Talk:Jordan Peterson/Archive 24

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Climate change section

@Newimpartial: I understand your desire to include a statement to the effect that Peterson denies the consensus. So here's a constructive way to do that: reinstate the edit I made (which made a ton of improvements that have nothing to do with your concern) and add a source which explicitly says that Peterson denies the scientific consensus. If you have a reliable source which says exactly that (not something different!), then I'll agree it should be included. Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:12, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I looked into this some. It seems that he is a critic of the measures being promoted more than a denier. Or "the cure being promoted is worse than the disease". For example https://www.quora.com/What-is-Dr-Jordan-B-Petersons-stance-on-climate-change-Do-you-think-he-is-qualified-to-talk-on-science-issues-and-related-topics North8000 (talk) 19:08, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

That sounds kind of right to me. Most importantly, though, I just literally don't see a source that straightforwardly calls him a "denier". Also, there were like a million other problems with that section, including a self-published source and a mis-quote, which got reinstated. Shinealittlelight (talk) 19:13, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you both that Peterson seems to be a skeptic not a denier. For many years, the section on climate change included only these three sentences:

Peterson doubts the scientific consensus on climate change. Peterson has said he is "very skeptical of the models that are used to predict climate change". He has also said, "You can't trust the data because too much ideology is involved".

Yesterday some random user added a bunch of irrelevant, false, and/or biased stuff to that section. Shinealittlelight did a meticulous work of cleaning it up, but then Newimpartial reverted it with the pseudo-arguments

1) that it was "status quo"—when in fact it was merely one of many new disruptive edits, the majority of which have already been reverted or corrected by different editors; and

2) that climate change denial/skepticism is "a key part of Peterson's activism"—even though there seems to be only a handful of instances in which he exclusively deals with this topic out of hundreds of lectures, interviews, and discussions, and all of those specific videos, as far as I can tell after looking into it, have been published in the last two years, making the focus on this topic a form of WP:RECENTISM.

But more fundamentally I would ask the question—why are we even including a section on Peterson's views on climate change at all? An equivalent section about his views on Economics was removed two days ago with the justification that it was WP:UNDUE. Peterson is an authority on Psychology with extensive knowledge in Political science and a keen interest in Religion; he is a social scientist, not a natural scientist. His opinion on climate change is completely irrelevant. Trakking (talk) 21:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Seems like we have a consensus that my version was an improvement. @Trakking: would you mind reinstating my edit? I also think that mention of this section in the lead is UNDUE. We don't mention almost any of his other specific positions in the lead. Mentioning this looks pretty clearly POV. Shinealittlelight (talk) 23:33, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I also agree the reversion makes the article worse. Peterson's association with climate change is minimal at best. Springee (talk) 01:14, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

@Shinealittlelight: Yes, that sentence in the lede is a clear violation of WP:NPOV that borders on vandalism and it ought to be reverted ASAP. I have already removed it once and would like to see someone else do it. I could, however, reinstate your improved version on the climate change section after 24 hours have passed. Trakking (talk) 12:36, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't understand assertions on Talk such as Peterson's association with climate change is minimal at best or His opinion on climate change is completely irrelevant. In a cursory search I found the following:

• a chapter-length contribution to Jordan Peterson: Critical Responses (not currently cited in this section), titled Jordan Peterson on Postmodernism, Truth, and Science, discusses Peterson's "denialist message" about climate change.

• the piece from The Guardian (cited in this section) refers explicity to Peterson's "all-out attack on the science of climate change and the risks of global heating".

• the National Catholic Reporter reporting (also cited in this section) refers to "Canadian climate science denier Jordan Peterson" - so a source for the term is already used in the article.

Additionally, the current section is sourced to The Independent and CNN as well, among others. It is for RS - not Wikipedia editors - to evaluate whether Peterson's activism on this issue is relevant.

So no, we don't have consensus that the whitewashed, "maybe Peterson has a point" version of the Climate denial section is an improvement, much less consenus to remove the entire section. As far as the article lead is concerned, it mentions several of Peterson's controversial views and I don't see why his views on climate change should be excluded. Newimpartial (talk) 15:48, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I can understand your disagreement with some of what other editors have said. I agree that Peterson's position on climate issues deserves a sub-section. But this response does not speak to my concerns. Take for example the issue of sourcing on calling him a "denier". The Chapter you cite is not RS as far as I can tell. It appears to be published by the same press that does all those bullshit "pop culture and philosophy" books. THe piece in the Guardian does not call him a "climate change denier". The NCR piece is really a peice from DeSmog--a largely unknown source that is clearly at best a non-neutral source and would need attribution, in which case it is undue since "According to DeSmog.com..." sounds manifestly ridiculous. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:58, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

As to the reliability of the academic source I linked, it is edited by a Sandra Woien, who teaches Philosophy at Arizona State University. The chapter in question is written by Panu Raatikainen, who teaches Philosophy at Tampere University in Finland. The other chapters in the anthology are also written by scholars, so I don't see why the book wouldn't be consisered an academic source - it offers a scholarly apparatus for each chapter; it is independent and of higher quality than most sources used in this article (not simply in this section). This is not Jordan Peterson for Dummies.

As to the veracity of the "denier" label, Michael Mann, director of the Penn Center for Science, Sustainability and the Media at the University of Pennsylvania, says of Peterson, He is promoting climate change denial at a time when it is increasingly untenable. I don't see how "denier", "promotes ... denial", "denialist message" and "all-out attack on the science of climate change" are anything but a consistent depiction of Peterson's stance by RS, and I don't see any alternative view presented among reliable sources (Quora is not a reliable source). If anyone has a better formulation than "denier" - such as "promotes denial" or presenting the quote denying that the climate exists - I certainly accept that other formulations are possible. But it is clear from RS that he denies the scientific consensus about climate change, and it is clear that Wikipedia policy does not allow us to refer to those who do so using the fig-leaf of "skeptic".

