirement to beware of "overly promotional" sources. And if you "don't like" me mentioning BLP that's not a good point, CRYBLP is just an essay. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:16, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

• "Objections have been made above that "journal quality" is poor" - these are invalid objections, it's a valid academic field, one Peterson is engaged with, and there are two prominent journals, one, published by Taylor Francis, and the other, published by Wiley-Blackwell (both of which are reputable academic publishers).
• "Objections have been made above that the article is self-promotional" - this has not been substantiated, it's an accusation.
• Other than possible WP:UNDUE issues, don't see the problem, if it's a major concern, we could always have a "reception" section and detail this there. Acousmana (talk) 15:35, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Peter, much of the current article is sourced to broadsheet journalism, while other (ABOUTSELF) bits cite Peterson's Reddit AMA and his Facebook page. Any peer-reviewed academic work is of higher "quality" than the aforementioned sources so methinks you protest, if not too much, at least in the wrong direction. Also, whether or not the initial inclusion of the Jungian studies piece was COI on the part of the editor who added it initially, it has since been re-added by many other editors, so your "promotional" claim is now irrelevant. Newimpartial (talk) 15:51, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

See my comment above. My opposition rests totally on the worry that this is UNDUE. There have been scores of prominently published reviews and discussions of Peterson's book; why are we putting so much weight on this one in particular? Even the academic discussion of his book is widespread. What would be really great is a tertiary source that helps us summarize the general reception. But, failing that, any discussion of the reception of this book on this page should try to summarize the whole reception, not summarize one article on the book, which is obviously giving that one article way too much weight. In addition, the current inclusion of this material is against consensus and reflects the outcome of an edit war in my view. I would like to see the last user who added it self-revert. Shinealittlelight (talk) 16:05, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

If there is any prior consensus on this, I think it is for the status quo and inclusion. Newimpartial (talk) 16:48, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't see a prior consensus so much as editors couldn't agree just gave up the fight for a while. Springee (talk) 17:12, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I read this discussion as establishing said consensus. Newimpartial (talk) 17:16, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

"the current inclusion of this material is against consensus and reflects the outcome of an edit war" - no it doesn't, the inclusion is representative of editors previously failing to agree that removal is necessary, which in turn led to a round of BRD. Acousmana (talk) 17:22, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

To be clear, the consensus I documented was a consensus for inclusion. Newimpartial (talk) 17:41, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

On what grounds? I don't see that one side persuaded the other side. I don't see that we had an overwhelming number of editors favoring inclusion. Certainly involved editors can agree a consensus has been reached even if they don't individually agree on the question at hand. I don't see that here. In a case like this it would be best if an uninvolved editor decided if consensus had been reached. Regardless, I would say the prior discussions ended as NOCON and certainly the recent discussion hasn't changed that. I would suggest a RfC to settle the matter. Springee (talk) 17:59, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Before we get to an RfC, a question for the pro-inclusion crowd: do you really think the section about 12 Rules for Life should contain exactly one review, from a Jungian studies journal? Or do you agree that that's weird, and want to see more reviews added to that section? Korny O'Near (talk) 18:40, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

a "Reception and influence" section is long over due, perhaps that would be a better place for this and any additional WP:RS perspectives on Peterson's work? Acousmana (talk) 18:50, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree with that; the treatment here should be comprehensive and based as much as possible on secondary literature reviews and high-quality academic sources. It should not, as much of the book-specific articles do, read as if it came from the publicity department of the publishing house. Newimpartial (talk) 18:52, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

What do you mean by that? Are you talking about the 12 Rules for Life article, or something else? Korny O'Near (talk) 19:41, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, and Maps of Meaning, which is briefer but otherwise just as bad. Newimpartial (talk) 20:12, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

What's wrong with the 12 Rules for Life article? It has summaries of a lot of reviews, both positive and negative - including (maybe no surprise) an extremely verbose summary of the infamous International Journal of Jungian Studies article. Korny O'Near (talk) 21:59, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

For one thing, I have to read down to #Reception before I encounter anything that doesn't sound like it was written by the book's publicists. For another, the #Reception section itself is very nearly organized from most positive to most negative review, and reviews from Peterson's professional/academic colleagues are almost entirely excluded. Newimpartial (talk) 22:17, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, I find this criticism bizarre, but it does get at the difficulty of trying to summarize all the reviews of 12 Rules for Life in a way that doesn't overwhelm the Jordan Peterson article. For movies, we can just point to the Rotten Tomatoes percentage and summary to give a brief overview of the critical reception. But for a book like this, how do you possibly begin to summarize all the opinions expressed on it, not just by book reviewers but by political commentators, theologians, and academics, in an even-handed but comprehensive way, that pleases everyone here and is not 15 paragraphs long? It seems impossible - which is why it's probably better not to include any reviews. Korny O'Near (talk) 23:12, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I think this is a mischaracterization of that reception section in the other article; the first review listed says the book contains "cerebral preening" which is not exactly a compliment. In any case, as I've said above, we should try to summarize the reception of the book briefly; the JP article is not an article on this one book, and so it should not be taken up with details of particular book reviews but should instead summarize the full body of reviews. I agree that this is challenging, and it would be best if we could find a tertiary source. I oppose a "reception" section for Peterson generally: that's just going to become a coatrack instead of improving the article. If there is specific criticism or reaction to his ideas, propose the source here and we can try to incorporate it into the body of the article in the appropriate place. Shinealittlelight (talk) 23:50, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

