Talk:Jordan Peterson/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2022

In the Religion section:

Peterson says, “The ultimate mentor is Christ.” [This is a 2021 official documented quote from Peterson, on a page about his faith and the way he sees the influence of Christianity on society] https://byfaith.org/2022/04/25/jordan-peterson-and-the-quest-for-a-mentor-in-the-post-truth-age/ Minion Life Kevin (talk) 10:15, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. You'll need reliable sources discussing this to show that it is WP:DUE. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:30, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Each quote from Peterson includes the original source. Minion Life Kevin (talk) 10:27, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Please do read WP:DUE... the issue is not whether or not he said such and such a thing... the issue is, whether the statements in question received coverage by reliable sources, and if so, how much? The more something is covered, the more weight it has. In this case, "byfaith.org" seems to be a non-notable blog of a non-notable book publisher, and that does not give much weight at all for inclusion in this article. Le Marteau (talk) 11:45, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Your thoughts are important on the neutral point of view. I am suggesting the addition of one quote of seven words: Peterson says, “The ultimate mentor is Christ.” This is not controversial, we know Peterson said it, the source is correct. The page is certainly a religous publisher, who has studied and quoted the religous thoughts of Peterson. It's an important addition. Minion Life Kevin (talk) 06:01, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

It isn't up to us as editors to decide something is important. It is up to reliable, independent sources. Since Peterson has said countless things, and we cannot possibly include them all (even those which have been supported by publishing blogs) we need a specific reason, based on sources, to include this one. Without a well-sourced reason, the addition of this quote would be a form of editorializing, as its inclusion, and it's relative importance, would be based on your personal opinion as an editor. Grayfell (talk) 22:48, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

To phrase it another way, in case it helps with clarity. Peterson, as a philosopher, says many things. Some may argue he even says too many things, as philosophers are often wont to do. Some of those things are important, and some are not. How we determine whether a statement made by Peterson, or any biographical subject, is based upon what reliable secondary sources say about it. This is usually in the form of print media, academic research, or biographies. Ideally such sources will be transformative of Peterson's commentary in some manner, explaining why it is impactful for good or ill (the statement may or may not be controversial for example), as that would help us assess its due relevance.

At the moment, the only source provided is from a religious blog, owned and operated by two brothers who seem to be authors of little renown, relatively speaking. Leaving aside the reliability concerns of the source for now, while the statement is clearly important to one of them, we cannot from this source assess the importance of the statement relative to other statements Peterson has made. For that, we need more sources, demonstrating why it is important and impactful. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:10, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate everyone elaborating on my rather short reply. Y'all making me look bad! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:25, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Conservatism

The claim is made in the lead, preceeded by the phrase "often described". We are then given only three sources, none of which are particularly reliable. 2A04:4A43:4AFE:D739:0:0:5160:3989 (talk) 00:08, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I concur. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 17:29, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Well put. Lmagoutas (talk) 10:51, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Jordan Peterson has explicitly stated that he's a conservative. [1][2]

He almost exclusively works with conservative think tanks, organizations, and groups. From rightwing republican Peter Thiel [3], to Chris Rufo's (anti-CRT) Manhattan Institute [4], to his multiple PragerU videos [5], his talks at the Heritage Foundation [6], 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 [7]:

“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.

Here are multiple articles describing Jordan Peterson as a conservative: The Oxford Review of Books [8], Libertarianism.org [9], Toronto99.com [10], The Guardian [11], Vox [12], The Independent [13]. 115.166.9.22 (talk) 06:44, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

It's not controversial. That one political camp thinks the word is second only to "child molester" as a label of shame, and the other thinks it's a badge of honor is somewhat amusing, but the application of the term is not controversial it being addressed in the second sentence of the lead is completely appropriate. Le Marteau (talk) 08:47, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

"second only to "child molester" as a label of shame" In Greece, child molester carries a less offensive connotation than conservative. Self-described conservatives want to restore the ideals of the 4th of August Regime and/or the Greek junta, including the use of torture on political prisoners and the exile of political dissidents to Gyaros. Our right-wingers prefer to self-describe as "liberals". Dimadick (talk) 10:56, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Views

@Springee:, you reverted my edit to this section by saying that it does not describe his views, but there is already a quote from Current Affairs in the section describing how others view him, so how is that okay while my quote isn't? As for his connection to the film, he is featured in the film. X-Editor (talk) 20:28, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

X-Editor, no problem and thank you for opening the discussion topic. As for the view section, I think it's one thing to find sources that say, "based on his comments/actions we think his views are this...". It's another when the source just says, "people call him a Nazi". Nazi is one of those labels that gets thrown around a lot when someone wants to make it clear they don't like someone but I don't think in this case it tells us anything about his views. Is he a Nazi because he is a nationalist? Does he want to take over France? It's just not an insightful comment. I'm not sure that the Current Affairs quote is that useful either but it avoids saying he is labeled a Nazi. As for the movie, if we are going to have something that is similar to a see also, the link should be clear. He may have been interviewed in the film or footage of his statements may have been used but unless the film was by him or he had a major hand in it's production I'm not sure why it would be included. Springee (talk) 01:03, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Good points. Thanks for explaining. The term Nazi is tossed around a lot, so it's better not to use it. X-Editor (talk) 04:14, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Peterson's reply to Twitter block

I think some level of coverage to Peterson's Twitter block is DUE. However, I'm concerned that editors are focused on inflammatory quotes (even if the sources emphasize them) vs the substance of Peterson's reply. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not media press so we should avoid emotive content/phrasing. I don't think we should be quoting the clickbait "would rather die" reply vs simply stating he refused to delete the tweet as the latter is presented in IMPARTIAL tone. The same is true of the "Up yours, woke moralists, we'll see who cancels who!" quote cited to a video gaming blog site Kotaku. Again, a summary of his arguments absent the inflammatory phrasing is informative. Including only the inflammatory parts [14] without the underlying reasoning is partisan media type reporting, not something that should be in an encyclopedia. Springee (talk) 18:04, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

The "Up yours, woke moralists" bit seems to be the only noteworthy thing to come out of Peterson's reply, and that is purely because of memes arising from it (sources: Newsweek, Indy100, PC Gamer) . While Kotaku also mentions the "what rules" part, per other sources that seems less notable. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:14, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

If the quote is all we think is notable then we should just say he replied and leave the quote out. Newsweek is now considered a questionable source. The others are not sources I think we should be using to establish DUE in a BLP with strong political overtones. Springee (talk) 18:30, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Forbes might be a better source to lend WEIGHT to Peterson's reactions, yes? Newimpartial (talk) 18:46, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I saw that source when doing my brief search earlier, unfortunately it's a WP:FORBESCON piece and not a Forbes staff piece. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:49, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Right. I often find it difficult to find the contributor tag, even when I look. Thanks. Newimpartial (talk) 19:22, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

