Talk:Jordan Peterson/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Recent unexplained reverts

Nobody has given any rationale for these unexplained reverts, which at a glance seem to more accurately summarize the relevant sources. Can anyone explain the reason for them? If not, I'll go ahead and reinstate them - possibly with additional sources to be safe, since while it accurately summarizes the existing sources, finding more isn't difficult. --Aquillion (talk) 03:41, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Hes not commonly described as right wing. but the main issue was that "right wing" was added in front of an already existing source that said something different --FMSky (talk) 11:52, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Since the original edit was challenged the editor making the change needs consensus. I don't see the change as an improvement. If you disagree please provide details explaining why. Springee (talk) 12:40, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

This smells like WP:SQS. Users reverting and objecting to seemingly fine edits with no explanation in their edit summary or even here (other than "not an improvement", which is clearly not an adequate explanation). You shouldn't be objecting to an edit that provides verifiable material without giving a valid reason. And before someone points to WP:ONUS, that's still not an excuse to revert a change to an article without adequately explaining why.

The addition of context that explains who has called Peterson right-wing and how frequently is a clear improvement to me.

We also have more sources describing him as right-wing than we do conservative, so I restored that part to the second sentence of the lede. ––FormalDude (talk) 01:14, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

First, the ONUS is on you to show that this change is DUE. You claim SQS but why is that more significant that what others might see as POV pushing? To establish the "often described as" you need to do something more than just show a source. Really this sort of throwing out labels as hard as possible and early as possible is poor writing style. For example, a google news search for "Jordan Peterson" returns 10k hits. However, if you add "right wing" or "conservative" to that search you get about 500 hits each. It seems like most sources don't fixate on either term. That seems to be a wikipedia phenomena. It also suggests that neither should be viewed as "often". I don't see your change as an improvement. The Guardian, while considered reliable, is not bias free and we need to be careful when it mixes writer's opinions with facts. Also, the only place the article calls Peterson himself "rightwing" is in the title. I think VOX was the only other source in that block that supported "right wing" Again, it's a source where we need to separate writer opinion from hard facts. Springee (talk) 01:44, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure you even read my comment, and this is too small a change to get drawn into a prolonged discussion about, so this will be my sole reply to you.

Nobody objecting said anything about POV concerns (nobody objecting gave any reason until your comment just now). Google search numbers are misleading for a plethora of reasons. I do agree that "often" isn't the best wording, fixed. Titles are part of the source, which I know you know because just five days ago you removed a reliable source from PragerU specifically because of its title–you can't do a 360 and say titles don't matter now. Three of the used sources support right-wing: Guardian, Vox, and Crossover99. Feel free to take any to WP:RSN. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:23, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Titles/headlines are not part of the source per RS wp:HEADLINES. You appear to be confusing my concern with the overall bias of an article including it's public headline with the use of headlines to verify content. In the PragerU example I don't think either of us were claiming the headline was used to support a specific claim in the PragerU article. Springee (talk) 02:41, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I'd suggest leaving "right wing" out. It's a questionable characterization that at best does not provide info and appears to need cherry picking of biased sources to come up with it. I said "at best" because he covers an immense range of areas that are not any "wing", doesn't touch the majority of "right wing" topics and so characterizing by politics is at best uninformative and more likely misleading/confusing. In some areas his views coincide with the conservative side of a US culture war topic which those "sources" of opposite views would fire a volley by doing the pejorative of calling someone who is primarily an intellectual / philosopher "right wing" Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:26, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

"Right-wing" is not a pejorative. It can be a polemic device when used by left-wingers, but it's not a pejorative by itself. And we're citing reliable sources anyway, not left-wingers. Not even "far-right" is a pejorative, its an objective description of a position on the political spectrum.

he covers an immense range of areas that are not any "wing" This is original research, almost exactly the opposite of what reliable sources say. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:38, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

IMO in the this context (as detailed) it is. Also, OR refers to article content....if you apply that criteria to talk pages, then 99% of talk pages are "OR" so you should not assert/imply that being in the 99% makes it invalid. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:47, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm aware of how OR works, my point was that you will find no reliable sourcing verifying that claim of yours. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:57, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken we article cites Vox and The Guardian. Neither are unreliable but neither are bastions of objectivism either. The author of the Guardian article you added is, per his bio, "a music writer for the Guardian and Observer as well as magazines including Q, GQ and Mojo. He is the author of 33 Revolutions Per Minute: A History of Protest Songs (Faber)." But, per wp:HEADLINE we shouldn't assume he wrote the headline. He didn't use right wing in the article itself. Perhaps we should start with more objective information about Peterson then leave the characterizations to the end of the intro. Springee (talk) 02:48, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps we should, but that is a much larger undertaking, and I'm working with what we've got. Simply put, using just "conservative" was not representative of the sources that are being used to support it. Could we do better by overhauling the section with better sources? Probably. But until we get there, this is a good compromise. Objecting to the improvement because it's not the best possible improvement is a false dilemma. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:54, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

the addition of right-wing was reverted multiple times by different people and in this discussion more people are AGAINST including it. you should find a consensus first and not reinstate the disputed content over and over again. please self revert until a consensus is reached --FMSky (talk) 03:26, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

btw Vox doesnt even call him right wing, they just say he is popular among right wing audiences --FMSky (talk) 03:28, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Supporting it we have Fred Zepelin, Aquillion, and myself. Opposing we have you, Springee, and North. That's 3 to 3. ––FormalDude (talk) 03:40, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

All, please keep in mind this article has a 1RR limit. Please avoid incidentally crossing it. Springee (talk) 04:05, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes that means that there is no consensus for the suggested controversial change and as such should not be implemented --FMSky (talk) 13:34, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

"Bastions of objectivism" would probably not be reliable, given its right-wing leanings. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:36, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

• Just to be clear, the sole objection is sourcing? I think that objection is easily satisfied, but before I undertake a search for sources, can people specify what sort of sourcing they'd want to see before we say that he has been called right-wing? --Aquillion (talk) 21:10, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Its also undue in my opinion. he is widely known as a conservative figure so it should be presented as such in the lead (especially since the article doesnt even mention him being a right winger anywhere at all). the current "often described as conservative" is spot on --FMSky (talk) 21:20, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Due weight is decided based on the weight in the sources. Can you give me at least a rough ballpark description of what sort of coverage in WP:RSes would convince you that he's also widely-known as a right-wing figure? Your note that we don't cover his right-wing views in the body is true, but when they were added there you reverted that - can I take your shift to focusing on whether it's leadworthy to indicate that you accept that it ought to be covered in the body? Or that your removal of the text from the body was an accidental consequence of a broad revert to remove it from the lead? Either way, of course, expanding there is naturally the first step to take, in terms of resolving this dispute - I think the best approach would be to restore and perhaps elaborate on the bits in the body that you reverted, with additional sources; then we can see whether the amount we can support and source in the body justifies including it in the lead. --Aquillion (talk) 21:40, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I think putting this sort of "sources describe him as" later in the lead would be fine. It reads like an attempt to jam labels into the early part of the lead when we put "described as" in the first few sentences of a BLP. I do get that many people feel it's important to put such labels as early as possible into an article. The results are article that read like partisan, persuasion based journalism rather than impartial, encyclopedic writing. Springee (talk) 21:48, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Time for a review of terms, alt-right and far-right.