If there is specific criticism or reaction to his ideas - this is not a phrase that gives me a lot of hope for building an encyclopaedia. There is, in fact, a good deal of specific criticism and reaction to his ideas, most of it on a spectrum between critical and dismissive. Newimpartial (talk) 23:54, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not against a "criticism/reception" section - it makes a lot of sense, and the articles on a lot of other public intellectuals have one, like Noam Chomsky, Milton Friedman, Jean-Paul Sartre etc. But that's not we're talking about here - we're talking about the criticism and reception of a single book of his, one which already has its own article, with a lengthy section for reviews. Given that, and given the difficulty (illustrated on this talk page) of coming to any sort of agreement about how the reception of 12 Rules for Life could be briefly summarized, I think it's obvious that the best solution is not to include any reviews at all - unless they're in the context of general criticism/commentary on Peterson. Korny O'Near (talk) 14:56, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Where we agree, is that there should be a section of this article that gives a DUE account of the critical response to Peterson. Where we apparently disagree is what should be in place until then. I think we should retain the status quo until then, because removing the Jungian Studies response would leave the article even more slanted towards deferential views of the subject and his writings than this article - and the Maps and 12 rules articles - already are. Newimpartial (talk) 15:15, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

could be that owing to Peterson's lack of intellectual gravitas there simply isn't enough academic coverage, so a reception and influence section would probably rest largely on press commentary? maybe that's why some folk object? I do find it unusual though, considering his manospehere status, that we don't note the extent of his "influence" on that domain. Acousmana (talk) 15:18, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Newimpartial, status quo should be removal because the material has never had consensus for inclusion. It hasn't been here long, there is no clear consensus on any of the talk pages and currently we have at least 5 editors involved and at least 3 say remove. Again, I'm happy to start a narrow RfC on that subject if we can't come up with a better question. Regardless, the book has a primary article so there is no reason to have anything more than a summary of the range of receptions here. Any detail that is book specific should be on the book's page. Evaluations of Peterson himself should be on this page. Springee (talk) 15:29, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

In the prior discussion, four editors supported inclusion and two (you and one other) supported redaction, and your "colleague" was contesting the credentials of the only peer-reviewed source offered. So from a policy-relevant standpoint, I would call that an unequivocal prior consensus for inclusion. Unless we come to more of a clear consensus in this discussion here, per WP:CONSENSUSCANCHANGE, then I say the status quo should be retained. Newimpartial (talk) 15:47, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Newimpartial - I think you have a bizarre view of what constitutes "slant", if you think the articles on Peterson and his two books are slanted. As far as I can tell, they just offer straightforward recountings of his life, career, and writings. Can you point to any particular slanted writing there? Or could it be that your personal dislike of Peterson makes neutral writing appear biased? Also, the emphasis on "peer review" is strange, because 12 Rules is not an academic book (though it's written by an academic) - it's explicitly a self-help book. I haven't read the book, but I can't see how the International Journal of Jungian Studies would have any particular insight on, say, whether people should clean their rooms. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:14, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I'll deal with this last point first - the whole basis of Peterson's claim to insight (re: "self-help") is his status as a Jungian therapy practitioner (and academic), so the responses of qualified Jungians are absolutely relevant. Peterson's Jungian insight into room-cleaning isn't any more on-point than that of his Jungian critics.

To the earlier point, I'll quote the lede of the 12 steps article: The book topped bestseller lists in Canada, the United States, and the United Kingdom, and has sold over five million copies worldwide. Peterson went on a world tour to promote the book, notably receiving much attention following an interview with Channel 4 News. Critics have praised the book's advice and its atypical style, though Peterson's writing style has been criticized by some, and his perspective on God received mixed reception. This breathless prose does accurately summarize the article per LEADFOLLOWSBODY, but that is because the whole article follows this quasi-publicity department style, with bumpier moments of the reception minimized and deferred. Newimpartial (talk) 16:34, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Timeline: Material added 1 Nov [[2]]. 25 Nov Miki Filigranski removed the material [[3]]. Acousmana and Newimpartial supported it. Back and forth editing in the article space through 4 Dec. The material was again removed by an editor claiming to be Peterson on 9 Jan [[4]]. Atshal removes the material 27 Jan. Korny O'Near removes is again 24 Feb and Stephen supports the removal. The material has never been stable. If you ignore the 9 Jan removal it was unchallenged in the article for less than 2 months. On the talk pages, back in late November I see myself and Miki opposing the content, I see Newimpartial and Acousmana supporting it along with Grayfell and possibly blindlynx. So in the imediate time period, yes, 4:2 for inclusion but between then and 27 Jan is hardly enough time to claim consensus is for inclusion. Also 4:2 by the number is on the consensus line. When the discussion started up again in Jan Vesal supported removal as did Shinealittlelight and Peter Gulutzan. That puts things at 4:5 against inclusion. It is very clear at this point there is not consensus for inclusion. Newimpartial's argument for retaining the content is purely that they feel the "consensus" stamp of approval was established because the content was left alone and undiscussed from early Dec until late Jan. It appears we all agree we are currently in a NOCON case with the additional voices all opposing inclusion. Springee (talk) 16:34, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

