Talk:Jordan Peterson/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Article badly needs a separate "Criticism" section

The first part of the article is fairly balanced, but when the article gets down to specifics, these have Peterson's views explained by Peterson's severe critics, which is a bit like having the Marxism article explain Marxism in the words of William F. Buckley.

Example: "Peterson's perspective on the influence of postmodernism on North American humanities departments has been compared to Cultural Marxist conspiracy theories."(four references).

This bit of smear is stuck right in the middle of section on what Peterson thinks, without apology. Why not allow Peterson's works themselves (or at least some reasonably neutral summary of them) to say what Peterson thinks? Do we not accord this courtesy to any philosopher? The smear above is that "cultural Marxist conspiracy" is defined by Wikipedia as antisemitic, whereas Peterson is not antisemitic in the least, and his target is academic Marxists, not Jews. Marxism has a had a vast influence on academia in the West, as Wikipedia's article on Marxism states matter-of-factly (18% of academic sociologists self-identify as Marxists, for example). Peterson is against the influence of this. The push-back (see the cites) is that therefore Peterson, by attacking academic Marxists, is something like people arguing for Judeo-Bolshevism when in fact Peterson says nothing of the sort. Jews are brought into the argument here merely to set up Peterson's views with a straw man, and hopefully link him with neo-fascists and neo-nazis, and (at least) antisemites. This is EXACTLY the tactic which Peterson himself points out is used in academia to defend the Marxist viewpoint at all costs. Ironically. And here it is being done, without a label, on Wikipedia.

Of course (I argue) such criticisms of Peterson should be in Wikipedia, according to NPOV, as they certainly are plentiful in academic writing. But they need to be labeled and stuck in their own section summarizing the pro- and con- partisan criticism of Peterson, by others. The way Wikipedia does it here is embarrassing to Wikipedia. SBHarris 22:16, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Your proposal is precisely opposite to Wikipedia's norms for controversy sections. As a tertiary source, we attempt to reflect the consensus of reliable sources (mainly academic and journalistic sources) about a topic in proportion to their prominence. In this case, Peterson's perspective on sociology, and the history of Marxism specifically, is heavily disputed by mainstream academics. There are not necessarily only two sides to this, and we do not assume that both "sides" are equal. By separating the academic consensus into a subsection, we risk falsely legitimize WP:FRINGE ideas. Presenting reliable sources as "partisan" is a form of false balance. Not every critic of Peterson is presumed to be criticizing him for partisan reasons. In addition to those 18% of Marxists, he also has many Libertarian critics, anti-Marxist critics, and critics who reject postmodernism (for example). By lumping all of these critics together, we would be misrepresenting both their criticisms, and the degree to which Peterson reflects his own academic field. Grayfell (talk) 22:46, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Additional to this, Peterson is not a philosopher, or even a political theorist. He has no qualifications in the field of philosophy and a bachelor's degree with a major in political science hardly makes him an academic in the subject. We need to distinguish where he is and isn't an expert. When it comes to psychology, we can treat academic papers he publishes as serious scholarly works. But his YouTube diatribes about Marxism are no more a professional opinion than Brian Cox's political views would be. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 23:10, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Definitely not its own section as per WP:STRUCTURE and WP:WEIGHT.--Moxy 🍁 00:47, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

• I think that SBHarris' main point is not the article's structure per se, but that in its present state, the article appears biased. Of course, the article not only may but should contain criticism of Peterson's ideas; however, in my opinion, SBHarris is absolutely correct noticing that much of the article's text of the second half of the article reads as an attempt to hastily discredit Peterson's ideas before adequately explaining them. Not only some of the views are presented in a straw-man fashion, but many of Peterson's positions are often combined in such a way that they erroneously appear extreme. Perhaps, editors of these portions of the text didn't read/understand these ideas; perhaps, they only read the criticisms; perhaps, they just personally dislike Peterson. The bottom line is this is not how NPOV articles are supposed to be written. 凰兰时罗 (talk) 04:31, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps, or perhaps the editors did read and understand them, and they use sources which describe his views as extreme for other reasons... Do you see the problem with this approach? Without specific examples, this isn't a productive. Instead of using political language to subtly implying that editors are wrong because you don't agree with them, please make actionable suggestions based on specific, reliable sources. Further, reliable sources can be trusted to summarize his works, otherwise they would not be reliable. Grayfell (talk) 09:55, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Let's start with the specific issue that opens up this thread. Everyone jumped to rebut the suggestion to have a criticism section, but nobody talked about the specific neutrality issue identified by SBHarris. Do you see it? What is your suggested solution? 凰兰时罗 (talk) 13:25, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

According to reliable sources, Peterson's perspective is comparable to the cultural Marxist conspiracy theory. This is accurate and significant. What reasonably neutral summary of Peterson's works could we cite which refute this? Why would we cite that source, instead of the multiple sources we already cite which support it? Grayfell (talk) 21:27, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

According to reliable sources? But these are not exactly a WP:RS reliable sources, which have standards that depend on context. Here we have a cited article for the statement on Peterson above, which is neither peer-reviewed or academic. The byline says: Noah Berlatsky is a contributor to Pacific Standard and the author of Wonder Woman: Bondage and Feminism in the Marston/Peter Comics and Nazi Dreams: Films About Fascism. Okay. Author has a comic book blog and has written about Nazis in films. These are his RS credentials? The article on Peterson is published in Pacific Standard which is politically to the left of Mother Jones, and is published by The Social Justice Foundation. This article might rise to the standard of WP:BIAS if tagged that way, but that’s about it.

The actual article on Peterson [1] by Berlatsky is titled: How Anti-Leftism Has Made Jordan Peterson a Mark for Fascist Propaganda: When academics start complaining about "cultural Marxism," they're entering—wittingly or no—a realm of deep anti-Semitism.

Ouch. And in case we wonder how “unwitting” one can be, in order to enter cluelessly into the deep anti-Semitic realm, emitting dog whistles all the way, Berlatsky has answers:

Anti-leftism has continued to be a central part of far-right and fascist ideology, often mixed, inevitably, with anti-Semitism. A prime example is the right-wing rhetoric around "cultural Marxism"—a conspiracy theory that Peterson has helped bring into the mainstream.

Wups for him, we guess. “Often mixed, INEVITABLY, with anti-Semitism,” writes Berlatsky. Peterson has stepped in it now. One can criticize (say) Stalin without automatically being anti-Jewish (says Berlatsky), but that’s about as far as you are allowed to go. (Which is good, I have to add, as that keeps Trotsky from being a self-hating Jew.)

And now comes the faux-apologies for Peterson from Berlatsky:

Peterson isn't an ideological anti-Semite; there's every reason to believe that when he re-broadcasts fascist propaganda, he doesn't even hear the dog-whistles he's emitting. Still, when you share the Daily Caller, those dog whistles are there—and they make Peterson's own conspiratorial and foam-flecked rhetoric even more disturbing.

So Peterson doesn’t hear his own anti-Semitic dog whistles, you see. Though the foam flecks cause us all to wonder what the hell is going on. It’s a puzzlement.

Berlatsky:

Angela Nagle, for example, writing in The Atlantic, muses that Peterson, "who has decried political correctness but claims to be as suspicious of the radical right as he is of the radical left, suggests one alternative path" for disaffected young proto-Nazis. […] But how does Peterson suggest an alternate path to fascism when his philosophy is suffused with barely hidden fascist talking points and conspiracy theories? If Peterson is really "suspicious of the radical right," why does he swallow whole their red-meat rhetoric and then regurgitate it for his followers?

Answer: Ummm… because that’s not what is happening? Peterson is anti-communist, and no matter how many times he’s called a fascist for being so, he’ll never actually be the pied piper of “disaffected young proto-Nazis,” that this article directly claims he is. Peterson is simply being smeared by a writer who cannot help but use the terms “fascist, proto-Nazi, and anti-Semite” for anybody who does not agree with this left wing politics. (And that is par for the course is political discussion in 2019. As Peterson notes.)

