Talk:Jordan Peterson/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

Opinion of Current Affairs editor

@Tsavage and Kolya Butternut:, I think the removal of this opinion from Current Affairs is reasonable [[1]]. It seems more about insulting and less about actually pointing out errors in Peterson's comments. I don't see that the magazine nor the editor are notable enough to warrant inclusion of such an inflammatory quote. KB, you said their was a prior conversation about this. Can you point to it? Springee (talk) 20:27, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Those lines were discussed in a couple sections in Archive 8. I think that the critique often shared by Noam Chomsky is noteworthy, and well balanced by the quote: "[t]he startling success of his elevated arguments for the importance of order has made him the most significant conservative thinker to appear in the English-speaking world in a generation." Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:55, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, the opinion Nathan Robinson expressed in that op-ed ("his vacuous words are a kind of Rorschach test onto which countless interpretations can be projected") is a fairly common one I've seen other commentators express before. Regardless of that, given Chomsky's references to the piece it definitely seems due to me. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 21:01, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

seems like a relevant critique, but we could partly paraphrase and drop "vacuous" - "Nathan J. Robinson of Current Affairs argues that because Peterson's ideas are "a kind of Rorschach test onto which countless interpretations can be projected" he has been viewed as everything from a "fascist apologist to an Enlightenment liberal." Acousmana 21:11, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, not ideas, he's specifically talking about how it can be sometimes hard to pin down grander ideas to his words, e.g. stringing together some non-controversial descriptive statements which you could (or could not) interpret as a controversial normative statement, things like that. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 21:24, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Calling someone's professional utterances "vacuous words" seems problematic, particularly in a BLP, particularly in the context of trying to establish a person's political views. The statement, "his vacuous words are a kind of Rorschach test onto which countless interpretations can be projected" can only be reasonably read as, "his words convey no particular meaning, such that anyone can take them to mean anything they like" or "his words, devoid of meaning, are worthless". Sensational language aside, that sounds pretty damaging in any context, from any source. In this case, I can find little on Nathan J. Robinson or Current Affairs, nothing that suggests the quote as being more reliable or significant than numerous other published Peterson comments by journalists. And what does it have to do with Peterson's political views -- how does one opinion about how differing views may have been arrived at fit here? --Tsavage (talk) 22:07, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

James Grainger wrote for the Toronto Star that Peterson has become a "human Rorschach test".[2] This isn't a critique, but it backs up the noteworthiness of Robinson's use of "Rorschach test". Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:06, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

• I object to fundamentally changing the meaning of a quote by cutting off the end, Peterson has been seen "as everything from a fascist apologist to an Enlightenment liberal, because his vacuous words are a kind of Rorschach test onto which countless interpretations can be projected." We shouldn't paraphrase or trim someone's words just because we find their meaning to be objectionable, that would be whitewashing. There's no reason to exclude negative material as an attributed opinion. –dlthewave ☎ 03:00, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

• If the objective is to note that a number of people have found Peterson to be a sort of Rorschach test then we should say that and cite several examples without specific quotes. I don't see the significance of citing this specific editor or his publication as they don't seem to be a significant voice. If Chomsky quotes it then perhaps we should quote Chomsky. I do find the inclusion of "vacuous" direct quote or no, to be a needless insult that shouldn't be included in BLP except under the most limited of cases (this isn't one). While I'm not convinced that Robinson's opinion is DUE, if included I think Acousmana's version conveys the same information without the needless personal insult. Springee (talk) 03:34, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

  It's not a "needles insult". It's an apt characterization of Peterson's words. Others have described his lctures and writing as "word salad". None of these are an insult of Peterson, but rather an objective evaluation of his style, which strikes all but his most ardent fans as confusing and nonsensical. Might I add, while Peterson has been interpreted in a variety of ways, as far right, right, center right, libertarian or "classical liberal" (whatever that means), I have yet to hear anyone interpret him as left wing or left leaning, so the idea that he's some kind of a rorshach test that anyone can project anything on doesn't seem to be too accurate. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 09:10, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

  Nathan Robinson was published in The Guardian where he linked to his analysis which contains this quote.[3] Kolya Butternut (talk) 08:53, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

  I'm easy either way, and while I personally feel Peterson is full of crap, the "vacuous" part of the quote is a POV value judgement coming from someone who really isn't all that notable, if Chomsky had said it, different story, then there's a real argument for hammering "vacuous." Acousmana 12:59, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

  In a section called "Political views", we have to be careful not to synthesize, by misframing and giving undue weight to media commentary, creating the impression that Peterson himself operates in the political sphere. Some "left" commentators pejoratively label Peterson "right", some "right" commentators embrace Peterson as "right", based on their interpretation of things Peterson has said as a psychologist (hierarchies, gender differences, and so forth). His one overt public political act was his opposition to a Canadian law, on freedom of speech grounds, and that's clearly delineable from everything else that he's noted for (research scientist in psychology, clinical psychologist, psychology professor, entrepreneur promoting psychology-based products, author and speaker on psychology/self-help). When asked, he has given opinions about political issues (eg: climate change, Trump and US politics) but these comments are from a psychologist's perspective. None of the coverage indicates that he is outspoken about politics. That should be clear to the general reader so that we're not mischaracterizing the subject in a BLP. --Tsavage (talk) 15:39, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

  Nobody is "mischaracterizing" him, you present a very weak argument here. Peterson stepped out of academia and waded full throttle into the sociopolitical sphere so us covering how he was received is uncontroversial. Claiming he is somehow immune from criticism because he's "speaking as a psychologist" is nothing more than an appeal to authority. Acousmana 16:04, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

  Immunization and appeal to authority don't come into it. The subject is the "Political views" section. We can and should cover the notable amount of labeling of Peterson that's been done in the media. Since not all of it can be correct -- can you be, say, "center-right" and "alt-right" at the same time? -- it's overall speculation rather than fact. Specifically with "vacuous words", the quote presents an entire argument about why Peterson's political views can't be pinned down (Peterson's "words" are meaningless, gibberish, word salad, you can read anything into them). This is analysis and opinion, not factual information, and should be clearly presented as such: "There has been extensive speculation about Peterson's political leanings..." type of framing. --Tsavage (talk) 17:15, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