Many WP:RS describe Peterson as alt-right and far-right, especially in the decade since he changed from being a non-notable pop psychologist to rise to fame primarily as an anti-lgbtq crusader. Per a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view I suggest a review of these sources to determine the dueness and weight of the descriptions and if they should be included in the article lead. 76.142.90.140 (talk) 14:50, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

No this is a foolish idea that's failed to reach a consensus multiple times, and for good reason. Also, your personal political POV oozes out of every edit that you make, and you are a sockpuppet who should have been banned already. Philomathes2357 (talk) 16:58, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:AGF please. 76.142.90.140 (talk) 17:34, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

hello User:Saikyoryu --FMSky (talk) 17:40, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Not me. Hello whoever you are. Do you have a comment on the topic? 76.142.90.140 (talk) 17:46, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Initials in name

I've noticed that his name is commonly written as "Jordan B. Peterson" rather than "Jordan Peterson". For example all his social media accounts and his website (as well as his Wikipedia account name) seems to refer to him like this (or shortened as "JBP"). In media & common usage it seems to be quite split, with some saying "Jordan Peterson" and others "Jordan B. Peterson", and some mixing the two in the same article. MOS:INITIALS appears to say that you should take both what the authors preference is and what is commonly used into account, so I'm not sure what it should be in this case. If anyone has any thoughts please reply. 212.116.83.55 (talk) 21:54, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

It could go either way, since media coverage is split, as you mention. But I think calling him "Jordan Peterson" is sufficient, unless another person named "Jordan Peterson" becomes notable enough that there's confusion over which Jordan Peterson is being discussed, in which case "Jordan B. Peterson" would be preferred. Pecopteris (talk) 00:16, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Bias and framing Peterson as a cultist

Statements included from a former Harvard student about Peterson having a “cult” like following and students crying are highly subjective and biased and inserted merely to bias the reader against him. There is no relevance for this article. That statement should be deleted. 109.198.0.3 (talk) 12:52, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Most editors bristle at the suggestion that an article they have worked on might contain bias. However, I think it's fair to assume that the majority of contributors to this article dislike Jordan Peterson, and this is apparent by subtly biased word choice. Instead of "his lectures are available on Youtube", it used to say "his lectures propagate through YouTube" - implying that his lectures are propaganda. Things like that. I plan on reading the article carefully one of these days and fixing some other things like this. I'll have to take another look at the passage you've highlighted. Overall, I will say that the article is pretty decent, and people have done their best to mask their disdain for the subject. Pecopteris (talk) 14:11, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree on the bias problem with the article. But IMO "cult like following" seldom implies a cult and IMO sort of says that it isn't. North8000 (talk) 12:28, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

It is a phrase I've seen used describe rock bands where it is presented as a good thing. I don't think that it is particularly ambiguous or non-neutral. The use of "propagate" does not imply a claim of propaganda. I don't object to either of these things being reworded to remove any possible misunderstandings but none of this justifies the claim made by the OP. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:36, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Richard D. Wolff material provided without secondary source

@Pecopteris and KronosAlight:, the primary source notice that was removed here [1] looks valid to me. While Wolff's views may be DUE, we need a secondary source, not something published by Wolff himself as the source for the claim. This is particurally important when the material from Wolff is self published/not provided by something like an independent news organization. This is especially true when dealing with BLP claims. See WP:SELFPUB and WP:INDEPENDENT. The tag should be restored and a 3rd party source found to establish weight or the content should be removed. Springee (talk) 03:12, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm pinging The History Wizard of Cambridge as the editor who added the content and GuardianH who added the tag. Springee (talk) 03:26, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I favor removing the material. There are so many reliable non-opinion sources that few opinion pieces are likely to be due. There are so many opinion pieces that have been published in reliable outlets that it's vanishingly unlikely that a self-published opinion would be due. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:26, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I also favor removing the material. It's of borderline notability, at best. And if it can only be included with an ugly source tag, we might as well remove it. Pecopteris (talk) 04:21, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm fine with this. I removed the tag because the actual content (written by someone else) was of the format 'person x said y about person z'. That doesn't need a secondary source to verify. If there's a broader question about whether it's noteworthy etc. then that's a different matter. KronosAlight (talk) 08:28, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Ontario Divisional Court 2023 decision

Article might refer to the judge writing the decision on Peterson's appeal of his professional regulator's sanctions of him was Paul Schabas whose wiki article cites his role in the Law Society of Ontario compelling social policy statements on diversity dictated by regulator. 198.103.145.50 (talk) 01:02, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

I have partially reverted your edit to the Paul Schabas article. The source you cited for this connection barely mentions Schabas and says nothing about the Law Society. Do not misrepresent sources and do not combine sources to imply something neither directly say. Grayfell (talk) 02:32, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Social media usage?

There could probably be more coverage of his social media usage that led the psychological association to reprimand him. There is plenty of coverage of his antics, such as tweeting that fetish pornography was in fact a CCP govt initiative: https://www.vice.com/en/article/ak3wpz/jordan-peterson-chinese-dick-sucking-factory Zenomonoz (talk) 05:07, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Roles mentioned in lead sentence

There has been disagreement about what roles to mention in the lead sentence. Please note the guideline MOS:ROLEBIO, where it states, "The lead sentence should describe the person as they are commonly described by reliable sources." The current lead sentence is sourced. If anyone wishes to change the lead sentence please provide other sources that support such an edit.

Also, note that the guideline also states: "In general, a position, activity, or role should not be included in the lead paragraph if: a) the role is not otherwise discussed in the lead (per MOS:LEAD, don't tease the reader), b) the role is not significantly covered in the body of the article, or, c) the role is auxiliary to a main profession of the person (e.g. do not add "textbook writer", if the person is an academic)." LK (talk) 12:20, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

You should scan through the archives. As best as I can remember, we had agreement within the past year that author is fine and doesn't need a source, since it's so incontrovertible and supported by the body. "Media commentator" turns out to have been controversial, so we added sources. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:39, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the article body clearly supports this. We even have articles about his books so his roll as an author is not in dispute. The impact and discussions of his books is clearly part of his notability so it would seem odd to avoid calling him an author. Springee (talk) 13:19, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Jordan Peterson/Archive 20 has the discussions I'm thinking about, though they're a bit scattered across multiple sections (a sign of the times). Sources commonly front "author" when introducing Peterson. I scanned through the first few citations and found NYT and Vox. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:50, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

LK, please restore "author" to the lead. Your BOLD edit had been disputed so we should respect the previous consensus lead in the mean time. Springee (talk) 13:24, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Peterson is a distinguished author, indeed. He spent 10 years writing his erudite work Maps of Meaning (1999) and then he firmly established his role as an author with the success of his original and voluminous 24 rules. This characterization should not be controversial at all. Like the others said: please revert to status quo. Trakking (talk) 13:49, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Remove the anti-Peterson bias and propaganda

Legal experts don't "debunk" things. Furthermore, engaging in the appeal to authority fallacy like this, without even so much as a citation I might add, is beneath us, or it should be. It certainly used to be.