WP:NEWSWEEK says to evaluate current content from Newsweek on a case-by-case basis. In any event, the three sources I've provided were just from a brief search and I think demonstrate quickly that the meme potential is what is notable about Peterson's video and not the commentary within. A more thorough search would be in order, but depending on the context I'm not sure if excluding the quote is DUE given that sources on it do not seem to do so. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:53, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

There may be some decent sources out there and if there are then let's use them to provide an encyclopedic summary rather than a quote selected by sources to drive clicks. Springee (talk) 19:04, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

For "would rather die", we have one of Canada's newspapers of record. For "woke moralists" I think LGBTQ Nation is promising, but it may still be TOOSOON. Newimpartial (talk) 19:22, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Again, we should summarize, not use click bait type quotes. I'm also not sure that LGBTQ Nation would be impartial enough to use them as a source for what we should quote. Springee (talk) 19:24, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Springee. It likely won't be added, at least not in full. GoodDay (talk) 19:34, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

It was just restored to the article [15]. Springee (talk) 19:44, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

For now. GoodDay (talk) 19:46, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

inclusion of quote ("Up yours, woke moralists, we'll see who cancels who!") is acceptable, Newsweek item, in this case, isn't contentious. Acousmana 10:30, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Newsweek post 2013 was downgraded with a warning related to click bait articles. I did a search for coverage of this topic and sadly the Daily Wire was the best since it actually tried to articulate the points Peterson was making (right or wring) [16]. While the Newsweek source quotes the replies of random Twitter users making fun of Peterson (not a sign of quality journalism), the DW provided some of his explanation. The quotes vs substance is the difference between pop journalism and an encyclopedia. It doesn't appear we have consensus to include this new content so it should say out until a consensus is achieved. Springee (talk) 11:23, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Newsweek item is neutral and matter of fact, it's an item on internet culture, in a 'culture' section of Newsweek, by a senior 'TV & Film Reporter', calling it clickbait is a stretch, neutral report on Peterson's Twitter ban, his response, and resultant memeification. It doesn't appear we have consensus to exclude it. Acousmana 16:56, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

"It doesn't appear we have consensus to exclude it" is not how Wikipedia works. Endwise (talk) 04:01, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

While you're correct in saying the Daily Wire piece tried to cover the points Peterson was making in the video, those comments are not what was notable. The notability of the video was/is the memes that have arisen from it, which predominantly use the "Up yours, woke moralists" sentence in other contexts. Reporting on meme culture is not clickbait.

Also for all the focus on disregarding the Newsweek source, for which RSP says to evaluate on a case-by-case basis, it is also the case that RSP states the Daily Wire is generally unreliable for factual reporting due to a tendency to share stories that are taken out of context or are improperly verified. So even if the notability of the video was predominately because of Peterson's meaning and not the memes, the Daily Wire would be a completely unacceptable source to use for that. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:54, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

OK, this is a case where we should disregard it. Any article that highlights a tweet saying a BLP subject sounds like Kermit the Frog is showing they are chasing clicks, not engaged in quality journalism. The exact reason why this source was downgraded. Springee (talk) 03:34, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

actually it's internet users ("people compared") who established this, not the journalist, and you clearly don't know your memes, Kermitification of Peterson started years ago. Acousmana 10:00, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Quibbling about the nits doesn't address the issue. If that Newsweek article is about the memes then it's not DUE, it becomes click bait trash. Also, why did you restore a clearly poor source here [17] Kotaku might be reliable for their reviews of the latest computer game but not for establishing weight a BLP article. Per NOCON the content stays out until consensus says include. Springee (talk) 11:05, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

in your estimation it's click bait trash, the Peterson phenomenon is a product of internet culture, his current career is built on it, responses to his hyperbolic pronouncements elicit reactions in the same domain, memes are part of this, as such they have relevance. Acousmana 13:34, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

• That Peterson said "Up yours, woke moralists, we'll see who cancels who!" doesn't really tell you anything about Peterson/his Twitter block, it's just an inflammatory quote. I would only see reason to include a meaningless quote like this if it got so much attention that we were obliged to. That we have to dig into articles in video game websites, Forbes contributor pieces, and a Newsweek article about memes and how Peterson sounds like Kermit the Frog, shows that this is clearly not something that received widespread attention in reliable sources. Endwise (talk) 03:54, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

  @Acousmana: if you add new content (especially to a BLP with bad sourcing), and four separate people express their disagreement with that material on the talk page, I don't think it's appropriate to re-add it after you are reverted on it. Endwise (talk) 12:06, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

it's BRD, innit. Acousmana 13:34, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

No, what happened was B(X-editor)R(Springee)R(you)R(me)R(you). Endwise (talk) 16:36, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

If we are to include his response (Up yours, woke moralists, we'll see who cancels who!) we must include the tweet in full and unedited that started it all. We can't have one without the other-either both or neither. Masterhatch (talk) 10:42, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Do you have any WP policy supporting that, or is it just something you believe very strongly? Newimpartial (talk) 12:47, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Doesn't it make sense to show the tweet that caused him to be so vulgar? If we're going to include his response, does it not make sense to show the reason for this whole gong show? Do I feel strongly? No. But how I feel has nothing to do with it. Do you take into account how you feel when you edit? I hope not. Masterhatch (talk) 13:21, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Re: the tweet that caused him to be so vulgar? What tweet is that? Newimpartial (talk) 13:34, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

In agreement with you, Masterhatch. GoodDay (talk) 13:56, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree as well. Why put so much emphasis on the quotes of the reply but avoid the original tweet which was also liberally quoted in sources? I think a good solution is to cut the material down and avoid all the quotes. Springee (talk) 14:48, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

There is the distinction that Up yours, woke moralists! isn't a defamatory comment (or hate speech) in the way Peterson's original tweet was. The bar to be passed for inclusion in article text is therefore not as high. Newimpartial (talk) 15:23, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

That seems to be a bar of your own invention. If we feel the need to only summarize the original issue why not for the follow on sources? Springee (talk) 15:30, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Because we have policies and guidelines telling us not to include insulting material like Peterson's original tweet, but those policies and guidelines don't apply to Up yours, woke moralists! If you aren't aware of the BLP considerations pertaining to the original tweet, and don't feel that they have been explained sufficiently in the preceding section, I would be happy to perform another exegesis. :p Newimpartial (talk) 15:34, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