  An opinion it may be, it is a very notable one that touches on the essence of the nature of Peterson's words. It is an accurate description with which I believe most people here can agree with. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 08:35, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Is there anyone who would be opposed to summarizing Robinson's view and removing the "vacuous" word as a compromise solution? I think that addresses the bigger BLP policy concern. Springee (talk) 17:08, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree, that would address the larger BLP issue. --Tsavage (talk) 17:15, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I would be opposed at this point. "Vacuous" seems noteworthy: "Peterson, meanwhile, was completely vacuous."[4] We should keep looking. Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:17, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That is someone else (is their opinion notable?) referring to a specific statement of Peterson as vacuous. That doesn't justify inclusion of a different non-notable opinion that uses the same word but in a different way. I think including what it basically a personal insult is a "contentious claim" related to a BLP. We need consensus to keep it in the article. Springee (talk) 18:50, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I would be opposed to removing "vacuous" as well, we shouldn't be modifying quotes or paraphrasing in a way that changes the meaning by removing negative connotations. –dlthewave ☎ 16:33, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't see there is consensus to keep this contentious material about a BLP subject. That would mean remove if we can't come up with a compromise option. Springee (talk) 16:49, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Springee. Although I do not believe Current Affairs is a reliable source, and I think Robinson is actually projecting what he unconsciously knows to be true about himself, e.g., much of his writing is vacuous, if we must include the Robinson material, paraphrasing it would be better. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 04:24, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

An opinion piece critical of Peterson's critics mentions the Robinson piece and his use of the word "gibberish".[5] Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:47, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

That's an opinion article. Springee (talk) 18:50, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

So? –dlthewave ☎ 18:57, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Is the opinion notable? If this is a non-notable person repeating what Robinson said why does that establish weight for inclusion here? (Note: I'm not using notable in the wiki NOTE sense) Springee (talk) 18:58, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

My point was that many commentators are describing Peterson's words as lacking substance, so the sentiment is noteworthy. But as I have said, Noam Chomsky finds Robinson's piece to be a noteworthy analysis of Peterson, and the piece is one of the things he sends out to people "more than anything else."[6] Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:33, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I think that sort if justification is problematic per NOR. Recently I asked a similar question on NORN [[7]]. The basic question was can we include an example of a pattern of behavior if no RS notes the pattern. If individually the sources identifying a pattern aren't due can we presume them to be due because a number of them say the same thing. The answer was no. So we can't say because several sources have said his comments are vacuous it's OK to use this particular source as an example of that unless a RS says, "many sources say Peterson's statements are vacuous". In this case if we can find a RS saying Chomsky says X about Peterson then we can include that. We can't include Robinson just because we know that Chomsky thinks Robinson sums up Peterson. Springee (talk) 20:57, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Your NORN question is unrelated. WP:DUE states that we should "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." All of the opinion pieces discussed are RS for opinions. "Vacuous" is a significant viewpoint. We could cite someone more prominent, but their language wouldn't be any less harsh. Chomsky isn't just saying that he agrees with Robinson, he communicates that the Robinson piece is noteworthy. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:22, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

It is specifically related. If the reason we want to include the term "vacuous" here is because the term is widely used by others then we either need a RS to say as much or each example must stand on it's own in terms of weight. We cannot justify inclusion of this instance because we feel it represents a larger view. As for your part about all of these sources are reliable for the opinions they convey, yes, I agree. The question is which opinions are DUE for inclusion. In general if we are going to review the things Peterson says we need to use experts in the topic area, not political commentators. Springee (talk) 03:15, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

You are splitting hairs here. It was just explained to you why this represents a larger view. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 08:35, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Sources don't "stand on their own in terms of weight"; assessing the prominence of a viewpoint among sources is literally how we assess due weight. –dlthewave ☎ 16:35, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

That is not what the NORN discussion said. If opinion A, B and C all say the same thing (Z) but none are from significant sources then we can't say "commentators say Z". That was the outcome of that NORN discussion. It relates to this discussion as people are saying we should include Robinson's opinion as representative of several sources that make the same claim about "vacuous". Springee (talk) 16:49, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Dlthewave, close. Assessing the viewpoint across reliable, independent sources is how we assess due weight.

I can easily find a thousand unreliable sources that say the British royal family are lizards. Do we add that to the article on the British royal family? Guy (help! - typo?) 07:53, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Kolya Butternut, this is a fundamental error. Primary opinion sources do not magically become significant because several of them say the same thing. Opinions are like arseholes: everyone has one, and most of them stink.

Mining the internet for quotes from random blowhards (or even random thoughtful op-ed writers) is a terrible way to write an article, especially on a subject like Peterson, where we have secondary sources that discuss his work and public reaction to it as a subject in and of itself. Guy (help! - typo?) 07:58, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

I was saying that the viewpoint is significant because several of the opinion sources say the same thing, and the Robinson source is significant because Noam Chomsky cites it. Kolya Butternut (talk) 10:35, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

But that is the SYNTH issues I was talking about. A viewpoint becomes significant when significant people say it. As an example there are a lot of fire arms rights points that are not significant per Wikipedia standards because the sources who state those views aren't significant per Wiki standards. Gun rights people may have a solid argument why they are opposed to a particular type of legislation and plenty of non-firebrand blogs, Youtube commentators, etc will say the same thing. However, per Wiki policy we can't include that in an article on the subject unless a RS sums up that POV. This is a similar case. Wikipedia doesn't allow us to bundle a number of similar, not significant opinions together to create a significant opinion. We need a RS to do that for us. Springee (talk) 11:24, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't see why it should be removed. The only argument I heard for such a compromise is that "it sounds mean". By this logic, no critic of Peterson should be cited because there is no critic of Peterson that describes his utter nonsense in nice terms.46.97.170.112 (talk) 08:35, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Reliable source?