P.S. as far as alleged "misquotes" and WP:SPS, I'd be happy to answer any questions about sources in this discussion - I can't guess from Shinealittlelight's edit summaries what the supposed issues might be. Newimpartial (talk) 17:02, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

These "X and philosophy" books published by this publisher are generally edited by and written by academics, but they're not generally regarded as academic contributions. We can discuss whether the "Jordan Peterson and Philosophy" book, or the opinion piece you linked are legit RS. The deeper point is that you reverted a ton of improvements to the section with no good reason. I suggest to address your issue about "climate change denier" that we reinstate my edit, which made a ton of improvements that you're saying you didn't read closely to even identify, and then go ahead and intoroduce a sentence calling him a climate denier with the source you're proposing. Current sourcing for that claim fails verification. We can debate your proposed sourcing. Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:09, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I think Shine's edits are an improvement. If the sources don't call Peterson a denier or if the sources that do make that claim are not accurate to Peterson's statements (or if they provide no reference for their claim) then we need to "do no harm" and not make that claim ourselves. This is a BLP thus we always err on the side of caution [1] Springee (talk) 11:50, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

This is a blatant mischaracterization of the sources provided already, and I suspect it is willful and ideologically driven on your part since this is consistently your WP:ADVOCACY. jps (talk) 18:22, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Please AGF. If the sources don't back the claim BLP limitations clearly apply. Springee (talk) 19:20, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Abundant RS, including a published monograph and The Guardian - as well as an expert quoted in The Independent - all document Peterson's antagonism towards climate science. The "BLP" objection appears to be more WP:CRYBLP. Newimpartial (talk) 20:00, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

We've got promoted a denialist message in the volume published by the "pop culture and philosophy" press. We've got the Guardian saying saying he has engaged in an all-out attack on the science of climate change and the risks of global heating. And the Independent is just quoting "DeSmog," and I think there are better sources for Mann's view. Shinealittlelight (talk) 20:16, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Again, specific claims made by Peterson would be helpful. Someone who is concerned that politics within the community could be impacting research is not the same as saying there is no man made climate change. I do recall seeing Peterson saying something like that, that he is concerned about the process and it's politics, not that he doesn't believe in climate change or human impact on claims change. These are different things and we should get them right given the BLP issues here. Springee (talk) 20:20, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

We don't need specific claims made by the subject. If there are multiple reliable sources which speak to the subject's antagonism with climate science then we are quite entitled to cover that. TarnishedPath^talk 23:33, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Springee and North8000 appear to be proposing that we ought to base the content of this article on editors' collective evaluation of Peterson's views, and whether editors believe RS have presented sufficient evidence to chatacterize these views as "climate change denial". I remember Springee making similar proposals (to evaluate the evidence RS invoke when they apply various terms) on other topics.

I believe these calls amount to a call for editors to base article content on their own original research; I don't believe that editing based on whether editors are collectively convinced that the sources are correct is compliant with enwiki policies and guidelines.

It seems to me that only two questions are relevant: (1) is there RS support that Peterson is engaged in promoting climate change denial?, and (2) is there RS opposition to this characterization? I believe the answers to these questions are (1) yes and (2) no, but in any case editors offering their own interptetations of Peterson's podcasts, etc., are not contributing to a resolution of these questions as policy allows - at least, not AFAICT. Newimpartial (talk) 19:08, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

You have completely mischaracterized what I wrote here to what would be an absurdity in Wikipedia terms. Please stop. North8000 (talk) 19:25, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

NewImpartial, I think you fail to understand OR. OR applies to the content within the article. It does not apply to discussions regarding how much weight to give claims made in various sources. Stating "Peterson is a denier" in wiki voice would mean we give primary weight to the few sources that actually make that claim vs the many other sources that either don't say that or are more nuanced in their claims even while not agreeing with Peterson. This is a question of weight and per OR, talk page discussions regarding the quality of various claims is does not violate OR and is part of establishing a consensus on weight.

Here *some* sources that say "Peterson is a denier" but other sources do not. Should we, in wiki voice, say Peterson is a denier? To decide we can look at the claims in the sources and see how that compares to what is actually said by Peterson; are the sources are being true to what was actually said by Peterson? Are the sources unbiased? These are questions to establish weight per NPOV. This really isn't anything unusual on Wikipedia.

tldr\ As North8000 noted, you are mischaracterizing the arguments. Springee (talk) 19:41, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

For there to be a dispute among the sources, there must be some sources that don't just use words other than "denier" - they have to actually state or present evidence that Peterson does not deny the scientific consensus on climate change. Otherwise there is no dispute among sources, no controversy. I have asked repeatedly for sources representing alternate views to be presented here on Talk, but instead all I've seen is personal interpretations of primary sources by editors. Using such approaches to make editorial decisions is exactly what WP:PRIMARY discourages.

If an editor feels that I have mischaracterized their position in this discussion, I'd be happy to retract (and strike through) my error. But for another editor to say that I fail to understand OR - that doesn't even establish that OR is something different from what I understand it to be, and it is completely tangential to the (unsupported) claim that I "mischaracterized" their views. Insisting that the sources we use "show their receipts" so editors can decide whether they are correct in their assertions - well, we are supposed to rely on RS to make determinations about source quality rather than trying to kit-bash our own evaluations, at least the way I understand it. Newimpartial (talk) 20:12, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

In reply to, "For there to be a dispute among the sources, there must be some sources that don't just use words other than "denier" ", that is incorrect. When you are trying to apply a LABEL it isn't sufficient to say "well those sources don't dispute the label". You linked to PRIMARY but I think you fail to understand the context. Look at the opening sentence to that section, "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources, and to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. " It says the article should be based on mostly secondary sources but doesn't say primary sources can't be used and more to the point, you need to look at the opening of OR which should make it clear your interpretation is wrong, "This policy does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards." We are evaluating sources that could be used for article content. So yes, you fail to understand OR. Springee (talk) 20:31, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

While I do understand that editors are free to express their opinions on how to interptet and evaluate sources, I don't think it is correct to suggest that these editorial discussions are supposed to set aside basic principles of PRIMARY and secondary sourcing when determing article content. Two of the numbered points from WP:PRIMARY seem especially relevant in this context:

2. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation...

4. Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.

In this discussion, we are weighing the evidence to decide how this BLP article should refer to Peterson's stance on climate change. In this discussion, some editors are basing their evaluation on their own interpretation (and synthesis) of primary sources originating from Peterson, and also on their own interpretation of secondary sources (as "not presenting satisfactory evidence"). Other editors are basing their judgement on what reliable, independent, secondary sources say about Peterson, and also on what reliable, independent secondary sources say about those characterizing Peterson's position.