So this is a bar of your own making. Anyway, it looks like we don't have consensus to include any of the quotes so I wouldn't worry about including the original Tweet. Springee (talk) 16:24, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Are you under the impression that I made up the MOS:DEADNAME provisions to remove deadnames and misgendering from quotations, or the WP:BLP provisions that discourage us from quoting anyone calling another living person a "criminal physician"? Perhaps by of your own making you meant "of the community's making", in which case yes, this is a bar of the community's making. Newimpartial (talk) 16:39, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm not, but I also understand it doesn't exclude quoting the original Tweet. You are setting a bar which claims it does. Again, if the original tweet isn't important enough to quote then neither are the click bait quotes carried in click bait articles. Springee (talk) 16:49, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Re: Again, if the original tweet isn't important enough to quote then neither are the click bait quotes carried in click bait articles - that is just your personal opinion, not backed by policy. OTOH, when I said we have policies and guidelines telling us not to include insulting material like Peterson's original tweet, that is actually backed by policy. If you want to nitpick not to include as being less precise than "to exercise extreme caution about including", or some other paraphrase, then nitpick away. But the idea that there is a higher threshold to quote defamatory material a person writes in article space, compared to non-defamatory material - that isn't something I made up and to me it looks like WP:CIR for you to suggest that it is. Newimpartial (talk) 17:14, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

The tweet that saw Peterson blocked on Twitter was directly targeted at two individuals; Elliot Page (by name), and the surgeon who preformed Page's top surgery. In targeting Page, Peterson deadnamed and misgendered him. In targeting Page's surgeon, Peterson accused them of being "criminal". Consensus in the previous discussion was that, per MOS:DEADNAME we should paraphrase as this was not one of the rare exceptions where exact wording could not be avoided. While the exact wording of the tweet was excluded, the relevant notable content of it was not.

Peterson's reply video however is less specific in who it is addressing. Namely the vague "woke moralists". This is somewhat on-brand for Peterson as he has delivered many polemics on what he feels to be woke moralism and political correctness. It does not have the same concerns towards DEADNAME because it does not name an individual. And as I've said before, it is the "Up yours, woke moralists" quotation that is the only notable part of this reply, because it has been heavily satirised in memes. The rest of the content in the video is seemingly non-notable in reliable sources, and only minimally notable in unreliable sources. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:01, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

digressions

One of my friends has decided on "The Woke Moralists" as the name for their Consolidated cover band. Newimpartial (talk) 17:20, 13 July 2022 (UTC) The tweet by Peterson was a practice of freedom of speech & expression. Those who run Twitter, collectively decide for themselves what is & isn't allowed on their site. It's their company, so they get to arbitrarily choose. GoodDay (talk) 17:45, 13 July 2022 (UTC) Much as I appreciate your clear declaration of your POV, why do you think your opinion on this is relevant to this Talk page? Newimpartial (talk) 17:53, 13 July 2022 (UTC) To clarify things. I've no interest in communicating with you. So, I won't be responding to anymore of your posts on any article talkpages. GoodDay (talk) 18:00, 13 July 2022 (UTC) Noting: An editor who's in disagreement with me on topic-in-question, has unilaterally closed down (without my consent) my post, which I didn't request he respond to. GoodDay (talk) 18:21, 13 July 2022 (UTC) Your comment does not appear to be within the scope of this Talk page per the WP:TPG - it is about the topic of the article, but not about this article. Therefore WP:NOTFORUM applies. My collapsing of the section isn't based on any disagreement with you, but only on the intended purpose of article Talk pages (which doesn't include expressing our opinions about the topic the article is about). Also, I assumed that it was just sloppy writing when you used the wrong pronoun (he in your reply. Since you subsequently escalated to it], perhaps I was advancing too much good faith. The idea that not engaging in aggressions through knowingly incorrect pronoun choice could represent 'PC' seems rather eccentric, unless 'PC' stands for 'polite conversation', I suppose. Newimpartial ((talk) 18:28, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

• Include the full quote, its clearly WP:DUE. Thanks. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:26, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

This discussion has died down. I don't see that we have a consensus to include any quotes nor a consensus that any of the sources for the follow on quotes are due. I will remove the disputed content absent any new reasons why it should stay. Springee (talk) 12:10, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Newsweek item is neutral and matter of fact, and should be cited, it's an item on internet culture, in a 'culture' section of Newsweek, by a senior 'TV & Film Reporter', neutral mention of Peterson's Twitter ban, his response, and resultant memeification.

The Peterson phenomenon is a product of internet culture, his current career is built on it, responses to his hyperbolic pronouncements elicit reactions in the same domain, memes are part of this, as such they have relevance. There is no consensus to exclude mention, if anything, the opposite. Acousmana 13:59, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

This is new content thus consensus to include is needed, not consensus to exclude. Springee (talk) 15:00, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Springee, what do you mean by a consensus that any of the sources for the follow on quotes are due? Are you proposing that we remove any mention of his reaction, whether or not we quote "Up yours, woke moralists"? Or do you mean something else? Newimpartial (talk) 14:10, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Remove the quotes and later sources thus leaving something like this version [18] Springee (talk) 15:00, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Here's the resulting edit in diff form. It's the removal of the Kotaku source, and the "Up yours, woke moralists" quotation. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:49, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

If I am counting correctly, not counting editors currently banned from the subject matter, there have been four favoring "Up yours, woke moralists!" (Sideswipe9th, Acousmana, Jtbobwaysf and myself) - citing some combination of Kotaku, Newsweek, and LGBTQ Nation as sources - while Springee, Endwise and Masterhatch are opposed. Given the actual nature of the arguments, this seems to me to be somewhere between consensus to include and no consensus. Perhaps we should post a clear, neutral question at WP:BLPN or somewhere? Newimpartial (talk) 22:10, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

GoodDay also opposed inclusion and did so while in good standing. Springee (talk) 22:14, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:GRAVEDANCING I'm not sure if this analysis is correct. A tban is not like a WP:SOCKSTRIKE, in that the contributions that were previously made while the tbanned editor was in good standing are now invalid. As far as I know, the consensus that was established is still valid until it changes per WP:CCC, and I don't think we're anywhere near there yet. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:25, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

the rush to revert is unfounded, additional cites added, justification for why mention is due has been provided. Acousmana 22:48, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

The use of Newsweek as a source to establish WEIGHT has been contested. Currently we have about an even split between editors who say include vs exclude. You say Newsweek is sufficient to establish weight for inclusion, others, myself included do not. This is a straight forward content disagreement. The discussion died down and there was no consensus to include the disputed material (which shouldn't have been restored once it was clear it's inclusion was contested). Springee (talk) 23:02, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't agree that the discussion died down. I would say it was on pause, while another one took place involving most of the participants in some manner or another. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:05, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

That's fair. However, given that this is disputed content NOCON says it stays out until there is consensus to include. Acousmana has restored it 3 times. Perhaps the first could have arguably had a preliminary consensus but the second two certainly do not. Springee (talk) 23:08, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Springee, we have an active majority for inclusion but perhaps not an actual consensus. What is wrong with taking a clear, neutral question to an appropriate venue? Newimpartial (talk) 23:11, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't think anything from WP:GRAVEDANCING applies in this situation, either directly or by inference. The most nearly relevant element of "gravedancing" is Behaving as though a consensus is no longer valid simply because a blocked or banned editor contributed to it. But there was no consensus. But the idea that there was a definitive no consensus established prior to Springee's post of 12:10, 15 July 2022 (UTC) that would be binding on further determination of the article text - well, it must be based on some policy of which I am not presently aware, and certainly not GRAVEDANCING. We are currently talking about an ongoing discussion, not an established (non-)consensus.

