Talk:Jordan Peterson/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

→

Archive 24

Characterization of Peterson: "public intellectual" vs "media commentator" etc

The page previously introduced Peterson as a "media personality," a term which linked to "celebrity."

Then I changed it to "public intellectual," since that characterization was used in the second sentence of the article. (And I removed the second mention of it.)

Now someone reverted my edit and changed it to "media commentator," which links to "pundit."

Earlier the article used to characterize Peterson as a "YouTube personality," which linked to "YouTuber."

I don't think any of these characterizations is perfect, but I'd go for "public intellectual" if I were to choose one of them. Trakking (talk) 20:42, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

So my issue with public intellectual is that the topics Peterson often and frequently comments on are very far removed from his area of expertise. Were he just making commentary on clinical psychology, or the intersections of clinical psychology and other topics, I would believe that label to be relatively neutral, however that is not the case. Media commentator seems to me to a more accurate description of the commentary Peterson makes, both in social and traditional media. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:07, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th:

Regards: "the topics Peterson often and frequently comments on are very far removed from his area of expertise"; is that not true of many prominent intellectuals? Have you wikipedia guidance pages that shed light on how wide is 'far removed' acceptable on wiki?

Peterson IMHO does not really fit 'media commentator' IMHO.

• academic background is strong - had research papers cite above the average, at top notch Unis - became Prof.
• watching his public lectures - he is an intellectual - (watch the Cathy Newman interview to see the complexity of concepts he uses yet explains well
• succeeded in 3 careers - professor and clinical psychologist and best-selling author

Been given considerable attention by respected places/people:

• 20 minutes interview at the UK Channel 4 news: been onto the Podcasts/hosted podcasts with many respected academics and thinkers - invited on to various BBC programmes, including Question Time (twice) Hard Talk: ("In-depth interviews with hard-hitting questions and sensitive topics being covered as famous personalities from all walks of life talk about the highs and lows in their lives.")
• has youtube videos have hundreds of strangers thanking him for the positive input his works have been in their lives.
• has prominent politicians supporting his case for free speech (Canadian and European politicians)
• has sufficient public support for hundreds to rally in his support last week

That combination makes him pretty remarkable - but not a 'media commentator'. IMHO CanterburyUK (talk) 23:56, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

as the pundit (media commentator) article details:

Josef Joffe's book chapter The Decline of the Public Intellectual and the Rise of the Pundit describes a change in the role of public experts and relates to developments in the audience and the media itself. In the second half of the 20th century, foreigners like Hannah Arendt or Jürgen Habermas and others gained a certain position in the US as public intellectuals due to the (over)specialization of US academics.

A pundit now combines the roles of a public intellectual and has a certain expertise as a media practitioner. They play an increasing role in disseminating ideas and views in an accessible way to the public.

This describes better than anything the reason why the term "public intellectual" is out-dated, laudatory, and doesn't include the focus on media training and accessibility. Comparing Jordan Peterson to Hannah Arendt is bizarre, but it also shows that "media commentator" is not an overly negative term, and preferable to "public intellectual". It just describes what Peterson does: He comments on public matters in media channels in a way accessible to his preferred demographic. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:24, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

• I don't know about the other terms, but "public intellectual" definitely reads to me as puffery and I'd generally be opposed to using it in the article voice anywhere in the article, let alone in the lead. --Aquillion (talk) 22:35, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

  @Aquillion:

  You say 'puffery' - yet Peterson seems to fit the Wiki definition quite well: (my emphasise):

  • "The term public intellectual describes the intellectual participating in the public-affairs discourse of society, in addition to an academic career.[15] Regardless of their academic field or the professional expertise, the public intellectual addresses and responds to the normative problems of society, and, as such, is expected to be an impartial critic who can "rise above the partial preoccupation of one's own profession—and engage with the global issues of truth, judgment, and taste of the time""

  CanterburyUK (talk) 00:02, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

First sentence of page - I reverted sources inadvertantly deleted when adding sources

I replaced the source relevant to his status as author) - that had been lost in the change "add refs": &diff=1133838789&oldid=1133824466.

@Shibbolethink: Your edit to "add refs" - added 2 new sources to that 1st paragraph. But had not asked for input here first (unless I've overlooked them - in which case I apologise). Can give your view why those specific sources are signiifcant enough for the 1st sentence. IMHO they're not.

• "With Jordan Peterson, occupational licensing becomes a way to censor" url=https://reason.com/2023/01/09/with-jordan-peterson-occupational-licensing-becomes-a-way-to-censor
• "Jordan Peterson visited ‘Britain’s strictest school’ and it looks like he loved it" url=https://www.indy100.com/politics/jordan-peterson-britain-strictest-school-katharine-birbalsingh

Also - is your view that both sources are RS ?CanterburyUK (talk) 00:46, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

It wasn't inadvertent. That "best-selling" citation verified other parts of the text that is no longer in the first-sentence ("best selling"). And thus is no longer necessary. Per MOS:LEAD we should not have citations in the lead for obvious things (e.g. that Peterson is an author). The "media commentator" label is controversial, hence per WP:V and MOS:LEAD, I added sources to verify its common usage with Peterson. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:07, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink:

Comparing the source you removed - and the sources you added:

The source you removed (and I replaced) was to support the phrase 'author':

• has a title containing the key-phrase 'author'
• has a title purely about status as author "Could Jordan Peterson become the best-selling Canadian author of all time?"
• in the body of the article is the phrase 'author'
• in the body, the central theme is around that phrase.

Whereas the two sources you added for 'media commentator' -

• none of the 4 above are true for the phrase 'media commentator'

So self-evidently: the sources do not support the phrase 'media commentator'.

But they can usefully be applied elsewhere in the page. Would you prefer to move them somewhere more fitting, or shall I? CanterburyUK (talk) 02:01, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

per WP:HEADLINE, titles are irrelevant to determining reliability or verifiability. If you go back and look, you'll see I directly quoted where the term was used in the sources, in the citation itself.

None of the points you have made address the fact that the term "author" is not contentious, disputed, or likely to be questioned, and therefore unnecessary to verify, and therefore should probably not have a citation attached per MOS:LEADCITE. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 02:38, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

"If you go back and look, you'll see I directly quoted where the term was used in the sources, in the citation itself."

I looked - don't see the phrase 'media commentator' anywhere? Can you give a link to look?

"author is not contentious". True - but using the Wiki 5 Pillars:

• "Wiki has no firm rules"

In the absence of firm rules, then the over-riding question is: What is most helpful for the reader:

Is it either:

• use of the plan word 'author'

OR

• ditto plus a single Source - that very directly helps the reader answer the question: "does author mean best seller, academic book writer, self-publisher or what?"

