Talk:Jordan Peterson/Archive 23

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Reverting

Posting this here because Trakking appears to have an issue with the changes I made. He's free to revert specific ones or make changes, but i'm going to need to see policy based arguments as to why you reverted the section about the Newman interview? Given that's what the source says. The source does not say that she was criticized by youtube commenters and journalists for her 'performance'. That is a gross misrepresentation of the source and inconsistent in every way with Wikipedia's core policies. Chuckstablers (talk) 15:37, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Your edits violated many of Wikipedia's fundamental guidelines:

• WP:CON: There has been a consensus in Talk for including information such as the citation count.
• WP:VANDAL: Addition of incomplete sentences such as "He has been criticized" and "He has" in the middle of nowhere is pure vandalism.
• MOS:CLAIM: Changing neutral words like "attribute" and "argue" to "claim" and "assert" is not acceptable. (Changing different neutral verbs to a repetitive "said" is also against this rule.)
• WP:DISRUPTIVE: Removing authoritative sources such as Peterson's reference to Fred Singer is disruptive editing that has no place in an encyclopedia.
• WP:MOS: Your edits are full of typos such as "condemneds" and "teach in" (missing a hyphen), violating the fundamental principle of writing correctly.
• WP:NPOV: You accused Peterson of making "broad generalizations" etc. which is non-neutral wording.
• WP:WQ: Removing sourced information and writing "who cares" is showing a lack of etiquette.
• WP:RS: Propagandistic and ideological sources such as Jacobin are not considered reliable sources.

But don't worry, other people will revert your vandalism and disruptive edits. My reversion has already received thanks from other people as well. I would be surprised if you received consensus for even a single one of your edits. Trakking (talk) 16:23, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Not to nitpick, but per WP:RSP, Jacobin is actually considered a reliable, though biased, source. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: I see that you have already begun the tedious work of cleaning up this disruptive mess. I have never seen a user commit so many violations at one time. We ought to revert back to status quo and let that user seek consensus for any additional edits.

@Dumuzid: Thanks for the information, but the Jacobin source was used to claim that Peterson is a "member of the far-right". It was just ideological propaganda and nothing else. That edit has already been reverted, by the way. Trakking (talk) 16:41, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

It's the old "lots of edits where some look constructive and some don't" conundrum. Hard to say what the best procedure is. Some of the edits look good to me, so I just fixed what I saw as the most problematic of the edits (the fragment and the "member of the far-right" claim per my edit summary). I'm inclined to think cleanup is preferable to just a full-undo in this case, but it's complicated. Regardless, I don't think characterizing obvious mistakes as vandalism is helpful. Ditto characterizing removing reliable sources as disruptive -- just because a reliable source exists doesn't mean it has to be included after all (WP:ONUS and whatnot). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:50, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Rhododendrites, I think you have the right approach. The constructive stuff will find its way back in. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:59, 21 July 2024 (UTC)e

To be clear, I am not vouching for the edit, merely wanted to clear up an apparent mix up. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:58, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Trakking; Jacobin is on the reliable source list. It isn't ideological propaganda; that's false. It's the statement made by a reliable source that he is a member of the far right. I'm fine with it being removed if you feel it's not due, but I'd like to see an argument for it in the future? Thanks. Chuckstablers (talk) 19:27, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

There's a long range of counter-arguments throughout the article:

• Peterson identifies as a classical liberal—a centrist position.
• Peterson has stated that he is usually mistaken as right-wing, supporting some policies that are usually considered left-wing.
• Commentators such as Cathy Young have denounced the accusation of far-right as unsubstantiated.
• Peterson is equally critical of identity politics of the left and right.
• Many of Peterson's associates are centrists or centre-leftists—Joe Rogan, Bret Weinstein, Russell Brand etc.