"Furthermore, the idea that the bill criminalized speech that does not use a person's preferred pronouns has been debunked by legal experts and no Canadian has been jailed or fined for misgendering after C-16 became law in June 2017." ErikEdits (talk) 08:30, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

There are six citations for this content in the body. ––FormalDude (talk) 09:26, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

The claim has been unambiguously debunked. The only question here is whether we should use the word "debunked" in the lede. I guess we could replace it with something like "widely rejected" or "dismissed as baseless" but is that any better? They mean the pretty much the same thing as "debunked" after all. It is not Wikipedia's doing that Peterson made himself look foolish when he invented Imaginary Canadian Pronoun Jail. We can only tell it as it is. We are not doing anything to gloat over it. There is no bias here. DanielRigal (talk) 11:38, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

While his opposition to the bill is due for the lead, legal scrutiny of claims like being jailed should be left to the article body. Ideally such an analysis should provide some opinion as to the actual range of penalties etc. Springee (talk) 17:55, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, the opinions of other people about C-16 are undue for the lead, but fine for the body. Pecopteris (talk) 19:21, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

We cannot include his rubbish claim in the lede without mentioning that it is widely rejected. Doing so would make it appear more accepted than it actually is. Statements about the truth of a theory must be based upon independent reliable sources, and in this case the reliable sources dismiss his claim as baseless. ––FormalDude (talk) 04:49, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

If it was "X person became famous for arguing that climate change is a hoax" without mentioning the scientific consensus on climate change except in the body which most readers don't get to would also be misleading. (t · c) buidhe 14:24, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

FD, I agree, if the lead says he claimed c-16 could result in jail time, yes we should debunk it. However, we don't have to say "Peterson said C-16 may result in jail time". Instead we can say "he opposes C-16". He isn't notable for overstating the legal consequences of the law. He is notable for opposing it based on what he views to be compelled speech. That he over stated the possible legal consequences is a detail for the body. It's anyone opposed to removing the claim about jail time from the lead?Springee (talk) 14:53, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

@Springee: The lede says Peterson claimed that the bill could make it a crime to fail to use certain genderless pronouns. As long as this is in there, I think we must include the idea that the bill criminalized speech that does not use a person's preferred pronouns has been debunked by legal experts (or something similar, I'm open to better wording). ––FormalDude (talk) 20:01, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

That's fair. When searching for when the disputed debunk was added I didn't catch that there was a slightly earlier lead change here on 9 Sept [2]. That change moved from "compelled speech" to crime. I'll change my roll back proposal to the lead prior to that change (or earlier if there it's a preference) Springee (talk) 21:32, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

This discussion relates to a recent change to the lead (16 Sept [3]) where the claim about jail etc was added to the lead. Absent a consensus to keep this change I think rolling back to the 11 Sept version (the edit prior to the change and seems to be a stable version) addresses this issue. Springee (talk) 16:43, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Noting that on 9 Sept the lead was changed to say "crime" vs "compelled speech" [4] thus I would suggest rolling the lead back at least this far. It appears that text was stable between at least January and 4 Sept.Springee (talk) 21:34, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

I would still oppose rolling this back entirely. In the body, his claim that the bill falls under compelled speech is only mentioned in one sentence and only supported by one source. His claim that it criminalizes misgendering has a full paragraph and is supported by at least eight sources. So it seems to me that the latter is more worthy of inclusion in the lede. ––FormalDude (talk) 21:56, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Putting the debunk in the lead puts undue weight on that particular aspect. The compelled part is sufficient without going into the details. I will note that the CBC notes that critics are concerned about the criminal penalties here [5] even if it isn't as simple as "use wrong pronoun = crime". Also, we are talking about rolling back to the long term stable version of the lead so we need consensus for the change. Springee (talk) 23:06, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

I was the September 9th editor.

My initial aim was to remedy the strange flow breakage caused by the comma in

… would make the use of certain pronouns, "compelled speech", …

I thought the best way to fix that was to recast the sentence, but I did not do that without actually reviewing Peterson's video first. I discovered that Peterson didn't use the phrase "compelled speech" at all. So why the quotation marks? I made a good-faith effort to describe what he did say, while keeping it clear that this was about what Peterson claimed, not about a generally accepted fact. Somebody else might be able to do better, but it hurts to see the awkward comma and the misleading quotation marks come back. JerryOBrien (talk) 10:27, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I note that the comma I wanted out is gone in the current revision. That's a relief. JerryOBrien (talk) 10:29, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Above I posted a link to a CBC article on C-16. [6] The article provides Brenda Cossman, law professor at the University of Toronto, as a subject matter expert. Her view, quoted below, does support the claim that jail could result from refusing to use a preferred pronoun even though it makes it clear the path isn't straightforward and inadvertent or mistaken use would not violate the law. However, this would dispute the statement that the possibility for jail has been debunked.

If someone refused to use a preferred pronoun — and it was determined to constitute discrimination or harassment — could that potentially result in jail time?

It is possible, Brown says, through a process that would start with a complaint and progress to a proceeding before a human rights tribunal. If the tribunal rules that harassment or discrimination took place, there would typically be an order for monetary and non-monetary remedies. A non-monetary remedy may include sensitivity training, issuing an apology, or even a publication ban, he says.

If the person refused to comply with the tribunal's order, this would result in a contempt proceeding being sent to the Divisional or Federal Court, Brown says. The court could then potentially send a person to jail “until they purge the contempt,” he says.

“It could happen,” Brown says. “Is it likely to happen? I don’t think so. But, my opinion on whether or not that's likely has a lot to do with the particular case that you're looking at.”

“The path to prison is not straightforward. It’s not easy. But, it’s there. It’s been used before in breach of tribunal orders.”

Springee (talk) 01:36, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Civil law is separate from criminal law in Canada. As this source says, it is possible to be jailed for contempt of court, but that is a separate offense. (t · c) buidhe 05:14, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Regardless, RS provides an expert opinion that jail is possible even if unlikely. As Precopteris said, Peterson is over playing the risk but those who say the risk is zero also appear to be under playing it. This simply further justifies trolling back to the long term stable version of the lead. Springee (talk) 10:44, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Absent a clear consensus for the September changes to the lead I will roll it back to the long term stable version (I think that was the version on 4 Sept). Springee (talk) 14:13, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Just by a quick nose count I read a consensus to mention the issues with his position in some form; I definitely don't think you can justify a total rollback based on the current discussion. --Aquillion (talk) 18:39, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't think we have reached a consensus for the change and we have a RS that contradicts the debunk claim. Springee (talk) 18:45, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

• That is clearly WP:SYNTH; the source doesn't even mention Peterson. If we have sources saying that his position is debunked, and every source covering him says that it has been debunked, then we need to say the same thing or words to that effect. --Aquillion (talk) 18:39, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

  You are correct that it would be SYNTH to put the CBC article in the blp to say Peterson was correct. However, using RS in the talk page to show that an article claim is questionable and this should be removed from the article is not a SYNTH issue. In fact it is specifically allowed by WP:OR. Springee (talk) 18:49, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

  I looked at the sources for the C-16 section. The CBC article is already included. Furthermore that means the claim of debunked in the lead is not supported by the article body. Beyond that the compelled speech description is better aligned with the article body. Several of the sources fail to mention Peterson, not just the CBC article.Springee (talk) 19:05, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

New controversy

You should add misrepresentation of negative reviews in book blurb to the list of controversies surrounding Jordan Peterson. One may say that this is his publisher's wrongdoing, but somehow the scandal is very tale-telling about how interest in basicly irrelevant pseudo intellectuals posing as conservative gurus is generated. See https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/sep/01/society-of-authors-calls-use-of-bad-reviews-for-book-blurbs-morally-questionable --2003:E5:170A:6ED0:281D:1533:2DD:1048 (talk) 08:38, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Haha. The Guardian is a trashy magazine. They have zero authority behind their words. :) Trakking (talk) 10:14, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

The Guardian is agreed to be generally reliable per WP:RS/P. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED, so criticism can be included. We generally attribute it to the source, e.g. "Ella Creamer said X". Zenomonoz (talk) 22:43, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

In most cases it would be the publishers who choose the quotes, not the authors. Maybe Peterson is an exception but we have no proof of that. If anything, a guideline to stop this sort of thing happening would protect authors from overenthusiastic publishers putting things on their dust jackets that make them look stupid. (Those so inclined may mentally insert their own joke about Peterson's multi-coloured jacket here.) Anyway, this is not really about Peterson, who has quite enough controversies of his own. I think it should be mentioned in the article about the book but it doesn't need to be included here. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:45, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Add External Link