CanterburyUK (talk) 03:16, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink: That is a straw-man:

"per WP:HEADLINE, titles are irrelevant to determining reliability or verifiability. "

as verifiability was not the issue under discussion. CanterburyUK (talk) 03:26, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

If verifiability is not in question, then we should not have a citation there, as we do not typically cite obvious things in the LEAD. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:02, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink:

You have not demonstrated consensus here, yet you have removed the source attached to 'author'. (Or am I missing something?)

And on this topic you've ignored a key question above ("What is most helpful for the reader") and unilaterally reverted as if this talk thread doesn't matter?

(I know Wiki guidelines don't require an obligatory answer to questions: but reverting without consensus whilst not answering a specific related question is different IMHO). CanterburyUK (talk) 00:13, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

WP:STATUSQUO says we should maintain the status quo while discussing controversial ‘’insertions’’. The cite was added recently, so you should get consensus before ‘’inserting’’ it. That is the nature of WP:BRD. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:29, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

We don't need a citation in the lead for "author". Contentious lead claims or ones likely to be challenged need citations. It is unhelpful to reader to have lead citations attached to uncontroversial facts that are supported by the body of the article. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:24, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Sources supporting "media commentator" label

• The Canadian psychologist and cultural commentator has waded into any number of battles since he first rose to fame several years ago.
• Known for his controversial views on politics, science and gender identity, Jordan Peterson – a psychology professor, author and media personality – worked with the group to develop a “brand story” for his new writing app, Essay.
• Netanyahu made his remarks during an interview with Canadian media personality, psychologist and author Jordan Peterson that was published on December 5.
• noted Canadian icon Jordan Peterson, a distinguished clinical psychologist, former professor at the University of Toronto and more recently a global celebrity commentator who reaches millions through his podcast and public writing.
• Jordan Peterson is a Canadian clinical psychologist, social commentator, author and professor of psychology, who is known for his somewhat controversial comments on political, social and cultural issues
• Last week, Canadian psychologist and conservative commentator Peterson shared a tweet that deadnamed transgender actor Elliot Page
• The Canadian psychology professor and culture warrior Jordan B Peterson could not have hoped for better publicity
• The book is a kind of bridge connecting his academic research on personality and his political punditry. In it, Peterson argues that the problem with society today is that too many people blame their lot in life on forces outside their control — the patriarchy, for example.
• But Peterson has also been criticized by leading climate scientists for his beliefs around climate change and called out by the Human Rights Campaign as “an anti-LGBTQ extremist, using his platform as a media pundit to spread misinformation that stokes dangerous hatred.”
• Soon after the cover’s release, controversial Canadian psychologist and best-selling author Peterson criticised Yumi, writing: “Sorry. Not beautiful. And no amount of authoritarian tolerance is going to change that.” His tweet angered many fans, with some calling him a “mediocre political pundit”.
• in 1999, he was back in Canada—teaching at the University of Toronto, working as a clinical psychologist, and building a reputation, on television, as an acerbic pundit

Sources

See also: Wikipedia:SYNTHNOTSUMMARY:

Summary is necessary to reduce the information in lengthy sources to an encyclopedic length -- even when the information being summarized comes from multiple sources. It's not necessary to find a source that summarizes the information. As long as what's in the article is an accurate, neutral summary, and each of the statements is verified by an appropriate source, then the summary is also verified by the same sources... On the contrary, "coming up with summary statements for difficult, involved problems" has been described as "the essence of the NPOV process".

The term and wl "media commentator" incorporates all of the most salient points of the above labels. I would also accept: media pundit, media personality — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:58, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I suggest we change the characterization to ”pundit” or ”media pundit”. We should NOT use ”media personality”, as it links to ”celebrity”, which seems inaccurate. Trakking (talk) 21:17, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

any reason why not "media commentator" (which links to pundit) ? (and might be seen as less negative by some) — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:35, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I like "media commentator", which captures well a key element of his notability. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:24, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

@Shibbelothink: Of the list below advocating 'media commentator':

• The Forbes article does not contain the claimed text
• one article calls Peterson: "formerly an obscure professor, is now one of the most influential—and polarizing— public intellectuals in the English-speaking world.
• one has no link
• one includes: "Camille Paglia anointed him “the most important and influential Canadian thinker since Marshall McLuhan”
• another " widely cited scholar of personality, and the author of what’s currently the No. 1 best-selling nonfiction book on Amazon in the United States. The New York Times’s David Brooks, echoing George Mason University economist Tyler Cowen, calls him “the most influential public intellectual in the Western world right now.”
• another: "According to Google Scholar, he has been cited more than 10,000 times in academic publications and is one of the 70 most cited researchers in his subfield. I spoke to eight academic psychologists before writing this piece; the feedback I received on his published work was uniformly positive."
• many are negative rather 'hit-piece' articles that editors whether pro or anti-Peterson would not consider NPV (including such claims as Peterson wanting to be " blacklisting fellow professors ", or was antisemitic

All the above mean that 'media commentator' is not a good fit for Peterson. It doesn't have the gravitas that Peterson's success, reaching high levels in four careers (professor, psychologist, author, public thinker) etc. (Yes he has views in some controversial spaces. So did Galileo and etc <smiley face>)

We could revert to 'public intellectual- as it was before. Other RS seem to support that:

• "In an interview, Malcolm Gladwell dismissed these similarities (to himself) as “superficial,” suggesting he and Peterson occupy very different roles — Peterson is a “thinker” who puts forward new ideas, while Gladwell is the journalist who tries to explain them. “I think he’s a lot smarter than I am, and I’m not being falsely modest,” Gladwell said. CanterburyUK (talk) 23:52, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

As my words above - I don't find media commentator fitting, at all.

'Public intellectual' as been in the page for 6 months or more - lets go back there.

Some of the sources Shibbeolith listed above for 'commentator' but that also contain 'public intellectual - have in the past been in the page as quoted text: ""is now one of the most influential—and polarizing—public intellectuals in the English-speaking world" -- but got lost over time. CanterburyUK (talk) 00:44, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to add my support to "media commentator" or simply "pundit" as the terms which best capture the WP:WEIGHT of the sources on balance. To be clear, I think "socio-political commentator" is probably a more focused way to describe Peterson's particularly brand of public debate identity, but that's clearly not supported in the sourcing.

Now, I will also note that some of discussion dismissing "public intellectual" above on the grounds that the subject often opines on topics outside his sphere of expertise is un-compelling: Carl Sagan very frequently wrote on topics well outside his work in areas where he was credentialed, as does Steven Pinker today, and I think we have no problem conceptualizing either of them as a public intellectual, to take two of just numerous examples that spring to mind. For a certainty, Jordan has earned a bit of reputation for peculiar word-salad hot takes in areas he really has no expertise in, but that still does not in itself disqualify him for the title of public intellectual in the general sense, and it certainly doesn't qualify as a reason to avoid the descriptor here, under our policies--we would be compelled to use it here regardless of what we felt about the man's stated positions or perceived stature, if the sources supported it. But that is just not the case, based on the corpus of sourcing we have to work with to date. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 04:48, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

@Snow Rise:

Do I read you right: your view in briefest simplification is:

• Public Intellectual would fit Peterson - some arguments against (above) are not compelling
• your reason for not using it is: sources lack.