Now, let us draw back a bit. The Pacific Standard, in allowing an edited piece to suggest that somebody “suggests one alternative path for disaffected young proto-Nazis.” (not a direct quote from anybody but Berlatsky), is probably skating close to libel when the subject is not a self-described Nazi. In any case, this is not material WP would like to include in a BLP article (!) as citation for a reliably-sourced fact.

The sources here (again) are not exactly reliable. This one is a non-academic comic book obsessed leftist with zero academic connections, writing in a very biased non-academic medium. Such stuff does not trump reliable-sources per WP:RS, which include WP:SELFPUB and articles and books published by Peterson in the academic press, on his own views (which qualify as straight RS secondary sources, not SELPPUB, since they’ve been published by academic others).

The way to deal with WP:BIAS sources is to simply not include them. A separate critic section is not necessary if you simply label them as statements by supporters and critics. Look at the article on Glenn Beck, who is very far alt-right by Peterson standards, but whose BLP article is a model of balanced “supporters say this” and “critics say that” rhetoric. Surely Peterson deserves no less?

If you want to put that Peterson’s critics accuse him of dog whistle anti-Semitism for his invocation of cultural Marxism (which we are told in that article is a fake news conspiracy theory, as nothing like it ever happened), one should also add from the supporter side that Peterson also writes that he’s anti-fascist, anti-Nazi, and pro-Israel, so there are many dog whistles going off on all sides. Read up on the man’s writings and decide for yourself which of them you can hear.

Here’s a pretty good article [2] suggesting that Peterson is actually (by Hayek standards) a classical conservative (afraid of change) and not a classical liberal, as Peterson thinks he is. But a fascist, he is not. He may be a conservative in a Canadian culture that never was fascist, and thus simply an anachronism. But that’s okay. We have words for that. SBHarris 02:03, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Sometimes academics and journalists write about pop culture, but that has nothing to do with reliability. A... blog-post (?) at Libertarianism.org by Megan Arnold and Kelly Wright (probably not Kelly Wright) is certainly not any more reliable than Noah Berlatsky's article in Pacific Standard. Your opinion that this "isn't what's happening" is yours to have and to express, but that's not good enough for Wikipedia. If you think this is libelous, your complaint is with the Pacific Standard, but certainly not with Wikipedia. Some other article about some other person will naturally have a different approach. That article has its own sources, and is about someone with a different history. Since we cannot assume that an arbitrarily chosen article about another person is a better article for comparison, this approach is a dead-end. Your description of the cultural Marxism conspiracy theory suggests that you don't understand why it's considered a conspiracy theory, but this isn't the place to discuss this. Regardless, if you object to the term' inclusion on factual grounds, you should demonstrate a better understanding of it. Wikipedia strongly favors independent sources. Peterson still has many outlets for expressing his own opinions. Our job as a tertiary source is to summarize what reliable sources say about him, not what he says about himself. Grayfell (talk) 02:40, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Your understanding of the need for tertiary sources appears to be wrong. We are not obligated to rely on tertiary and secondary sources of BLP or even BIO, especially when the subject is speaking about themselves. I already quoted RS:SELFPUB, which is also named WP:ABOUTSELF which details the circumstances in which we accept the reliability of what subjects have to say about themselves and their own beliefs. About which, they are, after all, the ultimate authority.

The alternative is the mad idea that we do not accept the reliability of what subjects say they believe, but instead accept the reliability of what other people say they believe. Unless WP’s official policy is telepathy in order to detect lies, this is an extremely bad idea.

Nor is it what WP does in practice. If you want to know what Wikipedia’s idea of Wikipedia’s content policies and guidelines, you go to Wikipedia#Content_policies_and_guidelines and find that 5 of 6 references are to Wikipedia policy articles. Wikipedia has decided that it’s a reliable source on its own policies. Who else? And more importantly that its editors don’t have to find a secondary or tertiary source for Wikipedia’s policies, but can lift them out of Wikipedia policy pages, piecemeal.

Wikipedia extends this courtesy to others. If you go to Catholic church to see what the Catholic church believes, you find a section on doctrine: [3]. Over half the references here are to the publications of the Catholic church. What do you expect? Who else are you going to go to for reliability in this matter but the Vatican? The RC church is a reliable source (narrowly) on Catholic doctrine. And yet the Vatican otherwise fails the simplest tests of RS. It surely does SELFPUB. Does it involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities)? What does the Catholic Church do, save talk about everything else? But we see there’s a difference between using that the RC church thinks about (say) abortion, where they are the experts ON WHAT THEY THINK about abortion, which is not a third party claim; and using their views about the ethics of abortion itself, which IS a third party claim. In an article focused on the Catholic Church the first is fine, in another article on abortion it has problems, as who is to say where reliability comes from in ethics?

In particles about the philosophies of philosophers, it’s much the same. If you go to Bertrand_Russell's_philosophical_views about 1/3 of the references are to Russell’s writings. Of course Russell writes in English and is accessible, and it won’t be this high for (say) Kant. But there’s no excuse for having the references in Peterson be 5% of the total (if my count is anywhere near accurate, counting multiple refs also). That ratio makes this look like something of a hijacking of a simple BLP of somebody who is primarily a teacher and writer. SBHarris 23:42, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

WP:SPS is not the same as WP:PRIMARY.

Wikipedia absolutely, fundamentally strongly favors independent sources. Wikipedia:Identifying and using independent sources is just the tip of the iceberg. The standard practice is to summarize according to reliable, independent sources, and use involved sources to fill-in non-controversial details, or to provide a response to contested claims or allegations, per BLP.

There are a lot of other problems with your comparisons, but just to recap what I've already tried to explain: We judge each article by its own merits, based on its own sources. Bertrand Russell's philosophical views is an article about Betrand Russell, who was a philosopher. He died in 1970. I'm not mentioning that to be petty, we treat living people differently from dead ones, including sources. Even still, there have been many reputably published books, academic journal articles, and college courses specifically about Russell as a philosopher. Using primary sources to fill-in this information, whether you agree or not, is a completely different context than using Peterson's works to pad-out his article. If you think there is enough third-party attention to justify Jordan Peterson's psychological views, I would suggest starting a new, separate proposal. If you sincerely believe that it's useful to compare Peterson to the Catholic Church as a whole, you've lost sight of the bigger picture, and I'm not sure what to tell you. There are, obviously, many reliable sources about the Catholic Church, and the information people expect from such an article would naturally be very different from what they expect of an article on a single living individual. Grayfell (talk) 01:29, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

This was discussed before, see Talk:Jordan Peterson/Archive 4#Cultural Marxism. For me, besides some reliability issues and that according WP:BLPSTYLE we must be "Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased, malicious or overly promotional content", the main issue was that the statement is not correctly attributed because the cited sources are highly ideologically biased - almost all of them are left-leaning media, and within them are quoted left-leaning and not mainstream sources.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 18:05, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Labeling sources "left wing" doesn't make them less reliable or accurate. Your assessment that they are "highly ideologically biased" would also need support. If there is some specific reason to believe these sources are biased against Peterson, please explain it. If they are "biased" merely because they do not share his ideology, so be it. That may potentially even be a good thing, because it's a consequence of them being independent. Yet again, Wikipedia strongly prefers independent sources. Grayfell (talk) 20:04, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I did not imply that any ideological or political spectrum makes a source less reliable. I don't need a support for these sources being "highly ideologically biased" when it is obvious what ideological spectrum they belong to. Vox even cited "Harrison Fluss, an editor at the Marxist journal Historical Materialism", while The Guardian cited "David Neiwert, the Pacific Northwest correspondent for the Southern Poverty Law Center", that are anything but biased sources. These sources are biased against Peterson because they support leftist political correctness, leftist identity politics, leftist economic and political policies - which is criticized by Peterson. Does that make them unreliable and not suitable for a citation? No, I did not say that yet that context matters and we should not carelessly include "claims that rely on guilt by association".--Miki Filigranski (talk) 21:41, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I have to agree that the sentence highlighted by SBHarris does stick out like a sore thumb in what is otherwise a decently neutral article. I don't agree that the sources cited are reliable in this context, nor do I see what they are adding to the article beyond a strange attempt at false equivalency. It's odd that this sentence was added so shortly after heated discussion on the Frankfurt School page concerning its Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory section, the creation of which was already controversial. Reading said section, I'm not sure that the quote given by Peterson quite matches the content it is linked to, especially with regards to the supposedly core element of antisemitism, which is something that Peterson has previously decried and written at length about (https://www.jordanbpeterson.com/psychology/on-the-so-called-jewish-question/). Giving undue weight to the personal opinions of these authors in light of this feels intellectually dishonest and more in the pursuit of a cheap smear than responsible editing. This is exacerbated by the fact that it's such an awkward standalone sentence in an otherwise well-written NPOV article. I'm surprised it still hasn't been edited given the amount of discussion it has caused here. I feel like this issue would be better addressed from the opposite end; the sentence should be removed and then have an argument made for its inclusion, rather than having the sentence be included and then arguing for its removal. I think more academic sources of this view would also be more compelling than a handful of opinion pieces from notably left-wing media publications. If this sort of thing was standard for Wikipedia, every article about a public figure would plainly and uncritically include a section containing the most egregious characterisations leveled against the individual by their self-identified political opponents. UnassumingStranger (talk) 02:32, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I too agree that 'the sentence highlighted by SBHarris does stick out like a sore thumb': so I have expanded it to show the profile of each of the authors of the sources it refers to. Note that Pacific Standard magazine is now kaputt (says the wiki page for it). Putting the profiles of the authors out into the open like that: makes it pretty clear that they are not really a high profile of especially credible bunch: that clarity does tend to support SBHarris's original view. IMHO — Preceding unsigned comment added by CanterburyUK (talk • contribs) 18:52, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