As far as I can tell, the key element of GRAVEDANCING is "antipathy", and there was no antipathy at the topic-banned editor in either my previous comment or this one. On the other hand, attempts to invoke opinions of editors who were subsequently banned from a topic as if they were relevant for the determination of present and future consensus within the area of the topic ban strike me as being situated somewhere in the territory of WP:WIKILAWYERING and WP:GAMING. Let's not do that. Newimpartial (talk) 23:08, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

You are correct, there was no consensus but the objections of editors don't evaporate just because they are topic blocked. Take the TERF RfC. If an editor were topic blocked after !voting in that discussion, their comments are still included as part of the closing analysis. Now if they were made in violation of a topic block or as a sock editor then their comments are removed. Springee (talk) 23:15, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

But we haven't !voted on anything. We are in a discussion that, from where I sit, is somewhere between NOCON and consensus to include, depending on the policy weight we attribute to various arguments. My response to this situation is to propose that we invite more editors to participate, with a clear and neutral question - a kind of metaphorical bipartisanship - but all I am hearing from you is attempts to reify "no consensus" from the continuing discussion (it had not reached any such conclusion) and to litigate whether old comments by a topic-banned editor should be taken account in the future resolution of this content dispute. Perhaps I have misunderstood you. Newimpartial (talk) 23:40, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Threatening an editor when one has a case of WP:IDLI is not a good look. Acousmana 00:40, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

The GRAVEDANCING issue is because when you did the headcount for and against inclusion, in the against inclusion cohort you excluded the editor who has been tbanned. On 13 July, that editor did make a clear argument against inclusion, and that argument is still valid in determining the consensus (or lack thereof) of the discussion at this point in time. It is valid because between the one hour, twenty minute period of the editor being tbanned and your reply at 22:10 (UTC), nor in the two day period (13-15 July) where the discussion occurred at WP:AE, no substantial new arguments or discussion had occurred on this talk page. The state of consensus you were evaluating at that time was representative of the period where the tbanned editor was making contributions that are/were considered to be in good standing. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:57, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

That to me is WP:WIKILAWYERING. To put a finer point on it, it is my view that in an ongoing discussion, the comments of those who have been banned from the topic through administrative enforcement action no longer carry weight in establishing future consensus (and I disagree that a non-consensus had been established prior to the lull of discussion). This is not like an RfC where a !vote has already been cast; this was a fluid (albeit temporarily stagnant) discussion that could still move to a new conclusion.

I am fine with the idea of a new RfC or other neutrally worded notice to move this issue towards conclusion, but in that or any other continuing process the opinions of topic-banned editors no longer count. I understand that consensus reached with topic-banned participants continues to be in effect after the ban (which is parallel to the language in GRAVEDANCING), but this cannot apply to continuing discussions and new formulations. The dead hand of the past may well weigh on the mind of the living like a nightmare, but not in this particular way. Newimpartial (talk) 02:12, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree that this cannot apply to continuing discussions and new formulations, however we aren't there yet. As I said previously, there has been no substantial movement in this discussion since the AE case opened on 13 July, nor in the one hour twenty minute period between the tban and the evaluation of consensus. The contributions from the tbanned editor therefore were a valid part of that evaluation.

That may change after cross-posting to BLPN, depending on whether or not that results in new contributors and new formulations. But we aren't there yet. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:44, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Re: there has been no substantial movement in this discussion since the AE case opened ... nor ... between the tban and the evaluation of consensus - to be clear, I am denying the validity of any attempt to assess consensus at that point; from subsequent comments, I believe that Springee's intention was precisely to claim a non-consenus outcome that was only plausible because of the inclusion of the now-topic-bammed editor as an "oppose" (even though it was not an RfC and no !votes were cast). Newimpartial (talk) 02:54, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

An RfC is one way of gaining/assessing consensus for or against a particular edit, but it is not the only one. With or without the contribution from the tbanned editor I believe there to be no consensus at present. What Springee was objecting to, and they can correct me if I'm wrong, was the exclusion of the tbanned editor (GoodDay) from your brief headcount determination.

To put it another way, if I was to do the same headcount that you preformed, or if I was an uninvolved editor closing this discussion because a request had been made at WP:CR for any reason, I would have done so inclusive of the tbanned editor's contributions, because the discussion had not substantially changed in the period after his tban and those contributions form a part of the current consensus. That is not to say those contributions carry weight in a future consensus, but we aren't in that situation as of yet. As of the current state of the discussion, those contributions have just as much weight as do any of the other seven editors mentioned. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:09, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

In a situation where neither consensus nor an established NOCONSENSUS situation has been achieved, I believe that what matters is the positions of editors who may participate in determining future consensus. Clearly reasonable editors can disagree about this, however. 03:18, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Given that discussion here is largely at a stalemate, I see no issue in a neutrally worded post at BLPN asking for an outside opinion. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:58, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Disputed edit about wording in lede

Springee has reverted my recent edit to the lede to replace a public intellectual with intellectual dark web in the lede, stating I don't think that is a correct summary. The body only mentions the IDW once and doesn't say he gained notoriety because of his association with it.
The body also only mentions "public intellectual" once, and it only has one citation, and also makes no mention of gaining notability from it. Intellectual dark web has five citations in the body, and is clearly more WP:DUE. ––FormalDude talk 11:37, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