Trakking (talk) 19:52, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

That isn't a policy based argument. We use reliable sources. A reliable source calls him a member of the far right. Your original research on his positions do not cancel that out. You would need a reliable source SPECIFICALLY saying that he is not a member of the far right. Do you have one? Chuckstablers (talk) 19:57, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

No, the burden of proof lies on the part making a claim. You have only found ONE source in support of your claim—a source identified by Wikipedia as "biased" and therefore problematic. Meanwhile a range of commentators have refuted this accusation. Trakking (talk) 20:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Trakking, could you let me know where the consensus in Talk for including information such as the citation count might be found? The information presented here does not correspond to what I see included in other BLPs. Newimpartial (talk) 17:08, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Newimpartial, someone removed the citation count earlier but were reverted because they did not receive consensus for that edit in Talk. Trakking (talk) 17:14, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

OK, but could you point me to the relevant discussion on Talk? If there wasn't one, then I think it's safe to say the content in question no longer has WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS (if at least three editors have objected). It may of course have explicit Talk page consensus - which is what I'd like to find out. Newimpartial (talk) 17:27, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

We're including citations to his books. That's my issue. I'm fine having it there if we're only including citations to his actual academic articles. Chuckstablers (talk) 19:29, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:CON: Where is the consensus? They're not indefinite.

WP: VANDALISM: Which were fixed by the time I was done.

WP:MOS: teach-in is a term. It's used in the source.... It's a word referring to a sit in on a campus where people come to teach others. In this case it was a teach-in held by a hundred trans and non binary students on campus. That's not a protest. They are different words referring to different things.

WP:NPOV: That was what the source said. The source used those words exactly. But I've since changed it to now make it clear who exactly is saying those words.

WP:WQ: Yes, I removed content that I felt was given undue weight. I think the only real significant section I REMOVED instead of rewrote/replaced was his economic beliefs section, given that it was two sentences sourced I believe to a youtube video of his? Don't really see an issue with that. If you have some argument as to why this is WP:WQ

WP:RS: Jacobin is a reliable source according to the perennial source list.

Your comment that "But don't worry, other people will revert your vandalism and disruptive edits. My reversion has already received thanks from other people as well..." is needlessly inflammatory and inconsistent with a constructive editing environment. Please reassess your approach. I'm open to people changing it (I've already cleaned it up to a large extent) and to policy based arguments. Cheers. Chuckstablers (talk) 19:53, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Reversion of vandalism and restoration of status quo