(Comment added after below discussion, putting it here for formatting's sake because of outdent) Note: Miki Filigranski has been blocked as a sockpuppet of Crovata. Their contributions should not influence any assessment of consensus. Srey Sros^talk 19:41, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

to clarify my position i think that the inclusion of that type of content is needed for this article but it should not limited it to one source—blindlynx (talk) 16:46, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Springee, the consensus in the discussion was clearly for inclusion, particularly the policy-relevant consensus. COI edits in article space and drive-by removals are not relevant to determining consensus. Also, when there has been prior consensus for inclusion, there is a real difference between NOCON and consensus for removal. Newimpartial (talk) 16:56, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I do not agree there was ever a consensus in the discussion. Regardless, as the discussion has continued it is clear there isn't a consensus. What you are trying to do is arbitrarily cut off consensus as established sometime between early Dec and late Jan since if we include the late Jan objection that puts you at 4:3 for:against which, by the numbers is pretty clearly noconsensus. You are trying to hang inclusion on the view that this is now "long term" content. Perhaps we should take this specific question to a message board? Springee (talk) 17:52, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I think an RfC would be the correct procedure, except the question under discussion is, "should we retain this particular academic review in the article until a proper Reception section is developed", which seems bizarrely specific to me. But that is the actual question that has 4-3 NOCON at the moment.

And as to status quo, this material has not only been present in the article for months, it also had a Talk page discussion which, in spite of your attempt to recount the !votes to include mail-in ballots or something, quite clearly concluded at the time in favor of inclusion. Newimpartial (talk) 17:58, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

It has also been disputed the whole time. That means it shouldn't have been in the article during any of that time. Springee (talk) 18:17, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

That is what I call wikilawyering. The previous discussion had four editors in favor of inclusion on a policy-compliant basis, and one or two opposed. Once that happened, there was a consensus for inclusion, and even though it has been disputed again since then on slightly different grounds, that doesn't suddenly or automatically overturn the prior consensus. WP:ONUS doesn't apply to content where there has been an explicit consensus for inclusion. Newimpartial (talk) 18:22, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Can't that claim be turned around? You are trying to treat this as an original settled event and a second distinctly separate discussion vs zoom out and see it as a longer, never settled discussion. You are picking your version because it defaults to inclusion and you can say I'm picking my position since it defaults to exclusion. You are claiming policy supports inclusion but I don't agree. NPOV is policy and MOS is a guideline. Focusing on just one recent set of comments while ignoring others is a NPOV issue. Dumping all the reviews into this article is a MOS issue since we have a primary article on the book. To claim those who reject this aren't doing it on policy grounds is simply not true. Anyway, this is getting repetitive, again, this could be part of a RfC or a noticeboard discussion. Springee (talk) 19:16, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

More, fairly explicit, wikilawyering. It isn't a POV issue to say that we discussed this, and consensus was for inclusion, and that people have questioned it again so we are discussing it again, but until then the STATUSQUO remains. POV has nothing to do with that, and neither does MOS. If there were actual BLP issues here that certainly would override STATUSQUO until those were resolved, but nobody has found any. Newimpartial (talk) 19:21, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Again, this is pot calling the kettle black. You are claiming consensus was established but where is the uninvolved editor saying that is the case? The guidelines on when something becomes the stable version is vague but claiming less than two months is sufficient is questionable. NPOV and MOS matter because you claimed those who rejected this material didn't have a strong basis in policy/guidelines. I agree that this isn't really a BLP issue so NOCON doesn't mean reject. However, claiming this is stable content is wrong. If nothing else, the fact that we can't agree means we should get a neutral 3rd party to decide this question. Springee (talk) 19:34, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Again, Springee, I am not claiming consensus and STATUSQUO on the basis of elapsed time (or "stable content"), I am claiming consensus and STATUSQUO on the basis of a prior discussion in which you, plus one sock, objected to inclusion (and the sock did so largely on grounds that were not compliant with policy), and four editors supported inclusion. That discussion stopped and was archived, and it clearly established consensus to include - it was not an RfC, so an uninvolved close was not needed. To overturn this prior consensus, per WP:CONSENSUSCANCHANGE, an actual new consensus rather than NOCON would now be required. I have also stated my own position, that it would be fine to replace this STATUSQUO material when we have a better Reception section in this article. I do not see this as an unreasonable specification. Newimpartial (talk) 20:50, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

So what is to say this is a new discussion vs the topic was simply paused for a bit until another editor saw the same issue? Where is the closed discussion where a consensus was declared? Hypothetical. On day 1 four editors say include X, 1 says exclude. As of day 1 there is a consensus for inclusion. The next day later 4 more editors agree with exclude. Now we have 4:5 exclude. Are you going to claim consensus was established on day 1 thus the day 2 discussion is carried out as if this were the stable version of the article, ie the consensus version? You might claim that it would be silly to claim the day 1 discussion established consensus and now the day 2 discussion need to overturn it. But what if the delay was 1 week or even 1 month? Absent consensus being established by a RfC closing, some discussions simply take a while. less than 2 months isn't long enough to claim this is stable text thus discussions of the same content show the material doesn't have consensus. This isn't CONSENSUSCANCHANGE, it's NOCON. Springee (talk) 21:44, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I am not going to answer the hypothetical, which is just some kind of slippery slope. The prior discussion ceased and was archived. Only an RfC needs to have a formal close to reach consensus; most consensus on WP is established without a formal close. If you can't see the consensus in the previous discussion where you and a sock were the only objectors to inclusion, that isn't on me, and I'm not the one wikilawyering. Newimpartial (talk) 22:33, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

So all I need to do to get "consensus" is set a very short archive timer. It is currently set for 30 days to you are claiming any discussion that is dormant for 30 days automatically is closed. Do you have a policy link to that? Springee (talk) 22:50, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