new section: Notable UK media appearances

I created this section https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jordan_Peterson&oldid=931381113 and it was deleted by Bilorv, who wrote

"Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of media appearances. The Newman interview is already mentioned in the article. For others, we should only include if _reliable secondary_ sources cover them (in particular, Reddit is not reliable)"

So as Bilorv suggested I removed Reddit : and avoided the Newman duplication by moving that content here.

Bilorv is right that Wiki is 'not an indiscriminate collection of media appearances': but in this case they are NOT indiscriminate: two of them are noteworthy for being among the most popular pieces on Youtube of 2 reputable UK media organisations. By placing them together complete with direct Youtube links; it also provides a service to the reader who wants to quickly hear for themselves what Peterson says when questioned by these reputable organisations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CanterburyUK (talk • contribs) 19:50, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Your changes do not fix the issues I raised. You have provided no secondary sources for BBC Hard Talk or Question Time. Thus, we have no evidence so far that these interviews were significant. This article is not simply a list of media appearances by Peterson, because there would be too many to name. — Bilorv (talk) 11:04, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Typo on section "Bill C-16"

"In November 2017, a Lindsay Shepherd, the teaching assistant in..."

Please change it to:

"In November 2017, Lindsay Shepherd, the teaching assistant in..."

The indefinite pronoun 'a' is used before a person's name. Indefinite pronouns should be used as a function word before singular nouns when the referent *is unspecified*, which is not the case because the name is used. Please correct the typo, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gringotsgold (talk • contribs) 15:11, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Done --Kyohyi (talk) 15

14, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 January 2020

Please change the name in this line, from:

As of September 2018, Wilfried Laurier had asked the court to dismiss the lawsuit ~ [127]

to:

As of September 2018, Wilfrid Laurier had asked the court to dismiss the lawsuit ~ [127]

Grammar correction: Name is incorrectly spelled Wilfried instead of Wilfrid. Molundio (talk) 08:09, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 09:17, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Quillette.com is not a reliable source

Grayfell removed a sentence that cited a Quillette.com blog post (diff), with this explanation: "Per WP:RSP. Flimsy source for this point even if the outlet were reliable." I agree with Grayfell's edit. I am starting this section to forestall an unnecessary debate regarding the source, Quillette.com. There are a lot of "Is Quillette a reliable source?" discussions across the English Wikipedia. Having read several of them, I have yet to see any persuasive evidence that Quillette is a reliable source. Here is a recent, succinct discussion that provides clear explanations re: why Quillette is not a reliable source: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 271#Quillette.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 17:27, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. @Bacondrum: deserves the credit for first removing this, and I was simply following up on their edit.

In this specific case, as I mentioned in the edit summary, this source seems far too weak for this claim even if the outlet were reliable. The relevant sentence is "Peterson, a philosophical pragmatist, holds that beliefs contain literal and metaphorical truths." It's not clear from this opinion article how this is connected to pragmatism, nor why this would be a defining trait. Using the term without any explanation is more confusing than helpful, in my opinion. Either way, Ben Sixsmith is described (unhelpfully) as "a writer" with no indication of topic expertise. That's not a comment on the quality of his writing, but it's another strike against the reliability of this specific source. Grayfell (talk) 01:25, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Jordan Peterson apparently has brain damage after an induced coma for benzodiazepene dependence

Link is here Relevant quote: "Jordan Peterson has only just come out of an intensive care unit, Mikhaila said. He has neurological damage, and a long way to go to full recovery. He is taking anti-seizure medication and cannot type or walk unaided, but is “on the mend” and his sense of humour has returned." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hemiauchenia (talk • contribs) 01:17, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Seems to be covered by article content. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:50, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2020

Change "addiction" to "physical dependence".

In early 2020, his daughter revealed that he had spent the previous year struggling with addiction to benzodiazepine tranquilizers and had gone to Russia for an experimental treatment that included a medically induced coma. He was neurologically damaged and unable to type or walk unaided.[145] 2601:100:8380:4270:C5D2:10BD:AF6:D5A5 (talk) 15:39, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. - FlightTime (open channel) 16:07, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Mote: the existing source, National Post, clearly uses the words "addicted to" and "addiction." Martinevans123 (talk) 13:52, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

In early 2020, his daughter revealed that he had spent the previous year struggling with addiction to benzodiazepine tranquilizers and had gone to Russia for an experimental treatment that included a medically induced coma. He was neurologically damaged and unable to type or walk unaided.[145]

This sentence structure implies that the neurological damage was a result of his treatment in Russia. Whereas according to his daughter the treatment in Russia helped him, but not the treatment done before in "North American Hospitals" as per the same article cited here. Thus the sentence conveys a message which is in contradiction with truth. Please verify and correct — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.96.24.174 (talk) 17:23, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Mikhaila Peterson, the person who spoke about Jordan's treatment and health, is an unreliable narrator. The treatment that Peterson got in Russia most certainly caused the neurological damages and did NOT help him. Jordan actually denied some treatment from American and/or Canadian doctors for his addiction. He believed that his addiction was better treated "cold turkey" - like the treatment he had in Russia - rather than tapering off of the addiction by gradually lowering the benzo dose. Russia has a cold turkey approach for treatment, allowing Jordan to undergo this dangerous treatment.

Although I do not have a source that supports my claim that the treatment caused Jordan's neurological damages, I do have a source that reports medical experts who believe that Mikhaila's narrative is misleading and potentially dangerous for people who suffer from similar addictions. The source also refutes the claim that Jordan has a "physical dependence" rather than an addiction.

https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/epgb37/what-drug-experts-say-about-jordan-petersons-benzo-dependence 172.98.145.43 (talk) 06:10, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Use of unreliable sources for arbitrarily selected opinions

Please review WP:RSP. Neither the Daily Wire nor The Epoch Times are reliable. The use of unreliable sources for opinion content should be avoided, and should only be used if there is a specific reason. This reason has to be something more compelling than editorial preference. Wikipedia isn't a platform for Peterson's "greatest hits", and his opinions, especially those outside of his expertise as a clinical psychologist, should be contextualized by reliable sources, not merely listed-off with whatever source can be found. Grayfell (talk) 04:27, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Why does Mr. Peterson annoy so many people?

Is it because he's an educated person with rightward political leanings? 108.200.234.93 (talk) 08:24, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

No.