Yesterday this article was under assault by some new user making a thousand edits that were disruptive and destructive. The user removed large parts of information without explanation, they cluttered the article with typos and grammatical errors, they tried to add extremely ideological language to the very first line of the article referencing a source identified as biased by Wikipedia guidelines, and they violated all sorts of rules such as MOS:CLAIM. They did not receive any explicit support in Talk for any specific edit either. It was just pure vandalism and disruptive editing. If that user wants to make any drastic change to the article, they must argue for it here and seek consensus. We have had major debates about minor edits in the past—some random new user is not allowed to turn the entire article upside down without discussion. Usually there are many different users reverting this sort of vandalism on this article, but Wikipedia is rather dormant during summer and some of them might not be back until a short while, so I decided to take action. Trakking (talk) 09:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I support your revert. And I agree with your suggestion that if User:Chuckstablers wants to make those significant changes, he must come to the talk page first. Masterhatch (talk) 09:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Trakking, you've just violated the great big arbitration remedy at the top of this page. You should self-rv before someone opens an WP:AE. Repeatedly characterizing someone else's edits in extreme and misleading ways (saying chuckstablers did so "without explanation" when there are lengthy edit summaries in nearly every edit, for example, or calling it vandalism or disruption) is not great either in a contentious topic. There are problems introduced in the recent edits, but there are also improvements, and people have been saying for some time that this page needs some trimming/rewriting. It's not clear to me which version has fewer problems. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 11:49, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia policy, one is allowed to revert more than once in instances of vandalism. How is it not vandalism to make vast unexplained removals, rampant grammatical errors, blatant policy violations, extreme ideological accusations such as calling Peterson a fascist in the introduction, and avoiding to reach any form of consensus in Talk? Every time someone else has made this sort of edits they have been reverted immediately. I’ll self-revert just in case all of that madness does not count as vandalism, but @Masterhatch is free to revert my reversion. Trakking (talk) 12:19, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOTVAND (also pinging someone to make an edit on your behalf after you've passed the 1RR threshold is not great, either). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:41, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Rhododendrites, could you please show me a single improvement made by that user? There have been serious attempts by other editors to improve the article quite recently, but I don’t see any signs of it in this particular instance. Trakking (talk) 12:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't know, let's just look at the first big edit here. We had a paragraph that used an op-ed rather than a reliable source to set the tone (that "Newman's performance was criticized") and downplayed the abuse which was central to that story when in fact the sources are pretty clear that the abuse is one of the major pieces of the story. So yes, that one was an improvement. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:41, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Great, so there’s one arguably relevant thing out of hundreds of disruptive edits. Still, the sensible thing is to roll back the onslaught and discuss any possible changes in order to reach a consensus. The latest move that user pulled was to clutter the lede with a bunch of ”citation needed” templates even though this violates the recommendations at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section#Citations. This combined with frequent violations of MOS:CLAIM and other rules indicates that they don’t understand the basic rules of editing. Trakking (talk) 14:13, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Can we just stop with the WP:BATTLEGROUND characterizations here? Still mischaracterizing the edits as "disruptive" when it's obviously not WP:DE (like repeatedly calling them vandalism, when they're obviously not). It's not an onslaught -- it's editing, some of which was sorely needed. I clicked the very first big edit and it was constructive. And it just took me about 10 seconds to fix those cn tags just now -- probably less time than it did to complain about them here. In the sum of the edits I see a few MOS:SAID issues, but also several fixes of MOS:SAID issues. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:47, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. Please read MOS:SAID more carefully though. The first sentence states that ”repeated use of said is considered tedious, and writers are encouraged to employ synonyms.” Not only did the user violate the MOS:CLAIM rule by changing a bunch of neutral verbs to claim and assert, they changed a bunch of neutral verbs to a repetitive said, which is also against the recommendations. Trakking (talk) 15:03, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

You have misread MOS:SAID. In some types of writing, repeated use of said is considered tedious, and writers are encouraged to employ synonyms. On Wikipedia, it is more important to avoid language that makes undue implications.. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Trakking -- very much with Rhododendrites here. Vandalism is not synonymous with "not an improvement" and certainly not with "changes with which I disagree." Good faith editors will often have different viewpoints and different visions of how an article should look. That's a feature, not a bug. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:21, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

The Manual of Style also states: ”In order to avoid the twin pitfalls of biased wording and tedious repetition of ’he said ... she said ...’, consider rewriting the prose to remove the need for such verbs in the first place.” Cluttering the article with ”He said” sentences is not an improvement. Trakking (talk) 15:33, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Here are some concerns I see with the current state of the article:

1. "Conservative views on cultural and political issues" in the lead seems to simply fail verification and should be removed.
2. I can't find any source saying he recieved two bachelors degrees; this too seems to fail verification by current sourcing.
3. Do we normally note that a published book didn't make the NYT bestseller list? That reads pretty POV to me.
4. Nosheen Iqbal's statement that he denied the pay gap is verifiably false. I understand that this is attributed, and maybe that makes it worthy of inclusion. But it's a really bothersome take given that it's straighforwardly, factually false.
5. Why are we removing the statement that there was violence at some of the protests of Peterson?
6. "Climate change denier" fails verification in the provided sources.

Shinealittlelight (talk) 16:08, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I believe that #1 is covered sufficiently, if not in the lede then later in the article. It should be easy for us to find a source for such a basic piece of information as #2. However, #3–6 are all new disruptive edits that ought to be reverted. Good job at pointing out these errors.

Once again, it would be easier just to revert back to status quo and readd separately whatever possible improvement was made in that vast amount of edits. Otherwise we are just leaving dirty job for other editors to clean up later. Trakking (talk) 17:00, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

These issues are all being addressed appropriately by incremental editing, IMO.

As far as I can tell, the status quo version to which Trakking refers contained many, many passages that lacked either implicit or explicit consensus - many editors objected to these passages and elements.