Add an external link for liondiet.com for users to get additional context on the diet. The website is run by Mikhaila Peterson with more information on Jordan and Mikhaila's use of the diet. Lion diet is distinct from the carnivore diet, which it currently redirects to on Wikipedia. Eaglebearer9 (talk) 19:42, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: After reviewing WP:EL, I'm not sure this is an appropriate external link. It might be more appropriate to cite this website in the article in order to give a brief overview of what the lion diet is. Please either ping active editors on this page to establish consensus in favor of the change, or suggest a different edit to include a brief synopsis of the lion diet in the text of the article. —Of the universe (say hello) 13:01, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2024

Please add (he/him) pronouns before his name. Sebastiancook1974 (talk) 00:22, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Before his name? And also we don't list people's pronouns in the lead sentence. We just use the pronouns throughout. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:23, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Is Peterson not an academic

What is the wiki standard for labelling somebody as "an academic" or not? 2604:3D09:D78:1000:F6F4:8026:BB0B:458D (talk) 06:45, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

In the article we refer to him by more specific terms than "academic" because that is so broad as not to tell the readers much. We say "psychologist" and "professor", which are specific terms for academics. He was a professor at a recognised University. He published many papers in recognised academic publications. This makes him an academic. What he does now is nothing to do with academia (and that's the politest way to put it) but his status as an academic remains with him and we describe him accordingly. This is not a value judgement. We have described both better and worse people in similar language. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:56, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Does the Olivia Wilde section in Influence warrant inclusion?

It seems undue coverage to give a bunch of words mentioned by Wilde when promoting her new film (an endaevour where controversy is often stoked in the interests of PR for a new film) : as no other reliable sources have talked about her statement in the last 18 months.Peckedagain (talk) 00:23, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

« Debunked » ?

It’s said that the affirmation that Bill C16 might criminalized the misgendering had been « debunked » by legal experts and no one had been jailed nor fined on that basis. First, these « legal experts » are not named. Second, there is no source Third, debunked means that the initial information was fake. Dubious or controversial would be better since no proof is given nor can be about a risk. Last, a rapid googling gives st least one case of conviction against a company based in the arguments that correct gendering was a human right. Not only was the company ordered to put in place an « inclusion policy » but it was ordered to compensate CAD 30 000 to the plaintiff. Article from 2021. It seems that the four arguments are enough to at least rewrite the paragraph, or possibly suppress it. Diderot1 (talk) 09:20, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

This is being discussed in the section directly above, but I'll entertain anyway.

1. The lede is just a summary, the experts are mentioned in the body.
2. See WP:LEDECITE. It is extensively sourced in the body.
3. His claim is patently false, so "debunked" is perfectly accurate.
4. That conviction was not merely because the complainant was misgendered, it was because they were fired for asking to not be misgendered. I.e. the employer's response is what amounted to discrimination.

––FormalDude (talk) 05:04, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Per this CBC article I quoted in the section above, jail time is at least possible (thus not patently false) however, the expert clearly felt it would take extraordinary circumstances to get there. Springee (talk) 01:38, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Dr. Peterson, I think, overstated the degree of danger posed to free expression by C16, but his detractors, in turn, understated it. I do think that "debunked" is a strange word to use in a legal context, especially when, as Springee's source notes, it is not quite as black and white as that term denotes. What's a better way to phrase this to adequately capture the nuance? I think a good path forward would be to merely mention Peterson's position on C16 in the lede, and offer various opinions about his position in the body. Pecopteris (talk) 02:05, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

i am not convinced by the subtlety of "fired because they asked to being not misgendered". The fact is that not being misgendered is clearly stated as a human right by the judge, and that's the proof that private speech is being compelled. Second the company is forced to design a a specific policy that goes way beyond not firing people because they ask to not being misgendered. These facts contradict the opinion of so called experts. Their opinion if still pertinent must at least be listed as opinion and not as "debunking" the statements of Peterson. Unless disregarding the facts. Diderot1 (talk) 21:57, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Apparently a father in BC had to face a jail sentence for referring publicly to his transgender son as a girl using the birth name she was given. The legal path to send him to jail is rather tortuous: he is charged if breaking a ban, so one could argue it’s not directly because he misgendered, and second the charge is « family violence » meaning referring by birth name is considered as family violence, so here again one can argue it’s not misgendering by itself. Anyway that’s largely enough to relativise the so called debunk by legal experts.

the article Diderot1 (talk) 17:11, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't see how a contempt of court charge is directly related here EvergreenFir (talk) 17:48, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH. ––FormalDude (talk) 22:07, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

• That article doesn't mention Peterson or the bill in question, so using it here in relation to those things would be WP:SYNTH. And the reason it doesn't mention the bill is because it had nothing to do with it - the father got in trouble for violating a court order, which is specific to his situation and wouldn't affect anyone else not under that specific court order. --Aquillion (talk) 15:07, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

@Diderot1 please avoid misgendering people in your comments. Simonm223 (talk) 20:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

we are not required to report blatantly false claims in exquisite detail

First of all, what he said about Bill C-16 is simply false, or so ludicrously looney-tunes that to expound on it is to misrepresent the law ourselves. The sources quote law professors saying that. The court ruled that his protrayal of the law was deeply flawed, to be charitable. Yet we expound on it at length, uncited, as if it were a fundamental axiom like pi. Just no. Canadian courts are competent to interpret Canadian laws. Random dudes on the internet are not. All that uncited OR needs to go. Elinruby (talk) 07:52, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

The article explains what Peterson said then explains what scholars have said. I don't see any issue here. Springee (talk) 10:21, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Btw, the reference to the courts cites something unrelated to bill C-16 so it doesn't add to the topic at hand. Springee (talk) 10:33, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

"Random dudes on the internet"—really? He is a highly cited social scientist, he has written an erudite intellectual work [Maps of Meaning] as well as several best-selling books, he has worked at several reputable universities such as Harvard, and his podcast is often ranked #1 in Education. Trakking (talk) 10:21, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

As with the "billions" of views, his ranking on a download site irrelevant. Elinruby (talk) 10:52, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

For the purposes of coverage Bill C-16 he is a "random dude on the internet" given a complete lack of legal background. Allan Nonymous (talk) 12:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Peterson's critique was political, not judicial. And the man has a bachelor's degree in political science, which gives him some authority on the topic. Trakking (talk) 12:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

No it really doesn't. The minimum basis for treating someone as academically valuable in a field on Wikipedia is a PhD thesis. Wikipedia affords no special expertise to a Bachelor's Degree. Simonm223 (talk) 12:38, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

References

Name-dropping Rachel Notley is UNDUE

It adds nothing of significance and is arguably a BLP violation against a once and conceivably future premier of Alberta. I don't think we should judge her just because a town of 2800 people had nobody to date but Howdy Doody. Elinruby (talk) 01:08, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

It just says they were friends, way back. It doesn't say anything about them dating. I don't think it reflects poorly on her, particularly given their youth and that Peterson claims that his politics were progressive at that time. Surely there can't be a person alive who wasn't once on friendly terms with somebody who later turned out to be... a bit... um... you know. So, I can't see a BLP violation here. As for whether it is too trivial to be worthy of inclusion, I'm neutral on that. DanielRigal (talk) 01:27, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