No, I don't. Do you have a policy link for any discussion I feel is still open must still be open no matter what anyone else thinks? I didn't think so. And I haven't seen any suggestion anywhere that a one-against-many discussion that lies dormant for 30 days should be considered WP:NOCON. That seems like a pretty heavy clean-and-jerk. Newimpartial (talk) 22:54, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree that there's no real appeal to consensus in either direction. Newimpartial - I disagree that Peterson's big claim to insight is that he's a Jungian scholar. That's not how he became famous, and it's not (as far as I know) the main subject of his most popular writings and lectures. You may as well say that a linguist should be the main source for analysis of the political writings of Noam Chomsky. As for that prose you quoted, I don't see what's "breathless" about it. Generally the most notable fact about a book that sold a lot of copies is that it sold a lot of copies. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:47, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Peterson is now most famous for being famous, a.k.a. as a YouTuber. However, unlike many of his YouTube colleagues, he arrived there as a subject-matter authority, and his authority was as a Jungian therapist. Newimpartial (talk) 16:56, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Not true (he became famous directly as a result of his political commentary), and also not relevant. Again, Noam Chomsky was first famous as a linguist. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:00, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

This is just a mis-statement of his career. To be concrete about it, Peterson was a Jungian therapist and academic first, then a self-help guru on the basis of his Jungian credentials, and then he had a platform for his Culture War "political" commentary because of his prior standing as a guru, which was in turn based on his prior Jungian credentials. In fact, if you look at the way he continues to intervene as a (certain kind of) "public intellectual", he is still engaging in the same kind of (sloppy) Jungianism he started out with 20+ years ago. Newimpartial (talk) 17:10, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Not true, and again, you could say the same thing about Noam Chomsky. I don't know how many times it needs to be repeated. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:16, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

What do you mean, not true? That is literally what happened. I don't know what Chomsky has to do with it, since structural linguistics doesn't have anything to do with his political views, but Jungianism has everything to do with the way Peterson deploys myths in his most recent interviews and YouTube interventions. Newimpartial (talk) 17:24, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Peterson's magnum opus, Maps of Meaning, is heavily influenced by Jungian thought, the guy is essentially a devotee, if there is one publication that defines his pseudophilosophical outlook, it's that. Also, he was doing stuff on YouTube before the pronouns debacle happened. Acousmana (talk) 17:26, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, of course he had a lot of writing and videos about Jung and other academic subjects, but he became famous for his political commentary. And again, I haven't read 12 Rules for Life, but as far as I can tell it's not a book of scholarship. Even if, say, 10% of the book is about Carl Jung, and even if all of that analysis of Jung is incorrect, it doesn't really affect whether the book offers good advice or not. As far as we're concerned, that's a question best left to the standard book reviewers, commentators, etc. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:39, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

if he became famous for his political commentary why is our coverage of this facet - how and why, and amongst whom, he became famous - insufficiency covered, arguably, too much weight is being given to his "scholarly" persona, because - unlike the Chomsky example - prior to taking an outspoken political stance, he was not famous for his research. Acousmana (talk) 18:06, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't know, but it's not relevant to this particular discussion. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:10, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

What is relevant to this discussion is the unsubstantiated claim that his current public interventions have nothing to do with his Jungianism, which isn't at all what e.g. his biographers have to say on the matter. Newimpartial (talk) 18:27, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I didn't say that, and of course it's not true. What I said is that 12 Rules for Life is a self-help book, not a book of academic research, and should be treated that way. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:37, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I am not saying that it is a book of academic research - if it were, we could dismiss The Catholic World Report and the opinion column in the New York Times as sources - both of which feature prominently in the 12 Rules article's reception section - and restrict ourselves to its (quite limited) academic reception. But because it is a self-help book by a Jungian, from a Jungian POV, that has been reviewed by Jungians it is entirely relevant to include commentary on the book by people in Peterson's own field. I find arguments to the contrary to be bizarre. Newimpartial (talk) 18:45, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree that it's relevant (I wouldn't say extremely relevant, but relevant), but you're arguing that it's the most relevant - i.e., that it's fine to have this as the only review of the book. That's what doesn't make sense. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:51, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

That's actually not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing that it is alright for this status quo text (representing the highest-quality source available) to remain until we have a proper Reception section for Peterson's work, based as much as possible on high-quality sources. Newimpartial (talk) 19:15, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it's highest-quality (peer review is meaningless for a non-academic book), but, whether or not there's a "Reception" section, the fact remains that including just one book review is strange, and including (say) ten reviews is going to lead to a big wall of text. Korny O'Near (talk) 22:21, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I dispute your premise. Even for entirely non-academic works (cue the fiction of J. R. R. Tolkien or J. K. Rowling), peer-reviewed articles discussing their work are higher-quality sources than broadsheet reviews, much less opinion columns or Catholic League special-interest pieces. And once again, I am not proposing that the article offer disjointed summaries of a dozen random reviews; I am stating that we should look at the highest-quality responses to Peterson's work as a whole, and present those with DUE BALANCE (and of course without SYNTH). Newimpartial (talk) 22:41, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

It's questionable whether an academic work is the highest-quality source about a fantasy novel, but even if is, those academic sources would presumably be from the world of literary analysis. Deferring to a Jungian scholar for opinions on a self-help book that occasionally mentions Jung is like deferring to a medieval studies professor for their opinions on Tolkein's novels: interesting, but hardly authoritative. Korny O'Near (talk) 22:59, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

The views of Jungian scholars are relevant to a Jungian self-help book, just as the views of feminist scholars are relevant to a feminist self-help book. I would have thought this to be obvious. Newimpartial (talk) 23:02, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I haven't read the book, but it's not billed as a Jungian self-help book, and I don't get the sense that Jung is mentioned that often. Korny O'Near (talk) 23:15, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

