Talk:Jordan Peterson/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

Political Views subsection "The holocaust and nazism" needed

@Korny O'Near reverted this edit of mine. Based on their comments, I'm proposing my edit be reinstated with the following changes:

Peterson's audience has been described as including neo-nazis. Peterson has argued that what was wrong with the Nazis was not that they were not civilized, stating that, in his view, "there’s more evidence, I think, that they were too civilized." His view on the holocaust was described by researcher Mikael Nilsson as an "odd re-writing of Holocaust history" that contained an "unsettling understanding of Hitler and misuse of historical sources." Peterson has chosen not to use the word "holocaust" to describe the tragedy. He has professed that in regards to Adlof Hitler, "we must give the devil his due" and that Hitler did "wonders for Germany’s economy during the first part of his reign." The idea that Nazi Germany saw widespread economic success is widely considered a Nazi propaganda myth as economic problems were already rife within the country by late 1934.

These sources are all reliable per WP:RSP. ––FormalDude talk 04:10, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

References

The second reference, as well as being an opinion piece, is fake: it doesn't contain any of the material you are using it to source. The third source is an opinion piece, which you are quoting as factual information not in accordance with WP:RSOPINION, and the last source doesn't mention Peterson. The only relevant material in reliable sources you've presented here is the quote Peterson's constellation of beliefs attracts a heterogeneous audience that includes Christian conservatives, atheist libertarians, centrist pundits and neo-Nazis from The Guardian, which doesn't mention Nazis beyond that. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 07:54, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

These are all reliable sources expressing one similar point that should be, for due weight, included in the article somewhere. The third source may be an opinion piece but it is still relevant as it is from an established subject-matter expert: Mikael Nilsson, PhD. The last source is a citation for the last sentence, and the last sentence also does not mention Peterson. I'm convinced the first three sources should be included.

I will compromise the proposal some more. Feel free to offer your own suggestions as well please.

One item Peterson has argued is that Nazis problems were not that they were not civilized, stating that "there’s more evidence, I think, that they were too civilized." His view on the holocaust was described by researcher Mikael Nilsson as an "odd re-writing of Holocaust history" that contained an "unsettling understanding of Hitler and misuse of historical sources." He has professed that in regards to Adlof Hitler, "we must give the devil his due" and that Hitler did "wonders for Germany’s economy during the first part of his reign." The Independent reported that "Peterson appears to excuse the Nazis by drawing comparisons to our own current economic concerns."^[1][2][3]

––FormalDude talk 08:35, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

All of that but the last little snip at the end is solely sourced to the Hareetz op-ed (which you are still presenting as fact and not opinion: "Peterson has argued..."). If we gave a section to every op-ed written about Peterson this article would probably be pushing a thousand sections long – especially for something as controversial as opinions arguing that a BLP has engaged in Nazi apologism, I would like to see something in secondary sources to establish weight. Even in the last little bit "The Independent reported that..." is still inappropriate, as it is the author's opinion incorrectly described as a fact reported by The Independent. Two op-eds alleging some something as extraordinary as Nazi apologism, that does not have coverage in secondary sources (particularly when those opinions are instead stated as facts) is a non-starter for me in a BLP for which the subject has already had so much ink spilled over. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 14:00, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

seems fair that some mention of what Peterson has said on the subject of Nazi Germany should be included in the article, considering how controversial such views actually are, and particularly when the individual is a high profile public intellectual. Acousmana 12:54, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

If we're going to include sources on what he said we need high quality sources for this. Not opinion pieces. We can use opinion pieces for what the reactions are, but they are not reliable for statements of fact on the subject. --Kyohyi (talk) 13:21, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

we can include mention of what Peterson said if covered by a usable WP:RS. Whether or not we include specific commentary on what he said is another matter. Acousmana 13:53, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

All of the material presented above about what Peterson said/believes just comes from that Hareetz op-ed. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 14:03, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Hareetz is WP:RSP (as is The Guardian and The Independent), so for something like "Peterson said xyz about xyz," even if an op-ed, it's fine. The question is how much weight we should reasonably give to the commentary, per WP:RSOPINION. Acousmana 14:12, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Not quite, There's an WP: IMPARTIAL problem with only taking our facts from an opinion piece. The opinion piece is only going to include facts which fit the opinion they want us to take. Note even RSP says that Generally reliable might not be enough for BLP content. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:16, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

can we verify what Peterson said? If yes, WP:RSP source noting he said xyz is sufficient. Further commentary about alleged controversiality can be prefaced with "according to so and so, writing in RSP." This is a question of weight ultimately. Acousmana 14:26, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

It's not just a verification problem, it's an WP:IMPARTIAL problem. How and where we pull facts from is important and in this case only pulling facts (even if verifiable) from a single opinion article is not impartial. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:33, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

this appears to the be the primary source, Jordan Peterson Shares His Thoughts on Hitler, we have his words here, can underpin this WP:PRIMARY using admissible secondary sources as long as we present it in the article impartiality. Acousmana 16:13, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Again, you're not getting the problem. Impartiality doesn't mean we go find a source to backup the argument. It means we dispassionately measure all sources on the subject. This would mean finding all of the content regarding Peterson and Nazi's not just the one's that support a certain discourse. We should be starting with facts then going to opinions on those facts. Instead this has been started with opinions and then looking for facts to back up those opinions. --Kyohyi (talk) 16:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

and you are ignoring the reality of the primary source, it exists, Peterson expressing his views on Hitler, Nazism, and the Holocaust, we can include mention of this, especially if we have an WP:RSP that has reported on the video, it's all about weight. Acousmana 17:00, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

The existence of the primary source is irrelevant, including information on Peterson's views on the Holocaust also isn't the issue. The issue is how we go about including those views and how we structure their inclusion. The way this has been approached is not consistent with WP: IMPARTIAL. We do not start with an opinion, then go find sources that back up the opinion. --Kyohyi (talk) 17:17, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

come now, hardly irrelevant, it's the reason we have secondary sources discussing Peterson's views on Hitler, Nazism, and the Holocaust, it's also a legitimate and perfectly usable source within the context of BLP building. We need to decide on two things: 1) appropriate weight; 2) appropriate location in the article. Acousmana 17:51, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

It is irrelevant to the objection being made to the proposed content. We don't start with an opinion then find facts to support that opinion. --Kyohyi (talk) 17:54, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

not really, the facts are Peterson said a bunch of stuff about Hitler, Nazism, and the Holocaust, which prompted WP:RSP sources to write about his views on Hitler, Nazism, and the Holocaust, is it that difficult to get your head around? Acousmana 18:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Stop playing games. The objection with the proposed content is based on my paraphrasing of the sources, not on the sources unreliability or weight. Good encyclopedic content can still be derived from the sources in my original proposal. If you don't like those though, I've included seven others below. ––FormalDude talk 18:20, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

We document the facts first, then document the opinions on those facts. We don't start with the opinions then say hey this really happened. That's bass ackwards. The objection isn't just paraphrasing, the objection is that it started with a POV, the opinion piece, and worked backwards to find supporting facts for the POV, the primary sources. --Kyohyi (talk) 19:17, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