• It's simply an unclear quote from an unreliable source for this context:

• There's no easily found background info on Current Affairs. The core info in the Wikipedia article on the mag is cited to currentaffirs.org. The web site provides info like: "while other magazines’ culture content may tend toward the vapid or the aloof, you can trust that Current Affairs’ writers always have startling new insights and incredible jokes".
• The only article profiling Robinson and Current Affairs I could find is from 2017: "Rise of the Hard Left": Robinson was the only staff, it had a circulation of 2,000, it focused on "relentless critique" of pop culture and politics, "no subject is safe from a scathing takedown."
• It's a satirical magazine. Quoting the current web site, it features, for example, "'advertisements' for non-existent products, services and General States of Mind". From "The Rise of the Hard Left": "A principal reference point for Current Affairs was Spy, a satirical monthly magazine". One would expect rhetorical flourishes that aren't great for direct quotes, when the point is the content, not the style, of the source.
• The quote used here is unverifiable: People ... seeing him as everything from a fascist apologist to an Enlightenment liberal is Robinson's opinion, undeveloped further in the article. Which people "people' called Peterson a "fascist apologist", who called him "an Enlightenment liberal", from where was this data gathered? From what we know of it, is this publication likely to have a robust fact-checking process?
• The second part of the quote, his vacuous words are a kind of Rorschach test onto which countless interpretations can be projected, is an argument that it's impossible to discover Peterson's views from his work, so what is it doing here, is it rebutting the other sources that do categorize his views?
• Much of the source article, supporting the vacuousness of Peterson's words, consists of Robinson, who has a law degree, giving his opinion -- basically, mocking and trashing -- quoted passages of Peterson's academic book, Maps of Meaning. Is some domain expertise perhaps required: psychology, philosophy, something?

Everyone commenting here should first assess Current Affairs and read the article we're citing, so that we're all discussing the same thing. --Tsavage (talk) 05:29, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

@Kolya Butternut, Springee, Volteer1, Acousmana, Dlthewave, and JzG: @46.97.170.112 - Is the source reliable for the material used in the article? --Tsavage (talk) 04:09, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Current Affairs does not satisfy our reliable source criteria for the reasons Tsavage cogently outlined. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 04:16, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Trakking, There has been an ongoing discussion regarding the content you edited here [[8]]. You might offer your view to the discussion above. Springee (talk) 20:40, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

To me, the quotation can be kept as an alternative viewpoint, as long as we are sure to point out that it is written for an ideologically biased magazine. It is quoted in the same paragraph as serious websites like New York Times and Washtington Post. - Trakking (talk) 10:07, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Trakking -- Adding "left-wing magazine"[citation needed] suggests that the political leaning of the source predicts how Peterson's political views would be labeled and described. If that's the case, it should be made explicit in the text, not hinted at. Before all that, the current, core question is: is Current Affairs a reliable source? --Tsavage (talk) 01:42, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Comment Not sure what to make of the near complete wall of silence when it comes to determining if Robinson/Current Affairs is RS, and if so, for fact, opinion, or both. Isn't determining reliable sources the first basic function in WP editing? Has there already been a consensus discussion that I'm not aware of (please let me know!)? Is everyone waiting for this to just fade away, so no decision has to be made? --Tsavage (talk) 01:27, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Context Matters - sources are not "reliable" in the abstract; they are reliable (or not) for specific claims. Currently, the only use of Current Affairs is for an attributed opinion belonging to Nathan Robinson. Is Current Affairs a RS for Nathan Robinson's opinions? Hell yes, it is. Newimpartial (talk) 02:50, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Reversion of edit due to "Undue quote insulting journalists without context"

@Kolya Butternut You reverted this edit:

In The Guardian, Gareth Hutchens wrote, regarding "media outlets trying to come to terms with" Peterson, that "he’s been described as 'rightwing' or 'far right' by journalists who have apparently forgotten how to think."[102]

Can you explain your reason for reversion? In the edit comment you said "Undue quote insulting journalists without context" -- please explain. --Tsavage (talk) 16:43, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

I feel like it's self-explanatory? It doesn't tell the reader anything about why it is ridiculous for journalists to think he is conservative; it's just an insult. Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:51, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

The quote is from a reliable source. It is expanded upon in the source article, and the quote can be extended from that source. If "insulting" is a criterion for exclusion, then the acceptability reference for this section is Current Affairs/Robinson calling the BLP subject's work "vacuous words". --Tsavage (talk) 17:02, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Actually, Hutchins' piece is Guardian "Opinion", so it is not really an RS and is only reliable for Hitchens' personal views. Since this isn't really a famous Hitchens, why would it be due to include? Newimpartial (talk) 19:07, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

It's Hutchens. It's due because The Guardian is RS, so its op-eds are generally considered reliable when attributed. Gareth Hutchens is a news reporter and editor in Australia (ABC, Sydney Morning Herald, The West Australian, The Age[9]), which (particularly with the Guardian's vetting) should qualify him to comment on journalists' coverage of Peterson. --Tsavage (talk) 21:28, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

That sounds like a fairly eccentric reading of WP:RSOPINION. Care to rethink? There is no publication that automatically grants either reliability or DUE inclusion on WP for its columnists, and if any did, the Guardian's Australian edition would not in any case. Meanwhile, being a news reporter and editor doesn't grant recognized expertise in right-wing politics or any of Peterson's other areas of interest. Newimpartial (talk) 21:47, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

If you're citing policy, it would be helpful to include exactly what you're referring to. For example: Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author. -- WP:NEWSORG

• "Guardian's Australian edition"? The citation points to the International Edition. And what's wrong with the Australian edition?
• "being a news reporter and editor doesn't grant recognized expertise in right-wing politics" -- The quote is about how journalists arrived at certain conclusions about Peterson.

What about Mr. Robinson/Current Affairs? We should apply consistent standards of scrutiny, at least, across a single paragraph. --Tsavage (talk) 03:30, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that the recognized experts on journalism are scholars, not journalists, just as the recognized experts on the second world war or on psychoanalysis are scholars, not journalists.

Also, please stop deflecting. The policy you cited indicates that RS op-eds are reliable, primary sources for their authors' opinions. To my knowledge, nobody has disputed that in this discussion - what you argued is that the op-ed is therefore WP:DUE for inclusion in the article, and I asked you for a basis in policy or otherwise for that assertion, but haven't seen any.

My point about Australia is that I am unaware of any special connection between this article's subject and the Australian media that would support the inclusion of that particular op-ed; such an argument could be made, for example, for a piece if it appeared in the Globe & Mail.

Finally, as far as Nathan J. Robinson is concerned, he is a notable le individual and editor in chief of Current Affairs - this may not make him an expert on anything, but does make his views more plausible for inclusion than a non-notable editorialist. Newimpartial (talk) 21:21, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

recognized experts on journalism are scholars, not journalists Far as I know, journalism is a university discipline, journalists get degrees in journalism, journalism professors are often ex/journalists, and editors (who are journalists) are the front line experts in understanding and managing journalists, so I'm pretty confident journalists are sufficiently qualified to speak expertly on journalism. By your measure, shouldn't political scientists be the experts determining political views?