So ironically - another RS link using 'public intellectual' has been added to the page today, in a different place:

• "hailed as the West’s most influential public intellectual."

See Shibbolethink's: &diff=1134403537&oldid=1134067729

If Peterson came up in conversation with your acquaintances: would you use 'media commentator' or 'intellectual'?

To my mind: "media commentator" or "pundit" can be and often are people:

• with no or weak academic credentials - Peterson achieved not merely Professorship but managed 10,000 citations for his papers - 70th most cited person in his field.
• without the cloud of other respected academics Public Intellectuals who do engage with Peterson (you name Pinker : and the two have done several long form discussions together.
• who do the low-brow TV chat show circuit - whereas Peterson has been invited on high-brow shows like the political discussion show BBC Question Time: twice. BBC Hardtalk. Channel four: long form interview
• held down a 2nd 'high brow' career - clinical psychologist

Peterson's archive of long form video discussions have scores of academic Dr's willing to appear on his channel. I see no TV celebrities! And

• religious scholars - Yoram_Hazony
• Senator Josh Hawley
• Karl_J._Friston: "authority on brain imaging and theoretical neuroscience,"
• Andrew_D._Huberman: neuroscientist , " credited with coining the term "Non-Sleep Deep Rest" (NSDR)"
• Helen_Joyce former academic mathematician: now journalist: "founding editor for the Royal Statistical Society's quarterly magazine Significance
• Leslyn_Lewis lawyer and politician
• Iain_McGilchrist British psychiatrist: "came to prominence after the publication of his book The Master and His Emissary"

He keeps Intellectual company!

Looking at Wiki's list of 'media commentators': https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?fulltext=1&search=Media%20commentator&title=Special%3ASearch&ns0=1 show that those people wiki also describes as:

• radio personalities
• radio journalist
• freelance journalist
• "came to public attention when Donald Trump made favorable comments and tweets about his work"
• their page " may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline."
• "a degree in journalism." .."hosted a talk show"

Cricket commentators

• Wiki describes as media commentators: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cricket_commentators

Common theme -the bulk are journalists - without a 2nd career at all - and without extended Academic success.

Peterson is miles away from that profile.

Can you advise me here (many editors know more wiki guidelines than me - though I like the powerful rule: Wiki has no rules!)

• if some editors (like me) think public intellectual is best fit
• yet others like you Snow Rise: rightly point out the number of sources that don't use public intellectual

==> can the case above ever be added to, to be sufficient to re-instate the PI nomenclature? Or not? CanterburyUK (talk) 00:25, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

To answer your last questions first, no I'm afraid I don't see it likely that the consensus on this is going to change, at least in the short term: the WP:WEIGHT of the WP:RS just don't support that descriptor above the alternatives, particularly for purposes of the the lead sentence. The argument you make immediately above is a kind of fusion of WP:original research and WP:otherstuff, suggesting an a approach based on the other contexts in which we've used a particular label, or just our own personal subjective assessments of what is the most accurate label. I absolutely understand why that both may feel completely intuitive for a less experienced editor, but under our editorial policies, we have to make the call for each individual individual and case based completely on how independent reliable sources describe the subject in general.

Now, as I said above, I do disagree with some of the arguments utilized to try to argue that the handle "public intellectual" can't possibly apply to the Peterson, because he likes to run on about topics he has little to no advanced understanding of. With respect, I think that is a faulty argument on two levels: one, I've never understood the label to mean an individual can't position themselves with an opinion on an issue of public interest unless they have published in that area. And two, it's irrelevant under policy. If enough sources described him with that level, policy would require we follow suit: Wikipedia reports what reliable sources say on a topic, not what our editors feel about it, now how certain we are in our beliefs. But that principle cuts both ways, so in the end, we end up with a similar outcome: I just don't believe "public intellectual" is how this man is regarded by the sources. I'm also not a huge fan of "media commentator", but I think it may be the best option we have, based on the sourcing. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 01:35, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

If enough sources described him with that level, policy would require we follow suit: Wikipedia reports what reliable sources say on a topic, not what our editors feel about it, now how certain we are in our beliefs

Agreed. The thing I noticed in the source review is that "public intellectual" is almost universally used by publications which are A) likely unreliable, B) have a similar political bias to Peterson, or C) often describe him in laudatory terms. E.g.

• A coalition of community groups is asking Ottawa city council to back its call for the cancellation of a Canadian Tire Centre event featuring public intellectual and provocateur Jordan Peterson [1] by the Ottawa Citizen, owned by the far-right conservative Postmedia Network
• Peterson, a public intellectual, global phenomenon and omnipresent YouTube star, is a clinical psychologist and a superb speaker [2] by America Magazine, a monthly Christian magazine published by the United States Jesuits
• Public intellectual Jordan Peterson is the extreme opposite of Dr. Prater. [3] an Op-Ed published in The Epoch Times, a far-right international multi-language newspaper affiliated with the Falun Gong new religious movement.
• The latest of a dismal sequence of outrages and oppressive acts officiously imposed upon the very distinguished and widely admired academic, clinical psychologist and public intellectual, Jordan Peterson... [4] an Op-Ed published by the National Post, a conservative-leaning newspaper also owned by the Postmedia Network, but also by-line by Craig Robertson, who has published such gems as "FUREY FACTOR: Could Covid-19 ultimately make us healthier?" and "DO MASKS WORK? Dr. Tam still tells Canadians don’t wear them"
• This is why it is so useful that Netanyahu has volunteered in recent days to provide us with another one. This occurred in an interview a few weeks ago with the Canadian public intellectual Jordan Peterson, a clinical psychologist who made his mark by goading progressives. [5] an Op-Ed in the right-leaning Jerusalem Post written by Dan Perry, a media-executive who has published such gems as "If Democrats Call This 'Winning,' I'd Hate to See Losing" and "Deny Iran a nuclear weapon or deny Iran money for other mischief?"

Of all of these, Dan Perry's op-ed is the closest to being "centrist" or at least "not far-right conservative". But one article does not make a convincing case for this label being NPOV. Compare this to the sources above which use the "social commentator" or "media personality" or "pundit" labels which are much more neutral and reliable and indeed span the entire spectrum of political bent (e.g. the Guardian [6], The Seattle Times [7], National Post [8], The Independent [9], The New Yorker [10], Forbes [11]) — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:36, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

The lead, including the first sentence is supposed to be a summary of the (sourced material in the) article. North8000 (talk) 17:08, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Does this accurately represent him: "Peterson believes that "order" is masculine and "chaos" is feminine, and that these are inherent to human existence."