"Public intellectual" only has one source because it's a non-contentious label that is the most common descriptor in RS. I guess we could go with public intellectual^{[19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32]} but that would be a bit WP:POINTY. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:47, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I won't specifically defend "public intellectual". My concern was that the lead was going to attribute his rise in awareness by the public to membership in the IDW. Ignoring arguments about does the IDW have actual members, the change to the lead was implying a causal relationship where his association/membership in the IDW resulted in a rise in public profile. The article body doesn't support that. It appears he had a small public profile prior to his opposition to bill C-16. After that he became much better known in the public space. Presumably his IDW association was the result of rather than the cause of his rise in prominence. Thus I reverted back to status quo. Springee (talk) 12:18, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Well said, Springee. Masterhatch (talk) 13:00, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: How many of those are even from the article? The lead has to follow the body. ––FormalDude talk 13:09, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Personally, I would favor "YouTube philosopher and anti-woke crusader", both of which are reliably sourced though I'm not sure either is currently in the article. Newimpartial (talk) 13:15, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

And the body doesn't say that he started to receive widespread attention as a member of the IDW either. The YouTube channel, podcasts, and social media section covers his rise to prominence, and is basically discussing him being a public intellectual. As that is a decent descriptor of what he was doing during that time, and something used by a huge amount of sources, it seems like the right wording to use in he lead. The sources themselves don't have to be in the article, per WP:DUE. Just because something isn't refspammed doesn't mean it doesn't carry weight in the article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:35, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

The specific wording He began to receive widespread attention as member of the intellectual dark web doesn't make sense because he first gained fame in October 2016, and the phrase "intellectual dark web" didn't become popular until the New York Times article came out in May 2018; he was already significantly famous by then. Korny O'Near (talk) 14:06, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Peterson's profession

Masterhatch has reverted my recent edit solely based off consensus.

I think there is consensus from both sides, but the first profession cited should be the one he is famous for or that made him relevant on the wider scale. On Ben Shapiro's page he is cited first as a conservative political commentator, then a media host and only ultimately as an attorney. It isn't obvious to me that Peterson was a reference point, nor that he was famously recognized and renowned as an important clinical psychologist, before his online work, more specifically before the political commentaries and the lectures that he put online. Paolo Calucci (talk) 09:05, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

He is a psychologist who YouTubes, not a YouTuber who psychologizes... the consensus version properly reflects that. Peterson had a Wikipedia article and was publishing lectures to YouTube before C-16 and before his gaining wild popularity. Particularly for the article of an academic, the fact that his lectures and writings gained mainstream success does not mean he went from professor of psychology to YouTuber. Le Marteau (talk) 10:09, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

That's a valid point, I didn't know that. Thanks. Still, wouldn't it be more sensible if the first profession listed in a Wikipedia article was the one the person the article is about is most famous and recognized for? Paolo Calucci (talk) 15:28, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Le Marteau’s take. In addition, including his academic background, thesis, work in clinical psychology while putting forth that he is a YouTuber first and foremost simply makes no sense as it seemingly aims to discredit his studies and rather describe Peterson as someone who is categorically a YouTuber as his main occupation RevsLost (talk) 12:28, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are meant to reflect and report on the truth, not pander to your feelings. There's nothing discrediting about being a social media personality, but even if there was, it is still not a valid reason not to include it as his main endeavor. The category "social media personality" would be also listed along all his other occupations. Paolo Calucci (talk) 15:36, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree mostly with Paolo here. Peterson's main source of notability is as a conservative pundit. He hasn't even been a practicing clinical psychologist at all for nearly a year now, and that was never his primary source of notability. That being said, I wouldn't describe him as a "YouTube personality" either. I would describe him primarily as a conservative political commentator, secondly as an author, and only after that would I describe him as a psychologist. Loki (talk) 18:02, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

First, I think procedurally Paolo should not have restored their new version once it was disputed via a revert. This discussion should have been step two instead of the step after two reverts. Second, I don't agree that "Youtuber" (or similar) should be placed before Peterson's professional background. Also I'm not sure he is a "Youtube personality". While his impact/influence has been in large part due to YT, it seems most of that came about when people shared interviews with Peterson on social media, not because he setup a Youtube channel. Yes, he did have a channel where he shared recordings of his lectures but did he ever have a channel where he produced commentary for a YT channel (like say Tim Pool). I would be far more comfortable saying he became know because of/through Youtube publications of interviews of him. His background and ideas based on his professional work has been the core of what has made him notable. It is also the area where he currently/previously has credentials. Thus it is appropriate to put that content before Youtube. It would probably be better to change "Youtube personality" to a more general "social media [something]" I'm sure Youtube isn't the only platform where his comments reach people. I don't agree with "conservative political commentator". He doesn't comment widely on conservative political issues. Instead he has stood against a few issues and his motivations don't appear to be specifically political beyond those issues. However, since those stances have aligned with largely conservative viewpoints he has been embraced by conservatives. Springee (talk) 19:28, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

He's getting a job at the Daily Wire soon. He's made PragerU videos. He's unambiguously a conservative even though he doesn't usually apply that label to himself and has a few political opinions that would be unusual among American conservatives. As for "political commentator", I agree he's also many other things, but one of his main sources of notability is giving lectures and interviews about his political opinions. In fact, that appears to be his main source of notability, since the sources we have overwhelmingly cover him as a political figure rather than as a psychologist or even as an author. Loki (talk) 02:27, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

You persist on stating what people should or should not do, I changed it because it was a minor edit and the revert was unjustified. It wasn't vandalism or anything like that, I simply changed the order of the professions, and I even added a paragraph saying the reasons why I was doing it. You could revert it again, or ask me to propose it on the Talk page as someone else did, you don't get to police what I can or cannot edit as long as I'm providing reasons and context, even more so if you don't challenge me on the merit of the edit or the discussions and hide behind a fake pretext to keep the page as it was.

The worst thing about this is that you use your feelings as a justification for your actions, and not much else: "It would probably be better to" this, " Paolo shouldn't have restored it", because "I would be far more comfortable with" that etc.

Secondly, you are right, many of the videos or interviews weren't shared by his own Youtube account but still, they were political. He has stood against a few issues, and the motivations behind those stances were political as well: Every time you take a position in public debate on social issues you are doing politics, there's no way of avoiding that, unless your arguments were purely based on scientific work, and completely detached from possible interpretation of those data. Furthermore, I don't even know if it would be relevant to the discussion, but his stances on many of those issues are as controversial in the public opinion as they are in the scientific community, and many of those aren't even object of the study and analysis of any type of scientific work.