If the result is well sourced reliable encyclopedic content it doesn't quite matter how it came about @Kyohyi. We also don't refrain from including facts just because we don't like them or we find them controversial. Peterson obviously has significant political views on WW2, the Holocaust, Hitler, and Nazism, and there is an abundance of reliable sources available. If you don't like the ones I suggested, maybe you can provide other sources that say something about Pertson's views on the topics at hand? ––FormalDude talk 17:24, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Your personalization of the dispute is noted. Just because an individual statement is factual doesn't mean how that statement is presented in relation to other statements is also factual. Organization, presentation, method of selection are all important, and in this case we started with an opinion, and are looking for facts to back up that opinion. That's an Impartial, and NPOV fail. --Kyohyi (talk) 17:40, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

What a joke. You're labeling prospective content that hasn't even been proposed impartial and a NPOV fail. Strong reliable sources exist on Peterson's views of WW2, the Holocaust, Hitler, and Nazism that should be included per WP:DUE. ––FormalDude talk 17:47, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

No, I'm labeling content that has been proposed, and the method that has been used to support it as an impartial and NPOV fail. That Strong reliable sources on Peterson's views of WW2, the Holocaust, Hitler, and Nazism exist doesn't mean they have been presented. --Kyohyi (talk) 17:52, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

This seems like very problematic territory for a BLP. First, any time we start associating people with Nazis that should raise a BLP red flag. Second, unless we have strong sourcing, and op-ed articles making contentious claims about BLP is a bad thing. The Guardian is doing a guilt by association that is buried in their article. We shouldn't be picking that bit out for our article. This is a case where it is very easy for a source to distort a reasonable statement/claim to sound unreasonable. Absent clearly including Peterson's full statements (per ABOUTSELF) I would leave this out. Springee (talk) 14:20, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

He gives his political opinion on Nazism fairly frequently, seems worth including in the article. ––FormalDude talk 17:11, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Also, describing someone's views on Nazism is not the same as "associating people with Nazis." Never did I say or even imply Peterson associates with Nazis. ––FormalDude talk 17:26, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

You are going to need better sources than a opeds than that per WP:REDFLAG for those exceptional claims. Moreover, FormalDude just something is greenlit at RSP it does not mean the content is worthy for inclusion (See WP:UNDUE, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:SYNTH, etc). Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 16:18, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Spy-cicle you have a lot of time on your hands, I can't remember the last discussion I've had where you haven't shown up. ––FormalDude talk 17:12, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

What are you suggesting? I have watched this page for a while, well before you made this subsection.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 19:03, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Sources

These sources all show that Peterson has political opinions on topics related to WW2, Hitler, Nazism, and Anti-semitism, which should be expressed to some degree in the article per WP:DUEWEIGHT.

1. Carl Jung, Jordan Peterson and the Question of Anti-Semitism Peterson claims Jung is not an anti-semite.
2. The Jordan Peterson Phenomena: Why Fromm’s ideas and public intellectual vision is essential for responding to reactionary populism "Peterson has lectured widely on the rise of Nazism and Communist dictatorships with a particular concern with left-wing authoritar-ianism"
3. On Jordan Peterson's political correctness and the 'radical left' Peterson concludes that identifying as a Marxist is no better than identifying as a Nazi.
4. The Atlantic Peterson had spent months being casually described as a Nazi and associated with the alt-right, labels he always rejected.
5. Thus Spoke Jordan Peterson The best-selling psychologist isn't leading young men to salvation — he's delivering them to authoritarianism.
6. Wall Street Journal Mr. Peterson recalls the famous line of George Orwell in his review of "Mein Kampf" in 1940: "Whereas Socialism, and even capitalism in a more grudging way, have said to people 'I offer you a good time,' Hitler has said to them 'I offer you struggle, danger and death,' and as a result a whole nation flings itself at his feet."
7. Slate Peterson has praised the genius of turn-of-the-20th-century Austrian politician and notorious anti-Semite Karl Lueger.

––FormalDude talk 18:08, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't think anyone here has argued that Peterson's views on Nazism should not be included in the article. Personally, I think it would be great to include his views on Nazism, Communism, and some other frequent topics of his that aren't really covered at the moment. However, the summary should be impartial and informative, and not based on out-of-context quotes and hit pieces. (On that note, you misread that last article in Slate, which states that Peterson *hasn't* praised Karl Lueger.) Korny O'Near (talk) 14:20, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

I totally agree. Masterhatch (talk) 14:37, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

"not based on out-of-context quotes":this is the context, his words are right there, usefully, it includes a transcript, he cites Jung (a fervent anti-semite) in blaming the German people for the Holocaust; Hitler (a very orderly person, who was, we are reminded, awarded for bravery) was just doing what they really wanted, and did nothing more than extend his killing of parasites in factories - with Zyklon-B (because after all, it was really his issues with "disgust," and not hatred of the Jews, that lead to industrial scale massacre) - to genocide. Hitler wasn't a bad guy, bad shit happened him, it was a bad time, so you know, folk had a lot to be resentful about, so hey, lets kill all the Jews, it's that simple, according to Peterson. In terms of historical accuracy, one would have to be a wholesale moron to indulge this kind of revisionism. Acousmana 15:43, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

I watched the video; it would be great to include these views of Peterson's in the article, especially as they relate to Peterson's statements on how too much order and too much chaos are both harmful. I disagree with your analysis that this is revisionist history - I don't think anything he says there is revisionist or even particularly controversial, except maybe to those who see Hitler as some kind of mass hypnotist. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:13, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

yes, let's include them, good idea, why present his views "out of context" when we can quote his fringe theories verbatim. Acousmana 16:21, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

If it is fringe views, there need be some argument or citation in favour of that. On Carl Jung, Wikipedia does not seem to think him an antisemite either: Carl Jung#Political views. Munci (talk) 07:52, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

That would be an issue with the Carl Jung article, not this one. Emphasis on "would be", because the section linked proves the opposite of what you're insinuating. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 10:00, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

While other statements are perhaps more ambiguous, the article says "Jung had many Jewish friends and colleagues and maintained relations with them throughout the 1930s despite prevailing anti-semitism." and " I have never been a Nazi sympathizer and I never have been anti-Semitic" and " Jung's service to the Allied cause" and "In 1934, Jung wrote in a Swiss publication, the Neue Zürcher Zeitung, that he experienced "great surprise and disappointment"[170] when the Zentralblatt associated his name with the pro-Nazi statement.". It is at best an oversimplification, at worst defamation, to say that Jung would be antisemitic. And the accusation against Peterson hinges on that. Munci (talk) 12:13, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Also, I checked the Slate link up there and the description above misrepresents the source: "A guide to the jokes here: Peterson is the author of 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos and Beyond Order: 12 More Rules for Life and believes “the masculine spirit is under assault,” but if he’s praised the genius of turn-of-the-20th-century Austrian politician and notorious anti-Semite Karl Lueger, he doesn’t seem to have done so publicly. (That is probably a joke about Peterson’s interest in Carl Jung.)". So basically Peterson has said nothing about Lueger at all. Munci (talk) 12:19, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