"shared double-dates" is in the sources. So is Howdy Doody. I'll cite it here the next time I travel through the current sources. I can't pull all of them up on certain devices, so I need to check before calling them dead links. I am pretty sure she would rather not be mentioned in the same breath as someone who now says that women just aren't good at certain things, so your opinion of what this might do to her polls... Well. Probably OR. Mine too for that matter, but this is a potential BLP violation with respect to an important Canadian politician. Certainly in the top five or ten female politicians in the country. I don't think we should be guessing. How about we see what NPOVN thinks? I can't articulate any way that this isn't just whitewashing him, but perhaps you can.Elinruby (talk) 02:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

On one hand I don't see it as a claim that requires a strong source. This is just his background history. However, I also don't see it as a critical fact and wouldn't see an UNDUE argument as out of place. I can't see how this is any kind of a BLP issue. Springee (talk) 02:42, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

It's UNDUE with respect to him and possibly defamatory with respect to her. If it isn't a big deal as far as you are concerned, take it out. Rachel Notley doesn't mention Peterson, and Peterson should not invoke her name either. Elinruby (talk) 03:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely no BLP issue here. Springee (talk) 10:21, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

@Springee: why is she mentioned at all? Elinruby (talk) 10:48, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I've already said that I think the weight of inclusion (BALASP) can be argued. I don't see it as inherently important to describing him in the now. It does fill in a bit of background but, as they were both unknowns at the time I can see it being removed as irrelevant (I don't think it needs to be removed). That such a fact could in anyway be a BLP issue is something I can't understand but perhaps it could be raised at BLPN to help calibrate our perceptions of the question. Springee (talk) 11:30, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Peterson's work has generated billions of views from all over the world. Meanwhile, Rachel Notley is some minor politician in Canada. How many people outside of Canada know about her or care about her? Remove her from the article if you want. Obscure people shouldn't be allowed to parasitize on the success of famous people. Trakking (talk) 10:28, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

So according to you, Trakking, his "billions" of views means we can say what we likes about her? Or that she is a parasite because we mention her in the same section as him? Does that make you a parasite if I mention you? I'm so confused. Has anyone ever mentioned to you that "billions" of views even if you could substantiate them are absolutely not the criteria we use to make decisions on Wikipedia? Elinruby (talk) 10:40, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I think it's absolutely wild that you think Rachel Notley, who was premier of Alberta, is "parasiting" on the notability of a self-help youtuber. Simonm223 (talk) 12:05, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I know, right? Elinruby (talk) 12:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Don't forget that the parasiting is caused by being mentionef by us. Do I need to ping you at NPOVN? I am assuming you saw the new section. I don't know who else needs to be notified. I stopped with the two I was talking to last night but feel free to notify whoever else needs to know Elinruby (talk) 12:46, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Now in the limelight at NPOVN

I am going away for a while now. Elinruby (talk) 12:37, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Just adding a direct link: Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Need_some_patient_people_at_Jordan_Peterson — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:29, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks The stuff about Notley being a parasite pretty much blew my fuses. Elinruby (talk) 20:02, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

British liberal

Just a comment on some of the recent edits regarding Peterson calling himself a British liberal. A few editors have, not unreasonably, changed the visible text to match the hyperlink. However, we need to keep in mind that the hyperlink was picked by Wiki editors. If the source for the British liberal claim uses the term "British" then we either need to change the hyperlink or get rid of it. The logic here is similar to the logic of MOS:NOLINKQUOTE. Springee (talk) 11:43, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Actively edited article, so I just looked at the diff of total changes from the last few days. It looks like [[classical liberalism|classic British liberal]] was changed to [[classical liberalism|classical British liberal]]. Is that controversial? In general, I agree that when it comes to "described himself as a _____", we should stick to the language he uses. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:32, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

We should probably just follow what he said. I can see the rationale of the person who changed it to align with the real term Classical liberalism but we should follow what he said. North8000 (talk) 20:37, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Addition of Ontario court ruling to lead

Grayfell, per ONUS you need to justify the restoration of material added to the article just today before restoring it as you did here [7]. The "controversial" term earlier in the lead is subjective and judgmental thus it was removed. As it was recently added it would need consensus to stay (@Allan Nonymous: who added it). As for the last sentence, it simply is UNDUE for the lead. Single sentence paragraphs are almost never part of a well written lead. Additionally, given the length/scope of the article, it's not clear why that fact is DUE for the lead vs as part of the body. Springee (talk) 02:58, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

It is definitely due. Simonm223 (talk) 03:04, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Based on what? It's a single, stand alone sentence without context. Springee (talk) 03:06, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Based on it being incredibly relevant to his current career trajectory. Simonm223 (talk) 03:12, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

That means you are forward projecting. Regardless, this is a BLP so we shouldn't make the lead out in a way that tries to highlight negative things, especially recent things who's long term impacts are not clear. Additionally, making it a stand alone paragraph gives it undue weight. Springee (talk) 03:22, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

It is significantly harder at this point to find a reliable, independent source which doesn't mention his fringe political views. Any source which blandly describes him as an academic without any context would be automatically suspect. Calling an accurate summary of sources undue is both wrong and also wikilawering. Do not ping me again, ever. Likewise, do not post on my talk page unless required by policy. Grayfell (talk) 06:15, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, it was very awkward by that user to throw in the word "controversial" in the lede. However, I tried to fix it by rewriting the clause as "his cultural and political views on controversial issues." Everyone has their own views, and these are not "controversial" in themselves, but there are definitely controversial issues. Even if one googles the phrase "controversial views," the search engine generates instances with the phrase "controversial issues." My edit was reverted because I reverted two edits at once, but you, Springee, are free to redo it, if you will. Trakking (talk) 07:44, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Trakking, I think your take makes sense. He has views on controversial topics. Do you have a thought on the single sentence paragraph that Grayfell restored. While they did try to justify restoring the word controversial, they said nothing about the final sentence. I think that is the bigger issue of the two changes. Springee (talk) 11:14, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I think you were correct in reverting that other edit for, as you have pointed out, a number of reasons: 1) it is too short to constitute an entire paragraph, 2) it is too irrelevant to merit inclusion in the lede, 3) it is too WP:RECENT to have any historical significance, and 4) it is too contentious to be added without consensus etc. Trakking (talk) 13:23, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not deep in on this enough to weigh in on the particulars, but we need to be providing information, not value-laden characterizations. North8000 (talk) 13:40, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

His defenders are the ones who are assigning specific value to him being barred from practice by claiming a political motivation for it. Simonm223 (talk) 13:46, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Include the word: Adding "controversial" isn't a value-laden characterization. It's a factual description of his views on cultural and political issues, as described exactly by a number of reliable secondary sources. Grayfell is correct here, and the reasoning offered on this talk page to remove the word is not based in policy, but in a desire to defend Peterson from any possible negatively-tinged verbiage. Wikipedia is not here to sanitize any person's reputation. It's here to describe a subject the way that reliable sources describe them. Fred Zepelin (talk) 15:06, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Introducing a high-profile individual as controversial is pure disrespect; it is not worthy of an encyclopedia. Equivalent articles on people like Nietzsche and Freud—other highly ”controversial” thinkers—mention controversial aspects only in the final sections of their respective lede. Trakking (talk) 16:08, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Controversies are important to mention, but simply describing someone as controversial is redundant. Practically every political theorist has some "controversial ideas", because their methods and their effects are disputed. Dimadick (talk) 16:27, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Peterson is not Nietzsche or Freud, even if we assume his scientific work rises to that level, he's a very political guy. It'd be like if Sigmund Freud spent most of his time writing Fatherland Front (Austria) propaganda in Austria. Allan Nonymous (talk) 16:28, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