Now, did you have something to say about improving this article? This isn't a blog's comment section. --Calton | Talk 10:09, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Revert of numerous edits

@Grayfell: I don't understand the revert. Even the little copy edits? I mean, there was not a single improvement in any of those edits? Well, here are the issues I see:

1. In several places, the current version says that several "legal experts" or "academics and lawyers" or "critics" disagree with Peterson's interpretation of C-16. But, as far as I can tell, this is referring to a single law professor, Cossman. This should not be repeated three times, saying "legal experts" and the like, just to make it sound as if it is more than Cossman who argued this.
2. The relevant interpretation of the law is in fact the U of T's interpretation, as they are the ones who threatened Petereson on the basis of C-16, per sources. As the BBC says, "His employers have warned that, while they support his right to academic freedom and free speech, he could run afoul of the Ontario Human Rights code and his faculty responsibilities should he refuse to use alternative pronouns when requested." It's misleading to then say that he has erred in interpreting the law as requiring him to use alternative pronouns. At the very least, it should be clear that Cossman is disagreeing with the interpretation that was shared by both Peterson and U of T.
3. The source on the Patreon affair says nothing about terms of service. So that part of the article is not accurate. I'm fine with considering some alternative wording, but a reversion to the inaccurate version is surprising.
4. The source on the Damore issue says "defended" not "supported". I just don't know what else to say here. Here's the whole quote from the source: "More controversy followed when he publicly defended James Damore, the sacked Google employee who suggested there were innate gender differences, as being no more than the scientific consensus." My edit was clearly more in line with this.
5. The current version says "Peterson says that the universities should be held as among the most responsible". Aside from being terribly written, this is not an accurate summary of the source, which is this quote from Peterson: "I think the universities are in large part responsible for the wave of political correctness that has rolled over North America and Europe". My version is more accurate to the source here.
6. On whether he refuses to use pronouns, the quote from Peterson in the NP source is this: “I don’t recognize another person’s right to determine what pronouns I use to address them. I won’t do it.” My version is more accurate to this quote: he opposes compelled speech, and wishes to retain his individual right to choose what he will say. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:49, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Sources specifically go into detail about Patreon's definition of hate speech. Using "terms of service" is a summary, but not necessarily an interpretation. It is way to explain this in our own words.

As one example of what sources say about C-16:

Experts on Canadian law said that Peterson was misreading the bill — that the legal standard for “hate speech” would require something far worse, like saying transgender people should be killed, to qualify for legal punishment. This is an early example of what would become a hallmark of Peterson’s approach as a public intellectual — taking inflammatory, somewhat misinformed stances on issues of public concern outside his area of expertise.[4]

Vox cites one source (Cossman) for this, but interpreting that to mean that only one person says this would be WP:OR. The source (which again, is just one example) says "experts" as a plural. It doesn't even matter whether or not some of his quotes may be technically correct under some specific interpretations. We are not obligated to interpret his comments in the most accommodating light, because that would also be WP:OR. What matters is that he is not an expert on law or speech or human rights, and the substance of his interpretation was wrong, or "misguided" at best.

As for the last point, I dispute that your version "is more accurate", and your description of his behavior and motives is editorializing.

Grayfell (talk) 00:40, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply, which addressed my points 1, 3, and 6, but made no attempt to address points 2, 4, or 5.

Concerning your reply to point 1, the Vox piece is an opinion piece that's critical of Peterson, so it is not an appropriate source for unattributed facts about Peterson. I'm fine with relying on the piece Vox links, but it refers only to Cossman, who is one expert, and thus favors the edits I proposed before. If you have appropriate sources on "experts", please let me know.

Concerning your reply to point 3, There was no claim in sources that anyone violated terms of service, so let's not say that. How about, as a compromise, we don't use 'terms of service' but just use the terminology in the actual sources? Here's what the fox news source says: Patreon famously removed Carl Benjamin, who goes by Sargon of Akkad, over rhetoric he used on a different platform -- which was apparently the last straw for Peterson and Rubin, who posted a video on YouTube and blog posts explaining their situation. And here's what the NYT source says: On Dec. 6, Patreon kicked the anti-feminist polemic Carl Benjamin, who works under the name Sargon of Akkad, off its site for using racist language on YouTube. I already proposed a version that does use 'terms of service', which Benjamin disputes, but instead says that they kicked him off for language they found offensive. Please propose a different version since you didn't like mine.

Concerning your reply to point 6, here is what the sources say about Peterson's view. The Star says that the crux of Peterson’s position is that he will absolutely not be coerced into using gender-neutral or gender-contrived pronouns in his classroom. And the other source says Peterson said that if a student asked him to be referred to by a non-binary pronoun, he would not recognize their request: “I don’t recognize another person’s right to determine what pronouns I use to address them. I won’t do it.” As I understand these quotes, they attribute to Peterson the view (in the first case) or the statement (in the second) that he does not recognize the right of other people to compel him to use pronouns he doesn't agree with. That's what the sources actually say, as I just quoted, so it isn't editorializing on my part.

I'd still be glad to hear your replies to my other points: 2, 4, and 5 above. Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:23, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Nobody was actually "coercing" him, so presenting his incorrect and non-expert legal opinion as legitimate would be a violation of WP:FRINGE.

Saying that Patreon found Benjamin's speech "offensive" is too vague, euphemistic, and potentially misleading. The last straw was using slurs such as "nigger" and "faggot", and this was far from being an isolated incident. Few reliable sources dispute that they had a legal right to kick Benjamin off of their platform, and presenting racist and homophobic slurs as simply something they "deemed offensive" is not supportable for more reasons than I care to explain.

The Vox piece is not an opinion piece, it's new journalism reporting. The Star article you've linked, however, is specifically by a local columnist, which implies that it is an opinion piece on the editorial side of the firewall.

My patience for debating every single issue here is limited. I have attempted to address more than you have acknowledged. Please review my comments more carefully to understand what I am saying. Grayfell (talk) 03:22, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

You are not required to participate here if your patience is limited. Thank you for your further elaboration of your reply to points 1 and 3. You have still made no attempt to reply to points 2, 4, or 5.

Concerning your last remark on point 1, the Vox piece is an opinion piece, a polemic on Peterson. This strikes me as obvious, and you may take it to RSN if you disagree. The Star piece was already being relied upon; it does not appear to be an opinion piece, but, if it is, then we should excise the content altogether, pending proper sourcing.

Concerning your last remark on point 3, I appreciate that you did propose a version that does not say 'terms of service'. But now you've used the term 'hate speech' which does not occur in sources. Can we just stick to sources here? How about we say that Patreon banned him for using racist language on YouTube? That's exactly what NYT says (see quote above).

Concerning your remark that Nobody was actually "coercing" him, so presenting his incorrect and non-expert legal opinion as legitimate would be a violation of WP:FRINGE I am not able to understand your point. The sources say (see quotes above) that Peterson's view is that he does not recognize the right of another person to coerce him into using certain pronouns. If we're going to report his view in an article on him, we have to report his view, and not mangle it into something that isn't what sources say his view is. Shinealittlelight (talk) 03:44, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Describing something as a "polemic" doesn't transform it into an opinion piece.

Sources do use the term hate speech to explain why Benjamin was banned: Jaqueline Hart, Patreon’s head of trust and safety, said her team watches for and will investigate complaints about any content posted on Patreon and on other sites like YouTube and Facebook that violates what it defines as hate speech. That includes “serious attacks, or even negative generalizations, of people based on their race [and] sexual orientation,” she has said.[5] It is clear from context that this is what is being applied to Benjamin, and we evaluate entire sources, not just isolated tid-bits.

Other sources also explain this: Seeking to further justify the ban of Benjamin, which users boycotting the platform claimed was based in "political bias," Patreon published the transcript of the video it said the company its decision on. Patreon said the segment fit its definition of hate speech, which the platform bans. Reading the transcript, it met Patreon's definition of hate speech, which it says "includes serious attacks, or even negative generalizations, of people based on their race [and] sexual orientation.”[6]

That they banned him for "hate speech", by their own definition, is not a controversial point at all, and the purpose of the article is to explain things in direct terms, not using wishy-washy euphemisms or evasive PR-speak.

As for "coercion", for topics outside of his area of professional expertise, Peterson's opinions are only significant to the extent they are supported by reliable, independent sources. (More restraint is also necessary for topics within his area of expertise as well, but that's a separate issue).