WP:DUE Hutchens' comments on the assessment of Peterson's political views are significant by virtue of having passed the The Guardian's op-ed review process and been published. We should present all significant views.

special connection between [Peterson] and the Australian media What type of special connection? And what's wrong with Australia? In any case, google "Jordan Peterson Australia", as I did, and you'll find him all over Australia: multiple lectures in multiple cities, appeared in all sorts of media, including on a TV debate panel with various members of parliament from different parties, and an hour+ interview by a former Deputy Prime Minister of Australia. Is that what you mean?

Nathan J. Robinson is more plausible for inclusion Really? From the available evidence, he's practically self-published: he is the founder, presumably owner, editor-in-chief, and (as of 2017) the only staff, of his magazine, Current Affairs. His editorial oversight is himself. He doesn't seem like a reliable source for sweeping statements about the entirety of a BLP subject's work. --Tsavage (talk) 23:49, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Really? From the available evidence, he's practically self-published...

I don't even like Nathan Robinson, but this is obvious nonsense from start to finish, as the merest glance at Wikipedia's own article or the magazine's web site would show. In fact, it's so obviously wrong, I have to question either your basic competence in assessing sources or any good faith in your arguments. --Calton | Talk 04:29, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Calton Your opinion about Robinson/Current Affairs would be helpful at Talk:Jordan_Peterson#Reliable_source?. --Tsavage (talk) 07:16, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Do you have any basis for any of that in policy, or did you just make all of it up? Newimpartial (talk) 03:16, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I support removal of the direct quote. I feel it's the same sort of "sound bite" quote I oppose when used to say something disparaging about a BLP subject. Without offering a perspective on weight, I think this quote could easily be summarized to something that avoided the loaded rhetoric while still conveying the same meaning. Springee (talk) 23:14, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

@Springee I agree with you, sensationally worded quotes are a distraction when reading an article for information. In quoting Hutchens, I was trying to anticipate the objections, which seem to vary depending on the item. We still have "vacuous words" and that nonsensical argument from an opinion piece from a source that available evidence indicates is at best one small step removed from being self-published. --Tsavage (talk) 03:30, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

The key problem with the quote is that it is just an insult and it is about journalists not Peterson. There is a difference between saying journalists call Peterson rightwing because they can't think, and Peterson is called rightwing, etc. because his words are vacuous. "Vacuous" is an opinion about Peterson which is not just an insult; it gives information about his work. "Can't think" is an opinion about journalists, and it gives no information about why they're wrong to call him conservative; it's just calling them stupid. Kolya Butternut (talk) 06:04, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Kolya Butternut, Springee: Points taken re Hutchens commentary. I revised the item. --Tsavage (talk) 15:21, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

it's WP:UNDUE, why are we quoting this guy? a non-notable reporter in Canberra? Why does his view matter? Acousmana 16:29, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Second version

Acousmana You reverted the Hutchens item with the reason: Unde, a journalist criticising journalists for criticising Perterson? (Geographical location has nothing to do with "mattering" -- we do have the Internet.)

In The Guardian, journalist Gareth Hutchens criticizes journalists who call Peterson "rightwing" or "far right", arguing, "Does he belong to the far right because he loathes political correctness, identity politics and postmodernism? Noam Chomsky has made similar criticisms for decades. As did Christopher Hitchens."

Hutchens is stating that the main areas of opinion that are used to establish Peterson's views as consistent with "the right"/"conservative" were views shared by prominent thinkers on the left, example: Noam Chomsky and Christopher Hitchens. How is that UNDUE when it directly relates to the subject at hand, which is assessments of Peterson's political views?

It shouldn't be overlooked that the "conservative" label is not simply a neutral term describing political orientation, it is also commonly used as a pejorative (by the left) and as a partisan claim (by the right),[10][11][12][13][14] especially so in the US in 2017-2018, the period from which ALL of the quotes in this section or taken.

My original suggestion was that none of this detailed listing of opinions belongs here, it's too recent and unclear. However, the acting consensus at the moment seems to be that adding opinions is preferable. --Tsavage (talk) 17:05, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

He reverted it because it's not notable. Also, "conservative" IS a neutral term. If it became a pejorative, that's entirely on conservatives and conservatism. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 09:23, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Acousmana I've replied to your concerns. I don't see this as a controversial item: as I mentioned above, Wikipedia considers The Guardian to be a generally reliable news source[15], same as NYT, WP, WSJ -- we can assume a professional oversight and fact-checking process and op-ed editors -- which makes the item in question reliable. The material is on-point, and expresses the same level of opinion as the various other sources (how is this UNDUE, while the Nathan Robinson/Current Affairs bit is fine?). Can you support your reversion? Thanks. --Tsavage (talk) 23:12, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:RSOPINION, op-eds are only considered reliable for attributed statements of the opinions of their authors. There is no basis in policy for Tsavage's assertion, we can assume a professional oversight and fact-checking process and op-ed editors; please stop making inaccurate assertions, T. Thanks. Newimpartial (talk) 23:38, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

"Base articles on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." - WP:V "In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication." - WP:RS That's a critical assumption behind RS, that the publication has a serious process in place to ensure accuracy. Op-eds undergo editorial scrutiny just as articles do -- see the NYT Tom Cotton op-ed mini-fiasco -- so an op-ed has a baseline of reliability when it's from an RS publication. WP:RSOPINION is warning about drawing statements of fact from opinion pieces, and making clear by attribution when an opinion is an opinion. I'm not sure why you keep saying, here and elsewhere, "no basis in policy". --Tsavage (talk) 02:20, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

You have said that we can assume a professional oversight and fact-checking process and op-ed editors, but neither WP:RSOPINION nor WP:V supports that assertion - I ask you again, why do you think the opinion of a Guardian Australian journalist merits inclusion in this article? Do you have a policy-based reason for inclusion, or just YOULIKEIT? Because unsupported claims about fact-checking are not, in fact, a policy-relevant reason. Newimpartial (talk) 02:29, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:V and WP:RS say that's what we're looking for in an RS publication, and in the case of The Guardian, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources says there's consensus that we've found it.