If people don't understand that the ways Peterson acts and speaks as a public intellectual are based on his "practical Jungianism" - his internalization and application of Jungian concepts even when he does not overtly invoke them - then those people should read the accounts by those who know Peterson the best, which make this explicit. Newimpartial (talk) 23:20, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

This is irrelevant. Is the book trying to make a point about Carl Jung? No. It's trying to improve people's lives. So a Jungian scholar is not in any better position to judge the efficacy of the book than anyone else. Korny O'Near (talk) 23:33, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

By whose criterion is the purpose of a reception section for a public intellectual/author to judge the efficacy of their work? That seems like another bizarre (and idiosyncratic) claim. Newimpartial (talk) 23:36, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, it's a self-help book, so efficacy is presumably the main criterion. But the same logic applies to any other reasonable criteria, like literary quality, originality, etc. "Accuracy of views about Carl Jung" seems fairly low on the list of important aspects for a self-help book. Again, it's like asking a medievalist about the works of Tolkien. Korny O'Near (talk) 23:43, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

The present article is about "Jordan Peterson, public intellectual" as much as it is about "Jordan Peterson, self-help guru". I can see a defense of those narrower criteria for critique of 12 Rules in the article on the book, but not here. Also, your medaevalist:Tolkien::Jungian:Peterson analogy might be compelling here if 12 rules were a work of fantasy psychological self-help - and in some ways it is - but it presents itself as a work of actual psychological help; Peterson's credentials (and toolbox) for that offer are entirely Jungian. Newimpartial (talk) 01:43, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Jung's work is cited only two times in 12 Rules for Life, while there are over 200 notes. Outside of the cited references, Jung is only mentioned about 4 times. Compare this with comparably referenced sources, Jane Goodall, Erich Neumann, Goete, Nietzsche. Xenophon takes the prize with 6 times the citations as Jung. It's more a diversity of sources than Jungian. Dr. Gary Clark is hardly invested in this; I mentioned above that inclusion is not a big problem but I'd rather see it removed, my opinion. The inclusion seems more in line with a desire for more criticism of Peterson for the sake of self-promotion, which was the original objective of the inclusion on this page.Tomacpace (talk) 23:49, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Tom, who in thus discussion has shown a desire for more criticism of Peterson for the sake of self-promotion? That looks like an WP:AGF fail from here, but perhaps you had something specific in mind rather than WP:ASPERSIONS. Newimpartial (talk) 01:43, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Straight answer to your question on "who" is anyone voting or desiring to include the content, in this discussion, given the pushback. The nature of this single topic discussion (particularly its length... it is many, many screen-heights tall on a 1080 HD monitor) speaks to my point. With all due respect, you dodged my points. Please consider my points instead of making this out as a personal attack.Tomacpace (talk) 02:19, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

To consider your points, then, support for the inclusion of the review could only be self-promotional if the author of the review were participating in the discussion. They aren't, so it isn't.

As far as any desire for more criticism of Peterson, I can only speak for myself - the only thing I desire is for the tone of this article to match the way Peterson is treated in the best available RS. On the whole, the article in its current form is overly fawning and jejeune, IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 02:26, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

thank you for expression of intent, "To consider your points, then", but you actually didn't address a single point. My original point a few weeks ago earlier in this discussion was considering the weight of the content within the section, and the meaningful focus that has. Consider WP:PROPORTION; the content is about 40% of the whole section, even in its limited slimmed version. The whole original content exists on the 12 Rules for Life page. It shouldn't really be on this page anyway. Being critiqued by a Jungian isn't really anything spectacular or notable, it's more novel and exciting to those who think it means something, I see plenty of in-fighting and posturing within the IAAP. I'd like to know if you think my own edits on the page qualify as "fawning"Tomacpace (talk) 02:55, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Now that you've said "ask about my edits", my attention was drawn to this: Ongoing organization of the channel has included the Playlist feature. Using playlists allowed the channel to organize the course lectures according to class and year, plus link to Peterson's work published on other channels. Such playlists include video essays originally broadcast on TV, early conversations on his book project "42" (later renamed 12 Rules for Life) and a 2015 Farsi translation of his Maps of Meaning course. I don't know that that's "fawning", exactly, but it's certainly jejeune.

What I was addressing was your most recent "point", namely The inclusion seems more in line with a desire for more criticism of Peterson for the sake of self-promotion. Since you are unable or unwilling to defend that one, should I move on to your previous "points"? Newimpartial (talk) 03:06, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

"Since you are unable or unwilling to defend that one, should I move on to your previous "points"? yes, please. I did answer, but to receive "you are unable or unwilling" means it's a dead-end for further discussion and amounts to posturing. Can you do me a favour, and take this in all good-faith, can you please steel-man my points. Your first response was to my commentary rather than an argument point, one that you fixated on as if it was a point... if you can do that, this would be a better discussion. Tomacpace (talk) 03:13, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

How can I "steel-man" the point that support for inclusion of the review was "self-promotional", when the only editor for whom that could possibly be true has not participated in this discussion? It is as though you were asking me to "steel-man" the case for the stolen 2020 US presidential election. Huh? Newimpartial (talk) 03:20, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Re Catholic League special-interest pieces: CWR is owned by Ignatius Press, not the Catholic League. One of the former editors had previously directed a chapter of the Catholic League; I'm not aware of any other connection. gnu57 23:57, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