The first reply to my comment has set up a straw-man argument. Peterson is not "described as controversial". He is not "introduced as controversial". The second sentence says he has received "widespread attention in the late 2010s for his controversial views on cultural and political issues" - a statement that is absolutely true and backed by dozens of sources already in the article. Stick to what's actually in the article. No one is proposing the first sentence should say "Jordan Peterson is a controversial guy." Fred Zepelin (talk) 19:46, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

This too. Allan Nonymous (talk) 20:08, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

FZ, the sentence in question was recently changed. The long term stable version of the article does not say "controversial views". Springee (talk) 22:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

The article says: "Often described as conservative, he began to receive widespread attention in the late 2010s for his controversial views on cultural and political issues." Allan Nonymous (talk) 22:56, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

That was a change you made 7 days ago [8]. It was also reverted by both Trakking and myself. Presenting the sentence with "controversial" as the stable version is misleading. Springee (talk) 23:12, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

This is a different straw man. It doesn't matter that the word "controversial" was introduced 7 days ago in the context of this thread, because commenters above claimed that Peterson was "described as controversial" or "introduced as controversial" in this lead. He is neither. The word "controversial" is in the second sentence and is only in the context "widespread attention in the late 2010s for his controversial views on cultural and political issues" - can you argue that that sentence is factually incorrect and unsupported by reliable sources? No one can, because it is factually correct and supported by reliable sources. Which explains why some editors are clever enough in this discussion to subtly move the goalposts just a little bit. Stick to the facts, please. Fred Zepelin (talk) 01:32, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

What are you even trying to argue? You quoted the current lead as the long term stable version, "Stick to what's actually in the article" (your post at 19:46, 12 May 2024). I noted that the version of the lead you referenced was not the QUO version. AN said the article says...[new version of lead]. I'm not arguing what's in the current version of the lead. Instead I'm arguing why the previous, long term stable version was better. Note that because it was the stable version NOCON says we need to restore the previous version since a new consensus hasn't been formed. Springee (talk) 01:38, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

The common meaning of "controversial" is something beyond just that the other side of a culture war or political war considers it to be such. North8000 (talk) 22:53, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

This is pure opinion, or WP:OR, if you prefer. When multiple reliable secondary sources report that Peterson is known for his controversial views, his lead reflects that Peterson is known for his controversial views. It's that simple. Fred Zepelin (talk) 01:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I have a procedural question for @North8000: Is your topic ban from post-1932 American politics still in place? Fred Zepelin (talk) 01:26, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

If you are able to find that ancient post then you already know how to find the answer to your question, already know that the answer is no, and yet you asked here anyway. North8000 (talk) 13:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

No, I had no idea that the answer was "no", actually. All I saw on that link is "His 2013 topic ban from the Tea Party movement is broadened to encompass post-1932 American politics". I had no idea that it has been lifted (if it has) nor would I know where to find the lifting of that topic ban. Fred Zepelin (talk) 21:34, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

You—and another user before you—claim that reliable sources report that his views are controversial. But these are not ”reliable sources,” which would be journals or books; they are sensational newspaper articles, often with a very explicit ideological profile. And none of them even seems to use the word ”controversial” or, more importantly, the phrase ”controversial views,” so that’s just your own interpretation of the content. Trakking (talk) 02:59, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Ummm....? They are all RS. There is no PAG about RS anywhere close to your claim about "journals or books". Get that idea out of your head. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

It’s not only that they are newspapers, it is that they’re often of a very sensational and ideological character. There’s better and worse journalism. Trakking (talk) 03:42, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Pure WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Simonm223 (talk) 13:21, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Can't the reverse be said as well, pure WP:ILIKEIT? Springee (talk) 14:00, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

No. It cannot. Simonm223 (talk) 14:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it can. :) Trakking (talk) 14:55, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

"This is a consistent description of the subject per WP:RS" is not covered under WP:ILIKEIT. Simonm223 (talk) 14:57, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

What reliable sources? I thought it was all Vox etc. Please cite some reliable sources and give me exact quotes. Trakking (talk) 15:00, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

The lead is supposed to be a summary of the contents of the article. Using the word "controversial" when creating that summary needs something beyond just that the other side of a culture war or political war considers it to be such. Otherwise everyone in politics or who offers views on a political or culture war topic would need to be described as controversial, and there would inevitably be some sources that say that or use that term about them or their views. North8000 (talk) 14:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Wise words.

Since there is far from any consensus here, someone ought to go ahead and revert Allan’s controversial edits. Trakking (talk) 14:58, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I would advise you open up an RfC if you want to pursue the issue any further. Given the number of reliable sources that describe him as controversial (i.e. "controversial [psychologist/political commentator] Jordan Peterson", Wikipedia here is, frankly, giving him the benefit of the doubt by describing his positions as controversial, which most clearly are. Allan Nonymous (talk) 15:58, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Once again: Which reliable sources precisely? And which exact quotes from these sources? You fail to answer this basic question. Trakking (talk) 16:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Citations 5 through 9 as of the current edit summary. Simonm223 (talk) 16:47, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Those sources were added to refer to other things than the latest controversial edit. Once again: Which exact quotes that use the exact word controversial and from which reliable sources? For example, Vox is not a reliable source. Trakking (talk) 17:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Simonm223, please be more careful with such claims. This is source #5 [9], his U of T web bio. No where does that source reference controversies of any kind. Not surprising as it's a university quick bio. However, when you say "all these sources support X" and then the very first source doesn't remotely support it, what are editors to think about the other sources? I agree with Trakking here, which sources specifically say he gained notability in the late 2010's based on his "controversial views"? Springee (talk) 19:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

AN, please review NOCON. The change you made is not restoring a long term stable version of the article. That means, per policy, the burden of showing a consensus for that change is on those who wish to make it. Absent a new consensus the article should be reverted back to the last stable version. If you feel a RfC is needed to establish a new consensus version of the article the burden is on you to create it, not the editors who oppose you change. Springee (talk) 19:08, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I believe there are 4 editors in this thread that have no problem with the change that was made, and the couple of editors who have argued against it haven't given any policy-based reasons for their opinions outside of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. To me, this discussion shows that among the editors actually citing reliable, quality sources, the consensus is to leave the word in place. Fred Zepelin (talk) 21:37, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Loking at this thread, IMO you are mis-characterizing the arguments made by both sides. North8000 (talk) 22:04, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Fred, you have consistently failed to cite a single authoritative source that uses the word controversial or the phrase ”controversial views.” We are four people opposing your controversial edit, meaning that there is no consensus for it and that we ought to restore status quo. Trakking (talk) 22:28, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

This shouldn't even be in the BLP let alone the lead. Doesn't pass the WP:10Y test, no one is going to care in 2 years, let alone 10. Editors should be aware that WP:NOTEVERYTHING needs to be in an encyclopedia, despite how much modern news media covers it. Peterson **is** a controversial figure, so he's going to get a lot of coverage because it draws clicks and advertising revenue. Wikipedia need not pull every bit of melodramatic and salacious opinion from overtly polemic articles into his biography. Kcmastrpc (talk) 22:16, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I just noticed this. How does a court decision not pass a 10-year test? A constitutional law decision at that? At the risk of being pedantic, Canada has a legal system that is built on common law. It's migrating to a hybrid system, but yeah, there is this thing we call precedent... Elinruby (talk) 05:52, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Excellent observations by Kcmastrpc. Some people are trying hard to make this encyclopedic article be much more sensational and provocative than it ought to be. Trakking (talk) 22:33, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

@Talking: I see that my comment is back where I put it, good. The other thing I want to make sure you understand is that this page is under a one-revert restriction, and so apparently a you as an editor. Do you understand that any time you undo someone else's edit, that is a revert? So when you reverted my addition addition of a rationale to that template and told me to seek consensus first (!) That was a revert. When you moved my talk page comment and edited the indent, that was another revert. Then you reverted AN for a third revert, for a grand total of two more reverts that you are allowed on a 24-hour period. Do you understand that now? Elinruby (talk) 11:32, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't see where Trakking has violated 1RR. Also that 1RR applies to the article page, I don't think it is normally viewed as applying to the talk page though talk page edit wars are also rather rare. Springee (talk) 11:55, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I've reverted the addition of the single sentence related to the court case. The above discussions put little focus on it's inclusion. No consensus for inclusion was reached. The addition of "contentious" also doesn't appear to have consensus after the more extensive discussion but I will wait to see if there are any additional views before/if restoring the QUO text. Springee (talk) 12:31, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

"political correctness" is pejorative and NPOV

We should not be allowing Peterson's opinions to frame the article Elinruby (talk) 00:37, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Some consider it a positive term and others consider it to be a pejorative. But either way, in the article it is attributed as being his argument. North8000 (talk) 00:48, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

if that's him talking then:

• It should be in quotes
• It kinda proves my point about him framing the debate, don't you think?