Yes, Peterson talks an awful lot about 'Chaos' and 'Order': they have archetypal meaning - ie above and beyond those words daily usage.

Likewise has indeed said that, in the realm of archetypes, that for thousands of years in the arts that 'Chaos' has been associated with female.

But this section is very wordy - UNDUE potentially in quantity.

There are 3 links, but only 2 sources to the paragraph. And rather partisan, unNPV sources.

My questions really: A) there are alot of words here on the male-female linking to order-chaos: does that as a % of the page over-represent the prominence/frequency of mentions that Peterson gives it B) even if does - is the subject matter expressed in the sentences as they are, not rail-roading the reader to an understanding that is NOT what Peterson means: that women are inferior because 'chaotic'. Should the text not be more explicit about the abstract, archetypical level of the subject matter.

Given the heat generate in some corners over the (let's call it) Gender debate: I'd argue that we want to reduce needlessly raising emotions. IMHO.

On that basis - are there reasons I'm missing that means it needs to stay as it is. Maybe some think this is a major part of his thinking? If so, would be useful if sources could be shared and added. Else, let's clean it up. My thinking here is primarily: "what is most useful for the reader": with the wiki guidelines to inform that but are not strict rules to constrain maximising value to the reader, for this specific matter. CanterburyUK (talk) 00:38, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

At the very least, we could remove the block quote. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:54, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Agree the block quote is UNDUE. We should keep the preceding paragraph, though, as it is extremely well-sourced. I've BOLDly taken out the block quote and kept the pp, incorporating the sourcing to show it's clearly DUE. I'm not opposed to trimming it some (and have attempted to do so), but I think the base facts are clearly DUE. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:24, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Personally, I would advocate for leaving the block quote in. A propensity to mix quasi-mysticism in with vague technical jargon from the humanities to create elevated-sounding but often nonsensical colour commentary about changing cultural norms is one of the defining aspects of Peterson's public discourse, and this whole antiquated, Jungian-adjacent "male energy gives us structure; female energy animates our passions" idea is one well that he has gone to very often in this respect. I agree with Canterbury insofar as it unsurprising that this is controversial today, and I'll go a step further and observe that these kinds of comments also feed into at least part of why some observers connect the subject's brand of esoteric punditry to, shall we say, certain strains of early 20th century German movements of cultural normativity that were also based in similar kinds of mixing of spiritual imagery and animistic beliefs with (psuedo-)scientific dialect. Given all of this context, I think it's highly valuable to the reader to have Peterson's perspectives (or at least some small portion of them) straight from the horse's mouth, so they can judge for themselves the quality, tone, and salience of his arguments.

I mean, look at what that paragraph now looks like, absent the block quote: "Peterson believes that order is masculine and chaos is feminine, and that these qualities are inherent to human existence. To Peterson, culture is 'symbolically, archetypally, mythically male,' while 'chaos—the unknown—is symbolically associated with the feminine.'" These statements are nothing short of ambiguous outright gobbledygook as written, and the article reader has no way of knowing if that is reflective of vagaries and/or magical thinking in Jordan's own position, or because we have excised his comments from their proper context. The block quote helped to resolve this uncertainty and allow the reader to come to their own conclusions, so if we're going to discuss this topic at all, I would suggest it should probably stay. When in doubt about whether coverage of a BLP subject's positions are neutral and WP:DUE, the last thing you typically want to do is start by removing the subject's own statement's on the topic. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 18:28, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

@SnowRise:

• "When in doubt about whether coverage of a BLP subject's positions are neutral and WP:DUE, the last thing you typically want to do is start by removing the subject's own statement's on the topic."

Although that is exactly what some editors here did - removing Peterson's own words to the court, see above:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jordan_Peterson&section=2#2023_Jan-_section_for_the_Ontario_College_of_Psychologists_demands CanterburyUK (talk) 15:10, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi protected edit request on 25 January 2023

The profile picture displayed on Peterson's page is stated to be his current one for both of his YouTube accounts, however he has since changed both profile pictures to a photograph of himself. The links to his channel listed underneath the old profile picture also no longer work and need updating. Lions2th (talk) 23:55, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I have corrected the caption and the infobox links. Thanks for pointing that out — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:47, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Meat-only diet

The article currently states: "She(Mikhaila) and Peterson have promoted the diet..." and quotes 3 sources. None of those sources suggest that Peterson himself promotes the diet: one indeed sates that: "Peterson reiterated several times that he is not giving dietary advice". It is true that he has mentioned his diet when asked about it - eg the Rogan interview 4-5 years ago.

I have googled, and failed to find anything approaching 'promotion' of diet by Peterson himself. Searching his website: jordanbpeterson.com - no mention for ~ 5 years, the transcript of a journalist interview - in the middle of which they had asked him about it. I searched his Youtube channel - no videos have the name of meat or diet.

Shall I correct the page, to : "She(Mikhaila) has promoted the diet, whilst Peterson has mentioned it only when asked about it by interviewers, he has reiterated several times that he is not giving dietary advice". CanterburyUK (talk) 11:59, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I have googled, and failed to find anything approaching 'promotion' of diet by Peterson himself.
Agreed with this part.
Shall I correct the page, to...
No, I think we should change it to:
She (Mikhaila) has promoted the diet or similar. per WP:DUE. We should just pare it down to being about her promoting it. We could also maybe say that he is on the diet. But again, we are not Peterson's website, advocate, editorial, or opinion page. We should only give what is necessary for encyclopedic summary here. Doing otherwise would bloat the page. I believe firmly that detailing that he "reiterated several times that he is not giving dietary advice". It is true that he has mentioned his diet when asked about it" would go beyond this and into UNDUE territory. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:38, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Shibbolethink. It sounds like on your phrase to avoid 'bloat the page' we could strip out some dead-wood from the article - reduce a whole lot of words ( it does rather overdue the diet thing - including analysis by 3rd-parties of the cons of such a diet has been overkill for some time)

What do you think of this -

A) lets strip mention of Mikhaila down to : "Mikhaila (Peterson's daughter) suffered from juvenile rheumatoid arthritis (JRA) in her childhood, requiring a hip and ankle replacement when she was 17 years-old. She has claimed improved health since being on what she calls "the lion diet" consisting entirely of eating only beef, lamb, salt, and water."

And for Peterson himself, pare it down to:

B) "Peterson has reported benefits to his specific depression and autoimmune disorders from using a restricted diet - since 2018 eating only beef, salt, and water; having first experimented with diet restrictions in 2016. Peterson reiterated several times that he is not giving dietary advice". CanterburyUK (talk) 16:02, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

reduce a whole lot of words ( it does rather overdue the diet thing - including analysis by 3rd-parties of the cons of such a diet has been overkill for some time)
Completely disagree with this entire comment.