For all these reasons I think "clinical psychologist" should not be the first profession listed, at least on a Wikipedia page. "Social media personality" or "Political commentator" should be put first, unless you have better reasons not to do so. Paolo Calucci (talk) 15:11, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Per NOCON you shouldn't have restored it. Also per BRD you shouldn't have restored it. These aren't my feelings they are policy and a well respected essay. I do not agree with your reasons for changing it. Springee (talk) 18:15, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

To attempt to move forward from this impasse: Springee, do you agree that Peterson's primary source of notability is his political career, rather than his career as a clinical psychologist per se? Paolo Calucci, do you agree that Peterson is notable as a clinical psychologist? Loki (talk) 18:23, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

I do agree that his political stances vs his research is what made him notable. However, we also should stick with the hard facts, his foundation, then move to the more subjective/harder to define claims. It is clearly a fact that for most of his career he was a clinical phycologist so that goes first. Something like "Peterson is a clinical phycologist who became notable for his outspoken stance on Bill C-16 and later his other political views which were shared widely on social media." I'm not claiming that is correct but I think the order in which things are presented is correct. Springee (talk) 18:47, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

where does he currently derive the lion's share of his income from? It's not academia, and hasn't been since his pop psychology/public speaking/YouTube/Patreon etc. gigs hit the big time, do we have sources we can tap for this? If not, difficult for us to state what his primary profession is: "internet personality" does sound about right though. Acousmana 19:39, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

The internet is one of his mediums. It is not his 'profession' and adding "personality" to it does not change the fact. The internet is one of the ways (along with lectures, debates, and books) that he plies his trade, which is psychology and derivative topics as delivered by a professor of the subject. Le Marteau (talk) 20:21, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes the internet is one of his mediums, but he isn't a clinical psychologist on Youtube/Twitter etc. , he mainly is a pundit and does political commentaries. That's my point. I think it is sensible. Paolo Calucci (talk) 20:41, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Peterson's primary medium, is, and has been for quite some time, the internet. Social media was critical to his wider success and it's his primary means of communicating with his fanbase, so in this respect his profile is indistinguishable from a host of other internet celebrities. Acousmana 21:39, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree. There seems to be no valuable reason not to do so, at least so far. Paolo Calucci (talk) 01:56, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Can you explain why? You have yet to explain the reasons why you disagree. Paolo Calucci (talk) 20:45, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree that Jordan Peterson is a notable clinical psychologist, I never denied it. I simply said he isn't as wouldn't be as famously recognized without his online work and political commentaries, which is extremely different. I think my point is clear to those reading. Paolo Calucci (talk) 20:43, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

@Springee @Paolo Calucci Alright, so, some more questions: First of all, what should the order of the list of professions be based on, and why? And second, there appears to be enough dispute over this that an RfC might be in order; would either of you be opposed to that? Loki (talk) 17:17, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I started to answer that below. One of my objection to your restoration of "political commentator" is that you restored it to the primary occupation. I'm also not sure Peterson should be called a "political commentator" (how many sources use that phrase). His social media comments are relatively narrow compared to people like Tucker Carlson or Rachel Maddow. Also, how much of his income comes from his self help speaking and books? Are books like the 12 rules one about politics or about self help based in part on his background in psychology? It seems that background is the foundation of what he does today hence it should be first on the list. Springee (talk) 18:22, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

You are wrong, precisely because of BRD, not despite BRD. I should have restored it, according to the following paragraph:

"BRD does not encourage reverting, but recognizes that reversions happen. When reverting, be specific about your reasons in the edit summary and use links if needed."Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle

Neither you nor @Masterhatch provided any reasons for the revert, so as things are now I was correct to restore my changes. Also, to this day you aren't providing any reason not to restore it again, other than the fact that you're personally not comfortable with it.

Given our current situation there seems to be no other fate other than restoration. Also, please provide a link for NOCON because I cannot find it. Paolo Calucci (talk) 20:38, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

• I think it's fair to say, at this point, that he is largely notable as a YouTube Personality and political commentator. Just looking at the article shows that it's what has the most focus in sources, both in terms of the section discussing it directly and in terms of which of his views get attention. Furthermore, the political commentary and social media blowups that make up the bulk of of the article is largely unrelated to his expertise as a psychologist - the Bible, culture wars, criticisms of academia, gender, and climate change are all either mostly or completely unrelated to his expertise in psychology. As a result, emphasizing his academic background in the lead as his primary source of notability gives a misleading picture of him and fails to accurately summarize the article. --Aquillion (talk) 18:11, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't agree with this perspective. Many who are critical of Peterson's work or comments want to focus on those things but are they actually his profession? As I just mentioned, Peterson is not a political commentator like Carlson or Maddow. He doesn't try to figure out the angle on the latest laws floating around capitol hill. Most of what he talks about in terms of politics is very narrow and largely focused on free/compelled speech. Thus I don't think "political commentator" is a good generalized description. To a lesser extent Youtuber isn't great since much of what he does, including his public messages are not Peterson running a YT channel like say Tim Pool. I think it would be better to say his public notability comes from these areas. At the same time, most of what he talks about and the subjects of his books are underpinned by his background as a psychologist. Thus that should be his primary profession (perhaps haps as psychologist and "clinical psychologist". Springee (talk) 18:36, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

"Many who are critical of Peterson's work or comments want to focus on those things but are they actually his profession?": follow the money - The rise of Patreon – the website that makes Jordan Peterson $80k a month. At this point - 4 years down the line - he's a bona fide social media celebrity; one that just happens to be a psychologist. Acousmana 19:50, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

LokiTheLiar, given this discussion here I think it is inappropriate to put the vague career of "political commentator" in front of the profession Peterson had for the majority of his working life and the one that is the foundation of his current views and writings. I would suggest self reverting (the material you restored was doesn't have a consensus) and get a consensus text for inclusion. Personally, I think "political commentator" and "youtuber" could probably be combined into a more appropriate title since even now much of what he talks about isn't strictly politics. Discussing his books and the ideas behind his books isn't really politics. While I believe he was discovered by many via YT, I think social media appearances/interviews or similar might be better since it would also cover other video hosting and social media sites. Springee (talk) 18:13, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I think Springee is spot on as to why political commentator shouldn't be listed first. Masterhatch (talk) 19:01, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Question regarding Peterson and the University of Toronto

The article states that Peterson is " a professor emeritus at the University of Toronto ", I thought he resigned from the University of Toronto completely...? Would it better to say that he is a former professor emeritus at the University of Toronto? GuardianH (talk) 23:03, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

He retired, per the source, 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.” ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:07, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, "emeritus" is just a fancy-pants word (it's Latin) meaning "retired". Emeritus professors are just retired professors. Alexbrn (talk) 12:37, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

No, it is not. There are plenty of retired professors who are not emeritus. Emeritus status typically must be applied for by retired professors, and denials occur as a google of "denied emeritus status" demonstrates. Le Marteau (talk) 13:01, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

@Alexbrn is correct that it is a "fancy pants" version of "retired", and like most "fancy pants" things, it must be applied for. @Le Marteau is correct that it may also be denied, so it is most accurately described as "an honorific afforded to some retired professors." — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:47, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Saying it was "just" a fancy-pants word needed correction. This is an encyclopedia, not Facebook, and precision in our wording matters. Particularly when dealing with a term used in academia, in an article about an academic. Le Marteau (talk) 14:35, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Removal of long standing material noting a concern of Peterson's