In line with the introducory statement Springee has quoted, there may be some room for both approaches. However, since article content is supposed to be based in the first instance on what independent, reliable sources say about a topic, I think it is clear that our P&Gs require that we prioritize secondary source perspectives over the original interpretations and opinions offered by editors. Newimpartial (talk) 19:43, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't think you understand NOR. Let's go with the extreme example, should we include a hypothetical fact reported by a RS. Our discussion regarding weight, our references to RSP etc are all OR because we don't have a source that says, "The article on X should include [fact]".

The NOR passages you are quoting refer to article content. Can you point to any content that has been proposed for addition that would violate those rules? If so, what and how? For example, one of the big points of debate is between using the LABEL climate change denier, vs using phrasing that mirrors what sources say Peterson has said. Are either of those OR? Using primary sources/other sources to refute claims made by a secondary source is acceptable OR, in fact it's what we do all the time. For example, when editors felt The Telegraph made false claims related to trans issues, they engaged in OR to look at the claims and compare them to accusations. Are you suggesting that such work to establish if a source is reliable is not acceptable? Springee (talk) 23:35, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

To answer your initial question, competing article content is being proposed to address the issue, "how should this article describe Peterson's stance on climate change?" Editors are approaching this question in two ways: some are saying, "I have read/watched/listened to Peterson's statements on climate change, and his view is X, so this article should reflect X". Other editors are saying, "reliable sources characterize Peterson's position on climate change as A/B/C, and A/B/C are mutually-compatible characterizations, and no reliable source treats Peterson as 'not-A/B/C', and the sources saying A/B/C receive positive approval in secondary sources on them, so this article should reflect A/B/C, probably by saying A or B or C".

Now I recognize that the situation is not as simple as, the former editors are doing WP:OR and the latter editors are not. That would be an oversimplification. But I do think the former editors are basing their preferred article text on OR (their own interpretation of primary sources) and the latter editors are not (they are relying on what independent, secondary sources say). Further, I believe our sourcing policies tell us to do the latter while discouraging the former. (The way I usually express this in my edit summaries is something like, "enwiki articles are to be based on independent, secondary sources and not on the opinions of editors".) Newimpartial (talk) 00:27, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Your concern about what might be added is fair. I don't think anyone has proposed a specific addition so it might be early to say something is OR but you are correct that if we the editors consult primary sources/statements by Peterson, then include our own summation of "what he really means" then that would be OR. However, I don't think removing "is a climate change denier" and replacing it with something closer to some of the summaries of his views presented in RSs would count as OR. I agree with the IP editor who suggested we, via RS, say what Peterson said his views are/what he has said, and then follow that with the reaction to his views from his critics (who don't have to be called "critics" in the article text). Hopefully that will put your OR concerns at ease. Springee (talk) 01:55, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

You also didn't reply to the fact that you reintroduced mis-quotes and self-published sources, which is pretty disruptive in my view. Shinealittlelight (talk) 16:00, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

See above. Newimpartial (talk) 17:02, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

In conclusion, there are no authoritative sources explicitly stating that Peterson is a "denier".

After looking into this issue, I have come to the conclusion that Peterson believes that climate change is real, but that it has both positive and negative consequences on the environment. And he argues that environmental policies keeps the third world poor. And most of all, he is critical of the most fringe environmentalist activists, who explicitly say nihilistic and murderous things like "humans are a cancer on the planet" and "we need to reduce the population to 1 billion". That skepticism of extremist views is not very sensational. And he has received support from climate scientists such as Bjørn Lomborg, Alex Epstein, and Richard Lindzen.

Tricky topics such as this one ought to be presented in a nuanced and balanced way according to Wikipedia guidelines, but I don't see any justification for its inclusion at all. Peterson is known for his opposition to Bill C-16, his best-selling self-help books, his debate with Slavoj Žižek, his Biblical lectures, his Jungian philosophy etc.—not his views on climate change. Trakking (talk) 18:10, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Lomborg is not a climate scientist, but an economist who has no clue about climatology and talks a lot of bullshit about it. Epstein is the same, with different but also non-climate-related fields. I don't think you should talk about the subject if you cannot even get simple facts about it right. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:26, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps, but the only prominent climate scientist cited against Peterson's position is Michael E. Mann. The opposition is not very overwhelming. Trakking (talk) 18:36, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Must be a dream of yours. If you look at the article, you see lots of climate scientists saying Peterson has no clue. And of course you see lots of other clueless deiners agreeing with him. This is a mainstream encyclopedia, we prefer experts to buffoons. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:47, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

"Denier" is often used or mis-used as a vague pejorative term for people who don't deny the main tenet of climate change but who dispute other aspects such as proposed measures. Merely having someone who used the term it is not per se a reason to include it in the article. If we're going to get into that we should be more informative and specific instead. North8000 (talk) 17:42, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

He definitely seems to be "denying" the core tenets of anthropogenic climate change (eg the relationship between greenhouse gases like CO2 and the temperature), but I agree its best to be specific.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 18:08, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Exactly. It is clear he is a denier, and his layman misunderstandings of the field should not be quoted. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:26, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

What's the source which says he is a denier again? Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:31, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with DeSmog. They are specialized for that. Also, WP:SKYISBLUE: his statements are clear enough. there is no such thing as climate and the Earth's climate is too complicated to accurately model - huh, then why are the models' predictions so accurate?