This article on Peterson's book is one among literally 266 citations of Peterson's book in Google Scholar, it is published in an obscure journal, and it currently has ZERO citations according to Google Scholar. Why are we arguing about this for thousands and thousands of words? This article has had zero impact, is likely to continue to have zero to little impact, and is therefore obviously UNDUE here. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:41, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Do you have any other Jungian criticism to propose? Newimpartial (talk) 02:47, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

The fact that we don't yet have any Jungian criticism that is DUE to include in the article does not mean we should include a zero impact, no name journal article, obviously. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:55, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

As has been documented previously, the journal in question is one of the two main Jungian studies journals; and, as has been documented elsewhere, algorithmically-measured "impact" is not notably meaningful on the more subjective side of psychology where Peterson pitches his tent. Newimpartial (talk) 03:01, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

If the article in question has been cited zero times I would tend to view it as a work of scholarship that has yet to prove it's merit. It absolutely should not selected above other reviews to be cited in what is meant to be a summary of the section. That is a clear case of UNDUE. Springee (talk) 03:11, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, please explain how you can regard an article with zero citations as DUE. Shinealittlelight (talk) 03:13, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Because it is one or the few commentaries on the book written by a qualified specialist in the field. Newimpartial (talk) 03:17, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

This guy appears to be a post-doc at the University of Adelaide; you're saying he's notable? Shinealittlelight (talk) 03:30, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

The point is that the article is peer-reviewed scholarship; that makes it higher quality than any opinion piece in the New York Times by definition. Newimpartial (talk) 03:35, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not making a comparison to a NYT piece. Please answer my question: do you think that this postdoc at U of Adelaide is notable? Shinealittlelight (talk) 03:42, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Notability of a reviewer is not a relevant criterion in assessing the quality of a RS. In general, source quality is supposed to trump famousness in determining DUE and BALANCE. Newimpartial (talk) 03:45, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

As Tomacpace noted, Carl Jung is mentioned just 4 times in the entire book. So Jungian analysis is not "the field" of this book. By the way, not to get sidetracked further, but does peer review confer quality, in the eyes of Wikipedia or anyone else? All it means is that two or more people read the thing and didn't object to it. Anything published in a major newspaper or magazine probably gets a similar number of eyeballs on it. Korny O'Near (talk) 03:51, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Still not answering my question. We can't make progress if you won't dialogue. WP:DUE makes no reference to "famousness"; by "notable" I meant that he is not prominent. Would you agree that he is not prominent? Shinealittlelight (talk) 03:55, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Newimpartial, it appears this is not a noted scholar in the field, rather a postdoc who got a paper published. That might make it due for inclusion in the article on the book but not as the only review mentioned in this summary section. Why would we even need to discuss this point? Springee (talk) 03:57, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Exactly, and there seems to be a misunderstanding that "Jung" is a "field" and that the good research on Jung is published in journals that contain his name. This is generally not the case. The best research on an important figure would not be published in a little no-name journal on that one figure, but in a general journal that publishes philosophical or theoretical psychology. That's how journals work. This is a very low quality source in terms of DUE weight, by a post-doc who is at present (zero citations, recall) the only proponent of the analysis he expresses. Shinealittlelight (talk) 04:02, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

There does indeed seem to be a misunderstanding; Jung is one of the figures who offers a theoretical paradigm, and a model of clinical practice, in humanistic psychology. "Jungian psychology" is therefore, in a sense, a "field", in that it circumscribes work within that paradigm. Papers in Jungian psychology are indeed published in journals in theoretical psychology as well as in specialist journals, but not all papers (even book reviews) in a theoretical psychology journal will be by Jungian specialists; however, one can assume that all papers (and the one in question is a paper, not a book review) in a specialist journal will be written by qualified specialists. I would, however, be more than happy to see any of you point to peer-reviewed treatments of Peterson's work by other, more prominent, Jungians. Then we might actually make progress in this discussion. Newimpartial (talk) 04:20, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Still not responsive. I repeat: is this post-doc a prominent adherent of the view he expresses? I'll add: is his view held by at least a significant minority? Will you really not answer these questions straight from WP:DUE? Shinealittlelight (talk) 04:26, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I think the view expressed in the paper represents the mainstream view of Jungian scholarship. Newimpartial (talk) 05:37, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to take this as an admission that he's not proinent, since you're again not answering. Let me know if that's not so. Given that he's not prominent, and he alone is the expositor of his view (having no citations), this manifestly and explicitly fails WP:DUE. Shinealittlelight (talk) 16:53, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

A good quote from Jung comes to mind: "Thank God, I’m Jung, and not a Jungian." Tomacpace (talk) 05:31, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm sure Peterson would say exactly the same - or at least essentially so. Newimpartial (talk) 05:37, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't think you understand what I mean. You still did not read my points and consider them in good faith.Tomacpace (talk) 14:01, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

In what way? You still haven't explained how I could "steel man" your claim about "self-promotion". Newimpartial (talk) 14:14, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I have politely asked you, multiple times now, to re-read what I wrote. I am doing my homework, and trying to listen to counter positions, but it doesn't really work when this is not reciprocal. One of my take-aways from this is, I don't think you read what I wrote, with honesty.Tomacpace (talk) 14:37, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