Newimpartial, since this material has been contested and is long standing I think we should discuss it here rather than remove it a second time without showing consensus.[33]. This material has been part of the article since Oct 2016 [34]. It helps better explain Peterson's concerns regarding the Ontario Human Rights Code and thus better informs readers of this article. While the source is not strong, it is seen as acceptable for attributed opinions which is what this is. The material is consistent with the testimony he delivered to the Canadian senate.[35]. Absent a clear consensus to remove it should be restored. Springee (talk) 18:01, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree the content is undue and favor removing it. There appears to be a plethora of reliable source coverage of both the facts and Peterson's opinions. If this one detail about Peterson's view is not covered by more reliable sources, we'd best exclude it. If consensus develops to include it, please note that the quoted material is not Peterson's, but from an Ontario government website. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:21, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

I concur, this content is UNDUE given that this detail does not appear in (as far as i can tell) ANY of the reliable sources on this page, or in a quick search. It's quite a deep dive which is not appropriate for a wikipedia article imo. More suited for IDWiki (Intellectual Dark Wiki, a website I'm pretty sure I just made up) — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:54, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

It's a false claim by a non-expert cited to a poor-quality source. I think we can safely leave it out... Newimpartial (talk) 20:40, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

It certainly would have been better to say that on the talk page before reverting without showing consensus. As for the other claims, I would agree that Peterson isn't a lawyer so in that regard he isn't qualified to interpret the law. However, he is a reliable source for statements regarding his concerns. While part of Firefangledfeathers's argument is the text is a quote of a law, Peterson says the exact same thing in his testimony (see my second link). If his language mirrors the law that is because he is making a legal argument. I will concede that this discussion, absent more voices, is a consensus to exclude but since this is long standing text it shouldn't have been removed a second time without that clear consensus. Springee (talk) 21:21, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

WP:ONUS applies even to Long standing text, as far as I know, when it has been demonstrated to be contentious (and in this case, also poorly sourced). Newimpartial (talk) 21:41, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, if no one supported it then we can remove it. However, the combination of long standing and editors supporting it would put us at NOCON at the time you removed it a second time. I will grant that we are now at a small consensus to remove. I would say at least two editors would need to argue in support to move us out of consensus to remove. But it's proper to get the consensus first. Springee (talk) 21:44, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Also, I think ONUS has been established as the material was part of the discussion and area of edits here [36]. It's not like this is a minor section that no one looked at. Springee (talk) 21:51, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't see any consensus for retention of this material based on that discussion; as far as I can tell it was only supported once, by the OP, without the support of any other editor. To interpret that situation as "consensus for" smacks of wikilawyering, to me. Newimpartial (talk) 22:13, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

The removed text had been tagged with the {{better source needed}} template for over a year, and per WP:BLPRS we do generally hold BLPs to a higher standard when it comes to sourcing. Removing the text was fine, especially so for the second removal as it really should not have been restored without following WP:BLPRESTORE. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:08, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

If there's an RS for the claim, use that. In practice, "long-standing text" is something I mainly see used as an excuse for substandard content and/or referencing. A GUNREL site noted for its fondness for conspiracy theories attributing quotes to the subject of a BLP would not normally be usable on Wikipedia in almost any circumstances, no matter how long it had been there - David Gerard (talk) 17:28, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

I concur with David Gerard, Firefangledfeathers, Shibbolethink, and Newimpartial. The material was undue, furthermore, the Federalist should not be used and should be considered unreliable. Andre🚐 19:01, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 September 2022

In section 7.4, Religion, in the following quote, He should not be capitalized. It's not objective and leans in the direction of existence of a deity. What's more, he certainly did not capitalize "He" in a verbal quote.

"I think the proper response to that is no, but I'm afraid He might exist."

Should be

"I think the proper response to that is no, but I'm afraid he might exist." BOZOSLIVEHERE (talk) 15:45, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: The formatting and capitalisation of the quote comes from the original source. Per MOS:PMC in direct quotations such as this, we retain the original capitalisation. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:49, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Puffery

What is so important about Kelefa Sanneh (which is mainly a music critic) in oder for his opinion on Jordan Peterson warrant a section just for him here? -Daveout(talk) 23:07, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't know who Kelefa Sanneh is, but various people have called Peterson one of the world's most influential public intellectuals (one of them, David Brooks, is even quoted in the intro as saying so), so it makes sense to have a section in the article quoting people's thoughts on the matter - Sanneh and others. Korny O'Near (talk) 23:19, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

In order to claim that someone is an "intellectual", the person making the claim should at least be regarded as an intellectual as well or a specialist in the field (in this case, psychology). This is just a random person judging Peterson's work on face value. It's unencyclopedic. It's just commentary. -Daveout(talk) 23:30, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I think it's pretty well-established that he's an intellectual (not to mention that "only an intellectual can say who's an intellectual" is rather circular logic). As for amount of influence - I think that's pretty easily judged in terms of books sold, audience sizes, ideas that have entered the mainstream, etc. Korny O'Near (talk) 00:03, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

But David Brooks never called him influential. He was quoting somebody else and criticized Peterson, saying e.g. "Much of Peterson’s advice sounds to me like vague exhortatory banality.". TheIdealis (talk) 10:06, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't necessarily see it as puffery, as it's independent commentary. I don't understand what the other two sources are doing there though, as they make no mention of Sanneh or the New Yorker. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:22, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

The highest quality source I've found so far on "Peterson as public intellectual" is this one. (We are generally expected to defer to the highest quality sources available, per WP:RS.) Newimpartial (talk) 00:16, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

There's significant sourcing for him being a "public intellectual", see for examples, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jordan_Peterson/Archive_3#Public_Intellectual Le Marteau (talk) 01:10, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

To be fair, those are mostly journalistic sources. Newimpartial (talk) 01:26, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

the term "public intellectual" is pretty standard for an academic entering the public domain and espousing one view or another, it applies to Peterson just as it does to the likes of Pinker and Chomsky, it's incontrovertible. The quality of the intellect on offer is a different matter. Acousmana 10:42, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I get that some people consider him some sort of intellectual. But others don't. I suggest we add the following text for balance's sake:

Nathan J. Robinson describes Jordan Peterson's popularity as "the sign of a deeply impoverished political and intellectual landscape." He goes on to say that Peterson "appears very profound and has convinced many people to take him seriously. Yet he has almost nothing of value to say."