If it is not him talking it should not be in the article in Wikivoice Elinruby (talk) 00:57, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Can you point to specific texts? Also, if the statement is attributed it doesn't have to be a quote. That said, if we can come up with alternative langauge that all find acceptable it likely means the article is better for it. Springee (talk) 02:44, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I beg to differ. "Political correctness" should not appear in wikivoice. Elinruby (talk) 03:23, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

On what basis? Springee (talk) 13:10, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Right. Political correctness is a pejorative term for inclusive language. Just call it "criticism of inclusive language, which he calls political correctness". — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:10, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

that works for me Elinruby (talk) 02:19, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand why we are putting these terms in quotes. I don't see evidence that PC is a pejorative. Can someone offer a clear reason why these are now quoted terms instead of the stable version? Springee (talk) 13:10, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Also, there were a number of other changes made with the addition of the quotes. I don't see those as improvements and the retention of those changes should be independent of the use of quotes. Springee (talk) 13:15, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I think they were an improvement. Simonm223 (talk) 13:21, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't. The old version of that text has been stable for at least 2 years and I think was established after talk page discussion. Regardless of the use of scare quotes I don't agree with the other text changes (location in the lead is something I'm open to). Springee (talk) 13:23, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't think we need to use quotes around charged terms like "political correctness" if we make it clear that this is a claim or opinion (which in my opinion the previous version was already fulfilling). "inclusive language" is not a neutral term either, and should be treated similarly to "political correctness".

(apologies for my now-deleted mistaken comment about sourcing, I got confused) NicolausPrime (talk) 14:04, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

So there are two views of the term "political correctness", both referring to the same thing. One views "that thing" as fine, the other (the pejorative) views it as being cases of excessive or unwarranted. (BTW the "fine" came first and was where the term came from) ) So we have some folks conflict with themselves. Holding the "fine" view but still calling it a pejorative.  :-) North8000 (talk) 14:17, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

When people who think inclusive language is a good thing use the term "political correctness" they're typically nodding at the pejorative connotations or using the word that's been a [pejorative] part of popular culture since the 80s. I'm sure you can search and find some examples of people using it with no trace of that pejorative just like we can find examples of any pejorative being used in other ways. For those who say "inclusive language" isn't neutral either, what is the neutral term? Could just go with the definition of inclusive language: a language style which avoids sexist, racist, or otherwise prejudiced or insulting language. Alternatively, what is the concise non-pejorative definition Peterson provides for his own use? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:37, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I had debates with Canadian friends where I have argued along the lines of what you just said (that is is primarily a pejorative term) and they say that I'm wrong, that it is primarily a positive term. Also the first ~70 words of the Political correctness article describe it as a positive term and it is only after that the the pejorative view is covered. North8000 (talk) 14:47, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Snort with all due respect to your Canadian friends, er, no. It is not in common use in Canada except by people who are driving their semis to Ottawa and honk their horns in freon of the Parliament Building. It absolutely does not reflect Canadian values. Elinruby (talk) 19:33, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

It certainly doesn't describe it as "a positive term". It describes some of the underlying meaning and then promptly makes clear that In public discourse and the media,[4][8][9] the term is generally used as a pejorative. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:13, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Do we need to use the term "inclusive language" at all? I found no mention of it in the body and the sources. We could instead write "genderless pronouns" (which I think is neutral) while noting that this is only Peterson's interpretation, as there are no specific references to gender pronouns in Bill C-16. NicolausPrime (talk) 15:02, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Need to? No, not necessarily. If there's a more descriptive way to talk about what he calls political correctness we can use that? I don't know how much it matters that it doesn't appear in the text, since most of what we're quoting would be implicitly or explicitly tying the criticism of "political correctness" to Peterson's usage of that term (or use the term because it implies a criticism). For our bios of people who criticize "wokism" or "woke mobs", we don't just say "x is a critic of wokism" but describe what it is they're actually talking about (DEI, affirmative action, complains about sexist jokes, or whatever) plus "what X calls wokism" or somesuch. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:13, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

The reason *I* am saying it should be in quotes is that people are saying it is ok to use it because we are quoting him. If we are quoting him it should be in quotes. If we are describing the root of his employment woes with the University of Toronto then why not simply say that he insisted on using either "he" or "she" to refer to his students? Even if they had asked to be referred t as "they"? Or I personally am fine with "inclusive language".Elinruby (talk) 19:27, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I've restored the long standing version of the text in the lead paragraph. I have left the quotes around PC and IP terms. I don't see consensus for any of the changes but the focus has been on the use of quotes rather than the other changes. Note that this paragraph has been stable for several years. As part of the recent changes the paragraph was moved up in the lead. I did not revert that change. While no argument has been made to justify that change, it would likely be a question of chronological vs notability order in the lead. That should probably be discussed before accepting or rejecting the position change. Springee (talk) 12:35, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

C2C Journal doesn't look very RS either

Stealth-owned by the Manning foundation, funded by banks and oil companies, uses pictures of Somali refugee camps for yucks, and calls protesters"unnerving".

Media Bias/Fact Check says their traffic is "minimal" and considers their bias "medium", which may not sound too bad until you realize that their definition of this includes "may publish misleading reports."

C2C seems fine for the uncontentious claims it is supporting. Springee (talk) 16:16, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

References

Addition of various sourcing tags

A lot of sourcing tags have been recently added to the article. Absent justification on the talk page most of these should be reverted. The tags range from questioning sources used to make uncontroversial claims to self published source tags used in cases where the self published source is used only as a reference to the RSs in the adjacent tags as well as tagging the use of Youtube to provide view counts which seems to be common across many articles. Springee (talk) 14:31, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

This page is full of peacockery and overly promotional material. It does depend very heavily (too heavily) on WP:ABOUTSELF. The tags are appropriate and not an unexpected outcome of the number of noticeboards that are alert to the POV issues going on here. Simonm223 (talk) 14:35, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Peacock is not the same as inappropriate use of the tags in question. Springee (talk) 14:38, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Springee; there is nothing wrong with most of these sources. Trakking (talk) 14:46, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to take this up at RSN. They are going to tell you the same thing I just did; I've put the years in there to know. If these statements are uncontroversial you should not need ABOUTSELF. If that's the only source you can find, what does that tell us? Elinruby (talk) 15:14, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

RSN does a pretty good job of following the intent of wp:ver. Which is context related. And the question is simply: Is it sufficiently reliable to support the text which cited it? North8000 (talk) 16:18, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Telegraph should not be used as a source for transgender issues