And I ask you again, what's wrong with Australia? Where in policy does it say, "exclude Australian journalists"? --Tsavage (talk) 03:41, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

geography is irrelevant, it's the personal opinion - in Guardian's "Opinion" section (sub-category "psychology") - of a non-notable commentator, in an area of expertise that is not his. It's also a cherry-picked quote - don't see you arguing to include: "His call to starve all postmodernist academics of money by ripping funding from humanities departments indiscriminately is extreme. He has a frustrating tendency to advise his students to speak carefully and to use language wisely, but then turn around and speak in wild generalisations about “the humanities” or “postmodernists and neo-Marxists,” which comes across as lazy." Acousmana 09:21, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

For the record, my point about geography is that a Toronto-based journalist would at least be closer to the horse's mouth. My main point, however, is that "opinion" content is not automatically due for inclusion because it is published by an RS - it is only ever relevant for the author's opinion, and the relevance of such opinions depend on the Notability and expertise of their authors. Newimpartial (talk) 13:21, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Acousmana These aren't substantial arguments:

a non-notable commentator, in an area of expertise that is not his In the local "Political views" context, the majority of opinions (and they are all opinions, none are sufficient for Wikipedia to say, "Peterson is a conservative") are from "non-notable" journalists, and there's even a lengthy, fairly nonsensical one from a semi-obscure satire writer (Nathan Robinson) writing in his own publication. What's the special case here?

a cherry-picked quote In what way? It's a quote, from a piece evaluating Peterson, that addresses Peterson's political views in a summary way. The material you suggest doesn't summarize; there are subsections that go into more detail on areas that we've called political. Do you have an alternative wording?

I'm interested to see your response. --Tsavage (talk) 15:00, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

we are reflecting on two things, the first is how Peterson claims to position himself politically, the second relates to the positioning used by commentators who have appraised Peterson's statements on matters such as society, politics, the economy etc. You are arguing above for the inclusion of a quote where we have a journalist castigating other journalists for misaligning Peterson, I simply don't get why you feel that is worthy of inclusion, his opinion of other journalists is immaterial. Acousmana 12:22, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

You fail to capture Hutchen's main statement, that:

Peterson is not "rightwing" or "far right" based on his views on political correctness, identity politics and postmodernism, because those views are not exclusive to the "right", eg: they're shared by prominent left-wing thinkers like Chomsky and Hitchens.

Calling out journalist colleagues for this provides a critical perspective on competing opinions (such as those in the "Political views" intro para), in much the same way that Nathan Robinson/Current Affairs provides critical perspective when he argues that no positioning of Peterson's politics can't be trusted because Peterson's "vacuous words are a kind of Rorschach test onto which countless interpretations can be projected". --Tsavage (talk) 23:58, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Third version: due or undue?

Is this on topic for the "Political views" intro paragraph?:

In The Guardian, journalist Gareth Hutchens argued against assessments of Peterson as "rightwing" or "far right" based on Peterson's criticism of political correctness, identity politics and postmodernism, stating that Noam Chomsky and Christopher Hitchens made similar criticisms for decades.[16]

Opinions? --Tsavage (talk) 00:16, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Why not take a more balanced approach?

• In The Guardian, journalist Gareth Hutchens argued against assessments of Peterson as "rightwing" or "far right" based on Peterson's criticism of political correctness, identity politics and postmodernism, but he sees Peterson's call to de-fund humanities departments as extreme and his generalisations about “the humanities” and “postmodernists and neo-Marxists” as lazy. [17] Acousmana 09:57, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

• IMHO you both have valid points. I therefore suggest:

In The Guardian, journalist Gareth Hutchens argued against assessments of Peterson as "rightwing" or "far right" based on Peterson's criticism of political correctness, identity politics and postmodernism, noting that Noam Chomsky and Christopher Hitchens made similar criticisms for decades. On the other hand, Hutchens regards Peterson's call to de-fund humanities departments as extreme and his generalisations about “the humanities” and “postmodernists and neo-Marxists” as lazy. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 17:37, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Hutchens addressing Peterson's political leanings directly, and offering his opinion is one thing, but the inclusion of his leap to an equivalence between Peterson's views and those of Chomsky and Hitchen's is a stretch and is certainly undue. Acousmana 19:35, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

The "but he sees/On the other hand" misrepresents the source by creating the impression that Hutchens is modifying his opinion that Peterson is "not rightwing". That's not the case. He says his bit about not agreeing with "rightwing". Then he goes on to discuss other aspects of Peterson that he does not associate with political positioning. The additional material is also not in the scope of the "Political views" paragraph in question, unless we're expanding that scope. --Tsavage (talk) 03:02, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

• Undue - I have seen no argument given that this should be included, except an ILIKEIT from Tsavage. Newimpartial (talk) 19:28, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

The version currently under discussion speaks directly to Peterson's political views, more so than, say, Nathan Robinson's "vacuous words" comment (which says ascertaining his views is impossible). I have seen no argument given that the current version is undue. --Tsavage (talk) 03:02, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

• Undue - not seeing a convincing rationale for inclusion. Acousmana 11:12, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
• Comment Should we have a formal RfC on this -- it doesn't seem reasonable for a single quote? --Tsavage (talk) 16:25, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Fourth version: due or undue?

This directly addresses the topic (identification of Peterson's political views), is from an RS publication that's referenced multiple other times in this article, and is well-within the level of authority established by other sources in the section (ie: journalists, political commentators, and a satire writer). --Tsavage (talk) 19:03, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

In The Guardian, journalist Gareth Hutchens argued against assessments of Peterson as "rightwing" or "far right" based on Peterson's criticism of political correctness, identity politics and postmodernism.[18]

Opinions? --Tsavage

• Undue opinion of a non-notable commentator without relevant expertise. Also, obvious WP;IDONTHEARTHAT and WP:SEALION behaviour. Can we agree on that, now? Newimpartial (talk) 19:11, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

• Journalist Gareth Hutchens, views Peterson's call to de-fund humanities departments as extreme and his generalisations about “the humanities” and “postmodernists and neo-Marxists” as lazy but believes his criticism of political correctness, identity politics and postmodernism do not necessarily make him "rightwing" or "far right." [19] Acousmana 22:21, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Newimpartial This is the second time you've accused me of POV pushing (WP:SEALION). What POV am I pushing? --Tsavage (talk) 22:25, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Acousmana So you accept the item, but only depending on what it says. Unfortunately, your version brings in issues that aren't covered in the political views paragraph -- you can use them in the appropriate sections. I don't understand this resistance to anything that weakens the impression that Peterson is a "conservative". Who cares, there's nothing wrong with being "liberal" or "conservative", unless they're being used pejoratively? It's all OPINION, and there are different points of view. --Tsavage (talk) 22:39, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

There are certainly different points of view, but WP is bound to represent primarily those found in the highest-quality independent, reliable sources available.