Peterson is saying that he "doesn't recognize the right" to yadda yadda yadda. This is a loaded framing of the issue which is not supported by reliable sources. He is, whether intentionally or not, misrepresenting the issue and then taking a public stand against that misrepresentation. We cannot use this to misrepresent the underlying issue as his "opinion", because he is not qualified to interpret the facts underlying the issue. Wikipedia is not obligated to legitimize his non-expert (and fringe) opinions, so we must be very careful in how we explain this.

Grayfell (talk) 00:46, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm seeing small improvements in these edits but they're few and far between. One appropriate edit is the rewriting to better match the quote "I think the universities are in large part responsible". Contrast this with the inappropriate labelling like According to Noah Berlatsky at NBC News, Peterson has argued that feminism and policies ... and after Patreon's bans of political personalities who Patreon said violated their rules on hate speech. These almost scream out "Wikipedia doesn't agree with these people who said that ..." There's an appropriate context to attribute sources but these aren't those cases because they're not opinion pieces and they're not heavily-enough politically opinionated sources to label on mention. We also have the change: James Damore after he was fired from Google for writing a controversial memo. This is an improvement because the source given says that Peterson defended Damore, not that he supported legal action as the previous version of our article stated. But "controversial memo" is an Easter egg link as well as a non-neutral framing of the text; we should simply say "... for writing a memo entitled Google's Ideological Echo Chamber". — Bilorv (talk) 01:27, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

@Grayfell: I'm not trying to be controversial when I say that piece is a polemic; do you really think it isn't one? Obviously my calling it a polemic doesn't make it so, but I guess I regard it as a clear case. If you disagree, I will take it to RSN.

I don't understand why we should infer that the business insider source means to say that Patreon removed Benjamin for engaging in hate speech, rather than just using hte NYT's characterization: they banned him for using racist terms on YouTube. The NYT is a superior source, and describes the situation directly rather than requiring us to infer.

On "coercion" I still am not following. We are discussing whether the current version of the article correctly characterizes Peterson's position. It currently says he refuses to use pronouns of a certain kind. But the sources say that he refuses to be coerced into using those pronouns. This is not a question of interpreting the law, but rather a question of accurately reporting what sources say Peterson's view is.

@Bilorv: Thanks for your remarks. The NBC news piece is literally marked as an opinion piece (have another look), so it has to be attributed for the author's opinion of Peterson's view, right? The other case of "inappropriate labeling" you mention would be addressed by relying on NYT's language: they banned him for using racist words on YouTube. Would you support that change?

I would support Bilorv's suggestion on the wording of the Damore matter. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:47, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Patreon removed Benjamin for violating their policies on hate speech. Benjamin's language was both racist and homophobic. Rather than quibble over exactly which of Benjamin's words caused the ban, in an article about someone else, we should use direct language and move on. Your edit replaced "hate speech" with something significantly less informative and more euphemistic. This is functionally equivalent to whitewashing, so I reverted it.

Peterson's grandiose refusal to be coerced is a loaded statement, because according to sources, nobody was "coercing" him in the first place. His statement presupposes that he was being "coerced", but this presumption is contested, and was never really properly established in the first place. He is not an expert in law, nor in linguistics (and he is openly contemptuous of experts in gender studies). In other words, he is not assumed to be correct here, and he is not qualified to explain the issue in neutral terms. By superficially presenting his claim at face value, we are accepting his non-expert claims in order to attribute his response to those claims as an opinion. This is legitimizing his incorrect and unsubstantiated claims in Wikipedia's voice.

As for the Damore thing, "entitled" is filler, as it would be simpler to say "...for writing Google's Ideological Echo Chamber." Otherwise I do not object to that change. Grayfell (talk) 03:08, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Ah, I was assuming over the NBC source. Looking at it, I see the sentence was copied verbatim from the source, which is a copyright violation, so I've removed it altogether for now. Surely we can find a non-opinion piece saying the same thing as that sentence, because it's a very obvious and uncontroversial claim. — Bilorv (talk) 09:11, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 March 2020

In the "Personal Life" section, add that Peterson's current physical state as of Feb 2020 (unable to walk or type unaided) is on the road to recovery, as the reference article mentions. Otherwise, it leads the reader to believe that Peterson may be a quadriplegic.

CHANGE "He was neurologically damaged and unable to type or walk unaided." TO "He was neurologically damaged and unable to type or walk unaided, but is expected to make a full recovery" Takeahike21 (talk) 17:16, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done as moot. I removed the previous statement as unreliably sourced, and not supported by that source anyway. Moreover, the source you've given doesn't inspire much confidence either. The very first paragraph talked about an "averse [sic] reaction" to medication. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:19, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

References

Opening sentences

I'm new to editing Wikipedia so go easy on me. I think this is the appropriate place to put a suggested edit. I was take aback by the reckless claims of the first two sentences in this article:

Jordan Bernt Peterson (born June 12, 1962) is a Canadian far-rightauthor, clinical psychologist, and scholar who is a professor of psychology at the University of Toronto. He is also an author, produces YouTube videos and podcasts, and has outspoken views on gender identity and masculinity.

There are a couple of reasons this should be re-written.

1. "far-right author" is inaccurate. Both of Peterson's books are concerned with human psychology. Psychological papers authored or co-authored by Jordan Peterson have be sited thousands of times for their rigorous scientific investigation.

2. The Doctor title for Dr. Peterson is not written.

3. The word "author" is mentioned twice: once in the first sentence with the claim that Dr. Peterson is a "far-right author" and then again in the second sentence the writer again mentions "He is also an author."

My suggested edit would be the following:

Dr. Jordan Bernt Peterson (born June 12, 1962) is a Canadian clinical psychologist and professor of psychology at the University of Toronto. He is the author of numerous scientific papers and two books. He produces YouTube videos of his academic lectures and is the author of a podcast series. Dr. Peterson has gained worldwide attention for his criticism of identity politics and far-left social and political theories. Goose 05:00, 6 April 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irishaggie05 (talk • contribs)

Many editors have edited this article, and the one adding far-right less than two hours before your request isn't the one who added author later. As it wasn't sourced iti's a violation of our WP:BLP policy, and I've reverted it. Note that you can only revert once a day - BLP being an exception. We won't add Dr., see MOS:DOCTOR. We don't do that even for famous scientists, etc. I'll leave the rest to others. Doug Weller talk 13:11, 6 April 2020 (UTC) @Irishaggie05: "pinging" you to let you know I've replied. Doug Weller talk 13:12, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 6 April 2020

Jordan Peterson is described as a far-right author in the opening paragraph. This is a contentious opinion and not established fact, nor fair assessment. 'Far-right' should be removed. Hibsboy (talk) 13:06, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

 Already done by Doug Weller. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:20, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2020

Solzhenitsyn, Dostoevsky, Nietzsche, Orwell, and Huxley should be in Influences. Balzek (talk) 08:16, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• Rejected - you need to show reliable third party sources which show those influences -----Snowded ^TALK 10:11, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Occupation in lead

I decided to cut from "clinical psychologist, social commentator, scholar, author, professor of psychology at the University of Toronto" to just "clinical psychologist, professor...", as it used to be. My reasons:

a) Both in his experience and his approach, whether in research, lecturing, or clinical practice, Peterson is a psychologist. No commentary, scholarly activities, books, or other projects that he has engaged in truly leave the area of psychology. Therefore I do not think it makes sense to include other occupations.

Specifically:

b) There is no need to include "social commentator" if the last sentence of the same paragraph emphasizes that "After 2016, he gained attention for his outspoken views on cultural and political issues." This is refering to the same sort of activity, which Peterson also approaches from a psychological angle.

c) I am not sure what "scholar" is supposed to mean here. Peterson is well-read in various fields, but that is not unusual for an academic. "Professor" seems to cover that quite well.

d) "Author" of what? Two books on psychology (albeit unorthodox) and videos on issues connected to psychology. So this also adds nothing relevant.