Let's continue to fix issues as they are identified, through the editing process and discussion here on Talk. Let's not revert to a version that was never particularly good, just because it existed at a certain point in time. Newimpartial (talk) 17:06, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

"Conservative views on cultural and political issues" seems to me like an significant oversimplification of the views for which he has attracted attention, and if it can't be sourced with that langauge, I would suggest removal. Can you point out sourcing for 1 or 2? I can't find sourcing for either one, but I haven't looked that hard. Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:07, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

It's sourced. His biggest claim to fame was refusing to call trans students by their preferred pronouns. That is generally associated as a conservative view these days. Again; I'm going by RS's. If we have like a policy based concern about using RS's in this case then I'm open to it?

It certainly is true that back in 2016-2018 there was a lot of pushback against calling his views conservative, but that's not the case anymore. He's very clearly identified as a conservative figure by reliable sources after 2020-2021 when he really went downhill. Chuckstablers (talk) 20:31, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Trakking; this very clearly isn't disruptive or vandalism. You've been told this mutliple times now. Please see the vandalism policy: "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism.".

Please specifically address what passages or additions or removals have been made that you feel are vandalism if you're going to keep claiming it, otherwise it needs to stop. Chuckstablers (talk) 20:37, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) - replying to Shinealittlelight's initial list. Some reasonable points here. Made some edits and responding to a couple below:

1. "conservative views" doesn't fail verification. Frankly, we should just get rid of the citations in the lead because anything it contains should be well-sourced in the body (as this one is).
2. two bachelor's degrees is, again, sourced in the body e.g.. No objection to removing it from the lead for other reasons, though.
3. No, that's a weird thing. Fixed.
4. Included a quote from the interview (quoted in The Guardian) and tried to summarize/fix issues with the rest, including that she received criticism for mischaracterizations.
5. Haven't looked at this one.
6. There are a lot of sources for climate. For example, there was a CCDH report which named Peterson as one of the chief figures of "New Denial" (a new approach to climate change denial which uses different strategies than the "Old Denial"). report, and reported in the verge, newsweek, bloomberg, etc. Not sure what the best approach to the article is, though, and that's probably all the time I have for edits today. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:12, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for fixes on 3 and 4. On 1, can someone just provide a source? I don't see it sourced in such simplistic terms, and frankly I doubt a high quality source can be found that characterizes his views so simplistically. I missed that source on two degrees, sorry about that. On "denier" none of the sources you provide is straightforward for that claim. We need it explicitly in the source for inclusion in a BLP since it's a fairly incendiary claim. "New Deniers" is some kind of weird technical term in that report, for example. Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:25, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I support purging the lede of sources as per the rationale given by Rhododendrites. It does not make sense that the first section of the lede includes 9 sources while the other sections include none. Trakking (talk) 17:30, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Go for it then! I'm fine with rational changes being made if there's an error :) Chuckstablers (talk) 20:33, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Though you might want to wait at this point for more input? What I'm gathering is that as long as the sources appear in the body it's fine, but just make sure that they do first I suppose. Chuckstablers (talk) 20:42, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

The lead should be a summary of what is in the article. We should make sure that whatever is in the lead is in the article, and the same for the sources/cites. Then remove the cites from the lead. North8000 (talk) 18:52, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I can add more reliable sources identifying him as a conservative if you would like? Chuckstablers (talk) 00:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

@Chuckstablers: I'm not questioning that sources widely portray him as a conservative. I'm questioning the verification of the claim He began to receive widespread attention in the late 2010s for his conservative views on cultural and political issues. This is a much more specific claim: that alleged "conservative views on cultural and political issues" are what first brought him widespread attention. I'm skeptical of that, and I don't see it in any source so far. Can you provide a source for this specific claim? Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying, I get the concern now. Feel free to remove that, I'll add it again if I find an RS specifically supporting that statement as a whole. Chuckstablers (talk) 02:07, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