In your post yesterday you offered counts of name-drops - which are useless as a way of identifying a theoretical standpoint, as I think deep down you understand - and then offered this: I mentioned above that inclusion is not a big problem but I'd rather see it removed, my opinion. The inclusion seems more in line with a desire for more criticism of Peterson for the sake of self-promotion, which was the original objective of the inclusion on this page. What you offer here is (1) your preference (opinion) for exclusion, (2) a (demonstrably false) claim about the motivations of other editors (for the sake of self-promotion) - and I have shown that this is false, and (3) another claim, The inclusion seems more in line with a desire for more criticism of Peterson. I have previously responded to this last line of argument, saying that what I want is not more criticism as such, but rather for the tone of this article to match the way Peterson is treated in the best available RS. Since (1) is an opinion rather than an argued position, I believe I have addressed all the "points" from your post yesterday. Please let me know if I left anything out. Newimpartial (talk) 14:51, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

• "...and there seems to be a misunderstanding that "Jung" is a "field" and that the good research on Jung is published in journals that contain his name."

that one may feel that this is not a valid field of academic inquiry is irrelevant, Taylor Francis/Brill are reputable academic publishers, and the journal appears to be peer reviewed, that would seem sufficient.

• "...it appears this is not a noted scholar in the field, rather a postdoc who got a paper published"'

in a peer reviewed journal published by reputable academic publishers. The post in post-doctorate implies than one has been deemed fit to conduct independent (unsupervised) research, we are Wikipedia editors, this is not a REF assessment committee. Acousmana (talk) 11:42, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not making a strong argument against peer-review and journals, this or any others, but there is a clear and documented activism, seeking to tell-how-it-is, rather than honest open investigation, that is contributing to a visible degradation of the value of science journals. This article is one of them; just because it's in published, the arguments contained within need to stand up, and the flow and thought. From what I'm seeing, the argument points are hobbling, crippled.Tomacpace (talk) 14:14, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

No, Jung is a reasonable object of inquiry, and of course you can specialize in studying Jung, but the field of study here is psychology not Jung, and this journal is clearly not a prominent journal in that field. Nobody claims that this guy doesn't have a degree, or that the journal is not RS, or that he isn't qualified to do research. But none of this guarantees inclusion, of cousre, and it's just obvious that this piece is not DUE because he's not prominent, the journal is not prominent, and the paper has had zero citations. Maybe you can tell me that you think this post-doc is a prominent proponent of a view that he held by at least a substantial minority? I mean, at least if you make that statement you'd be claiming to satisfy WP:DUE. Otherwise it just looks like you guys need to read that policy again. Shinealittlelight (talk) 16:53, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

• psychoanalytic theory is the field. Acousmana (talk) 18:02, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Nope. Psychology. Psychoanalytic theory is a theory in the field of psychology. Want to answer my question? Here, I'll quote it for you: Maybe you can tell me that you think this post-doc is a prominent proponent of a view that he held by at least a substantial minority? Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:13, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

OK, you better contact these academics then and tell them it's not a field, [5], [6], [7]. Acousmana (talk) 17:36, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

As far as I know, it is the majority view among Jungians/analytic psychologists. Newimpartial (talk) 18:17, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Oh, no it obviously isn't: you can easily tell because it has no citations. Moreover, even if it somehow were the majority view, that's something we need to know in order to include it--not something that we can just say "for all I know" about. So this is currently included against consensus and against our policy WP:DUE. I won't revert it because I don't edit war. But its inclusion is in my view disruptive. I don't see that there's anything else for us to talk about. I don't have time to take further steps today, but I guess that's what you're going to make me do. Shinealittlelight (talk) 19:26, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

There is a clearly documented prior consensus for INclusion, so removal of the material prior to a new consensus would in fact be disruptive. Thanks for your cooperation. Newimpartial (talk) 19:34, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Please read Analytical_psychology#Archetypal - we are not discussing Jung as some figure in the history of ideas (you are quite right that Peterson is not an intellectual historian); we are talking about Jung as the originator of the specific mode of therapy that is the only one Peterson is qualified to practice in, and which is/was the basis of his academic teaching credential as well. This is the reason Jungian credentials are specifically relevant to the critical assessment of Peterson's work.

And once again, the highest-quality sources available on a topic do not have to be prominent compared to broadsheet op-eds and catholic newsletters. To merit inclusion, they just have to be the highest-quality sources available. Newimpartial (talk) 17:09, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

If the discussion was removal of this source from the book's wikipage I could see accepting that this at least is an academic paper in the specific field. However, a single, uncited paper doesn't give it much weight. In this case you are arguing that it should be the only review mentioned and it's acceptable that it's about 40% of the entire discussion of the book. That is why this is UNDUE. Springee (talk) 17:27, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

But I'm not saying that. As I have written about five times now, my view is that the status quo should remain until a balanced "Reception" section has been developed, representing with DUE WEIGHT the perspectices of the highest-quality sources available. Newimpartial (talk) 17:37, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Status quo is remove the material since it has been continuously disputed but editors simply didn't want to edit war to remove it. Given there is a primary article SUMMARY comes into play. If we choose to discuss reviews then we should summarize them rather than focus on any one review. Personally I think it is easier to simply remove the content and point readers to the primary article. Springee (talk) 17:58, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Springee, Status quo is not to remove the material - there was a discussion, that discussion reached consensus to include, it ended. Please stop repeating incorrect assertions. Newimpartial (talk) 18:02, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

That is your opinion and assumes the text has been stable/a consensus was established. The fact that we are all here discussing it and the text was never stable for even 2 months says a consensus was never established. We might as well drop this line of argument since neither of us will convince the other. Perhaps that can be part of the RfC. Springee (talk) 18:22, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Do you agree that we should be working towards a Reception section, separate from the books sections, that would give a DUE and BALANCEd account of the critical reception to Peterson's work in general? And that when this is added, the existing passage on the Jungian Studies article under 12 rules will be redundant? Because if you do, I don't really see the point of an RfC to determine what the article looks like until fixed. We just WP:FIXIT. Newimpartial (talk) 18:27, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