Per this thread at RSN it is pretty mush SNOW on its way to being deprecated. Elinruby (talk) 13:41, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

What specific claim is in question in this article? Also, is "deprecated" the outcome in question? Springee (talk) 13:46, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

As an example, this use "In May 2022, he became chancellor of Ralston College, a liberal arts education project.[unreliable source?]" was recently tagged but there seems to be no issue with the source and this rather straight forward claim. A second Telegraph article is used several times but this appears to be the only claim that is remotely related to transgender issues "Peterson has said that "confused gay kids are being convinced they're transsexual. Well that's not so good for gay people, is it?" and that "there's certainly a lot of confused adolescents who could be enticed into narcissistic abnormality as a consequence of attention-seeking."" In that case the source is quoting Peterson's views so I see no issue with this inclusion either. This isn't a case where we can claim the source is misrepresenting some aspect of a trans issue. Springee (talk) 13:52, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

(patiently) no, it is quoting Peterson misrepresenting some aspect of a trans issue. As for Ralston College, surely there is another source if it is as self-evident as all that. Ditto the Facebook page. Elinruby (talk) 15:09, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Please FOC and avoid things like "patiently". So let's go with the first one. What do you see is the issue with citing the Telegraph for a claim like "he became chancellor of Ralston College"? In the second example, it doesn't matter if Peterson is correct or not since the source isn't being used to support such a claim. As for the Facebook page, well is that cited to a Telegraph article? Springee (talk) 15:15, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

(patiently) we can talk about the Facebook page when you find it. As I just now typed in the other thread, If it is a blindingly obvious statement then it should be a trivial matter to find another source. Have you looked at the RSN thread yet? I would start there. Also, you appear to be better versed in acronyms than I am. Please refrain from making me like up stuff like FOC.Elinruby (talk) 15:21, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

WP:FOC. Focus on content, not contributor, and avoid patronizing emotes. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

thank you for that sir. Elinruby (talk) 16:04, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

You are welcome to talk about the facebook page in this section if you wish but since it's not relevant to the question I was asking... As for finding another source, that burden is on you as the person who wishes to make the change. Per RS, the quality of source required is a function of the claim being made. For example, a self published source is often fine for a BLP's birthday. Springee (talk) 15:36, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Springee, you just now asked me if the Facebook page is sourced to the Telegraph. I tried very hard to answer you when you yourself brought it up. The short answer is no. The use of the Telegraph is a parallel issue. I try to leave meaningful edit summaries, yanno, and yet you ask me a question like that. It is also not a very good source, one that should be easy to replace Elinruby (talk) 16:04, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

I think a better source exists. He's a public figure and I know for a fact that several of the references already in use do in fact cover this point. Are we done here? I think we are done here for now. I need to go see about that content fork you linked to. I know you didn't know, or I assume you didn't know, but it's pretty bad. Elinruby (talk) 16:09, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Looking at this discussion I see you were the first to mention Facebook. Are you confusing this with a different discussion? I don't see why we would say link to his general FB page but FB would be sufficient for something like establishing his birthday. Springee (talk) 16:15, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

It's context-specific. And the question is simply: Is it sufficiently reliable to support the text which cited it? And for a quote, that simply means that he said that. North8000 (talk) 16:21, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Jubilee medal

Was curious about the Queen Elizabeth II Platinum Jubilee Medal mentioned at the bottom, supported just by a primary sourced-list of thousands of names without context plus a tweet. A google search for even just '"platinum jubilee medal" "jordan peterson"' returns no reliable independent sources at all. I would think that given Peterson's celebrity this would've been covered somewhere, but I can't even find anything confirming it was awarded to this Jordan Peterson (not that I doubt it -- it's just surprising). I searched the talk page archives and it doesn't look like it's ever come up. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:26, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah it happened but nobody cared because, frankly, nobody really cared about the provincial Jubilee medals that were mostly a way for premiers to give a prize to people they liked. The premier at the time in Alberta was Jason Kenney. Simonm223 (talk) 19:42, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Offtopic and way too vitriolic. NicolausPrime (talk) 19:52, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
For the Americans playing at home, think Trump wannabe. Elinruby (talk) 20:04, 16 May 2024 (UTC) A premier so broadly unpopular by the end of his term that Alberta did something unprecedented and elected an NDP provincial government. Simonm223 (talk) 20:07, 16 May 2024 (UTC) (translator-to-Americans hat on) Think Bernie Sanders getting elected as governor of Texas. But on Kenney, it is even more telling that when they found dozens of unmarked graves of indigenous small children at a residential school in Kamloops, Kenney wrote an editorial to say that the outcry needed to stop because the country had to move on. (It's probably even more telling of the state of Canadian media that that National Post ran it on the front page) Elinruby (talk) 04:40, 17 May 2024 (UTC) Per the Wikipedia article on the subject, there are no positively identified graves [10]. But I'm not sure why any of this is relevant to this article. Springee (talk) 11:53, 17 May 2024 (UTC) You didn't read that article closely enough - everybody is perfectly aware that there are graves at Marieval with the present estimate being around 600 unmarked graves - but there isn't any interest in digging them up except among genocide deniers. Because they're interred human remains. However you are correct this is getting off topic. The point is simply to situate that the reason there is minimal coverage is because it was an award of minimal significance. A hollow honour given out to the friends of a hated politician. Simonm223 (talk) 12:17, 17 May 2024 (UTC) Oh are they spamming that poor article again? I'll have to try again to get it protected. Dude, you really want to support the idea that people are supposed to dig up Aunt Marge just to provide additional proof to people who aren't listening to the proof that there is? There was an investigation by a trained archaeologists, and it found graves where the indigenous government said there would be graves based on the living memory of its citizens. Nobody credible questions what happened. The Truth and Reconciliation Report, for all of its flaws, hadn't even ever questioned what happened at that school. The ground radar merely confirmed it, with the very same technology that was used a couple of years later in Ukraine. Listen to yourself. You are whitewashing the murder of children. And what that has to do with this article is that I don't have a lot of respect for a Crackerbox prize trinket awarded by a politician who shamelessly wrote that people who were grieving over the confirmation of massive numbers of murdered children should grow a pair and move on. Okay? I am going to assume that this crap got into the article again and you are from Texas or something and don't know any better, but man. What Simon said. Elinruby (talk) 12:38, 17 May 2024 (UTC) Sounds off topic. Regarding this article, deciding on what we think of the significance of the medal isn't relevant, North8000 (talk) 13:01, 17 May 2024 (UTC) Nobody asked you. I explained to someone who asked why there is not coverage in reliable sources. Since there is no secondary source, it should be deleted. Elinruby (talk) 13:23, 17 May 2024 (UTC) Ripping a contributor for commenting without being "asked" is wrong to put it mildly. And giving that as a basis for removal is not correct. North8000 (talk) 20:06, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Too long, off topic material

This article is way too long - 145k already. A lot of the content is subjective, poorly sourced, or simply off-topic. I would suggest to cut all the "views and works" stuff into a daughter article, and just put a summary thereof in the main article - which otherwise seems largely innocuous. We can then clean up the daughter article, with a lot of deletion, if we keep it at all. Wdford (talk) 09:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

[11] says the article is 5431 words long. WP:SIZERULE states that below 6 000 words Length alone does not justify division or trimming., so I don't think it's too long. NicolausPrime (talk) 11:12, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Many other articles on high-profile individuals are significiantly more extensive than this one. No need for trimming. Trakking (talk) 11:36, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

This isn't a long article, and therefore not even close to "too long". When it gets over 500k, then ping me. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:23, 19 May 2024 (UTC)