It's his denial, which shouldn't even be included as per WP:MANDY, versus the criticisms leveled against him, along with his own very damning words, that Acousmana helpfully listed below. At best, this would be false balance, but definitaly not what you claim, that "Wikipedia does not seem to think him an antisemite either". And your claim that the accusation against Peterson hinges on this doesn't carry water either. The accusations against Peterson hinge on a plethora of tiny red flags that add up into something so major, it becomes impossible to ignore. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Peterson use the term "Cultural Marxism" multiple times? 46.97.170.112 (talk) 08:58, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for showing me WP:MANDY. I think it better applies to an actual far-right figure, like Eric Zemmour. Munci (talk) 04:50, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• "it has been a great mistake of all previous medical psychology to apply Jewish categories, which are not even binding for all Jews, indiscriminately to Christian Germans or Slavs. In so doing, medical psychology has declared the most precious secret of the German peoples – the creatively prophetic depths of soul – to be childishly banal morass, while for decades my warning voice has been suspected of anti-Semitism. The source of this suspicion was Freud. He did not know the Germanic soul any more than did all his Germanic imitators. Has the mighty apparition of National Socialism, which the whole world watched with astonished eyes, taught them something better? Where was the unheard of tension and energy when there was as yet no National Socialism? It lay hidden in the Germanic soul, in that profound depth which is everything else except the garbage bin of unreliable childish wishes and unresolved family resentments."(Jung, cited in Harms, 1946/ 1991, p. 38)
• "Freud and Adler have seen very clearly the shadow which accompanies everyone. The Jews have this peculiarity in common with women: Being physically weaker, they have to aim at the chinks in their opponents armor, and since this technique has been enforced on them during a history of many centuries, the Jews themselves are best covered at the spots where others are most vulnerable. In consequence of their more than twice as ancient culture they are vastly more conscious of human weaknesses and inferiorities and therefore much less vulnerable in this respect than we are ourselves.(Harms, 1946/ 1991, p. 37)
• "something of a nomad, never has produced and presumably will never produce a culture of his own, since all his instincts require a more or less civilized host nation to act as a host for their development" (Harms, 1946/ 1991, p. 37)
• "have you never noticed that the Jew himself lacks something – one in his head, another in his heart, and he himself feels that he lacks something?...you speak like all those Jews who accuse anyone of Jew hating who does not have a completely favorable judgment, while they themselves make the bloodiest jokes about their own kind. Since the Jews only too clearly feel that particular lack and yet do not want to admit it, they are extremely sensitive to criticism." (Jung, 2009, p. 260)
• "The Church is an ideal substitute for the chosenness of the people because it is spiritual, therefore universal, in contrast to the racial ties of the Jews … The “tribal” national bonds with their secluded character seem to me – quite separately from their historical-psychological significance – to be a primitive relic, in comparison to the constantly evolving development of the Christian world of ideas, which only gives the impression of still being identical with the worldviews of early Christianity and which, in any case, was never a national bond, but from the very beginning, principally universal." (Jung, in Neumann, 2015, p. 21) Acousmana 13:28, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

This is a pointless discussion, and entirely original research. Find a citation that backs up whatever you're trying to say about Peterson, and then feel free to discuss it here (or just add it to the article). Korny O'Near (talk) 02:18, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Just noting that I removed the Karl Lueger bit per that edit request below without having read this whole thing. The source stated the exact opposite of what was stated in prose. After looking at that section a bit more it seems a weak tea to have a section labeled Antisemitism sourced entirely to an opinion piece from the Independent, a letter to a journal that praises Carl Jung, and the Atlantic piece which is literally, no shit, reading the subtext of a dream Peterson had. It is hard to resist reading the subtext like this: Peterson had spent months being casually described as a Nazi and associated with the alt-right, labels he always rejected. He had metaphorical swastikas on his car door. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:47, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm glad that bit sourced to the letter was also removed as it was written He has defended other antisemites, such as Carl Jung. which is calling Peterson an antisemite in wikivoice, which is not at all what the source stated. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:52, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

That was part of an antisemitism section that FormalDude added. It's all been effectively reverted now, thanks also to Kyohyi, Korny O'Near. I believe their edit summaries constitute "good-faith BLP objections" so WP:BLP requires consensus for any attempt to re-insert without significant change. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:32, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Can't but feel like I'm being blackballed here. Why doesn't anyone else seem to care? If my proposals need context, add context. If there's a better way to word his views on these topics, propose them. I can't just keep trying over and over for something that pleases this article's OWNERS. ––FormalDude talk 17:45, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm only here because of the edit request below, so I'm hardly an owner, and the whole section seemed bad right when I looked at it. It used wikivoice to label the subject antisemetic, it provided information directly contrary to the source cited. The section cited a single op-ed to say they have been called a Nazi apologist, and used the subtext of a dream to say that many people called him a Nazi. It's not blackballing, that section was just poorly written and sourced. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:50, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't calling you an owner, that was directed at the editors who have been consistently reverting me at this article. Clearly I'm having trouble coming up with suitable content for the article. It seems people agree that his views on these topics should be included. But for some reason I'm the only one actually attempting to get that done. ––FormalDude talk 18:00, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

After reviewing your sources above, I think you'd need to gather more and better sources to put something together. Discussing a Hitler quote in the context of groups seeking "romantic revolutionary rebellion" doesn't actually have anything to do with Nazis, Jewish people or World War 2, for instance. One source you seem to have misread, as it states the opposite of what you wrote. One is simply a letter to a journal saying that recent letters by Jung have proven that he was antisemetic, and Peterson should read them so he'll have no reason to debate that one particular thing about Jung, and continue discussing the rest of his works. It looks like you gathered everything you could find with certain keywords and tried to make something out of it, rather than reading a number of reliable sources and summarizing what they're saying. Reporting that a secondary source mentioned, when discussing the subtext of a dream, that he was casually called a nazi is not an indictment of Paterson, nor anything worth mentioning. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:53, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the removal, you will need better sourcing per WP:REDFLAG.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 22:41, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Depiction as Red Skull

My edit was reverted by by @SaltySaltyTears, but I disagree, since the explanation is "The actions of a cartoonist certainly do not belong under a "Personal Life" section", because:

1. the question is - if this information is relevant. If it is and does not belong under "Personal Life" section, then another section should have been suggested instead of just removing the information
2. if the relevance is questioned here, my points are: a) From the comment it is clear that @SaltySaltyTears does not know that Ta-Nehisi Coates is not a cartoonist, but a prominent award-winning writer. Therefore the removal was not warranted since it was regarded as a mere action of some cartoonist b) Mr. Peterson has reacted to the depiction immediately in several tweets questioning if it was warranted c) depiction has been noticed and reported by various prominent news outlets d) Mr. Peterson has emotionally (tears in his eyes) has described how this depiction has affected him in the podcast episode I have linked to. He has explicitly chosen that particular excerpt from the whole episode and posted it on his own YouTube channel once again confirming it's significance

My proposal is to reinstate my edits under the relevant section if "Personal Life" is not correct Wolframiac (talk) 19:54, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

This was discussed at the time. No consensus to include. [1]. Part of the problem is this isn't really about him, just a questionable back handed insult Coates. Springee (talk) 20:25, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Hey, but doesn't Peterson crying about this and specifically putting it on his YouTube make it more significant now? From the discussion you have linked to it seems that you were the only person who objecting to adding that - it doesn't seem that it can be called a consensus. This article does not mention the controversies surrounding Peterson - one edit was removed from the article stating "we don't put information from hit job articles" (what are the official criteria for calling an article "hit job"?) and now you're saying "we're not putting information from insults". But that's important information by itself - that Peterson is constantly attacked and this article has almost no mention about that. Peterson says "nazi" in that short five minute excerpt twice, but this article has no mention of him being accused that at all. I'm saying information he was called or depicted as one on multiple occasions is a fact. Wolframiac (talk) 09:33, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Nah, this has guilt by association issues, as well as not having any sort of lasting coverage so is likely WP: UNDUE--Kyohyi (talk) 14:00, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 November 2021

Change

Jordan Bernt Peterson (born 12 June 1962) is a Canadian professor of psychology, clinical psychologist, YouTube personality, and author. He began to receive widespread attention in the late 2010s for his views on cultural and political issues, often described as conservative. He is considered to be a member of the intellectual dark web.

to

Jordan Bernt Peterson (born 12 June 1962) is a Canadian professor of psychology, clinical psychologist, and author.