If you disagree, please revert and/or leave your thoughts.--MASHAUNIX 13:50, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2020

Addition to influences of academic career: Jean Piaget 49.182.1.137 (talk) 05:03, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Please see the many prior discussions of this entry above and in the talk page archives, as well. Grayfell (talk) 05:26, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Climate change

Given the information on the page, including the quotes "skeptical of the models" and " too much ideology is involved", we can at most say that he's a climate change agnostic. So classifying him as a "Climate change denialist" is simply not supported by information on the page. User:Snowded says "there is clear Climate Change Denial here". Well, not on the page so far, so we need more for that categorization. DougHill (talk) 08:24, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

My reading is that he wants to leave a loop hole for later (a general rhetorical style). So the FT clearly states he thinks there is no human involvement and the whole tenor I think justifies the use of the category. We might want to expand the section in the main article. -----Snowded ^TALK 08:31, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

You might then want to summarize and cite your reading. But if he's left some "loop hole", it might be that he doesn't know, is agnostic, and that cannot justify inclusion in this category. I don't know what the "FT" is that states what he thinks. But if we have a WP:RS that "clearly states he thinks there is no human involvement" then let's put in on the page and I will support restoring the category. But it's not on the page now. DougHill (talk) 09:16, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

This category should be kept out per WP:OPINIONCAT and WP:LABEL. --Kyohyi (talk) 12:51, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Spent a few minutes looking for reliable, secondary sourcing on this label, and I didn't find enough to use it on this page. One useful, but non-RS/biased source (please don't use it here) for this kind of thing is DeSmogBlog, which has a page on Peterson. Their mission is to track the viewpoints and statements of climate denialists, and they don't find many secondary sources. Though they highlight certain primary statements by Peterson, as well as an opinion piece or two, this would not be enough for the article. Given that this is desmogblog's job, and given that they have a much wider array of sources available to them than we do on a BLP, it seems unlikely that we'll find good sources to verify this claim. However, they seem to have stopped adding information to the page in late 2018, so I would restrict search to sooner than then if one were to do a harder look for sources on this claim. Jlevi (talk) 14:22, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh! Except for this financial times article. Paywalled, but it looks like it might make the denier claim. Jlevi (talk) 14:45, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I will reiterate user Kyohyi's comment: This category should be kept out per WP:OPINIONCAT and WP:LABEL. Anastrophe (talk) 17:54, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

That FT article I thought did justiofy the claim -----Snowded ^TALK 18:28, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Contentious labels need multiple sources, and even then should be attributed per WP: LABEL. We have one source, and Categories don't really allow attribution, so this doesn't meet LABEL on two points. OPINIONCAT says we shouldn't categorize people based off of their opinions, even if we have a source. --Kyohyi (talk) 18:39, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose adding the category for all the good reasons other editors have articulated.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 01:16, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I didn't edit the article and follow the news for a while so could be mistaken. However, as much I remember, Peterson's view is too complex to be considered as a climate change denialist yet exist more serious issues to be dealt with on global level. Previously there was one discussion about the section, and sincerely, I don't remember there was a valid argument to keep the section itself. Peterson is not known for views on climate change, his opinion on climate change is trivial and rarely mentioned, that's why it is hard to find any RS about it in recent two years. Does editing policy justify one sentence, which is also of a minor viewpoint, to have a separate section?--Miki Filigranski (talk) 03:28, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

(I think it would be best if user Markworthen and user Miki Filigranski remove the 'support'/'oppose' prefixes on their responses, only because they are in agreement with each other, but have the opposite prefixes. Confusing, and since it's not really a formal vote, not really necessary? I think the consensus is pretty clear that the category shouldn't be included, per policy). Anastrophe (talk) 03:39, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Concur - the consensus is not to included it without more than one RS which we have with the FT reference. He is clearly a skeptic. This article while not a RS is (in my opinion) a good summary of his tweets and motivation. He has a populist audience, they are mostly climate change deniers, so he wants to feed them. His tweet on human CO2 saving species from extinction being a good example. SO I think he is, de facto, but accept the consensus so far which wants better sourcing before permitting the category -----Snowded ^TALK 04:37, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't have access to the Financial Times article (its being behind a paywall). But if JP says something stronger there about climate change, then we should use that to replace one of the quotes now on the page (regardless of categorization). DougHill (talk) 18:46, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

This article seems to be syndicated from FT. If someone can verify that it matches the FT link, then it might be useful as a convenience link if included. Jlevi (talk) 22:37, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Here's a second source that may be useful in informing this discussion. Jlevi (talk) 16:35, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

That link matches the text of the Financial Times, which is quite obviously an opinion piece: How could robots ever replace Jordan B Peterson? Yes, they would churn out moral judgments. But surely theirs would be constrained by the available data. Unusable in a BLP for statements of fact. fiveby(zero) 15:56, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Detox

This episode sounds pretty weird. Why does anybody have to go to Russia to get medical treatment? The only reason I can think of is: that sort of treatment is illegal in Canada because it is dangerous quackery. The wording "aren’t influenced by the pharmaceutical companies" sounds very much like it. Are there any reliably sourced comments on that by mainstream medics?

BTW, does he have gout yet? Eating nothing but meat for four years should do it, right? --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:44, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Stating in Wiki-voice that doctors in N-America refused to detox him

We cannot state in Wikipedia's voice that doctors in North-America are unwilling to detox drug addicts. The text is sourced to a letter or op-ed by Mikhaila Peterson, who seems to be a hawker of pseudoscientific lifestyle advice and products. If this is to be stated on Wikipedia, it needs to be an attributed statement to Mikhaila. Even that seems iffy, unless there's text accompanying the attribution that clarifies that she's pushing pseudoscience. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:01, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

That JP had an auto-immune response to something he ate also needs to be attributed to JP or Mikhaila. Given that she makes a living selling unconventional food advice, it's iffy to use primary source content like that and state it in Wiki voice. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:03, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Fine - just add an "according to Mikhaila" or "according to Peterson" wherever in the text you think it's merited. Korny O'Near (talk) 20:06, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I started a discussion on the Fringe Theory noticeboard for additional input[7]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:40, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

In response, I removed most of the claims surrounding "detox" which is a medical term that would not normally be applied to benzos. That it is uncritically tossed around in the sources gives me pause. We may need to think about whether these sources are reliable enough to identify the actual medical issues that may or may not have happened. jps (talk) 14:56, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand - a Google search on "+benzodiazepine +detoxification" and variants ("benzo", "detox") returns 100,000s of hits, including journal papers and news articles (this one is partly about Peterson). And the WP articles on detoxification and drug detoxification don't give any indication that this term wouldn't apply to this class of drugs. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:13, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't think Wikipedia should be talking about "detox" at all, as it's a pseudo-concept. See Detoxification (alternative medicine). If we're going to invoke "detox" we're going to need to explain why the concept it nuts, per WP:PSCI policy. Alexbrn (talk) 16:20, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Detoxification (alternative medicine) is a pseudo-concept, but detoxification and drug detoxification are not. That's why they have different articles. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:07, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Until we have a source which indicates that what actually went on (his daughter is not a reliable source for such), we should not be uncritically making these claims or even entertaining that they represent something verifiable about reality. jps (talk) 18:45, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

As was said before, a few "according to"s would fix the problem. What do you want - medical records? Korny O'Near (talk) 19:29, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Any medical claims, even indirect ones, need to be supported by WP:MEDRS. If a fringe medical claim is presented, it needs to be contextualized as a fringe claim. Grayfell (talk) 19:39, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

We are under no obligation to report what the testimony of his daughter is especially when there is no corroboration. It's not as simple as inserting "according to..." when it comes to risks of undue promotion of unverified claims regarding medicine. jps (talk) 19:42, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I think we do have an obligation to report these claims, given that they are extremely relevant to an article about Jordan Peterson and that they've been reported in reliable sources. Korny O'Near (talk) 20:46, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Only if there has been sufficient notice. I don't think there has been. What little sensationalist press and sneering has been present does not rise to the level of WP:PROMINENCE for the particular claims. Short biographical details such as "he went to Russia" or "he and his family say he was addicted to clonazepam" are about all we should have here. jps (talk) 21:24, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

"Sensationalist press and sneering"? I don't know what any of that means. Parts or all of this story have been covered in CTVNews, CBC News, the New York Post, and the National Post, among others. Korny O'Near (talk) 21:49, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

That the story has been covered is one thing. That the details are relevant is quite another. There is no reason to include what is essentially a few paragraphs of blockquote from Mikhailia Peterson in this article. We can make due with something much shorter. jps (talk) 02:32, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Jordan Peterson is himself a source for a lot of this information - there's not much that comes only from Mikhaila. But what's an example of a fact that you would want removed? Korny O'Near (talk) 02:53, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Jordan Peterson also isn't a reliable source for this stuff. Here is a rough hack of what I would write:

In April 2019, Peterson said that he was prescribed an increased dose of clonazepam (a drug he had been taking since 2016) to deal with the anxiety he was experiencing as a result of his wife's cancer diagnosis. According to his daughter Mikhaila, Peterson wanted to stop taking the drug but he and his family were unable to find doctors in North America who would help him "detoxify". Instead, in January 2020, Peterson, Mikhaila, and her husband flew to Moscow for treatment where he was put into a medically-induced coma for eight days and spent four weeks in the intensive care unit, during which time he allegedly exhibited a temporary loss of motor skills and muteness.