To remove the mention of mainstream views would run afoul of WP:FRINGE. See: Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community...

We cannot remove the discussion of the main-stream viewpoint and then keep the discussion of the diet, as this would violate the above guideline. And we cannot remove the entire thing (discussion of the diet and the mainstream view), as this would violate WP:DUE. So the best we can do is trim a bit, as I mentioned above. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:21, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

How would simply not mentioning the diet (omitting it completely) violate DUE? Blueboar (talk) 14:36, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Because multiple reliable sources reference the diet in relation to Peterson. Searching for references to Peterson, his meat diet comes up frequently. so per WP:RSUW, it would be DUE to mention the diet. Omitting it altogether would omit something Peterson has been heavily criticized for publicly, which to me is an NPOV problem. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:26, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Huh… I have a diametrically opposite perspective on this … so few of the RS that discuss Peterson bother to mention this diet, that it is UNDUE for us to mention it. I think mentioning it blows it out of proportion. Anyway, that’s my 2¢ on it. Have fun arguing. Blueboar (talk) 23:45, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Meat-only diet and consensus of experts

Re: this passage:

Whilst some Nutrition experts, including Jack Gilbert of the University of Chicago, suggest that such a diet can result in "severe dysregulation" including a severe deficit of short-chain fatty acids and calcium, an increase in total cholesterol, and cardiac issues.; other sources criticise this opinion; such as the International Journal of General Medicine which reports that: "The association between a plant-based diet (vegetarianism) and extended life span is increasingly criticised since it may be based on the lack of representative data and insufficient removal of confounders such as lifestyles." based on an analysis of meat intake and life expectancy at a population level based on ecological data published by the United Nations agencies from 175 countries.

Sources

We should not be presenting these as competing views with equal validity. This violates WP:FRINGE which quite clearly states we need to represent the consensus of medical experts appropriately and not give false weight to fringe opinions.

The International Journal of General Medicine is an open-access journal with a pretty abysmal scimago rank. And an impact factor of 2.445 which is pretty low for medicine. This particular paper is WP:PRIMARY, whereas the sources we use to represent the medical consensus are secondary, journal review articles which represent the consensus opinion of medical experts. Including a systematic review and meta-analysis. E.g. [12] [13][14].

We should not be representing a primary opinion piece as though it is on the same level of evidence as a systematic review and meta-analysis. Especially in medical matters. See also: WP:MEDASSESS and WP:FALSEBALANCE. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:53, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Shibbolethink, thanks for taking the time to comment.

The current page really does seem Undue with so much detail about diets. There are too many sources, 4, attached to the paragraph about dangers of meat only. One is a WebMD page that does not even contain the word meat! One is an opinion piece from Healthline, mostly about Mikhaila.

What do you think - those 2 were always Undue?

One link is to "Current Opinion in Endocrinology & Diabetes and Obesity " - I know nothing about scimago ranks - how does that compare? And the final source was "Frontiers of Cardiovascular Medicine" ? CanterburyUK (talk) 16:15, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

One is a WebMD page that does not even contain the word meat! One is an opinion piece from Healthline, mostly about Mikhaila.
The HealthLine piece is actually not an opinion piece. It's a news report that is editorially reviewed by the publication's editorial team. This is actually an extremely high quality source as far as news sources go, per WP:BESTSOURCES. I would actually agree the WebMD piece is probably not relevant or verifying the content and should be removed. Though it is true, as an aside, that a deficit in short-chain fatty acids is one major drawback of a meat-only diet (as described in the other listed sources).

What do you think - those 2 were always Undue?
I don't think you're understanding what DUE/UNDUE means. DUE/UNDUE refers to content, not sources. If our sources refer to the subject (and by limited extension, their direct relatives in relation to them), and the sources are good, and many sources do so, then we mention it. The more high quality sources, the more we mention it. The fewer high quality sources, the less we mention it. It's not "Is a source DUE?" It's "Is this content DUE, according to the sources?"

And the final source was "Frontiers of Cardiovascular Medicine" ?

Frontiers of Cardiovascular Medicine has a higher impact factor at ~6. Its more important, however, that the publication itself is a systematic review and meta-analysis. This is the highest quality form of a source for medical questions according to WP:MEDASSESS. This is exactly how we determine consensus in the expert community according to WP:MEDSCI. See: Even in reputable medical journals, different papers are not given equal weight. Studies can be categorized into levels of evidence,[15] and editors should rely on high-level evidence, such as systematic reviews.(MEDASSESS) and Wikipedia policies on the neutral point of view and not publishing original research demand that we present prevailing medical or scientific consensus, which can be found in recent, authoritative review articles, in statements and practice guidelines issued by major professional medical or scientific societies. (MEDSCI; emphasis mine)

One link is to "Current Opinion in Endocrinology & Diabetes and Obesity " - I know nothing about scimago ranks - how does that compare? Current Opinion in Endocrinology & Diabetes and Obesity has a higher IF at ~3, but not as high. However, this publication is a SECONDARY peer-reviewed expert literature review of this exact topic. With this and the systematic review above, it literally does not get much better. The only better source we could have is a consensus opinion statement from a professional body, and I couldn't find one on this topic.

The PRIMARY source you linked, however, is the lowest quality type of evidence for this question. See: WP:MEDASSESS and WP:MEDANIMAL. Particularly: Using small-scale, single studies makes for weak evidence, and allows for cherry picking of data. Studies cited or mentioned in Wikipedia should be put in context by using high-quality secondary sources rather than by using the primary sources. (MEDANIMAL; emphasis mine) and The best evidence for efficacy of treatments and other health interventions is mainly from meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).[16] Systematic reviews of literature that include non-randomized studies are less reliable.[17] Narrative reviews can help establish the context of evidence quality. (MEDASSESS; emphasis mine). The study you cited is actually none of these things. It's a primary scholarly publication that is not secondarily covered here. It could even be a violation of WP:NOR if the interpretation is so intricate as to typically require secondary coverage. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:06, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Even if the IJGM were a top-notch source, this should be removed because it's completely irrelevant. Unless I'm missing something, it says nothing about a meat-only diet - it's comparing vegetarian diets with diets that contain some meat. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:03, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

100% my thought as well, forgot to say it. It's what-about-ism to say "oh meat diets are bad?" "The association between a plant-based diet (vegetarianism) and extended life span is increasingly criticised"

We are not here in this article to debate meat vs. plant diets. We are here to describe what Petereson does, what his daughter promotes, and then what the consensus expert opinion is. That is the essence of WP:FRINGE and WP:DUE. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:26, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Shibbolethink

would you be able to respond to the specific questions I asked? CanterburyUK (talk) 17:47, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Asked and answered. See above — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:24, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Let's summarise and end this meat-diet section, that I kicked off

This section has undoubtedly improved the page, it now no longer contains the factual error that Peterson is 'promoting' his meat diet.