Stevenpjohnso (talk) 23:44, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.. Kleinpecan (talk) 23:46, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

References

Member of the intellectual dark Web?

I think including the above in the first paragraph, effectively suggesting that is definitive of him as a person is basically false. It might be mentioned somewhere, but to mention in the first paragraph is bizarre and over states his controversy. 86.142.102.21 (talk) 19:57, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Do you have recent, reliable sources to back that up, or is it just your opinion? Newimpartial (talk) 20:49, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree with this objection. And the question should not be Are there reliable sources that indicate that it is not relevant? but Are there those that imply that it is? The burden of proof lies with the latter. Trakking (talk) 16:38, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

The reliable sources noting Peterson as a "member" of the Intellectual Dark Web have presumably reached that conclusion (that it is relevant) for us. Which is why I asked for sources supporting the opposite. Newimpartial (talk) 16:43, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

It's clearly DUE that Peterson is identified as part of the IDW. However, that doesn't mean it needs to be in the first paragraph of the lead. This was added to the lead paragraph Sept 25th so I wouldn't view it as long term stable consensus. I don't have a strong opinion but would lean towards putting later in the lead. Springee (talk) 17:21, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think the IDW label and the conservative label should be kept side by side; these are not entirely separate attributions, and it would be quite artificial to separate them. Newimpartial (talk) 17:48, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that there was an official membership in the IDW. GoodDay (talk) 19:06, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

There was but the only person on the member-roll was Sam Harris and he turned in his membership card when the Official IDW came out as pro-Trump. TBH, no, there is no formal membership in the IDW and the association of any given (pseudo)intellectual with it is based almost entirely on vague gestures and the anointment of the media. Frankly there might be value in just wiping the IDW off the website as a piece of unimportant 2010s Conservative ephemera long past its sell-by date. But as long as Wikipedia persists in treating this dubious pseudo-club as something of merit we should probably note those people who have been claimed as "members" and few people are more associated with the IDW than Peterson. Simonm223 (talk) 19:10, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

@Simonm223: The only thing you managed to say with all of that text is that "you don't like nor agree with Jordan Peterson". But a good portion of the people who come here do; show some respect and try to be neutral. And by the way, many people associated with the IDW are not conservative: Steven Pinker, Sam Harris, Jonathan Haidt etc. Trakking (talk) 10:38, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I have no interest in maintaining some sort of artificial neutrality in the talk pages of a pseudo-intellectual. Frankly I've read enough Jung, Heidegger and Neitzsche to recognize both where Peterson is coming from and that he's a lousy academic who doesn't well grasp the theorists he deploys. I, personally, have complete contempt for the man but he's notable and should have a well, reliably sourced, article. Steven Pinker and Sam Harris are, in fact, deeply reactionary and Jonathan Haidt I know basically nothing about but he's not in good company. My concern with the IDW is that I feel it doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability standards as the only sources that describe this loose agglomeration of WP:FRINGE "academics" is newsmedia - and a quick look at WP:RS/N should give you a sense of what I think of the use of newsmedia as reliable sources. My neutrality is not required - only that the article use reliable sources to reflect a clear picture of reality. I will continue advocating that newsmedia does not represent a reliable source and that phenomena such as the IDW that basically only exist in the minds of cranks like Bari Weiss should best be considered beneath the dignity of an encyclopedia. Simonm223 (talk) 13:24, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

The addition to to mentioning IDW to the lead paragraph has been constested multiple times ([2][3]) since it was boldy added a few months ago ([4]). Hence I am removing it. Anyone who argues it belongs in the lead paragraph can form a consensus on the talk page as per WP:BRD. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 14:47, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Do you support its removal? Given the small number if editors that have discussed this so far, each individual opinion will have a considerable impact on the likely consensus, one way or the other. Newimpartial (talk) 14:57, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I would say that if reliable sources can be produced that the IDW is something that exists I'd support Peterson's inclusion as a notable member of it. I'm skeptical any actually reliable sources can be provided for this bit of ephemera though. Effectively the IDW doesn't exist except as a rhetorical device of certain opinion columnists to propose a bunch of pseudointellectualsheterodox scholars are a movement. Simonm223 (talk) 15:29, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

And I question whether the meaning of exists relied on here is relevant to this article at all. Almost nothing referred to in this article exists, except possibly the University of Toronto and/or YouTube. Newimpartial (talk) 15:44, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I think what it comes down to is a question of notability and WP:DUE - you know the low opinion I have of newsmedia as a source, I'm sure, as we've talked about it in other places before. In the case of the IDW, it sprung pretty much whole-cloth out of Bari Weiss' opinion column. There's no organic link between Peterson, Harris, Heying, Weinstein, the Sokal Squared hoaxers, etc. etc. etc. except that many of the have either resigned or been fired from their posts because they weren't particularly talented as academics and all of them have subsequently achieved some level of celebrity in Conservative circles for railing against progressivism and / or Marxism in various forms. I'm unconvinced that the IDW is due mention. I don't dispute that figures like Weiss treat Peterson as being part of this movement. So, if the consensus is that the IDW can be reliably sourced to be an extant organization then Peterson should be treated as a member. Otherwise there should be an AFD up for Intellectual Dark Web. Simonm223 (talk) 15:59, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I will say that this source represents one of the best arguments for inclusion of the IDW on this website and it also explicitly ties Peterson to it, albeit via Weiss' opinion column. Simonm223 (talk) 16:05, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Right. But why should it be an extant organization? Classical liberalism and Traditionalist conservatism, both of which are referred to in this article, are not "organizations" (and Locke, Smith and Burke, to whom these traditions could be ascribed, are not "extant"). So that seems an unnecessary bar and I for one would argue that the IDW is a much more relevant affiliation than either of those ... Newimpartial (talk) 16:10, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Ok but those two examples are both coherent ideologies. There's basically no through line for the IDW aside from being name-checked in an editorial. I mean Peterson is basically a postmodern right-Nietzsche self-help guy. Heather Heying is an anti-vaxxer. Sam Harris is a pop-science author who has a hate on for Islam. Joe Rogan is a podcaster and Ben Shapiro is a youtuber. Like it's basically just a list of people whose opinions Weiss likes and even the academic sources that grapple with it end up falling back to Bari Weiss as a sole-source. And that's my concern about the IDW right there. There's countless people who have formulated Classical Liberalism into something that can be identified, at the very least, as a coherent ideological movement. I don't see the IDW as clearing that bar. Simonm223 (talk) 16:15, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