Every time we have a heat record, climate change deniers get active on Wikipedia, trying to propagate their fringe beliefs... --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:47, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't agree. DeSmog is clearly a biased source and needs attribution. And I don't agree that this is a SKYISBLUE situation: we should follow sources because it is a BLP, and "denier" is very incendiary. I might be ok with "Mann says that Peterson has promoted climate change denial" using the "Tyee" source (never heard of it) above. But it seems obvious that we should have a clear source for such a claim as "He's a denier" in a BLP. Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:53, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

DeSmog is clearly a biased source only in the sense of WP:YWAB. See also WP:FRINGE and WP:FALSEBALANCE. In a fight between science on one side and clueless, dishonest people on the other, Wikipedia is on the side of science. A guy who literally denies that climate exists is a climate denier. The sky is still blue and does not need attribution. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:40, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

HG, can you provide the reference North8000 asked for? Springee (talk) 21:15, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Like it or lump it, climate change denier is the term used to describe those who claim that either global warming isn't happening, it's not being caused by humans, or it's not as bad as the climate scientists say. Jordan Peterson falls into the latter group by claiming that mitigation efforts will result in outcomes worse than the effects of climate change. They only way one can do this is to downplay the actual effects that climate scientists say global warming will have/is having. jps (talk) 17:45, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

We should follow reliable sources, which so far do not directly call him a "climate change denier". We don't just get to infer that label in a BLP. Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:48, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

We have the reliable sources. That you don't like them is immaterial. Jordan Peterson is an unapologetic climate change denier. That's clear. jps (talk) 17:52, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I have no problem including if it’s in RS. Can you provide a direct quote from RS please?Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:06, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

[2]. "Peterson has, as a matter of fact, shown a tendency towards advocating pseudo-scientific ideas. For example, in August 2018, Peterson shared on Twitter a video titled “Climate Change: What Do Scientists Say?” with his own comment: “Something for the anticapitalist environmentalists to hate.” In the video, Richard Lindzen, a notorious climate change denialist who is known to have received money from fossil fuel interests, speaks as the only “scientist” (Herzog 2018). This is not the only time Peterson has downplayed climate change and promoted a denialist message. Peterson seems to be open to pseudo-scientific propaganda if it can be used as a weapon against “the left.”" jps (talk) 18:09, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Shinealittlelight, if you are splitting hairs between "climate change denier", Peterson's "denialist message on climate change" and his "all-out attack on the science of climate change" - I don't think there is a basis in policy to treat those as anything but synonymous statements by RS, and the sources for each of these have been linked above.

Nor has anyone presented RS evidence (since Quora isn't reliable, and neither are editors' impressions of podcasts) of any disagreement among RS as to whether Peterson denies the reality of climate change - some such disagreement would be needed for attribution to be called for in this case.

(Also, if attribution is eventually required because of sources not yet presented that dispute this characterization, Michael E. Mann is a relevant expert whose characterization of Peterson has been sought out and published in many RS, and would be DUE for an attributed statement.) Newimpartial (talk) 18:14, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Then, if we're going to cover it here, why not actually cover it here in an informative manner instead of trying to put in a one word vague epitaph?North8000 (talk) 18:20, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what? Last I saw, the opposition to identifying Peterson as a denier were interested in removing entire sentences to that effect. jps (talk) 18:25, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

My posts on this topic have all been about the vague "denier" epitaph. I'm all for more thorough informative coverage regarding this. North8000 (talk) 18:52, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

You mean epithet? How is climate change denial vague? It's extremely well-defined. We have oodles of sources on it. It's perhaps the best understood of all the anti-science positions that exist today. jps (talk) 01:01, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

The central tenet and scientific consensus regarding climate change is that the earth is warming and that a major cause of this is human activity. A climate change denier is someone who denies this. That is well defined. The ill-defined parts are when people apply it to people who don't deny that but question or dispute things that do NOT have scientific consensus. Such as projections of the severity of impact, whether or not certain promoted mitigation measures are good or bad ideas etc. North8000 (talk) 02:57, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

You just defined climate change denial. Lostsandwich (talk) 07:40, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Agree with North8000. Additionally, JPS, I don't think that volume is RS: it's published by the pop culture and philosophy people. And, in any case, if RS says "promoted a denialist message" then that's what we should say. If they're equivalent then I don't see the issue. Is there some reason you prefer your variant phrasing, Newimpartial? Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:24, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Are you fucking serious? That's the genre in which Peterson is active. Critics in pop culture and philosophy are the ones that are best equipped to identify his rhetorical style. This is just naked WP:POVPUSHing at this point. I see from your account that this is what you do consistently. Should we ask that you be topic banned? That's a way forward. jps (talk) 18:26, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I'm serious. Sorry if I upset you. My take is that "The Simpsons and Philosophy" is not a serious work, and the publisher of these kinds of volumes is on the face of it not RS. But maybe I'm wrong. Trying to follow policy here. Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:51, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

You are wrong. The Simpsons and Philosophy is not only serious, it is highly regarded. To be clear, your continued pushing in this direction is evident from this talk page to be in only one particular direction. Whether you intend it or not (and I'm bound by WP:AGF to assume you are not intending it), your advocacy is firmly planted towards denying 'climate change denial which is a big enough problem that there were two arbitrations on at Wikipedia. Thus, my section below. jps (talk) 18:55, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Ok, well, we have a good faith difference of opinion about whether the "pop culture and philosopy" series is a serious work of scholarship. My informal sense is that my view is widely held. But maybe others can weigh in. Shinealittlelight (talk) 19:01, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I am open to a variety of phrasing; what I am not open to is editors paring back or denying Peterson's denialism.

As far as the critical responses source is concerned, it is a chapter by an academic professional, with a scholarly appatatus, in a book edited by an academic professional. The idea that it isn't a reliable source (as opposed to a peer-reviewed scholarly source) seems highly tendentious.

This is an article where a whole disputed paragraph in the Careers section is sourced entirely to primary and non-independent, biased sources. Any of the sources we are discussing for the client change characterization are levels in source quality above those used in the paragraph in question (a paragraph that has been supported in its current form by at least two of the editors questioning the climate change sources). Newimpartial (talk) 18:47, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Well I'm not commenting on the other section you mention. I certainly agree with using independent reliable sources there too. A lot of these "pop culture and philosophy" volumes are written by professionals but have an air of whimsy and are marketed to a mass audience rather than being serious contributions to the field. It's weird that we can't find a more serious source for this if it's really DUE in the article. Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:54, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Newimpartial that Critical Responses is a RS. I trust books, especially scholarly ones, significantly more than sensational journalism, which much of this article is based on, unfortunately. However, I would like to see a verbatim citation from the book in support of the claim. Trakking (talk) 19:15, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:CHEESE. It has been given twice already. jps (talk) 19:16, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Trakking, I think the key quote is This is not the only time Peterson has downplayed climate change and promoted a denialist message. If this were RS then I would think this justifies saying he has promoted a denialist message. But I don't think it's RS. Sounds like I may be the only one who thinks that here. Shinealittlelight (talk) 19:29, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

There is a draft of what i think is the chapter in question available at PhilArchive, unable to find the published version. fiveby(zero) 23:59, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I speed watched 90 minutes at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Q2YHGIlUDk which was informative. Not denying the main tenet of climate change and on the contrary seems to accept it. Is questioning and skeptical on a wide range of related things as such as projections, promoted measures, projections of severity of impact etc. North8000 (talk) 20:11, 25 July 2024 (UTC).