References

Objections? -Daveout(talk) 11:38, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I can understand concern with the current content however the answer is not to insert a scathing claim from a hyper partisan source that is likely ideologically opposed to Peterson. That will read like Wiki editors are trying to persuade rather than inform readers. As for the current text, I can see the concerns with DUE. If we have more sources that support the POV then I can see supporting it. If this is a singular view then it either should either be attributed or removed. Adding Robinson's strongly biased opinion is not the correct solution. Springee (talk) 12:00, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Right. Nevermind then. -Daveout(talk) 12:24, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

From the quality (academic) source I linked above, I think the most promising passage might be this one:

Peterson’s narrative and his misinterpretation of information exemplify how this particular public intellectual filters information for his audience. He creatively assembles pieces of evidence from different scientific disciplines, distorting information in the process. The reassuring narrative that is the outcome goes some way to explain the viability of his rhetorical strategies, yet it cannot fully account for Peterson’s popularity. Therefore, we need to examine his demeanour and performance.

Perhaps a paraphrase is in order? Newimpartial (talk) 12:26, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I think this discussion about individual citations seems a bit unnecessary. This article needs a full "Influence and reception" section, just like exists for other public intellectuals like Michel Foucault, Thomas Sowell, Noam Chomsky, etc. - and it should include the full range of views (from reliable sources, of course), including both detractors and supporters. Korny O'Near (talk) 13:47, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't think "detractors and supporters" is in order. We should rely on sources of the highest quality, regardless of their views. Newimpartial (talk) 14:17, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't know what "highest quality" means, but presumably the standard sourcing guidelines all apply. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:01, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, notably When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources, as specified in WP:SOURCETYPES. Newimpartial (talk) 15:07, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Sure. There's nothing there about using only academic sources, though, if that's what you're getting at. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:09, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Newimpartial is correct here, at least as far as how we should approach this. Achieving an appropriate perspective is discussed at length in WP:NPOV, where I think the most relevant sections are WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:BESTSOURCES. We do not seek to offer a 'balance' of views, good and bad, in order to achieve neutrality. Rather, we seek out the best available sources on a subject, and summarise what they say. Where they disagree with one another, we might present multiple viewpoints, but if all the scholarly sources say one thing, and only lower quality sources are saying something different, we go with the best ones. Girth Summit _(blether) 15:15, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Newimpartial's academic source is less than impressive. Cited zero times and published in the journal "Celebrity Studies". Why would we treat this with more weight than any news article is beyond me. It would be better to look at Peterson's actual publications etc. Springee (talk) 16:14, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I hadn't looked at the source in question - I was commenting on the general approach we should take, not the specifics of a particular source. Having just looked at the source itself, however, I don't see any issues with it. It's written by a pair of scholars in relevant disciplines who are attached to reputable institutions; it's a peer reviewed scholarly journal in a relevant field; it has an editorial panel made up of scholars in relevant fields, attached to reputable institutions. It's pretty obvious that we would afford that more weight than a news article. I would encourage people to look for other sources of equivalent or higher quality, and compare the conclusions they come to. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:14, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

If you disagree with WP:RS policy, the place to discuss that is on the talk page of the policy in question. I am especially concerned about your recommendation that we treat newspaper sources as equivalent to peer-reviewed articles and emphasize primary over secondary sources. Just because you don't like a particular journal isn't a reason to dismiss (or disparage) the source. Newimpartial (talk) 16:47, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

RS says academic sources are generally the most reliable but not in all cases and all sources are subject to discussion and editorial review. IE, what I'm saying is compliant with RS policy. Springee (talk) 19:02, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

What policy supports your comment, Why would we treat this with more weight than any news article is beyond me. It would be better to look at Peterson's actual publications etc.?

I know what WP:RS says; I just quoted it in response to your Korny's (very accurate) comment, I don't know what "highest quality" means. Newimpartial (talk) 19:26, 8 July 2022 (UTC) corrected by Newimpartial (talk) 19:41, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

That "highest quality" comment wasn't mine.[37] While academic sources are generally considered the best sources, per WP:RS, "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. However, some scholarly material may be outdated, in competition with alternative theories, controversial within the relevant field, or largely ignored by the mainstream academic discourse because of lack of citations. " This isn't the journal Nature and that article shows that it has been cited zero times. We can perhaps trust the factual claims in that source but certainly should be wary of giving it's analysis/conclusions much if any weight. I will clarify that I don't mean cite Peterson's work directly, rather look at how often it has been cited by others and in what capacity. Look at the impact his papers have had in his field. Springee (talk) 19:33, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Notwithstanding other issues, Semantic Scholar shows that paper as having been cited once. Google Scholar shows it cited twice, with the second being in a book that I can't access the preview of. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:40, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Error fixed, Springee; sorry.

Re: I will clarify that I don't mean cite Peterson's work directly, rather look at how often it has been cited by others and in what capacity. Look at the impact his papers have had in his field - so you are recommending that we perform WP:OR analysis of our own, then? Do you recognize that your dismissal of the paper is also an original interpretation on your part?

Also, I don't see any policy basis for your preference for the analysis offered in broadsheet and magazines over the academic paper, either. That seems to me to be WP:ILIKEIT rather than being based on policy considerations. Newimpartial (talk) 19:41, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

No, not OR. I'm suggesting we do what most academics would do. You see what others say about a person's work. The best way to do that is read what others say about the work when they cite it. As for dismissing the paper you found, we commonly use editorial judgement when deciding if a source is reliable and/or DUE. Springee (talk) 22:32, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

he might be full of shit, but he's a public intellectual, not much more to it, it's properly sourced, very silly discussion. Acousmana 16:53, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

He is or was a University professor & they tend to be quite intellectual & there's no doubt, that he's a public figure. So...what's the problem? GoodDay (talk) 19:49, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

For starters, Kelefa Sanneh's claim that Peterson is one of the most influential intellectuals of the English speaking world. That seems hyperbolic. -Daveout(talk) 22:27, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

The thought that Peterson might actually be "one of the most influential intellectuals" on the scene today seems to have not crossed your mind, evidently. Because on a top five list of "most influential intellectuals" today... I'd say him being on the list is not as on-its-face ridiculous as you seem to think it is, and leave it at that. Le Marteau (talk) 22:42, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

We don't work on opinions and feelings. I'd like to see some proof of Peterson's alleged outstanding influence. Great claims must be backed by great evidence. Sanneh hasn't provided any. -Daveout(talk) 22:53, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

"most influential" is definitely hyperbolic, so unless we have solid sources to underpin this assertion (or we provide appropriate context for claims of 'influence' using RS) we should drop it from article. Stating he is merely a 'public intellectual' isn't problematic in the least. Acousmana 11:59, 10 July 2022 (UTC)