You see, this is where we actually disagree. I recognize that There's countless people who have formulated Classical Liberalism into something that can be identified, at the very least, as a coherent ideological movement - and to me, that's part of the problem. The people who self-identify, or are identified by others, as "classical liberals" don't in my view bear any particular relationship to the "coherent ideological movement" distilled by "countless people" - the latter activity is in my view equivalent to a Retroactive continuity project and is inherently misleading. I'd rather have a label like IDW that is simply used rhetorically, rather than one like the 21st century usage of "classical liberal" that pretends to be a coherent ideological movement but doesn't actually apply to people in that way. Newimpartial (talk) 16:24, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Looking at the body of the article there is one sentence saying several sources have associated him with the IDW. That's not much in the body of the article. Given the coverage in the article body I think removal from the lead makes sense (earlier I just said not in the lead sentence). It seems questionable that a one sentence paragraph in the body establishes weight for this to be anywhere in the lead much less the second sentence of the lead. Springee (talk) 16:19, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, it is a convenient and relevant label that is related to "conservative" in the preceding sentence, which in my view justifies its placement. Newimpartial (talk) 16:24, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I think this all ends up circling, in various ways, back to WP:DUE I get where you're coming from and I'm sure that you can imagine that I'd be pretty critical of assigning any of the people under discussion the label of "classical liberal" absent reliable sources making that connection. However I'm unconvinced that Bari Weiss' opinion is due sufficient weight to make it valuable as a rhetorical categorization. She's a failed NYT opinion columnist who helped popularize some conservative media figures and marginal scholars and, from what I can see, she's the ultimate source for the whole IDW thing. Peterson is a conservative. Peterson is a Jungian. Peterson is a right-Nietzschean. Peterson is a self-help author. He's a TERF. These are all things that can be verified petty easily and, aside from the last one, uncontroversially. Peterson is a member of the IDW presupposes the IDW is a thing with a definable membership and that seems dubious. Simonm223 (talk) 16:32, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

But the label didn't originate with Weiss, and it was picked up by such diverse sources as the LA Review of Books, The Guardian, Jacobin and RCP. These are all reliable sources making that connection; it isn't necessary to rely on the NYT piece. And the question of whether the IDW is a real thing is no more relevant than whether there is a "coherent intellectual movement" of right-Nietzscheans, or not. Newimpartial (talk) 16:41, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

The weight of material in the lead should be based on the body, not external sources. Sources like Real Clear Policy etc aren't going to do much to establish this as something that needs to not only be in the lead but prominently in the lead. Springee (talk) 17:04, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider any of those sources reliable (they're all newsmedia) and RCP is, in particular, unreliable as a source. If you have evidence of the use of the term prior to Weiss I'd be very interested to see it. My understanding was that she coined it. Simonm223 (talk) 17:30, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

There is actually no consensus on RSN on the reliability of RCP, as far as I know, and the article I linked above is exactly what I would regard as the sweet spot for where that source is potentially reliable/useful. And since you seem unwilling to read Intellectual Dark Web or its sources, the term was coined by Eric Weinstein, which is a much less important fact about it, I think, than the ways it is used by RS. As far as your considering all newsmedia unreliable, that doesn't align with WP policy, so I am simply going to ignore your personal opinion on that. Newimpartial (talk) 17:57, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

NI, I would agree that RCP is no consensus and thus I would generally say facts reported by it should be assumed true unless shown false. However, this is a question of weight. Only the most important or boiler plate content should be in the opening paragraph of the lead. If this fact is so critical to understanding Peterson it should represent perhaps an entire section of the body. If it's just a subsection then perhaps it should be in the lead. Instead it's one sentence deep in the body. That just doesn't seem like the sort of fact that is so critical as to justify being the second sentence of the lead (or anywhere in the lead). Springee (talk) 18:34, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Springee, I don't think that is normally how labels are assigned in lead sections. For such characterizations, the relevant questions are usually: is it well-sourced, and is it in some way disputed? For Peterson and IDW, I believe the relevant answers are "yes" and "no". This Talk section has been distracted by a question, "does the IDW exist", which is of no relevance to this article's lead based on any WP policy I've ever heard of. Newimpartial (talk) 18:41, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

As a consensus operated platform Wikipedia is built out of the aggregate of people's opinions. You are, of course, free to continue stuffing newsmedia sources into anything to do with social sciences and humanities and I am free to continue harping on how it degrades the quality of the encyclopedia. Eventually, perhaps, I'll persuade enough people to make a change to how newsmedia is handled on this platform. Simonm223 (talk) 18:44, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Again, your perspective seems mistaken in its premise. I don't agree that Peterson has anything to do with social sciences and humanities, at least anything of any importance: he is essentially a pop culture figure. And your apparent requirement that our treatment of Taylor Swift should rely only on musiclogists, our Trump coverage should be limited to political scientists, and our Epstein and Weinstein arricles should be based exclusively on criminologists seems, ahem, unlikely to gain traction. Newimpartial (talk) 18:54, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

NO, you have more than convinced me that this content is due for the body of the article. But this is the article lead which requires a higher standard. If this is so critical for the opening of the lead why is it only a single sentence in the body? Springee (talk) 18:58, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Because there isn't much to say about a label? Either it applies or it doesn't. Newimpartial (talk) 19:02, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

But it's not a label. It's not like saying he is a Sagittarius or he was born in December. It's saying he is a member or associated with a group. Why is that membership/association important? What does it say about him or his beliefs/actions/etc? Also is an "association" binary? Is he associated because people say he is part of the group or is he on the edges of the group? Is he associated with it the way Elliot Ness is associated with Al Capone? You are suggesting it's a simple label but that isn't how it's being used. Springee (talk) 19:11, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Good call  Spy-cicle💥 . Thank you - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 02:02, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 January 2022

Change his YouTube information from 3.96 M subscribers to 4.41 M. 179.49.52.174 (talk) 22:05, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done --Hemantha (talk) 06:06, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 January 2022

In the Health section the statement "willing to accommodate their treatment desires" is vague. I think it should have a "Specify" tag to encourage someone to fill in what exactly those unaccommodated treatment desires were. AmbientMorality (talk) 18:09, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Medical treatments are generally private. It is unlikely this would ever have a source. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:16, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Jordan Peterson's support of Bjorn Lomborg

Is probably worth a mention in the climate change section? There's lots of good info on Peterson's climate change views, and that section could do with a little more detail: https://www.desmog.com/jordan-peterson/ --61.68.218.108 (talk) 03:11, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

He did say he likes Mr Lomborg, but it's not "worth a mention" if nobody provides reliable sources and shows why it's important. Perhaps he likes lots of people. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:01, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

"Intellectual dark web"

The third (!!!) sentence of this entire article is highly irrelevant and should be removed ASAP. The so-called intellectual dark web is, as the article for it clearly states, a "loosely defined informal group". It is a silly neologism, a trendy name—nothing that should be taken seriously. A year from now it may be gone forever. If no one else takes this matter into their own hands and removes it, I will do it, because there is no good reason for keeping it and whoever added it did not even present a justification for it. The sentence is more obscuring than enlightening. -Trakking (talk) 16:07, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

The "Intellectual Dark Web" has been part of the article's stable content - and reliably sourced - for at least two years, and has been part of the lead section for two months. I am not hearing a policy-relevant to remove it, here, just WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Newimpartial (talk) 16:17, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I was trying to find the diffs of when it was added and modified. This is the last time it was adjusted, and as no one agrees on anything in this article, it's a pretty solid implied consensus since it's still there. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:23, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

The information ought to be included, just not in the very introduction: that's what I objected to. Trakking (talk) 16:33, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I concur.