And Tsavage, you are presenting a POV with respect to inclusion of commentary on Peterson. I won't try to characterise it, but You clearly like what you like. Newimpartial (talk) 23:59, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Newimpartial We'd be more likely to get to the end of some of these discussions if you replied directly, instead of making broad references to WP policies. For example, by your evaluation, how is Gareth Hutchens presenting his opinion in The Guardian, a lower quality source than Nathan Robinson presenting his opinion in Current Affairs? --Tsavage (talk) 01:05, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

As I believe has already been pointed out, Nathan Robinson meets WP notability standards and Gareth Hutchens does not. Newimpartial (talk) 02:45, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Wow. So I guess David Berkowitz and the National Enquirer are more reliable sources as well. That's gonna save a lot of discussion with you. --Tsavage (talk) 03:37, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

You see, everyone? This is what SEALIONing is. Poster asks for the fourth if inclusion is DUE or UNDUE. I say it's due. Poster asks what POV they are supposed to be pushing. I say YOULIKEIT. Poster asks why include Robinson and not Hutchens. I say one is Notable and the other not.

Poster then moves the goalposts and adds delicious red herrings: Wow. So I guess David Berkowitz and the National Enquirer are reliable sources as well. SEAL, meet LION. LION, meet SEAL. Newimpartial (talk) 12:43, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Having an article in Wikipedia isn't much assurance of relative or absolute reliability as a source. --Tsavage (talk) 15:00, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

This seems like a reasonable compromise. (I am referring to what Acousmana posted at 22:21 UTC on 28 May 2021.) Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 20:30, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

But, per WP:RSOPINION (and WP:SEALION), the only reliability question for opinions is Is the source reliable in reporting the opinion in question? There is no doubt that Current Affairs reliably reports Robinson's opinions. The other issues for inclusion are BALANCE and DUE, and a major factor in DUE, per policy, is the Notability of the person whose opinion is under consideration. Relevance is another factor, and it can certainly be used to rule out the opinions of David Berkowitz unless some stronger connection to this article's subject is demonstrated; this is an entirely different question from whether the National Enquirer can be relied upon to report those opinions accurately ... Newimpartial (talk) 16:43, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Newimpartial wrote, "Nathan Robinson meets WP notability standards and Gareth Hutchens does not" (at 02:45 UTC on 29 May 2021). The Guardian meets RS standards, which, in general, is the primary criterion, i.e., the source is the publication, not the writer. Right? (They are both opinion pieces.) Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 20:24, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

No; an opinion piece by a random person in a higher-quality reliable source is not more likely to be DUE than an opinion piece by a notable person in a lower-quality source, so long as the latter source is reliable for the opinion in question, which is certainly true in this case. Even a WP:SPS by an acknowledged expert (like, say, Slavoj Zizek) would be more likely to be DUE than a Guardian "opinion" piece by random Australian journalist, so long as it concerns Peterson's work rather than anything purely biographical.

In other words, for opinions, it is the writer, not the publication, that matters the most. Newimpartial (talk)

TIL that Nathan Robinson is considered by Wikipedia editors to be a notable and reliable source. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 00:29, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

If you think he's not Notable, that's an issue for AfD. WP:RSOPINION is pretty clear that opinion pieces are only to be cited for the opinions of their authors. As to Reliability, why would Nathan J. Robinson not be considered a recognised and authoritative voice for the perspective he represents? Newimpartial (talk) 02:02, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

DUE weight consideration for Daniel Burston para

This para is about one quarter (25%) of the section "Academia and political correctness". This seems like way too much weight for a single person's critique, especially considering that it adds no actual info about Peterson or his views:

Psychologist Daniel Burston has critiqued Peterson's views on academia. On Marxism, postmodernism, feminism, Burston faults Peterson's thought as oversimplified.[107] On the general state of academia, Burston generally agrees[108] with Peterson's criticisms of identity politics in academia,[111] as well as Peterson's charge that academia is "riddled with Left-wing bias and political correctness".[108] On summarizing the decline of the university, Burston disagrees with Peterson's critique against the Left, arguing that Peterson overlooks the degree to which the current decline of the humanities and social sciences are due to university administration focus.[108]

Additionally:

• As the source doesn't seem to be freely available, it's difficult to verify editor summaries like "generally agrees" and "arguing that Peterson overlooks".
• If the section is to include analysis and criticism, there should be more than a single viewpoint.

I suggest this be removed as UNDUE. --Tsavage (talk) 02:21, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Sources that are not freely available can be verified by quotes. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:10, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

easily due, especially in light of the fact that it's one of the few peer reviewed academic publications on the topic that we have, much better than the kind of flimsy opinion pieces you are above arguing to include. Also, the paper is freely available, and abstract states: "His critique of contemporary cultural trends and Liberal Arts education is not entirely without merit, but is riddled with exaggerations, distortions, and gaping omissions that mark him as a traditionalist conservative, rather than a “classical Liberal,” which is what he claims to be."Acousmana 10:10, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

The source appears to be a chapter from a book by Burston. Yes, he's an academic, but it's still only a single viewpoint. Highlighting one view to the point where it's a quarter of all the material seems the definition of imbalance. Including it while waiting for more does not address that problem. The abstract excerpt you present suggests it's an overall critical piece, which makes it even more important that it not be given undue weight in a BLP. There are positive and negative assessments by other psychologists out there.

flimsy opinion pieces You've read my opinion, stated several times, that I don't think any of this stuff should be included, that we should be spare in our summaries and not include all sorts of opinions mostly generated in the heat of the moment in 2018. Since the consensus here seems otherwise, the other approach is to include balancing views, and try to remove unbalanced views. --Tsavage (talk) 15:18, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

The key criterion here has to be the quality of sources. Peer-reviewed academic books and articles will always come first, followed by reliably sourced evaluations in non-expert publications and then the opinions of notable experts. Newimpartial (talk) 15:33, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I think it's fine to include Burston's views, boring as they are, but they would make more sense within a general "Reception" section. Can we just agree to have such a section? Korny O'Near (talk) 16:24, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Newimpartial, Korny O'Near "I think it's fine" isn't a great reason to include more stuff in an already bloated, difficult to read article, or to start a catch-all "Reception" section that will be largely taken from a news spike in 2018. I suggest applying some basic reasoning instead, to trim things down. Quality of source is considered along with weight in the specific context. Source, context, and weight are interrelated, no one categorically trumps the others. In this case, for example, I could argue:

Source: A chapter from a book written by a psychologist, from a reputable academic publisher. The author seems reputable, and not extraordinarily notable in his field. The essay seems largely critical, rather than simply descriptive.