This is textbook climate change denial. There is zero debate. jps (talk) 20:46, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Stating "I'm not denying that the climate changes" while denying essentially everything related to climate change is very much textbook denial. Lostsandwich (talk) 21:19, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Indeed; that's been a part of the denialist playbook for years now. XOR'easter (talk) 22:31, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Any concerns with ...climate deniers such as Judith Curry... fiveby(zero) 00:20, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

So "not denying" climate change is the sign of a climate change denier.  :-) North8000 (talk) 16:43, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

We do have an article on climate change denial if you do not understand what that encompasses. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:50, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Good article, it reinforces what I've been saying. Perhaps you should read it.  :-) North8000 (talk) 18:47, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

We really should be careful about assuming definitions. The literal meaning of "climate change denial" would be saying the climate doesn't change. The problem with using such terms is, even if the term has an understood meaning on Wikipedia, it may not be understood by readers who don't follow our blue links and it many not be the intended use by a source. This is why we have cautionary rules about putting links within quotes. Going back to what North8000 is saying, if someone says, "climate change is real and humans have an impact but I think politics etc..." then it seems illogical to say they are "denying" climate change. Certainly we should be careful about saying such a thing in Wiki voice. We can say RSs have said this "I believe but..." type statement is a form of climate change denial. What we should be careful about is stating that it is denial when the plain reading of the phrase "climate change denial" only implies a denial of any form of climate change. Please note that such absolutist type phrases are politically useful because they paint the "other side" in the most extreme light. As an encyclopedia we should be more concerned with the details of his views (and the details of the responses) rather than using broad, often political, labels. Springee (talk) 17:17, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

On one hand, if we're focused on what the words themselves mean absent how they're actually used, we should probably also explain that Jordan Peterson isn't actually the son of some guy named Peter (argumentum ad absurdum acknowledged). On the other hand, yes, we should be careful with labels. Nuance matters. What do you suggest? I'm going to push back on As an encyclopedia we should be more concerned with the details of his views though. Peterson is not a climate scientist, even if he speaks with confidence on the subject. An encyclopedia should be prioritizing the views of people who actually know about climate science when it comes to the claims made by influential people who are not experts in the field (but nonetheless have an influence on popular opinion/discourse). Obviously we should misrepresent Peterson's views, but that representation should be done through the lens of experts. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:16, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, after a couple hours of research, it looks like the reality is "Peterson does not deny the main premises of climate change but expresses skepticism regarding the advisability of various promoted mitigation measures, future projections of climate, and assessments of the severity of the impacts of climate change." Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:42, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Ideally we can find an objective source that did some analysis. North8000 (talk) 20:05, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Peterson is not a climate scientist, even if he speaks with confidence on the subject. I just want to point out, that the problem here isn't just the confidence, but the slick, well-produced videos that are film quality productions, combined with his snazzy dress and way of speaking. There are many people who are instantly smitten by this kind of thing, and whatever critical thinking they once had goes right out the window. I call this the optics over substance problem, and it's what the kids call rizz or charismatic authority. Peterson is intentionally manipulating his audience. Viriditas (talk) 00:02, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

The literal definition of climate change is irrelevant to the discussion, since "the climate changing" is not, and has not ever been up for debate for as long as we've known about the existence of the ice age(s) or any previous climate epochs- by that very definition nobody is a climate change denier (other than perhaps Young Earth Creationists). The concern is not, and has not ever been, in any real capacity, whether or not "the climate changes." The relevant part, the part that matters is what constitutes the real definition of "climate change".

Stating "I'm not a climate change denier, I don't deny the climate changes" is moot. It's an attempt to soften a ludicrous statement and appear reasonable. However, as I've already noted- essentially no one is a climate change denier by that metric. If you do however, deny the real working definition of the term, as it is understood by just about everybody and has been understood by just about everybody for decades, then you are in fact a "climate change denier". Lostsandwich (talk) 22:49, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Do you actually have any evidence that readers of Wikipedia will understand that when we say "climate change denier" that could include people who do think humans are causing climate change and even agree with big the changes are but, for example, argue that the change is something we can accept. Do you have evidence that people who are concerned that climate change research and policy may be driven by politics more than science are not going to be confused with people who say "humans have zero impact on climate"? What evidence do you have for that claim? Springee (talk) 23:25, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Peterson explicitly says he doesn't believe that science of climate change is reliable. Sources clearly reflect that. We follow sources, not personal hunches about how readers may be confused about the different flavors of climate science denial. 12.75.41.13 (talk) 23:37, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken he says he is concerned about how the science is being conducted based on perverse incentives for funding etc. That he isn't a climate change scientist doesn't mean he can't make reasonable observations about, what amounts to group behavior. As an example, one of the scholarly papers studying the Ford Pinto fires is "Pinto "Madness" as a Flawed Landmark Narrative: An Organizational and Network Analysis" by Matthew T Lee and M. David Ermann. Neither author is a engineer nor an expert in automotive design nor automotive safety. Instead, they are organizational phycologists. They look at how organizations operate. They tried to understand how and why Ford was willing and able to produce a car that gained such a horrible reputation for safety. It is worth noting that many of the decision makers, even at the VP level purchased Pintos for members of their own families. If Ford felt the car was so unsafe, why would they do that? Peterson certainly isn't a climate scientist. Peterson, right or wrong in detail, seems to be taking on a roll similar to Lee and Ermann. Using his specific area of knowledge as well as experience working in a similar academic system to judge where he thinks mistakes are being made. That doesn't mean he is correct and certainly people who want to deny climate change (and more often the measures taken to address it) wouldn't use such concerns, even if we assume they are valid, for invalid purposes. Springee (talk) 02:22, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are supposed to follow the reliable sources on the topics discussed in articles; the preferred term in the relevant literatures to evoke the wide range of dissenting positions concerning climate science has been "denial" for some time. Newimpartial (talk) 01:00, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Since most sources don't call him a climate change denier following the sources would mean we also don't call him one. Springee (talk) 01:58, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

The vast majority of sources on Peterson's views on climate change indicate that he denies, or promotes denial of, or doesn't understand, the scientific consensus on climate change. As demonstrated above, the preferred term for this whole range of characterizations is "climate change denial".