Undue weight to place it in the lede. BushelCandle 01:23, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

So do I concur too. This is just another example of people trying to write the introduction like a news style lead and not that of an encyclopaedia article. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:19, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

The Joe Rogan experience

more information on his interview on Rogan's podcast should be added, along with a citation to the video on youtube Cassie Schebel (talk) 20:20, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

What information and video in particular? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:56, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Jordan Peterson the Philosopher?

As of today, JP is regarded as a conservative "thinker", even on Wikipedia itself. Shouldn't we regard him as a philosopher or at least public intellectual in his biography? As an example, the israeli historian Yuval Noah Hararis wikipedia page lists him as both a public intellectual and even a philosopher. Even though Harari having presented no philosophical system, very rarely quoting philosophers or even explaining their theories. If Harari, why not JP? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samueldwayne (talk • contribs) 12:51, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

There was a discussion about a year ago on whether he should be called a "philosopher" - the conclusion seemed to be that not enough reliable sources have called him that (though he has been called a "YouTube philosopher"). Maybe things have changed since then. I think the argument for calling him a public intellectual is quite a bit stronger, though; I don't know if that was ever discussed. Korny O'Near (talk) 19:22, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

The New York Times has indeed called Peterson "one of the most influential intellectuals" of our time of something like that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samueldwayne (talk • contribs) 19:46, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I would prefer better sources than The New York Times, especially for an article like this. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:20, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

There is a promising academic article on the ironies of Peterson's role as a public intellectual here. Newimpartial (talk) 19:49, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "promising", but I actually just skimmed through that paper, and it looks really dumb. For example, they first say that Peterson's views on hierarchies are incorrect, and then later they say they're actually so correct as to be pointless, because no one disputes them. Anyway, this isn't really related to the topic. Korny O'Near (talk) 20:15, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Jordan Peterson ought to be qualified as a philosopher as he has written dense books which are centered around philosophical questions. Their phraseology is, in large part, philosophical as well and they frequently build on the work of other philosophers such as Nietzsche, Kierkegaard and Heidegger. Maps of Meaning may be categorized as theoretical ethics, whereas the 12 Rules books serve as applied ethics. Other philosophical fields that are explored in his works are epistemology, æsthetics and metaphysics. Trakking (talk) 23:14, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Writing books centred around a fields question does not automatically make one an expert in the field, e.g. if someone writes a book around biological questions does not mean that we should call them a biologist. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:58, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

No longer a University of Toronto professor

The article's "University of Toronto (1998–present)" is outdated. Peterson himself now writes on twitter he's no longer employed at UofT.

Ontario's $100k+ public sector salary disclosure also shows him (Sector: University) last for 2017, even, 2018+ he's missing (unsurprisingly given the permanent sabbatical).

He still lists it as ongoing on LinkedIn, but like his page at the Dept of Psych at the UofT, that doesn't appear to have been updated since 2017 (for instance, check the Youtube links there, none past that year and some dead).

— 84.163.110.146 (talk) 22:57, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

You make a persuasive argument. I read the Twitter post (from a verified account, which makes it more credible than a random unverified twitter post); looked at the YouTube links you mentioned, confirming that the pages have not been updated for three or four years as you indicated; and I checked the 2020 public sector salary disclosure site - their search engine is limited so I downloaded the spreadsheet - Jordan Peterson does not appear under the "Universities" section. There is one "Petersen" (line 199077) and four professors or staff with last name "Peterson" (lines 199078–199081), but none of them are Jordan Peterson. I edited the infobox entry, changing "present" to "2021". If we confirm an earlier departure date, e.g., 2020 or 2019, we can change it. // I hope you don't mind - I edited the title of your post to make it easier to find now and in the future (after it is archived). Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 01:55, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

That you for the edit. The UoT page has now actually been slightly edited to reflect his retirement: While the previous capture on archive.org (Nov 21th '21) – and current Google Cache entry from Jan 25th '22 – referred to him as "professor" (→ active), it is now (Jan 29th '22) "professor emeritus" (→ Canada, or at least at the UoT: retired) [no further content changes]. — 84.188.166.3 (talk) 14:12, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I just noticed it's probably the result of his grand(standing) article in the National Post from Jan 19th, again announcing the break. — 84.188.166.3 (talk) 14:28, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

You're right that his description in the article is grandstanding, in particular this quote: "Emeritus is generally a designation reserved for superannuated faculty, albeit those who had served their term with some distinction". As far as I understand, U of T grants the rank of Professor Emeritus to all professors who retire in good standing and check the box on their retirement form. That being said, just because he may want to grandstand on the rank doesn't change the fact that he does in fact hold that rank. It far more appropriate in our opening crawl to refer to him as "Professor Emeritus", than to say "he used to be a professor until he resigned in 2021". I'm editing the opening crawl to reflect this. — MarcelB612 (talk) 21:29, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

MarcelB612, you edited to move the citation from the body, in #Career to the WP:LEAD section. I think this is not such an important reference to be the first reference in the article, not everything mentioned in the lead needs a citation if it is cited in the body below. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:18, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Edit request: fix link to thesis paper in infobox

The following discussion is marked as answered. If you have a new comment, place it just below the box.

The current link to the thesis in the infobox is broken. It leads to the domain, but not the document.
So change:
thesis_url = http://digitool.library.mcgill.ca/webclient/StreamGate?

to:
thesis_url = https://escholarship.mcgill.ca/concern/theses/7d278v86c?locale=en
--Yoled Ycharaz (talk) 16:37, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Voice sample

Give Jordan Peterson a voice sample. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.4.234.91 (talk) 00:32, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Do you have one that we can use? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:12, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BrfgZKvB9n8 This seems like a good sample. But I still need somebody to make it into an audio file. (0:00-0:34 seems like a good length). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.4.234.91 (talk) 20:08, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Professor emeritus vs former professor

This has been going back and forth for a while, so perhaps instead of a slow motion edit war, it should be discussed? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:24, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks SFR. I understand the view that "former" is correct and a more understandable term vs emeritus, it's not as specific. Emeritus means he retired from the school on good terms, while former includes people who left in poor standing. It also include people who might have only been appointed for a short period of time. A professor of the practice who teaches a single class at a local university can rightly claim to be "former" but not emeritus. Springee (talk) 13:12, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the specific usage is probably better. It's well sourced, and clear, In a statement to The Varsity, U of T confirmed that “Professor Jordan Peterson retired in the fall and now holds the rank of Professor, Emeritus.” I don't see a compelling reason to use a less specific term, and any confusion is clarified by the wikilink. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:21, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