@Shinealittlelight Removed it myself (agree it's weak for that statement). Chuckstablers (talk) 02:10, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Of the zillions of sources out there I sure that someone could find some that call him whatever one is looking for. Conservative has different common meanings in the US vs. Europe. Both the closest match to his ideas and his self identification is what would be called a classical liberal in the US and a liberal in Europe. Some of the positions he has taken on some of the US culture war issues are the same as those of conservatives, but that's just those. North8000 (talk) 02:24, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

1.) "Of the zillions of sources out there I sure that someone could find some that call him whatever one is looking for." I would disagree. I've searched and have yet to find an RS calling him a socialist or left-wing or liberal. I've found a couple from 2017-2018 where he SAYS he is a "classical liberal". I've found a LOT that use the epiphet "conservative" or "right-wing" or more weakly, frame him with the alt-right.

2.) "Conservative has different common meanings in the US vs. Europe." That's correct to an extent, there are obviously differences but they're not THAT different. There are shared features of conservatism that are conserved in the western world and to a lesser extent the entire world. I'm not seeing the relevance though?

3.) " Both the closest match to his ideas and his self identification is what would be called a classical liberal in the US and a liberal in Europe." You would need a reliable source calling him a classical liberal, identifying him and his beliefs as most consistent with that ideology. As it stands that's your opinion (which is fine, but it's not a basis for anything that can go into the article).

Ultimately we should only really concern ourselves with what actual RS's say and the arguments made within. That's why I removed the conservative epiphet I added previously from the start of the lead; because it was pointed out to me that the sources didn't directly support what was being said (that it was his conservative views that brought him to fame, not just his views). Otherwise we end up with heavily editorialized content with a LOT of synth like a decent chunk of the views section (see below for an example).

One segment of the views section read that Peterson was "heavily involved in THE public debate around cultural appropriation", or "featured prominently in" or something like that, when the source doesn't say that. The source was an interview he did with the Toronto Sun about a journalist who got demoted/punished after making a public tweet saying he'd setup a "$100 appropriation award" for the winner of a debate he arranged and held about cultural appropriation with other journalists. There was a social media backlash and public backlash which led to him being demoted at his job. It was tangentially related to cultural appropriation and Petersons responses were more about the "mob" and claims of "self-censorship" that "many journalists" he spoke to after this guy got demoted are "self censoring". Yet that was being used as a source for the claim that he was "heavily involved in THE debate about cultural appropriation", a pretty clear violation of WP:V/WP:RS (and by extension WP:BLP I suppose). Chuckstablers (talk) 03:31, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I generally agree with you overall but to respond specifically: On #1 I kept it brief and meant (just) amongst the many plausible possibilities not the extreme implausible ones. On #2, it was a general reminder that various such political labels have different meanings in the US vs. Europe and it's probably best to minimize such ambiguous over-generalizations (which context usually makes value-laden) and try to be more informative instead. #3 Just a reminder that such conversations are useful and normal on the talk page. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:29, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I think it would be pretty outrageously dumb to call the guy a "fascist"^[sic] in the lead, but I looked through the article's revision history and I didn't see anything like that. Does anyone have a diff for that, or what? jp×g🗯️ 23:48, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

This article is covered by arbitration sanctions

I see no fewer than four different accounts active here who are nakedly POV-pushing: user:Trakking, user:Shinealittlelight, user:North8000, and user:Springee. Should we request at WP:AE that they be topic banned?

jps (talk) 18:29, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Your latest response starts off with "Are you fucking serious?" which is a clear violation of WP:CIVILITY. Everyone else is engaged in fruitful discussion. Personally I believe that everyone here has a point although on different matters. Let's talk and reach WP:CONSENSUS. Trakking (talk) 18:59, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:CIR. This is not fruitful discussion. This is WP:TE WP:PROFRINGE WP:ADVOCACY. There is no "good people on all sides" going on here. This is a clear matter of climate change denial being pooh-poohed in the classic ideological direction of WP:CRYBLP we have seen promoted here at Wikipedia. jps (talk) 19:15, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