I had hoped to reduce the 'bloat' further: following Shibbolethink's lead who had written this week:

• "we are not Peterson's website, advocate, editorial, or opinion page. We should only give what is necessary for encyclopedic summary here. Doing otherwise would bloat the page."

Despite discussion, editors didn't agree on a shorter set of words. It IMHO still contains too many words and sources about whether a Meat-only diet is healthy.

Given that the page has for a long time wrongly stated that Peterson promoted it, I requested to include the quotation from an existing source that: "Peterson reiterated several times that he is not giving dietary advice" as that would help redress the prior mis-information here.

Shibbolethink at minimum was not in agreement.

So the page is left pretty much unchanged.

I don't know what other editors think: But my view is that page still suffers from bloat, overall.

It may be helpful to hear from wider editors- I'll start a section to invite views.

Regards the overall dialogue with Shibbolethink - it stopped when they avoided the 'fade into history' question I put to them in regards to their statement: "Time will tell if that content should remain or fade into history as most of these little controversies do" (I'd asked: which will fade away first - the College of Psychiatrist's issue: or film maker Oliva Wilde's statement?).

Instead of giving their view on that - they accused me of saying something I had not. And asked me not to ping them (I guess that means contact on their talk page? I googled and found nothing obvious) so I was not able to chat privately with them. And they said they would not continue the dialogue.

So as above - I will open a section to wider editors; to give views on bloat overall on the Jordan Peterson page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CanterburyUK (talk • contribs) 14:39, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Regards the overall dialogue with Shibbolethink - it stopped when they avoided the 'fade into history' question I put to them in regards to their statement
Please stop casting WP:ASPERSIONS and focus on content, not contributors. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:22, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

"Peterson promotes meat-only diet" - the page had incorrectly stated that for some time

There was an untrue claim made in the page - quite some time ago - a statement of the form: "Peterson does X".
Last week the untrue claim was removed: the page no longer says "Peterson does X".

That is good. However for an extended period of time (perhaps years?) -

• all readers to this page have been misled
• Peteson has been misrepresented.

I propose that to help rebalance the bad influence the page has been: that a statement be added of the positive truth : "Peterson does not do X".

That helps because:

• many readers have read the false claim - and trusting wipedia some will have promoted that untruth about Peterson wider. If those people ever say: "look for yourself, it's on Wiki" referring to this web page: then anyone following their lead will come here and immediately see : "ah, that claim is in fact not true at all"
• whereas currently, they come here; and are NOT better informed: the page is silent on the matter.

The untruth that we removed last week:

• that "Peterson promotes his Meat Diet"

There is a source already in the page, that we can quote from:

• "Peterson reiterated several times that he is not giving dietary advice"
• https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2018/08/the-peterson-family-meat-cleanse/567613/

PS - it throws a bad light on the quality of the editorship of this page (on all of us who ever edited it) - that we allowed an Untruth to be stated despite the actual truth being there in a Source the page referred too. Staring us in the face. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CanterburyUK (talk • contribs) 11:15, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Disagree, it is not wikipedia's job to pursue truth, justice, or "balance". See: WP:NOTTRUTH, WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, and WP:FALSEBALANCE. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:17, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

CanterburyUK, Shibbolethink is correct. As an extreme example, if for 6 months the article said Peterson was an arsonist. When correcting that entry we wouldn't say "Peterson isn't an arsonist" since, presumably, we don't have sources that say he isn't. Basically we don't "publish corrections", we just correct. If too much emphasis has been placed on his diet it would be reasonable to cut that content down. I don't personally think it's overly notable, especially if he doesn't actively promote it. However, I haven't looked to see what many of the sources say about it. Springee (talk) 13:56, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Right, the only reason I think it's okay to leave the article as-is, with a paragraph on his diet, is the sheer number, depth, and overall quality of sources which discuss this fact about him and his daughter in relation to him. These are some of our highest quality sources: [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23].

And there are actually more that we haven't cited: [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30]

The other aspect of this is, sure, Peterson has said he "doesn't promote" the diet. But then we have more than a dozen sources showing him doing exactly that: extolling its benefits, describing to his audience how it's helped him, how great he feels, etc. Clearly we have a guy who has his audience's attention, talking about how great something is for himself. So how do we deal with such controversial things, where we have conflicting evidence of what someone says they do and then what they actually do? We report the facts. Peterson's daughter has actively promoted it. He himself is on the diet as an attempt to treat his health problems. And we just don't report or describe or touch such subjective interpretations whenever possible.

This is the best course of action except where our sources overwhelmingly say X thing. Which they don't overwhelmingly say "Peterson promoted X." but they also don't say "Peterson didn't promote X." — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:06, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

The article is citing bogus sources that are against our medical guidelines. This paper [31] currently cited on the article fails MEDRS as it is a primary opinion paper. It was written by a carnivore diet advocate not a physician or someone trained in medicine. She goes by the name "KetoCarnivore" and she has commented about Wikipedia citing her paper [32]. This review paper was published by Frontiers media a predatory publisher and does not mention Peterson [33], nor does the other paper. This is some of the worst sourcing I have seen and very odd how those papers have been cited. Not only are the sources unreliable, it is original research. Psychologist Guy (talk) 03:50, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

I have raised this issue at WP:FTN Psychologist Guy (talk) 04:12, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Classic British liberal?

Describing Peterson as a classic liberal, British or otherwise is ridiculous. Its the kind of nonsense that brings wikipedia into disrepute. It is inconceivable that any of the great British liberals would have the devoted fan base in the alt right that Peterson has. Adding 3 citations from American right wing publications doesn't help - "I referenced it" does not make it true. 2001:BB6:AC63:5900:7997:4AE5:59DD:32ED (talk) 08:50, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

He described himself as such. That doesn’t make it true, or even make it false. It’s a clear objective statement of his own self-opinion. We are labeling nothing. You’re complaining about a nonexistent strawman here. Dronebogus (talk) 09:31, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Interview

There is a long "interview" of JP by his daughter on Youtube concerning the issue(s) with the College of Ps. Is this sort of thing something that should be included as an additional site?2600:6C67:1C00:5F7E:897A:A0CB:5D9E:7DA3 (talk) 01:57, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

No, because it is not covered by secondary independent reliable sources. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:47, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Thoughts on 1st para -so that readers get a fuller overview of his profile

Adding a final sentence could help the reader. The first para is this currently:

• "is a Canadian psychologist, author, and media commentator. He began to receive widespread attention in the late 2010s for his views on cultural and political issues, often described as conservative. Peterson has described himself as a classic British liberal and a traditionalist."