In an article about an academic, using terms used in that realm is completely appropriate. And if a reader has not encountered the word before, this will be an opportunity for them to learn it. This is not, after all, the Simple English Wikipedia. Le Marteau (talk) 16:45, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

'Former professor' is clearer, simpler and unambiguous. The opening sentence is meant to establish why the person is notable, and Peterson is notable (in part) for his time as a professor, not for being a professor emeritus. Confusion is not clarified by the wikilink, as it is an unreferenced section which allows for at least 4 slightly different meanings. Not having 'emeritus' in the lead does not detract from the article at all, and it is included in the Career section. // Hippo43 (talk) 16:58, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

The first sentence of the Wikilinked section says, In the United States and other countries, a tenured full professor who retires from an educational institution in good standing may be given the title "professor emeritus". So an interested reader would immediately learn that it in the least means "retired" and that they have left in good standing (which is an issue with Peterson, because some may wonder if he was fired.) It means more, of course, and the details differ per school, but information is lost by going the Simple English Wikipedia route. Should the reader wish to learn more, they can continue reading that section, or perhaps even go to the U of T site and see what their Emeritus program entails. But only if we don't dumb it down. Le Marteau (talk) 17:59, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

That quoted sentence is still unreferenced. More information in the lead is not the same as better. Saying he is a former professor is obviously not dumbing anything down or using Simple English. No information is lost, as it is all in the article. // Hippo43 (talk) 23:19, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Depending on the use case, information can get lost. Google "Jordan Peterson"... their infobox scrapes Wikipedia content, but only uses the first paragraph. And of COURSE it's "dumbing it down"... you've said yourself the word could be confusing to people, and that's one of your reasons to want to change it. And of COURSE it's "using Simple English".... you said yourself "Former professor' is clearer, simpler and unambiguous." (emphasis mine) Le Marteau (talk) 23:47, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree with "emeritus" which is the term used by U of T. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:27, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

“Former professor” is incorrect if the professor transitioned straight to “emeritus professor” at the same institution. An emeritus professor is still a professor, it’s more than a courtesy title. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:27, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely. If we wanted to avoid "professor emeritus", the phrase "retired professor" would be more appropriate, but I am unconvinced that we need to avoid the term. Graham (talk) 03:28, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Conservatism sidebar

This is about the Conservatism sidebar in the Views section, inserted by LucasBitencourt on 21 January 2021, removed by Graham11 on 2 March 2022, re-inserted by Trakking on 5 March 2022, removed by Le Marteau on 5 March 2022, re-re-inserted by Trakking on 5 March 2022, re-re-removed by Springee on 5 March 2022, re-re-re-inserted by Trakking on 1 April 2022. (Probably I've missed some edits.) WP:SIDEBAR says that articles with this sort of sidebar should "be fairly tightly related". I don't see that that's the case, and I don't see that Trakking has consensus. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:57, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

The people who removed it, at least the second and third time, were thinking it was a new addition, which it wasn't: it had been incorporated in the article for well over a year. As for its relevance, prominent conservative Yoram Hazony, for example, called Peterson "the most significant conservative thinker to appear in the English-speaking world in a generation". I think it's safe to say Peterson qualifies for the list. Trakking (talk) 21:45, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

My rationale was Having the "Views" section begin with a "Conservatism" banner gives WP:UNDUE weight to one categorizaton and aspect of Peterson's work. and I am still of that opinion. Le Marteau (talk) 16:15, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree with this rationale. The views section describes a variety of both Peterson's opinions and opinions about Peterson, some of which is about conservatism or cultural issues that Peterson would be understood to fall on the conservative side of, but I think the text of our article does not put him neatly into the "conservative" box (regardless of how true in reality you think it is that Peterson is obviously a conservative or etc). For contrast, Ted Cruz very obviously and cleanly fits into the "conservative" category: RS will almost always describe him that way where it is appropriate to mention his political affiliation, and his article describes him matter-of-factly as a conservative, so the banner on his page makes sense. For Jordan Peterson, reliable sources/our article seems a little bit more murky on Peterson's politics -- we don't feel confident enough to put him in the conservative box in Wikipedia's voice -- so the big banner to the right gives undue prominence to one aspect of/way to categorize his views. Endwise (talk) 06:43, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Was the original inclusion ever discussed? I don't see that the side bar really fits in this article. Removal makes sense. Springee (talk) 15:11, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree the side bar doesn't fit here in this article. Just because it was there for over a year doesn't mean it actually belongs. Masterhatch (talk) 18:13, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

If reliable sources consistently describe him as closely tied to the topic, he belongs in the 'series' sidebar. If not, no. If Yoram Hazony's opinion is supported by reliable sources (especially WP:IS) it could be included depending on due weight. Multiple changes along those lines would make the connection clear and meet WP:V, solving the issue.

Right now, however, the current content of the article doesn't seem to support this. It does support a connection, but I don't think the article supports special treatment. Template:Conservatism navbox (which already includes Peterson) seems like a better fit for now. Grayfell (talk) 23:26, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

• Thinking about it some more, here's another approach that might be helpful:

Do sources about conservatism commonly mention Peterson? Or is it mainly sources about Peterson which mention his ties to conservatism? If the former, it makes sense to include him in a narrow navbox for the topic, since it's just following sources. If it's the latter, inclusion is subjective and may be a subtle form of original research. Grayfell (talk) 06:05, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I think the answer to the question Do sources about conservatism commonly mention Peterson? determines whether it would be reasonable to link to this article in the conservatism navbox, but I don't think it is the standard which would determine whether we should add the sidebar on this article -- Peterson's name can be in the template but the template not be displayed on this article. Endwise (talk) 06:47, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

It was in the conservatism navbox too, ScottishFinnishRadish removed it on 3 December 2021, Trakking re-inserted but then self-reverted. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:53, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

My bad, I was using "navbox" and "sidebar" interchangeably, but I see that it's incorrect to do so. Endwise (talk) 13:59, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Every article linked to in a nav template should also display that template, per WP:BIDIRECTIONAL. If neither navbox is shown here, it should be removed from both navboxes. Grayfell (talk) 20:13, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

The article subject is not notable for conservatism and thus inclusion is undue. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:29, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

So we should not have it in then? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:59, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Jordan Peterson has explicitly stated that he's a conservative. [5]

He almost exclusively works with conservative think tanks, organizations, and groups. From rightwing republican Peter Thiel [6], to Chris Rufo's (anti-CRT) Manhattan Institute [7], to his multiple PragerU videos [8], his talks at the Heritage Foundation [9], his association with Ben Shapiro, even visiting Hungarian conservative leader Viktor Orban, his biblical series, and various philosophies preaching traditional gender roles. To quote this biographical article [10]:

“Orwell did a political-psychological analysis of the motivations of the intellectual, tweed-wearing middle-class socialist and concluded that people like that didn’t like the poor; they just hated the rich,” he says. “I thought, Aha! That’s it: it’s resentment.” Anyone who set out to change the world by first changing other people was suspicious.