Context: It's one paragraph in a four para section covering the subject's views on "Academia and political correctness". It is the only critique in that section.

Weight: Given that it is the only critical view presented, and that the author is not extraordinarily regarded in this area, including it alone gives undue weight to a single viewpoint.

If you look at it from the general reader's POV, including only one critique gives the impression that Burston is a preeminent authority in whatever is under consideration, and therefore that his views can be taken as fairly settled. This is, in fact, far from the case. (A less charitable reader view would be that WP has included only one critique for some sketchy reason or the other, and see the whole thing as suspect.) That seems to me like a serious undue/balance problem, particularly in a BLP. To include Burston, do the work and include him in a summarized paragraph representing a balance of views. --Tsavage (talk) 16:37, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

sorry, again, arguing against the inclusion of a relevant academic source while at the same time pushing to quote the opinion of a journalist seems a little contrary. However, it does seem that both sources have pretty much arrived at the same conclusion with respect to Peterson's gross hypocrisy and general flakiness, so that's certainly telling us something. Acousmana 17:22, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't seem reasonable that you're arguing about the fact that I'm arguing. Addressing the points I made would constitute a reasonable discussion.

"Gross hypocrisy and general flakiness" are certainly criticisms that are out there, in the minority. As a rough metric for views about Peterson, I recently looked at the "Reception" section in 12 Rules for Life. It's long and unwieldy, but you do get a general sense of the range of opinion when you read it through. Looking at only the material included from each source, I categorized the reviews as either Positive, Negative, or Middle (either pros-and-cons or simply descriptive). My tally of the 24 reviews: Positive - 7; Negative - 6; Middle - 11. Only one appeared to be an academic source. Maybe that adds some perspective. --Tsavage (talk) 18:04, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm afraid this is approaching or has already entered WP:SEALION territory. Specifically, Source, context, and weight are interrelated, no one categorically trumps the others. In this case, for example, I could argue... introduces an absurd WALLOFTEXT, special pleading against a certain source. The framing statement I quoted, however, is sophistical: within the framework of WP:V and WP:RS, tertiary sources (where available) are generally preferred to secondary and secondary to primary, and high-quality (notably academic) sources are preferred to magazines and broadsheet news which, in turn, are preferred to sources offering less expertise and/or editorial oversight. It isn't a matter of Source, context, and weight - none of which are actually terms we use as WP editors in the senses implied by this phrasing. Hence, I scent the marine mammal once again. Newimpartial (talk) 20:10, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Let's not get carried away... this wasn't sealioning or a wall of text, just someone who disagrees with you. Let's tone it down a notch. Korny O'Near (talk)

No, Korny. You are just someone who disagrees with me, at least sometimes. Tsavage, on this matter anyway, is someone who sees the WP policy environment as non-binding guidelines within which they can make up - and spontaneously modify - their own arguments. We have a term for that, somewhere... Newimpartial (talk) 22:28, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I haven't been convinced this is DUE. That said, I have no sympathy for the sealioning accusation. No one is required to reply and if they do they shouldn't get frustrated that Tsavage wasn't persuaded. So long as everyone is a willing participant in this discussion, they are at least partially responsible for it's continuation. I think it is clear there is no consensus so there is no need to persuade Tsavage. So long as they respect that there is no consensus and don't add the content they have done nothing wrong. No one is required to reply and Tsavage has not gone overboard (so far as have observed) in trying to draw others in. We are allowed to disagree at length on the talk pages. Springee (talk) 16:22, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Any other opinions on this due weight question, stated in the original post?--Tsavage (talk) 16:06, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

"as a rough metric for views about Peterson, I recently looked at the "Reception" section in 12 Rules for Life" we are discussing sources relevant to "Academia and political correctness," reviews of Peterson's 2018 publication are not a useful here, he has been in the public domain for three years at this point, expressing views on various sociopolitical topics, sources that address this are the most relevant. Acousmana 20:33, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Most of the sources in this article are from 2017-2018. And the article tells us that Peterson was not expressing views from early 2019 (April) to at least late in 2020. This is important because the political and religious views sources in the article come from a relatively brief period when Peterson had suddenly appeared in the public spotlight, and there was a lot of heated and polarizing media criticism that's being reflected in the article along with the factual content. This is exactly what we shouldn't be doing: building lengthy sections of an article, especially a BLP, on current media coverage of a particular period. At least, three years later, we should be fixing it. The survey of 12 Rules reviews, which are from 2018, does speak to the media coverage from that period, and seems to indicate that it was actually pretty balanced, so we should take extra care with due weight and balance with all 2017-2018 sources. --Tsavage (talk) 04:58, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

what you are saying makes no sense, you are essentially trying to walk back everything Peterson stated during his first period of public activity and dismiss the "heated and polarizing media criticism" generated by the subject's sociopolitical proclamations. It's absurd. Objecting to the inclusion of anything you deem to be "critical" isn't the best approach to "balancing" the article. Acousmana 11:11, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

What it comes down to is:

Acousmana: easily due, especially in light of the fact that it's one of the few peer reviewed academic publications on the topic that we have

Tsavage: The source appears to be a chapter from a book by Burston ... ... only a single viewpoint. ... overall critical ... important that it not be given undue weight in a BLP.

In what sort of article would we include just one arbitrarily chosen review?

Please continue the discussion if you wish, and stop the personal charges and insinuations -- they are wrong, and take up a lot of screen space. --Tsavage (talk) 17:47, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

You are writing as though nobody else had participated in the discussion. As the highest-quality source that has been offered, Butston is clearly DUE for inclusion. Newimpartial (talk) 19:41, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I was summarizing the discussion with Acousmana. The other opinions on due-ness, far as I can see:

Korny O'Near: I think it's fine to include Burston's views, boring as they are, but they would make more sense within a general "Reception" section.

Springee I haven't been convinced this is DUE.

Newimpartial: As the highest-quality source that has been offered, Butston is clearly DUE for inclusion.