Several months after these events, Peterson and his family moved to Belgrade, Serbia for further treatment. In June 2020, Peterson made his first public appearance in over a year, when he appeared on his daughter Mikhaila's video podcast, recorded in Belgrade. He said that he was "back to my regular self", other than feeling fatigue, and was cautiously optimistic about his prospects. He also said that he wanted to warn people about the dangers of benzodiazepines (the class of drugs that includes clonazepam), calling their use "catastrophic".

jps (talk) 03:30, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

That seems almost exactly the same, other than getting rid of the reason why he was first prescribed clonazepam. Is that the big thing you want to get rid of? Korny O'Near (talk) 03:44, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not going to do a diff-by-diff comparison here, but there is more that is different. The basic idea is to stubbify down to a few sentences. I got it down to two paragraphs. Others may justifiably wish to cull more. jps (talk) 04:09, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Climate change again

"[y]ou can't trust the data because too much ideology is involved" is clearly a fringe statement. He does not say "I don't trust the data", he says "you can't", so "These are specifically his views so per ABOUTSELF they can be included" is wrong.

"I find it very difficult to distinguish valid environmental claims from environmental claims that are made as a secondary anti-capitalist front", on the other hand, is an admission of ignorance framed as an opinion. He can't tell science from a rock on the ground, but others can. So what is his conclusion? Shut up about it, since he has no clue? Obviously not. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:15, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I need to think about how the ABOUTSELF question can be answered, but I'll address a somewhat different point. The second paragraph, which I just removed, largely repeats the first paragraph but in Peterson's own words. In addition, since it comes from a source that is itself fringe, there's a good likelihood that it is emphasizing parts of Peterson's statements in a manner outside the norm. If these particular details are referenced in reliable sources, I would have less of a problem including them (though preferably not as an extended quote). As it stands, this seems like a clear WP:UNDUE issue. Jlevi (talk) 15:04, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

(ec)Despite having six citation in the section, i think the Guardian article is really the only usable source. Looks undue, his opinions are notable only to the extent they are discussed in reliable sources. WP:ABOUTSELF discusses verifiability, we can be pretty sure these are Peterson's opinions, but the questionable sources do not give any weight to those opinions or give any indication how prominent they are. fiveby(zero) 15:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

The Sydney Morning Herald[8] is reliable source for the quote, but there is no discussion of climate change in the article. fiveby(zero) 15:40, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Consensus from a conversation with a large number of participants in 2018 indicated that, based upon the FT source, the Herald source, and a blog, one or two sentences were warranted as due coverage in the article. Here, you seem to be arguing that this consensus was incorrect. Given that the conversation in 2018 even weaker sourcing than you mention here, and given that it came to the conclusion that a few sentences were due, I would suggest that your statement may be too strong: instead, a sentence or two are certainly reasonable. And if additional sources have come to light since that conversation in 2018, a somewhat longer section than that might be due. Jlevi (talk) 18:02, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I think the comment that the two quotes are effectively the same is reasonable so I wouldn't argue too much with leaving this out [[9]]. Also the argument that the quote might have been overly selective due to the questionable source is also reasonable. Conversely, the claim that anything Peterson said should be removed on the grounds it's FRINGE is not reasonable. A short summary of Peterson's concerns regarding the mixing of politics with science is not unreasonable. It helps the reader understand Peterson's concerns. FRINGE does not say we can't let a subject summarize their concerns even if those summaries undermine scientific consensus. What it says we shouldn't do is treat the FRINGE idea as if it were reliable. One or two quoted sentences where Peterson expresses the core of his concern is a reasonable ABOUTSELF. Wikipedia is effectively branding him as a climate change denier. His concerns certainly should be included to help a reader understand why. As for the removal of the whole section, I would suggest that if Peterson has said nothing new on the subject this might be a case where the WEIGTH of his comments starts to fade into obscurity. However, the previous consensus was include so I would say we would need more than just four editors discussing the material to remove it outright. Springee (talk) 19:50, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE is a guideline and therefore stronger than previous consensus on this Talk page, none of which even mentions the guideline. But there is an alternative to deleting the FRINGE opinion: balancing it by mainstream commentary. If you succeed in finding that, maybe you can keep the denialist propaganda you want to have in the article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:42, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I think CONSENSUS is policy while FRINGE is a guideline. I'm OK with removing all of it as UNDUE. It seems like a very minor thing given the scope of the article and what Peterson's real focus has been on. Regardless, if we are going to mention it then Peterson's opinion is relevant. Wikipedia certainly doesn't have to say it is correct but that doesn't mean we censor it either. Springee (talk) 20:53, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

You forgot to mention that WP:CCC. I explicitly said "previous consensus". If one side has nothing but Wikilawyering and argumentum ad populum on their side, while the other has science and reliable sources on theirs, I would not place too much confidence in the first side. We have enough pro-science editors to prevent local consensuses from turning Wikipedia into Conservapedia - the unholy mess that is categories notwithstanding.

You call it "help[ing] the reader understand Peterson's concerns", but it is just a fringe proponent's justification for his fringe position, and removing it is exactly what WP:FRINGE was made for. Every fringe proponent's justification "helps the reader" not only understand, but also accept fringe positions, so your defense is universally applicable and therefore useless. You could try to get WP:FRINGE deleted with that reasoning.

If the stuff is removed for other reasons, that is okay too. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:41, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

"a minor thing"? that a seemingly notable academic, and prominent 'public intellectual,' doubts the reality of global warming is notable, and relevant to the article. The guy is a flake, just sayin. Acousmana (talk) 10:08, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Where does he doubt the overall concept? He doubts how people use the politics associated with it. That's a very different thing. Springee (talk) 10:39, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

being "sceptical" of scientific models, as he is, is a typical denialist fudge. Acousmana (talk) 12:31, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Of the models or the motives? It seems clear his concern is what is being done with the science, not the hard science part. Springee (talk) 12:47, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

"not the hard science part" - Peterson: "I think the planet is probably warming, but it has been warming since the last ice age, so I don't know exactly what to make of that..." So nothing to do with politics really, stop fudging. Acousmana (talk) 14:16, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Did you bother to read the primary concern? Peterson's primary concern is with authoritarianism. That is how he came to prominence. It's understandable that his concern is with the way the science has been politicized more than the science itself. This certainly isn't a major thing Peterson focuses on. It appears in most cases his replies are prompted by question to him. Springee (talk) 14:27, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

talk around the point all you wish, on global warming, he's a "sceptic", that's clear, not something that can be reframed using deniailst fudging. Acousmana (talk) 14:43, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Yet that doesn't mean we can't make his concerns clear in the article per ABOUTSELF. Springee (talk) 15:08, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

If we do not balance his fringe statements with mainstream ones, yes it does. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:51, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

What would you balance it with? His quote starts why he is concerned. It's balanced with the opening sentence that his view is contrary to scientific consensus. Springee (talk) 10:15, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

That's not how WP:FRINGE works. If we let fringe proponents tell their reasons why they believe weird things, it must be balanced by mainstream scientists refuting those reasons. If there is no source for that, we do not let the fringe proponents tell their reasons. The reason, obviously, is that if we did, Wikipedia would turn into a fringe propaganda outlet. Just noting that, by applying the reasons given, the fringe proponent arrives at a position that is not mainstream, is not enough to avoid that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:44, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

This whole discussion is strange. Peterson has said on several occasions that the global climate is warming. There are videos on youtube where you can watch and hear him saying that. There is clear evidence for it, and being a scientist he accepts the evidence. Anyone who calls him a "climate change denier" is saying more about their own beliefs than about Peterson.