An overall reception section could be fine. I presume this would be reception to his works as a whole, not just his books. Reception specific to his books should go in with the books. Springee (talk) 19:08, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I fully agree. Newimpartial - maybe it's best to just concede that, on the particular point of this single review, the current consensus is that it should be removed, and let the matter go so we can all move on? Korny O'Near (talk) 19:41, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I've removed this review as there is consensus above to remove it, which I incidentally support. I checked to find it at the only place it belongs, 12 Rules for Life#Reception, though that section is very badly written at present (verbose, unstructured, doesn't highlight the most pertinent themes in each review—see Wikipedia:Copyediting reception sections). — Bilorv (talk) 10:58, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Just to clarify some of this discussion: the author of the article in the Jungian journal is an evolutionary anthropologist who also researches the evolutionary basis of Jungian thought. Articles by the author in evolutionary studies have about thirty citations; see in google scholar for example "Ardipithecus ramidus and the evolution of language and singing: An early origin for hominin vocal capability" and "The life history of Ardipithecus ramidus: a heterochronic model of sexual and social maturation." The article in the Jungian journal is an in-depth analysis (30 pages) of Peterson's evolutionary ideas and how different theories about how we understand human evolution have implications for Jungian studies. To quote from the entry in the 12 Rules article on its reception: "The article claims that Peterson fails to take account of research in paleoanthropology, evolutionary anthropology and ethnographic studies of egalitarian societies. Such societies, which are believed to represent the ancient forager adaptation of H. sapiens, are matrilineal and lack social hierarchy. The author argues that a major sociocultural transformation occurred from this ancient adaptive complex with the onset of agriculture giving rise to modern patrilineal and hierarchical cultures. This view contrasts with Peterson's, which postulates modern social and economic structures are an outgrowth of the hierarchical impulses of our premammalian, mammalian and primate ancestors." Note that this is a critique of Peterson's evolutionary thought and how it informs his approach to Jung. The article offers an alternative conception of Jungian psychology informed by evolutionary studies to that offered by Peterson. It should be added that Peterson's thought on human psychology is grounded in his evolutionary ideas - the notion of modern human hierarchical impulses being inherited from the common ancestor we share with lobsters and more recently a chimpanzee-like human ancestor. And given his approach to evolution he has a certain take on Jungian thought. It should also be noted that Erich Neumann, who Peterson cites and who is a major influence on his thinking (see Maps of Meaning) is one of the major Jungians of the 20th century who elaborated Jung's archetypal model in "The Origins and History of Consciousness" and "The Great Mother." If you read 12 Rules you will see that it is saturated with Jungian and archetypal psychology. And far from Jung only being mentioned a few times - this is incorrect - he is referenced twelve times in the index of 12 Rules - which makes him the most frequently cited individual/author in the book being only surpassed by Jesus. The article goes straight to the core of Peterson's thinking and its basis in evolutionary ideas and illustrates how his thinking is at odds with both the current fossil evidence as well as ethnographic studies. The article could not be more relevant to the core ideas as expressed in 12 Rules. Peterson is a very thoughtful, sensitive and astute Jungian thinker who at his best offers profound insights into the nature of human psychology. However there are alterative ways of grounding Jung in evolutionary theory. Which is what the article sets out to do thereby contributing to the debate surrounding evolutionary approaches to Jung. I hope that clarifies some of these issues. Divinecomedy666 (talk) 17:42, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Peterson far-right ?

I suggest you add that he is far-right in the first paragraph of the lead. Source:https://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news/video/who-is-jordan-peterson-favorite-figure-of-the-alt-right-1221615171523 Blizzard-of-Revisions1220 (talk) 07:58, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• You're free to make any edit you want. Bold editing is encouraged as a matter of policy. However I've looked at the source and it doesn't actually describe Peterson as "far-right", so there's that. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 10:13, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
• I don't think it is fair to call Peterson far-right. What positions does he hold that can be considered further right than any other loud conservative voices in the USA? Ben Shapiro for example holds very similar views, but isn't labelled far-right. The source you cite is misleading, and doesn't justify the link between his views and that of the far-right. Labelling him as such is incorrect, and potentially dangerous in that it lowers the bar for what can be seen as alt-right. A less misleading description of Peterson would at worst be "considered to hold far-right views", though even that is strongly debatable. Frankly jarring to see him fall under the same term as the likes of David Duke. I would advise reconsidering your edit, or backing it up with stronger citations. Syzyf01 (talk) 20:27, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
• The reporter in that source never calls Peterson "alt-right" but only mentions that he has an alt-right following. There is, however, a chyron laid over that piece which does call him "alt-right" however, chyrons are similar to headlines in that they're typically not specified by the reporter but are added by producers and other non-journalists. They're therefore generally not considered reliable on Wikipedia. SaltySaltyTears (talk) 22:52, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
• Read the section on his political views before suggesting to write far-right at the top of the article. You can discuss and suggest edits there. Petterson constantly rejected both far-right and far-left political views and there are extremely diverse reactions from the press - a single reference does not cover the topic (even if it would substantiate your suggestion). This needs to be removed.Derek1155 (talk) 13:00, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

This needs to be removed. Peterson is absolutely not a far-right personality, the alt right do not like him either. Your viewpoint does not change this. It needs to be removed. Doktor ew (talk) 10:02, 2 March 2021 (UTC)