This is a clear violation of CIVIL. You claim POV push but why isn't the same true of your actions in the other direction? Honest editors can disagree. Let's turn it around, do we have the actual interviews or Peterson statements on which the claim denier are based? Per LABEL if this term is going to be used in wiki voice or needs to be well supported. Are we at that widely supported point yet? Springee (talk) 19:30, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

It is well-supported. That you are pretending it is not is the problem and it is consistent with your ongoing WP:POVPUSHing WP:ADVOCACY at this site to try to remove reliably sourced identification of climate change denial. jps (talk) 20:45, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Your assertion is wrong and out of line on many levels, including blatantly false and baseless accusations. It's time to stop doing that. North8000 (talk) 20:14, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Identify the blatantly false accusation I made. jps (talk) 20:43, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Who is "we"? If you feel so strongly about this, go make the case. Beware of WP:BOOMERANG. Have a nice (warm) day. Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:22, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I have requested admin help at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Jordan_Peterson. jps (talk) 20:53, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I recommend that everybody dial it back a bit and slow down. Jordan Peterson is an overt and proud climate denier; anyone who denies this is just ignoring the heaps of evidence. The fact remains, unless we have good sources about this subject, it will continue to be controversial to discuss it. I don't believe DeSmog is a bad source, and we've discussed this before in other places, but we should attempt to find additional sources. FWIW, Peterson is a vocal advocate of the fringe climate change conspiracy theory which believes climate scientists are in cahoots with world goverments to impose communism/totalitarianism on people who drive their ICE cars to work. It's just so absurd and ridiculous that it's difficult to discuss without breaking out in laughter, but sadly, this is a popular conspiracy theory on the right that is believed by millions of conservatives. Viriditas (talk) 22:00, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I forgot to note, the podcast Decoding the Gurus has repeatedly highlighted and documented Peterson's climate denial, and it's one of the most bizarre things I've ever heard. It was on that podcast that I first heard Peterson deny anthropogenic climate change was real, and quite predictably, he followed up with variations on the Narcissist's Prayer argument (Climate change didn't happen, and if it did, it wasn't caused by humans, and if it was, it isn't bad for the planet, and if it is, it's not important, etc.), which many here may be familiar with since it is one of the hallmarks of oil-funded disinformation that predates Peterson by many years. I don't know how or why Peterson started parroting oil industry talking points, but he did and he still does. There's rumors that he's funded by right-wing organizations with links to oil interests, but I haven't looked too deeply into it because Peterson is such an obviously disturbed person. What's odd and unusual is that he's considered some kind of prophet on the right, and that makes me extremely uncomfortable, so I tend to avoid this topic. Viriditas (talk) 22:14, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

That sounds interesting. I'll look into that but I'm buried in RL today so it will be tomorrow. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:50, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I didn't notice that you were just referring to a podcast series in general. If you have something specific that is on this topic I'd be happy to and would like to look at it. North8000 (talk) 13:01, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

My guess is that material that has already been linked to on this page is used as audio clips on the show. Viriditas (talk) 22:54, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Climate change didn't happen, and if it did, it wasn't caused by humans, and if it was Yes, that is also called Kettle logic. It is pointless to detail what position a denialist opposed at one point in time, since they deny whatever they can get away with. If one of their positions is refuted, they will change their song slightly and deny another thing. The only constant is that one should not regulate any markets, the reason why one shouldn't varies in the way you wrote: didn't happen, wasn't caused by humans and so on. It's motivated reasoning. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:25, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Well said. Skeptical Science highlights several aspects of this rhetorical tactic. Viriditas (talk) 22:56, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

All true. But remember we're talking about the use of a particular term. One which is pejorative because it denies things which are scientifically established as being true. Hob Gadling describes people who avoid doing that and that they avoid doing that. North8000 (talk) 14:17, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Peterson is an object of ridicule because of his inability to understand the science behind climate change, but he wants to continue making YouTube videos denying the science is valid. That is climate denialism - just like the RS say it is. 12.75.41.13 (talk) 18:45, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I think we can pretty comfortably say Peterson is a climate change denier. Allan Nonymous (talk) 21:45, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Without addressing that, that really is not related to and does not address the points in my post, which it was indented under. North8000 (talk)