"I think it's fine" is a vote, it doesn't address the due weight question: why are we including only one point of view? "Highest quality source" doesn't on its own mean it should be included. There is no need to provide reviews in addition to the factual information: the reader is not underserved by simply having the facts, and is possibly mislead by being presented only one arbitrarily selected viewpoint about those facts. --Tsavage (talk) 01:53, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Re; There is no need to provide reviews in addition to the factual information: the reader is not underserved by simply having the facts, and is possibly mislead by being presented only one arbitrarily selected viewpoint about those facts. - I completely disagree with this framing. Presenting the views of the article's subject, without critical reception, implicitly presents those views as though they were factual. One crucial encyclopaedic function is to present the views of authors in context of relevant scholarship, rather than uncritically reflecting the views of authors (and, in this case, their sycophants). Newimpartial (talk) 17:00, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Compromise?

How's this for a compromise?

Psychologist Daniel Burston generally agrees with Peterson's criticisms of identity politics in academia, as well as Peterson's charge that academe is "riddled with Left-wing bias and political correctness". On the other hand, Burston critiqued Peterson's views regarding the influence of Marxism, postmodernism, and feminism on the academy, describing Peterson’s criticism as oversimplified.

If "simplistic" is an accurate adjective for Burston's argument, I would substitute it for the clunky "oversimplified". Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 18:10, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Since no one objected (on this very active Talk page) after 3 days, I went ahead and substituted the above for the longer paragraph (diff). I even got the detailed citations in the right places! :O) Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 20:46, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Ah, there is an objection. Acousmana reverted my edit (diff). Oh well, I tried. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 17:43, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

How to describe Peterson the author

Trakking asserts that Peterson is an "author of religio-philosophical literature". IMHO, that adjective applies to Maps of Meaning, but not his subsequent two books.

On the other hand, was there consensus that Peterson is not a best-selling author? I have a hard time keeping up with all the arguments about this article! Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 19:27, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

There is no clear distinction between Maps of Meaning and 12 Rules other than that the first work is Theoretical Ethics whereas the second and third works are Applied Ethics: its philosophy and line of argumentation are basically the same. I live in Sweden, one of the world's most secular countries (sadly enough), and although 12 Rules was well received by many here, the complaints were usually centered around an aversion towards its religious philosophy. And no wonder, if you're an atheist, because the whole work is permeated with religous ideas. It is far from a standard "self-help" book, which can be a rather shoddy genre; instead it deals with Cain and Abel, and the Fall of Man, and the Flood, and God and Satan. Yes, it is religo-philosophical if anything. And ethics, in itself, is the typical discipline wherein Religion and Philosophy meet, since it deals with Good and Evil.

The only reason the work made a commercial success is that Peterson became (in)famous for some political debates and controversies around the time of its publication: the "self help" genre may seem commercial enough, but without the attention from social circumstances it would've been an obscure book with a deep message that few people would've thought of diving into. Peterson may not primarily be known as a religio-philosophical author; but long before his fame, that is what he was, with the release of Maps of Meaning which took him 13 years to write. And remember, 12 Rules (the first one) was virtually already completed when the spotlight was on him.

And yes, Peterson is a best-selling author, as well, but I reverted that specific edit, not because it wasn't correct but because it is already mentioned a few paragraphs below and so it seemed a bit superfluous. There is information more relevant to include in the introduction–such as his work as a religio-philosophical author. - Trakking (talk) 21:14, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

In spite of Trakking's most recent summary in their WP:EW, I see no consensus here for religio-philosophical, nor is the term part of the stable version of this article. If I am not mistaken, the long-standing version was actually self-help. Newimpartial (talk) 22:11, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I think you are mistaken – perhaps you were confusing it with this discussion? Scrolling through the article history, it doesn't seem like that was the long-standing version. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 08:23, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Let's just stick with just "author" in the lead sentence we can go on in later paragraphs about what he writes about if we want.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 22:37, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

"Religio-philosophical" is a fairly obscure construction, I don't think we should call him anything other than what reliable sources do in the lead sentence. Just "author" is fine, unless reliable sources consistently call him anything else. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 07:56, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 August 2021

Needs rewording: 'During his time at Harvard, he studied aggression arising from drug and alcohol abuse[21] and showed great readiness to take on research projects, even unconventional ones.'

Taking on unconventional projects doesn't warrant wording in this manner and it isn't clear what this means.

Maybe: 'showed great readiness to take on a range of research projects.' Gibsonfarabow (talk) 15:38, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. This wording is supported by the source, Lopez notes that Peterson is willing to take on any research project, no matter how unconventional. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:41, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Tried my hand at it. Why not just quote the source? We weren't at Harvard in 1995, we don't know if he had "great readiness" or just regular readiness. The Harvard source itself is a puff piece so if we're going to include it at all might as well not editorialize. Tollsjo (talk) 18:04, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Nonsense, Harvard is a reputable source. And the wording is supported by the source. Please estabilish a consensus for this alteration. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.70.27.106 (talk • contribs)

 Note: Closing request while under discussion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:26, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

The source is The Harvard Crimson, which is a student newspaper in Harvard, not the university itself. It seems fine to just quote and attribute it to them and not have to worry about what wording is and isn't editorializing. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 16:29, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Overstating his popularity amongst the conservatives

Can someone add to this article that peterson is not that popular amongst actual conservatives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.44.238.206 (talk • contribs)

The thing is that's not true, he is very popular amongst actual conservatives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.159.163.254 (talk • contribs)

Do you have any reliable sources to back up your claims?  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 22:49, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Why would I need to provide evidence, you're the one who made the claim that he is popular amongst actual conservatives, therefore the ONUS is on YOU to provide the evidence.

I would say that simply saying he is popular amongst conservatives is reductive. He has a fairly diverse “fan base” and to simply describe his admirers as right wing or conservative puts him unfairly, I would say, into a box. Dennehystag18 (talk) 07:59, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 October 2021

Under the "Antisemitism" heading of the page, the following statement is contained, "Peterson has made many statements on antisemitism that have been received poorly. He has defended other antisemites, such as Carl Jung and Karl Lueger, calling the latter a genius."

However, nothing in either of the sources noted at the end of that statement (#176 or #177) make any reference to him ever publicly praising Karl Lueger in any way. The only reference to Lueger is a caricatured version of Peterson in a Marvel comic book (as the Red Skull) praising Lueger, not Jordan Peterson himself.

Either an appropriate source showing explicit praise of Lueger by Peterson should be added, or this part of the statement should be removed. Lwriv7 (talk) 15:02, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done I removed that, per the source cited saying, "but if he’s praised the genius of turn-of-the-20th-century Austrian politician and notorious anti-Semite Karl Lueger, he doesn’t seem to have done so publicly." ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:28, 12 October 2021 (UTC)