I don't see an argument for him being anything other than a conservative. Is there any evidence to the contrary? I don't believe it's controversial to say Jordan Peterson is a conservative intellectual. 124.170.172.106 (talk) 06:26, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

There is a difference between someone being a conservative and being such an important part of conservativism that they need to be included in a navbox or siderbar. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:12, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Here are multiple articles describing Jordan Peterson as a conservative: The Oxford Review of Books [11], Libertarianism.org [12], Toronto99.com [13], The Guardian [14], Vox [15], The Independent [16]. 124.170.172.106 (talk) 06:40, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

For general navigation templates, the question is not just "is he a conservative", but rather, "do sources support including him in a list of people who are known primarily for being conservative". In other words, do reliable sources define him as a conservative specifically? Is he merely a conservative mainly know for something else, like, I dunno, Gary Sinise? Or does he influence the topic of "conservatism" itself in some way? I think the answer is probably "yes". Sources suggest Peterson is defined as an important or semi-important figure in conservatism. From sources, it seems he is more important to conservatism than to the academic field of psychology, and I don't say that lightly.

The side bar, however, is also supposed to be even more narrow than other kinds of templates. So do sources define him as vital to understanding conservatism? I do not think sources support this, but there is room for debate and this is ultimately subjective and decided by editors here. Grayfell (talk) 06:51, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

sources appear to indicate he's a global warming denying christian conservative wingnut, so yeah, "conservative" sidebar seems warranted. Acousmana 07:39, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

It seems to me that Trakking + 124.170.172.106 + Acousmana support the sidebar, Le Marteau + Springee + Endwise + Peter Gulutzan + Masterhatch + Jtbobwaysf oppose, Grayfell is still thinking, some editors might want a navbox but I think that should be a different thread. Object if I appear to be misrepresenting or oversimplifying. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:08, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

With WP:!VOTE in mind, I oppose inclusion in the sidebar, but support inclusion in Template:Conservatism navbox, because I think this would be the most helpful to disinterested readers. The main purpose of these templates is as a convenience for people who are looking for information about conservatism itself as a topic. They are not designed for people who have already formed an opinion about Peterson, and they are certainly not intended to prove a point. It doesn't really matter precisely how conservative Jordon Peterson is, as an individual, on some arbitrary scale, nor does it matter whether or not he describes himself as conservative. What matters is how reliable sources, with a preference for WP:IS, describe him. Grayfell (talk) 23:51, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Does this mean that you don't think "Conservatism navbox" should be a different thread? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:09, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Well, per Template:Conservatism sidebar: This is the sidebar version of the Conservatism template. For the footer version, with more links, see Template:Conservatism navbox. Please ensure that it is kept updated with any content changes made here. If a new section helps with consensus, okay, sure, but its a closely related issue and consensus for one would effect consensus for the other.

Also, previously the sidebar template was explicitly limited to articles ranked as 'top-importance' by Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism. While no longer true, reviewing Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism/Assessment might be helpful for perspective. Grayfell (talk) 21:23, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

I reverted Trakking's latest re-insertion of the sidebar, and ask Trakking to seek consensus. As for adding a navbox i.e. a line at the bottom after "portal", as Trakking tried in December 2021 but self-reverted, I see that there is support for that by at least one editor in this thread. I have no opinion about it. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:08, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

I have removed the link from the template per WP:BIDIRECTIONAL. After looking over Wikipedia:WikiProject_Conservatism/Assessment#Overview, I no longer think the navbox is a worthwhile compromise either. Grayfell (talk) 19:07, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Involvement in, and speaking engagements at various prestigious organizations and institutes.

Jordan Peterson has been involved with, and done speaking engagements at various prestigious global organizations. I was wondering what other editors have to say about including some of the more prominent or prestigious ones. Here for instance, is him speaking at the Trilateral Commission https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqJZeS1wDFc. He's also worked for the UN, the Manhattan Institute, the American Enterprise Institute, and Dennis Prager - but I noticed none of this work is currently presented on his page (despite his speeches at these organizations being publicly available). I think it's good information, which can be covered within the bounds of WP:BLP - what do other editors think? 210.185.122.149 (talk) 13:03, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

They're would have to be secondary sources covering them to show they are WP:DUE. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:08, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

In late 2021 Cambridge University did a U-turn and extended an invitation to him -he spoke at a number of meetings - details at https://www.spiked-online.com/2021/11/26/how-we-uncancelled-jordan-peterson/ CanterburyUK (talk) 14:48, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

and also written about here - https://unherd.com/thepost/jordan-peterson-heals-old-wounds-with-cambridge-return/ CanterburyUK (talk) 14:49, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

"university proctors attended Peterson’s lecture on 23 November to show support for freedom of speech." https://www.newstatesman.com/encounter/2021/12/why-do-students-still-want-jordan-peterson-to-tell-them-how-to-live

"... entered the debating ch"amber at the Cambridge Union to enthusiastic applause and whoops of admiration. ..."

"Questions were opened to the audience... Their interest in Peterson’s opinions approached reverence. When the microphone eventually came to them, some students began by thanking Peterson for the positive impact he’d had on their lives.

24th lecture:

"His entrance to the stage at the University of Cambridge on November 24th infused the packed hall with intense anticipation. The focused audience sat silently, watching the noted academic’s every move and hanging by his every word. It was a level of concentration and attention unlike any I have ever witnessed, and when he paused in contemplation, standing silent on the stage for a good few seconds, the audience froze. Not the faintest, remotest sound could be heard as they awaited Peterson’s highly anticipated Cambridge oratory."

"... The captivating talk that followed illustrated Peterson’s tour de force intellectual prowess and his ability to make us freshly examine the ordinary and the (seemingly) simple...

"... “Meaning,” concluded Peterson, is “the antidote to suffering.”

You Don’t See Objects and Infer Meaning, You See Meaning and Infer Objects CanterburyUK (talk) 15:02, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

https://www.lotuseaters.com/jordan-petersons-return-to-cambridge-is-a-huge-deal-07-12-21 CanterburyUK (talk) 15:02, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

the video of the 23rd lecture is on Youtube - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HgSnS-z4JU&t=0s CanterburyUK (talk) 15:09, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

22nd he spoke to Cauis College, Cambridge University

-- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Twc6T19tap4&t=0s CanterburyUK (talk) 15:05, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Looks like mostly primary sources and blogs - the one reliable source (the New Statesman) is just an anecdotal account of a visit, nothing significant in that. -----Snowded ^TALK 15:36, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. He is a public speaker, so any specific examples specific speeches would need context from reliable independent sources. These sources are pretty flimsy. Grayfell (talk) 23:46, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

more recent activities

The page IMHO perhaps lacks more recent events. I added some notes above abut his Cambridge University speaking engagements in Nov 2021.

Another interesting conversation - 2M people have watched him being interviewed by the UK high profile comedian: Russell Howard https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYM-sS-0-yg Howard is not a noteworthy name in psychology or academia of course. But the 15 minute chat is not trivial in content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CanterburyUK (talk • contribs) 15:26, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

As mentioned at #Involvement in, and speaking engagements at various prestigious organizations and institutes. this will need reliable, independent sources to explain to readers why these numbers would be important. There is no agreed-upon point at which a number of views becomes encyclopedically significant. We need reliable sources to explain this for us, even if it might seem obvious to us as editors. Grayfell (talk) 23:55, 15 April 2022 (UTC)