We are supposed to determine article content by underanding what RS mean and then using consistent, encyclopedic terminology to reflect that meaning (as we do with other public figures who deny the scientific consensus). We are not supposed to calculate the percentage of sources using a term to decide whether to use that term. Newimpartial (talk) 10:32, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Luckily, there's an entire Wikipedia article on the topic, with a considerable amount of supporting literature. One thing you'll notice is that "climate change" vis a vis "climate change denial" does not cover the "literal definition" of the term, because that would patently absurd. Couching "I don't deny climate change" in actual climate change denial is transparent and obvious. You do not get to say you don't do something while doing that exact thing just because you opened with a (purposefully strawmanned) statement. Lostsandwich (talk) 01:57, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

What we the editors of Wikipedia have decided is meant by "climate change denier" is not the same as what readers might think when they see the term. Do you have evidence that the average or even 25th percentile reader of Wikipedia is going to understand how broad in scope some people view the phrase "climate change denial"? Beyond that, per BLP and LABEL we should not use a value laden label just because some, but not most or perhaps even half, of the sources choose to use it. Springee (talk) 02:03, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

What policy are you referring to when asking what percentage of Wikipedia readers know what global warming denial is? You are sealioning. Keep the goal posts in one place. What do RS say about him when discussing his views on global warming? They say, as demonstrated above, that he is a denialist and science professionals find his stance to be "ridiculous". That is what this article should reflect, unless you have some RS showing his positions are aligned with the scientific consensus on human caused global warming. 12.75.41.13 (talk) 02:23, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

The goal of Wikipedia is to accurately convey knowledge. When we use phrases that imply one thing via plain text, yet are meant to mean something much broader we risk conveying something false to our readers. Beyond that, many of the RS that discuss his comments related to climate change do not call him a denier. That has already been discussed. Only a few, and many of lesser quality, are the ones that specifically call him a "denier". Springee (talk) 03:15, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Everyone knows what it means to deny climate science. Your argument that this concept is too hard for Wikipedia readers is without merit. 12.75.41.13 (talk) 03:21, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Really, what evidence do you have for that claim? What evidence do you have that the average, non-editor reader, when reading the "climate change denier" will understand that even someone who believes in anthropogenic climate change can be a denier? If you read that John Doe is a climate change denier are you going to reasonably assume John actually does believe in anthropogenic climate change? Again, this is why we should look at what a range of sources say rather than pick the most extreme label used only by some. Springee (talk) 03:41, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Please see WP:SEALION. Many citations have been provided. It is borderline disruptive to ask for a source on what words Wikipedia readers use. Stay focused. Provide sources to back your assertions and preferred wording, or take those which have been provided to WP:RSN if you'd like to convince the rest of us that they are not as reliable as we think. 12.75.41.13 (talk) 04:11, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I believe a number have and upon review only a few actually call Peterson a denier. Shinealittlelight went through them. Perhaps we need to start a review table so we can be clear about which sources say what. You also dodged the question regarding your own claim, "Everyone knows what it means to deny climate science". Well, what source do you have for that? Springee (talk) 04:32, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Can you link the studies of Wikipedia reader vocabulary you rely on? This is the definition of sealioning. Provide sources backing what you say (that he is within the scientific mainstream), or discredit the sources that say he has fringe beliefs. 12.75.41.13 (talk) 04:56, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Merriam Webster says the definition of climate change denial is more narrow than Wikipedia. Is it unreasonable to think readers might be thinking of MW's definition vs Wikipedia's? Per MW "rejection of the idea that changes in the Earth's climate or weather patterns are caused by human activity" [3]. Their definition of climate change denier is also consistent: "one who denies that changes in the Earth's climate or weather patterns are caused by human activity" [4]. Springee (talk) 12:40, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand this debate about definitions of "climate change denier". What source is proposed for this? Don't we need a source that calls him exactly this to include it? Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:30, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

We have multiple sources that call him a climate science denier, but the argument presented to us is that Wikipedia readers would not understand what that means. It is an argument without merit and can be ignored. 12.75.41.13 (talk) 04:06, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

The common meaning of denier is denying the part that is scientifically established. This is a claim of severe ludicrous behavior. Especially for a BLP we need strong sourcing that he specifically did that. Just somebody hurling that epitaph is not that.North8000 (talk) 12:52, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

So, you do not see how ludicrous his statements are? Seems to be a WP:CIR problem. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:11, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Is there a single reason to believe that any readers may "actually" get confused about what the term climate change refers to beyond your (and anyone defending this) disruptive attempts at deflection? As this apparent position, which is that when people talk about climate change with respect to climate change denial they just maybe might be kinda sorta referring to the fact that "climate changes" which has been known for decades, if not centuries? Is there any reasonable justification that such a thing needs to be noted anywhere, including on the page for climate change denial which itself explains the position, beyond running interference for the individual(s) in question?

Do you *any* evidentiary basis for harping on "the literal definition" of the term being a reasonable measuring stick for anything? Lostsandwich (talk) 03:18, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Again, we are applying a LABEL. As such it either needs to have a consensus among sources (so far it doesn't appear to). While denier certainly applies to those who don't believe in anthropogenic climate change, it is more questionable to apply it in cases where the person says they do believe but have other concerns. Regardless, you specifically made the claim that readers would understand. It appears you don't actually have evidence that such a common understanding exists. Again, as a BLP we are instructed to err on the side of caution. In this case that would be not using the label and instead stating what he actually says while still including the strongly, negative reactions to it. Springee (talk) 03:46, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

So you have zero evidentiary basis with which to claim there is any notable misunderstanding of the term climate change such that one can reasonable label themselves "not a climate change denier" and be truthful about the statement because they were simply referring to the fact that they do not deny the ice age existed?