Things to add:

• that he's an Emeritus professor of X Uni
• writer of best seller X (so far it only says 'author'
• his papers unusually widely cited
• and other top level snippets from the page below

Many Wiki pages do that - for sportsmen - 1st line may say 'cricketer' but later in para would add helpful detail "world champion in 20xx".

What such items would be most helpful to the reader.

The first para - is the one that Mobile users see above the picture photo - so helpful to finish the big picture before the 'page detail' starts - IMHO. CanterburyUK (talk) 14:51, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Note: the user above has been page blocked indefinitely from this page due to violations of WP:BLUDGEON, WP:1RR, and WP:TPG. See here for more details. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:49, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Diet analysis

As mentioned at the noticeboard, it's a Jordan Peterson article, not a dietary science article. This isn't the place to try to cover whether his diet is good or bad. North8000 (talk) 19:09, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I guess I would disagree with this because WP:FRINGE says, clearly: Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community. and also: Criticisms of fringe theories should be reported on relative to the visibility, notability, and reliability of the sources that do the criticizing.

The meat-only diet is a fringe-idea which does not have acceptance in the medical nutrition community. We have a duty to describe that level of acceptance here. This is an article which is about Peterson and we mention his diet, his daughter's diet, and their claims that it improves their health. If we're going to do that (which I think we have to per DUE), then, per FRINGE, we ALSO need to describe the level of acceptance and mainstream perspective. The Atlantic piece is exactly what we need to do that: 1) it's about Peterson, his daughter, and the diet. and 2) it includes some mainstream perspective. Why would we exclude that?

As an aside, I think we did have a limited agreement over at WP:FTN that it should be included. just in discussion between @Psychologist Guy and myself. of course we need to discuss here now, given WP:BRD. Just saying, there was a discussion about it, and the most limited agreement we have is that the Atlantic part about Jack Gilbert should be included. Are you saying that should not be? — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:43, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm looking forward to Wikipedia showcasing the Noam Chomsky Killer Abs workout regime and the Judith Butler guide to Texas hold 'em bluffing strategies...  Tewdar  21:01, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Butler: "Poker is performative".

Obligatory on-topic comment so I don't get NOTFORUM-slapped: I haven't checked the body of sources to see if any mention of the diet itself is due, but if we're going to mention it, the mainstream view as reported by The Atlantic is the least we can do to stay FRINGE-compliant. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:14, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Shibbolethink, my advice is to leave it out. The article is about Jordan Peterson, not about the diet. The item that you quoted is relevant to this: "Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail" This article doesn't cover the diet in detail and shouldn't. There's also the aspect of degree of WP:Relevance ... not policy but something to keep in mind for article quality. Direct would something about Jordan Peterson, once removed would be about his daughter, twice removed would what the Atlantic said about his daughter, three times removed would be what what the Atlantic said about his daughter's diet, four times removed would be what the Atlantic said about what an expert said about the diet of the daughter of the subject of the article. And in one spot where the Atlantic referenced Jordan Peterson directly the "4 times removed" goes down to three. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:36, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

If we are to mention the diet, the fact that it's bunk is relevant and important contextual information. This hasn't been crowbarred in - the source that is used to support the rest of the content about the subject's adherence to the diet also sees fit to describe the scientific take on the diet itself - so should we. If the feeling is that the stuff about the diet is undue then of course this question evaporates, but so long as we're mentioning the diet we should include this. Girth Summit _(blether) 22:41, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah this is exactly how I feel about it. The Sources are telling us that the diet is as due as the criticism of it. So if we mention one, we also need to mention the other. At bare minimum, that's mentioning Gilbert or Dennet's critique of it, which both mention Peterson by name.

@North8000 Okay, it seems what you’re saying is, criticism of Petersons diet (which we have in the Dennet nutritionist source) is third degree on the same level as discussing Petersons daughter’s diet. So if we mention one (the daughter's diet), why wouldn’t we include the content providing criticism of Peterson himself and his diet?? E.g. Dennet. Those are the same "degree" by your framing. Unless I'm missing something here. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:49, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

To clarify, I meant that both were pretty far removed regarding degree of relevance. I was just giving my thoughts / advice which is to leave it out and my rationale. To that I would add there a difference between "not a good idea" and fringe. More vaguely speaking, it does have a POV look to be including rebuttals to or deprecation of someone's views in the article on them. But it was just my thoughts/advice and I'm happy to move on from there without worrying about the outcome. I don't plan to closely watch so please ping me if you think I might be able to help. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:34, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

It appears the marginal/thin consensus here, above, and at FTN (consensus via compromise) is:

"either exclude the diet stuff altogether, or mention both the diet stuff and a limited mention of the mainstream perspective from sources which mention Peterson and his daughter -i.e. 1-2 short sentences about Gilbert and Dennet". as described by myself, @Firefangledfeathers, @Girth Summit, @Psychologist Guy)

Of those options, which is palatable to those who did not fully agree with the idea of inclusion of criticism? (e.g. @North8000, @Korny O'Near @Blueboar) ? I think, from reading through the various threads from my admittedly biased perspective, the consensus via compromise answer is "remove all mention of the diet".

Am I reading that consensus wrong? How would you folks read it? Is an RFC or similar a better option? I would really like to come to a solution on this we can all agree on, but I would like to do it the correct way. Thanks — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:04, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Removing mention of his diet doesn't make sense - it's a notable fact about him, he talks about it regularly, and it's been covered in various sources. It was also a factor in his 2019-2020 health problems, although the article doesn't say that right now for some reason. I think the only question is whether the article should include a sentence like "Scientists say this is a bad idea". Korny O'Near (talk) 20:18, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm not too fussed about whether or not to include it. I haven't read the sources widely enough to have a feel for whether it is something he talks about a lot, and/or it's something sources about him mention a lot. What I do feel strongly about though is that if we are to mention the diet, we need to contextualise it by mentioning that the diet is, well, bunk. Girth Summit _(blether) 20:22, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I recommend putting HIS diet should be in the article, although the article would be OK without it. An edge case whether his daughter's diet should be in there.....I'd lean toward leaving it out. And definitely recommend leave out analysis / critique of the diet. North8000 (talk) 20:27, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Just to test your thinking here, and I'm sorry if this comes across as aggressive (I don't mean it to), but you seem to be arguing that when a public figure makes a statement about something that is (to put it generously) at odds with the mainstream scientific consensus, we should restrict ourselves to reporting their position, and refrain from mentioning what other people say on the matter? If someone were to make claims about vaccines being dangerous, for example, we should just report those claims and not link to our articles on vaccine hesitancy? In my view, when a public figure and academic publicly takes a position which is far outside the realms of scientific consensus, we do our readers a disservice by describing the position without mentioning that consensus. Girth Summit _(blether) 20:39, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I enjoy the process and your question is enjoyable not aggressive. If the statement is clearly false and clearly could sway and cause harm to readers, I would do some bad article design and inform readers of such. IMO including info on what he eats/ate falls short of the criteria on several of those criteria.First it's not even clear what his diet is. What is the quantity and variety of vegetables? Second, there are lots of bad diets out there. Turns that what was the official "food pyramid" for many decades was an unhealthy baseless myth. Science has debunked "low fat" as a way to health and weight loss, yet it is still repeated as fact. Vegetarian can be dangerous and unhealthy unless you make an special effort to include foods with certain amino acids. We don't put in rebuttals and caution statements when those are mentioned. Finally, even if it was fringe, the "include balancing statements" part of fringe says it's for when the fringe was substantially covered, not just mentioned. If, in biographies, we put in rebuttals and analysis every time it's mentioned that they prescribe to something that is scientifically baseless or false, lots of articles will end up sounding like hit pieces. Think biographies filled with rebuttals to their religion, new age remedies, everything paranormal, spiritual, folk remedies, astrology 50% of all diets, all wrong perceptions etc. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:32, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