He points out, correctly, that projections of future increases in mean global temperature are subject to large uncertainties. Almost all climatologists agree with him, though they are seldom quoted saying so. He also disagrees with popular opinion over what should be done about reducing future change. It's not unusual for scientists to disagree with popular opinion, it doesn't make anyone "fringe". Longitude2 (talk) 21:33, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Denialism is not defined as "making a snowball and claiming it proves that Earth is not warming". It has several flavors. Read Climate change denial.

And "large" is a vague term. Are the uncertainties large enough to justify ignoring climate change and burning coal as before? The climatologists say "definitely no". Jordan seems to say yes: "Most of the global warming posturing is a masquerade for anti-capitalists to have a go at the Western patriarchy. That’s partly why the climate change thing for me is a contentious issue, because you can’t trust the players. You can’t trust the data because there is too much ideology involved." [10]

Where does that idea come from? It is just random bullshit, made up for the purpose of justification of rejecting the conclusions of climate science, of not regulating the energy market. There are players you can't trust, but it's not the climatologists. Peterson is spreading the propaganda of those players you can't trust. That is what makes him a denier. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:11, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Greyfell - You have reverted my minor changes - but I would welcome a fuller explanation

Your wrote: "Please stick to reliable, independent sources. Do not include examples without context from WP:IS. Also removing name-dropping, for same reason."'

But my changes did NOT add new sources - apart from links to YouTube to the Two lecture series that the article already explicitly named. Secondly, I don't understand why it is 'name dropping' to add to the list of people that Peterson has interviewed that was already there! All the names I added have their own Wiki page. Your revert ended up removing those names that were already there before my edit! (Camille Paglia, Martin Daly, and James W. Pennebaker.). So I have reverted your revert.CanterburyUK (talk) 00:22, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I support Greyfell's revert; your edits have numerous issues. The inclusion of student class reviews cited to a course outline is not appropriate for an article that should be based on reliable secondary sources. You removed sources and context around the Patreon account. I don't object to about three guests being listed for each of the podcast and YouTube channel, but nine is way too many. There is no reason to conflate the podcast and Youtube interviews.--Trystan (talk) 00:53, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Trystan -(A) if you check the version history you will see that it was NOT me that added 'student class reviews' as a source. It was already there. Version https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jordan_Peterson&oldid=967280783 shows that it as placed after the text 'In 2013, Peterson began recording his lectures...'. In my view, that placement was not helpful as the document was dated 2010 but the text mentioned 2013. So I felt it more helpful to the reader to make explicit mention of 2010, and to hear a little of the students' review.

(B) Additionally, the article as I found it contained out of date info about his Youtube profile (2018) - so I updated that

(C) You wrote 'You removed sources and context around the Patreon account'. I did - BUT I left the source for the most recent Patreon numbers (2018) and removed the older ones and also deleted the text that referred to the older numbers; because it was of little value to the reader today to know about two sets of Patreon numbers back before 2018. I was trying to make the content on the page have a higher signal-to-noise ratio.

(D You wrote: 'There is no reason to conflate the podcast and Youtube interviews'. But in then interests of brevity, do you think there is value to the reader in keeping them separate - since it is clear that many of the audio podcasts are from his appearances that appear in Youtube as videos.

(E) You wrote: ' I don't object to about three guests being listed for each of the podcast and YouTube channel, but nine is way too many.'. Those numbers are not correct: In total (podcast plus Youtube) the page had contained 6 names: I added 3 more. It seems to me that the calibre of prominent people who are willing to be interviewed at length by Peterson is high value information to the reader. (In any event - the human brain has no problem spotting 'aha a list' and deciding to scan it or skip it - those that are not interested will skip it: those that are interested will find easy access to those names rather useful)CanterburyUK (talk) 19:50, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)There are two major objections I have to the edit:

First, the language you added was not neutral, and was also not formal. As an example: As far back as 2010 students wrote of his University lectures as 'thoroughly enjoyed the material covered in class. Many called it a "life changing experience" and others found it inspirational') This is conversational and promotional, (and has grammatical and punctuation errors) and is based on an extremely flimsy WP:PRIMARY source. That source might be usable for routine details, but is not appropriate for arbitrarily selected opinions.

The second issue is the arbitrary inclusion of his videos as primary sources. These videos are mentioned, but there is no specific reason to link to those specific videos in this way. The purpose of this article is not to promote specific videos, and any mention of specific videos must be supported and contextualized by reliable, independent sources.

As for the named people, as I indicated, the article should mainly summarize WP:IS. Since the article is not a platform for promoting Peterson's podcasts, the significance of these academic guest-stars needs to be supported by reliable sources and context, otherwise it's just name-dropping. Without outside sources, why not mention James Damore, who is not an academic at all, or conversely, why not mention that Peterson was interviewed by Stefan Molyneux? Instead of picking whichever people we, as editors, think are noteworthy, we need to stick to reliable, independent sources for examples.

Since this article is under WP:1RR, I would encourage you to self-revert (to the version before my edits) and gain consensus for these changes here on the talk page. Grayfell (talk) 01:05, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Another editor reverted. To keep things from getting too complicated, I have self-reverted the changes I made, restoring the prior status quo. Grayfell (talk) 01:16, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Grayfell , thanks for kindly providing the thinking for your revert as I requested.

You say you have major 2 concerns:

Firstly you objected to the tone and neutrality of the text around the 2010 student reviews. It is not clear if it is MY words - or those of THE STUDENT REVIEWERS that you have issue with - can you please elaborate.

You describe the Student's review document as 'flimsy': however in the context of a University academic such as Peterson - the document seems very relevant as to how his lectures were perceived 'at the coal face'. You claim that the document is 'not appropriate for arbitrarily selected opinions' : but in classic WP practise it would not be right to quote the entirety of what the document says about Peterson. If you think the student's sentiment can better be carried by a summary or a selection of different quotes from the document - please do suggest what you would be comfortable with.

You wrote: "The second issue is the arbitrary inclusion of his videos as primary sources." Maybe I am missing something here -but I did NOT use them as sources: I did not quote anything from them whatever! The two lecture series were already mentioned by name. I merely, as a service to the reader, proved references so that the reader could go straight to the named lecture series. So nothing changed for the reader apart from the addition of the small-font foot note link. If Wiki is to be a useful resource, this seems like simply good Usability practise - Wiki in general encourages readers to go check the sources: so I merely made that process easy for them.

You wrote: 'These videos are mentioned, but there is no specific reason to link to those specific videos in this way.' - see the logic above. Your argument cold also apply to the direct link in the page to the TVO TV lectures That Peterson made - they have a direct link to the videos - so why not the more recent lectures at the University?

You wrote: 'any mention of specific videos must be supported and contextualized': as I said : those Lecture series were ALREADY mentioned in the page. If you really think that their inclusion is not supportable in context - I would be interested to hear on what basis

Lastly, regards the choice of which Peterson interviewees to list, you wrote: 'Instead of picking whichever people we, as editors, think are noteworthy, we need to stick to reliable, independent sources for examples.' However, editors prior to me had decided to select 6 people - the page gives no indication of how past editors had selected those 6. I merely added 3 more, hardly a major change.CanterburyUK (talk) 20:30, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I think the current wording of the "YouTube channel and podcasts" looks fine - it's neutrally-written, and three examples each for his regular and podcast interviews seems like a reasonable number. I'm confused about one sentence, though, which is "In 2013, Peterson began recording his lectures ("Personality and Its Transformations" and "Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief") and uploading them to YouTube." Has he only recorded two lectures? Or are those the first two? Or are those the names of his classes? Korny O'Near (talk) 16:50, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

These are names of his two classes and for each of them he recorded a series of lectures.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 23:35, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Korny O'Near (talk) 14:18, 15 July 2020 (UTC)