It was of course, not me who brought up the "literal meaning" (because there is no reason to). That was you. So, unless you're capable of demonstrating that "I don't deny the ice age existed (or any other period that is irrelevant to the topic)" is a reasonable justification for dismissing the label of climate change denier we can easily disregard your entire line of thinking to that end. Lostsandwich (talk) 08:18, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

How about Merriam Webster: [5] "rejection of the idea that changes in the Earth's climate or weather patterns are caused by human activity". So if a reader understands the term to have the same meaning as MW, yeah, using that LABEL could mislead the reader as to what Peterson believes. Springee (talk) 12:36, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Really driving home the point of you not acting in good faith. You provided nothing resembling what was asked in order for your pointless obstruction to have any merit. At this point I'd consider requesting a topic ban. Lostsandwich (talk) 16:41, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Don't accuse others of acting in bad faith. I asked for evidence that our readers would interpret CC denier the same way the Wikipedia article does. None was provided. When I was asked for evidence that readers wouldn't I provide a MW dictionary definition. Springee (talk) 19:39, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Request denied. We do not perform studies of Wikipedia readers language abilities as part of our writing process. You were unable to provide any such studies you use when writing, making me suspect this is a road block that has been invented for this purpose. There is no need to prove what people will understand. We reflect what WP:RS says instead. Do you have any WP:RS? Yes or No? 12.75.41.13 (talk) 20:02, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Let's review, the concern is that not all readers may understand that the Wikipedia definition of "climate change denier" includes people who agree with anthropogenic climate change. Some editors pushed back and suggested that all readers would have the Wikipedia understanding of the term. I asked for evidence that this understanding was true. None was provided. When I was challenged to show it wasn't true I provided at MW dictionary definition that conflicts with the Wikipedia definition. Are you suggesting MW is wrong? Springee (talk) 20:14, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia readers confused about the term are welcome to review the article on the very topic.

Notice how the article on the very topic doesn't say anything about the "literal meaning" because that would be patently absurd, and pretending that is has value is the same tactic deniers of all stripes hide behind.

Denying that the moon landing footage is faked, but agreeing that humans landed on the moon, privileges one to the "moon landing denier" label. Denying that some six million people were killed by the genocidal machinery of the Holocaust, but agreeing that many died from typhus privileges one to the "holocaust denier" label. That is how language works. Just as in this case "agreeing that the climate changes" (which is not, and has not ever been in contention, as you have failed to demonstrate) in the same sentence as denying everything that is germane to the topic does in fact privilege one to the climate change denier label. Quite simple really.

More importantly, if you were to in fact demonstrate (which you've continually failed to) that "climate change just means the climate changes so no, no one denies that!" is a reasonable statement to make, you would also need to demonstrate that such an empty aphorism effectively rebuts the remaining volume of statements made to such a degree they can be ignored in favour of the previous claim. Lostsandwich (talk) 20:49, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

The "dictionary definition" does not support your claim. It was again, you who brought up the "literal meaning" as something that was supposed to be important and have continually danced around supporting that claim. Lostsandwich (talk) 20:38, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I think I made it very clear early on that I was referring to human caused climate change. I believe my 17:17 26 July comment was the first time I brought this up in the current discussion and the first time I see that I used the word "literal". In that edit I said, "We really should be careful about assuming definitions. The literal meaning of "climate change denial" would be saying the climate doesn't change. The problem with using such terms is, even if the term has an understood meaning on Wikipedia, it may not be understood by readers who don't follow our blue links and it many not be the intended use by a source. ". I believe that was before your first post in this discussion. So I already was clear what we were not talking about a claim that the climate has never changed since the history of time. I'm sorry if, by arriving after that was said, you mistakenly thought I was referring to your "literal meaning". I hope we are clear on that now. Springee (talk) 23:43, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

All this is a waste of time. We say what reliable sources say. We do not stop doing this just because a user does not like it. If the user keeps trying to get his own opinion preferred to the statements of experts, and keeps wikilawyering in that same topic for years to protect the proponents of an anti-science ideology, topic-ban the user. --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:51, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

You are right. We say what RS say. If those sources don't use the term climate change denier then we don't use the term. We can and should say what RS have said Peterson has said about the subject and what experts have said about Peterson's statements. What we doing do, per policy, is apply contentious labels because we want to. When I got some time, hopefully later today, I will start a table of references and we can see what the various sources actually say vs just using editor's interpretations. Springee (talk) 10:14, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Springee, you have been presented with multiple, reliable sources that use variants of "climate-change denier"/"denial". I think you are approaching stick-dropping time - if not already there. Newimpartial (talk) 12:26, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

As an experienced editor you should know that we distinguish between sources that say things like "his comments support" vs "he is". I will also note that this was a recent change to the article (see the pre July 20 version of the section) and we have no consensus for the charges. Per NOCON, which is policy, the section should be rolled back. The previous version made it clear his views were disputed by experts, included fewer quotes that are out of context from the RS (or possible not supported at all) and made Peterson's central point, regardless of it's validity, clear. There are at least 4 editors who don't agree with the recent changes. That puts us squarely in NOCON territory. Springee (talk) 12:55, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

You have no leg to stand on. This guy actually said there is no such thing as climate. WP:SKYISBLUE. No honest person would deny that he is a climate denier. Stop disrupting this talk page to push your POV. --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:29, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Please provide Peterson's quote. Not the quote from a source that may have taken it or of context, which would then make that source of questionable reliability, process Peterson's quote. The claim that Peterson actually said their is no such thing as climate is clearly REDFLAG. Springee (talk) 10:28, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Springee, why would it be compliant with policy to offer a primary source for the quote in question, when many, many independent RS are available as sources for the quote? I feel that what you are asking comes from the bizarro world version of wikipedia. Newimpartial (talk) 14:00, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Who is suggesting we add primary sourced quotes to the wiki article? I'm not and if I've given you that impression I apologize as it absolutely isn't my intent. I think it is reasonable to consult a primary source to see if a secondary source is presenting a quote in context within the secondary source. It is also reasonable to ask if we should present a quote used in the secondary source if we don't include the context the secondary source also provided. To be very clear, I'm not proposing we add any material sourced to a primary source to the wiki article. One of the dangers of long threads like this is we all lose track of what others have actually proposed or, worse yet, we get an incorrect impression of what others have said and then argue against what we think they intend vs what they actually intent. Really at this point we need to look at what was in the stable version of the text as well as the recent changes and perhaps start over with this discussion with something more like a set of diffs to look at. Springee (talk) 14:34, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