What is the quantity and variety of vegetables?

From the sources, I think "zero". The most recent thing we have is that he eats only "beef, salt, and water"! But ofc in the hospital and afterwards, I have no idea what that looked like, especially in a non-American hospital... — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:52, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Relgion? No, absolutely not - we're not here to pit science against religion. Other stuff - yes, when it's in the context of a subject who presents as a mainstream (if perhaps slightly maverick) public intellectual, I think we should note when their claims are fringey (and when the sources feel the need to point that out). With rock stars, Hollywood celebrities and the like we might make slightly different editorial decisions, but if an eminent professor of philosophy, who was in other ways quite respectable and mainstream, repeatedly made comments along the lines of 'there might be something in this flat Earth stuff', I would expect our article not merely to comment on the fact that they had said it, but also to include rebuttal of their views. If the content of our article is accurate, he lives (or claims to live) only on meat, salt and water - the idea that such a diet is good for you, or that long-term adherence to it can be used to control any medical condition, strikes me very much as a fringe view. Girth Summit _(blether) 20:16, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: I didn't spend a long time on it but the article said also vegetables, and the one source said greens. If it's meat and a big amount and variety of vegetables it's only not fringe, it would probably be better than the average American diet. :-) I'm not worried about how this ends up, I was just giving thoughts and answering your question. Arguing against myself, if the article gives the impression that "meat only" (= muscle meat only) is a good idea that might be harmful and perhaps an offsetting warning might be good. Even lions / predators have a more diverse diet than that because they eat the whole animal. North8000 (talk) 21:03, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, the article says that he started out with "only meat and a few vegetables" from 2016, and then from 2018 "he stopped eating vegetables altogether and continued eating only beef, salt, and water." What isn't entirely clear to me is whether he still talks about that diet, or claims to be living on it - both the supporting sources are themselves from 2018, so reporting it in the present tense is perhaps a bit of a stretch. Without more recent sources, we might be better saying something along the lines of 'In 2018, Jordan declared that he was eating only beef, salt and water; expert dietician Joe Soap commented that that was a really bad idea.' (For the avoidance of doubt, I'm not proposing that exact wording...) Girth Summit _(blether) 21:12, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Okay this conversation is totally changing what my assessment was! So far, it seems there are two basic questions (as described above). And here is how people fall on those Qs (please fix it if I mischaracterize your position in any way!!!, and add yourself if I haven't!!!):

1) Should we include any diet info?

Yes, but only Peterson's, not his daughter's (per WP:DUE and WP:BLP)

-@North8000 (recommend, but would be okay without it)

-

Yes, include both his and his daughter's (per WP:DUE and WP:RSUW)

-@Shibbolethink

-@Korny O'Near

-@Psychologist Guy

-

No, exclude the diet

-@Blueboar (lean towards)

-

Unsure

-@Girth Summit

-@Firefangledfeathers

-

2) Should we include a limited mention of the mainstream perspective via Jack Gilbert and Dennet?

Yes, include the mainstream view, if we're including the diet at all (per WP:FRINGE)

-@Shibbolethink

-@Girth Summit

-@Firefangledfeathers

-@Psychologist Guy

-@Hob Gadling

-

No, do not mention the mainstream view here (as that passage in WP:FRINGE does not apply)

-@North8000

-@Korny O'Near

-@Blueboar

-@CNMall41 - here from WP:FTN

-

Unsure

-

Does that sound about right? — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:55, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

That sounds right to me... nice analysis. It's probably time for an RfC. Korny O'Near (talk) 21:04, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, and nice work. North8000 (talk) 21:03, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I have just looked at the article and the few lines that mention his diet. I have no problem with it, I think the issues have been resolved and we should leave it at that. I think we only need 1 or 2 lines about it at the very most. theatlantic source is a reliable one and so is todaysdietitian. We have an article on the carnivore diet which we link to, it's also possible that Peterson's daughter might qualify for a Wikipedia article where the diet could be expanded as she spends a living promoting it. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:07, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

From my standpoint, I don't consider this to be "unresolved"; I was just trying to be of help. Please do (RFC or not) whatever y'all wish. North8000 (talk) 21:29, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2023

Change "In 1985, he moved to Montreal to attend McGill University where earned his PhD" to "where he earned his PhD". Anonymouseditor8 (talk) 03:54, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

 Done Cannolis (talk) 09:50, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Grammar mistake

He should be changed to he 2A01:C22:BDFC:800:5AF4:8468:8C8A:988F (talk) 23:05, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Where in the article? Schazjmd (talk) 23:14, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

source for some views unreliable?

one source claims he supports redistribution of wealth - this claim isn't cited within that article, and other sources on him indicate otherwise Bodywithout (talk) 01:58, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 August 2023

cite number 168 seems to have 2 dead links. The link to the web archive is dead, and only says "This URL has been excluded from the Wayback Machine.". And the primary link (http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/jordan-peterson-the-right-to-be-politically-incorrect) is broken and only redirects to National Post's front page.

We should change the primary link to "https://nationalpost.com/opinion/jordan-peterson-the-right-to-be-politically-incorrect" (notice the missing "news." in the beginning of the URL). The content seems to have been moved there, and the quote this citation is citing is included.

 Done Xan747 (talk) 20:28, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

We should also change or remove the archive link. To change it we need to find a different site that does archive that website and if we can't find such a website we should remove the archive link. Theaxeisaxe (talk) 16:56, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done I could not find an alternative archive, so I removed the existing archive URL. Xan747 (talk) 20:28, 1 August 2023 (UTC)