This is just more disruptive sealioning. We don't need to dive into podcasts as a group to determine whether reliable sources are mistaken. If the sources are wrong, Wikipedia is wrong. Please stop asking for people to perform original research. If you think a source isn't reliable, tell us which one and why. If no agreement is had, let's ask WP:RSN. Let's stop running in pointless circles. You have no sources, and you refuse to name which sources are unreliable. If you aren't interested in discussing reliable sources, stop derailing this thread. I considered taking this behavior to WP:ANI but it is semi protected at the moment. 12.75.41.13 (talk) 22:09, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Let me say this again as clearly as possible. The beginning of the very first sentence in the current version of the climate change section of the article is Peterson is a climate-change denier... For this we provide four sources. Not a single one of these four sources uses the word "denier" or any other version of the word "deny". What a ridiculous claim that somehow Springee is at fault here. Springee and I both agree that we should accurately summarize these sources. The current version blatantly violates WP:BLP and blatantly fails verification. It is we who want to move the text closer to the sources. Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:57, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure how closely you've read WP:V, but citations directly supporting "denial"/"denier" are already in the paragraph in question. If you are concerned that the clicky numbers aren't in (what you think is) the right place, you should be clear that if they happen to be in the "wrong" location in the paragraph, that situation cannot in itself result in fails verification. That just isn't what verification involves. Newimpartial (talk) 01:12, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I know WP:V, obviously. I can't tell which source in this paragraph you think supports this label. Are you referring to this "DeSmog" source: [6]? Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:46, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

To answer your question: both that source and The Guardian directly support the characterization, as I have discussed in our exchange earlier in this section. Newimpartial (talk) 09:43, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

The Guardian source says Peterson has been on an all-out attack on the science of climate change and the risks of global heating. I would support use of this source to include the claim that Jordan Peterson has attacked the science of climate change. That's not the same as labelling him a "climate-change denier," which the Guardian source does not do. As for "DeSmog," it is a group blog (previously called "DeSmog Blog") that has received some discussion at RSN, where it is generally regarded as either unreliable or biased. So not RS, at least not without attribution. Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:53, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

According to WP:USEBYOTHERS principles, the inclusion of this particular DeSmog source by the Catholic Reporter - as a news and not an opinion article - lends to support to the reliability of the specific article cited.

In any case, I hope all editors can see that this is not a fails verification scenario. Personally, I would prefer to employ a reference to the Critical Reactions piece by Panu Raatikainen, but I haven't tried to insert the citation because some editors have objected to the tone of other books, in a different series, by the same publisher. !!?? Sigh. Newimpartial (talk) 13:07, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Ok, progress. You're not disputing that the Guardian piece you referenced does not support use of the label "climate-change denier". You're claiming that a source appended to a different sentence--"DeSmog"--is RS without attribution in this case. Let's get clear on what exactly in "DeSmog" is supposed to support this label. The "DeSmog" article says:

1. Peterson is now planting doubt via his podcast and social media posts about the severity and urgency of global warming in the minds of younger generations.
2. ...Peterson’s frequent downplaying of climate risks...
3. ...Peterson is among the most visible promoters of climate crisis denial.

Which of these (or did I miss one) supports the label in your view? Once you say, I'll be glad to take it to RSN. We can also check the Raatikainen piece there if you want; it says Peterson has downplayed climate change and promoted a denialist message. I assume that's the quote you think supports the label "climate-change denier". Shinealittlelight (talk) 13:52, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

To answer your questions: as I have said before, "promoter of climate change denial", "promoted a denialist message" and "all-out attack on the science of climate change" all support the label "climate-change denier". As also noted previously, I am not attached to "denier" vs. "denial" vs. some other formulation of his attack on the scientific consensus about climate change. Many policy-compliant options exist.

What I do not think policy allows is milquetoast, apologetic language like observing that "Peterson argued against the accuracy of climate modelling" and that several scientists "denounced Peterson's statements on these topics". Of course these things happened, but they are not a DUE summary either of Peterson's position or of how it was received. Instead, such formulations come across as, "Peterson has a view, and some scientists disagree with him", which would be a WP:FRINGE violation if presented in this article.

Also, back to the narrower question of terminology: the standard term on-wiki as off-wiki for those engaged in objecting to the consensus about climate change is, in fact, "climate change denial", as I have already documented. This term is used by RS about Peterson. If there is a policy-based reason not to use this standard term, I certainly haven't seen it presented in this discussion. What I have seen is editors offering interperetation of primary sources by Peterson to the effect that they aren't convinced that what they hear from Peterson fits what they understand "denial" to mean. I certainly welcome a policy-based objection, perhaps in a new Talk section, but that surely isn't it. Newimpartial (talk) 14:53, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Posted on RSN: [7] Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:50, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I've said what I have to say on this. I've started to see terrible wiki-negative mis-characterizations of what I wrote....I called those out but don't plan to engage further on such things, and those persons should please stop. I also don't plan to repeat what I said already. If somebody feels that I can give helpful thoughts or help craft a solution, please ping me to make sure I know. Otherwise I plan to bow out of this thread. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:34, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Potential compromise wording - there are plenty of sources about the ridicule Peterson has received about his misunderstandings of math, science, and the climate. Instead of getting into how he is wrong, it may be more fruitful just to describe his pseudoscience as being often ridiculed by professionals. [[8]], [[9]], [[10]]. These are a few sources, hundreds more exist to document the ridicule Peterson has received for his basic mistakes in STEM areas. That seems significant enough to cover, and DUE. 12.75.41.13 (talk) 22:19, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Call a spade a spade. Just say that others have described him as a denialist, that he believes the measures to prevent further change are worse than the change itself, etc. Just do it concisely. But we can't avoid the mention when it's clearly DUE. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:32, 29 July 2024 (UTC)