Talk:Jordan Peterson/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

RfC: Climate science

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus that a brief mention of one or two sentences is appropriate. No consensus that this paragraph should be included as is. feminist (talk) 19:00, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

---

Should the 'views' section in Jordan Peterson's article include this paragraph?:

• Peterson doubts the scientific consensus on climate change. On the topic of climate change, Peterson has said he is "very sceptical of the models that are used to predict climate change". He has also said, "You can't trust the data because too much ideology is involved." He is highly critical of environmentalists, whose rhetoric he argues causes students to "suffer genuine declines in their mental health". Asked by The Financial Times if there is any evidence for that, Peterson responded, "No. There's no hard evidence ... the instruments that people used to assess depression in the 1950s aren’t the same as the instruments now" and it is "more a hypothesis".

References

Please indicate whether you support or oppose something similar to the above text, along with your reasoning. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:56, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Survey

• Support Inclusion It's a notable viewpoint of his that has received coverage in widespread secondment sources, any attempts to explain that he is only critical of "Deep environmentalist" is disingenuous WP:OR Zubin12 (talk) 22:19, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support - If he has a public position on such a major topic, it should be included to some degree. --Jobrot (talk) 00:03, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support inclusion This has sufficient coverage in reliable sources to be due coverage in the article. PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:27, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support because Peterson is an academic and his public position-taking on academic subjects that have become broad matters of debate, within or outside of his area of expertise, is biographically informative. I would prefer it not be its own section, which is the part that seems somewhat UNDUE to me. Also support briefer wording if consensus wants. Outriggr (talk) 04:41, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
• Reject inclusion Per WP: UNDUE. The financial times piece is approximately 32 paragraphs long, and has 1 paragraph on Peterson's opinions on climate change, we shouldn't be using it to cite 3 different sentences solely. The LRB blog has 1 sentence in passing, we shouldn't be using it for it's own sentence as well. The Sydney morning herald piece is approximately 42 paragraphs long, and has 1 quote in passing on climate change, we should not be using that to source it's own sentence as well. --Kyohyi (talk) 12:05, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

The quantity of text published in a source doesn't really effect whether the source is reliable or not. A reliable source could mention a fact very briefly, and that source would remain reliable (and hence could be used to cite the very briefly mentioned fact). WP:DUE is more applicable to pages and topics involving multiple individual viewpoints (eg. Climate Change as a general topic, many viewpoints, one page). In terms of a single WP:BLP individual (such as Jordan Peterson), that person either holds a viewpoint, or they don't (their aren't really minor and major beliefs)... and that information about them holding a specific viewpoint is either from an WP:RS reliable source, or it isn't (regardless of how many sentences/paragraphs are used to describe that fact). --Jobrot (talk) 21:47, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I didn't say the source wasn't reliable, I said including the text was undue. We have a requirement within undue to include content proportionately to how it's covered in sources. Just because something is verifiable, and even potentially written impartially doesn't mean inclusion is warranted per WP: DUE, this is specifically called out in due's subsection WP: BALASP. --Kyohyi (talk) 13:16, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

You have to remember that Wikipedia's policies were written for subjects far more contested, and with far more points of view than this - the relatively simple question of what Jordan Peterson's views are. This article is almost a single POV article, it's all his views, they are weighted as being 100% true to him (no balancing is really necessary).

We're not getting off track, we're not violating WP:FORK, WP:FALSEBALANCE, or WP:COATRACK (which WP: BALASP aims to keep us from). The topic is his views through out, we're including his views (as they are stated and weighted as true enough by reliable sources). We're not wedging any other topics or viewpoints in. We're not giving undue weight or WP:FALSEBALANCE to throw away lines like "Peterson hates carbs as much as Marxists." - that would be WP:UNDUE. So I don't think it's about counting how many lines and paragraphs are in the sources and coming up with a mathematical ratio; it's about counting what is put forth as true (truly his views)... and it's true (and weighted accordingly) that Jordan Peterson is skeptical about climate change. It may not be his main shtick, but it's still proportionally weighted to be a belief he truly holds (as stated by numerous sources).

Again, it's not about counting or coming up with some ideal ratio of content (as long as we're not coatracking or creating false balances). It's about what is and is not weighted as true, or meaningful.

If anything I'd say the section is slightly lacking of any discussion on the scientific consensus which as a body of reliable sources on the matter; skews heavily in the opposite direction to Peterson. As an encyclopedia of facts, it may still be incumbent on us to mention that by way of WP:DUE and WP: BALASP. --Jobrot (talk) 05:42, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

To clarify further, the use of the word treatment in this policy is crucial: "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." - the sources we have treat Peterson's climate change statements as truly his position. That is to say; they don't treat it as a joke, or as gossip or as rumour. They treat it as one of his considered viewpoints. That is what is meant by weighting it proportionally. If he had have said it in passing, or as a joke, then you'd have a point (it would be dishonest of us to cover it as genuine opinion in that case). But he's said it with the full intellectual weight of his personality. He's put his name to it, and he's made explicit statements on the matter (in multiple sources). That's what's meant by WP:BALASP. It's not to do with counting (numerically), it's to do with counting (in terms of severity of seriousness). --Jobrot (talk) 07:52, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if it's his genuine opinion or not, or if he was serious. The amount of content and it's prominence are what is important. In this case you have two sources that have almost no content on the subject, and both are in passing and not very prominent. The other source has a little bit of content, and a little bit of analysis, one paragraph in total. I'm not particularly convinced that two sources which pull quotes without any supporting material, and one source with some minor analysis are presenting his views in a serious manner, to use your method. --Kyohyi (talk) 12:21, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if it's his genuine opinion or not, or if he was serious. - you're completely incorrect in saying this. It does entirely matter. That's the whole meaning of the policy. What else do you think 'weight proportional to its treatment' means? 'weight' is truth, it's emphasis. It's seriousness. That's the meaning. That's what the policy is saying. Let me put it this way; if a comedian does a 20 minute bit on how he hates women - we can't cover that as a serious point of view. We can't 'weight' it as serious. That's what WP:BALASP is all about. Feel free to ask over the Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard if you still don't believe me. But that's what it means... and the current sources are from Jordan Peterson giving his serious opinions, they're not said in passing, they're not jokes or quips. They're his viewpoint on the matter. --Jobrot (talk) 15:27, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Weight is not truth, and it's not the person's seriousness. It's the proportional coverage in reliable sources. WP: BALASP is all about not giving disproportionate coverage based on a subjects overall significance. A subject's overall significance is determined by how much, and how often it is covered in reliable sources. In this case we need to give coverage to his views on climate change proportional to how much they are covered in reliable sources compared to how much he is covered in reliable sources generally. And a lot is said about Jordan Peterson, but not much is said about his views on climate. --Kyohyi (talk) 20:37, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. Assuming that's true the section on 16-C should take up most of the article, and information about Peterson's career or personal life should mostly be removed. Anyways, I'll leave you in charge of going through all of the articles from reliable sources that mention Peterson (ever), tallying up their content in relation to the topic headings for the Jordan Peterson page - then calculating (do we go by number of sentences, or by individual words?) the correct proportions for the new page. My guess is that the page will be half about 16-C, and half about the benefits of a carnivore diet. What a strange Wikipedia that would be. Let me know when you have the perfect statistical ratios. What's the current ratio (according to you) based just on those three articles, I believe you were saying:

The financial times piece is approximately 32 paragraphs long, and has 1 paragraph on Peterson's opinions on climate change, we shouldn't be using it to cite 3 different sentences solely. The LRB blog has 1 sentence in passing, we shouldn't be using it for it's own sentence as well. The Sydney morning herald piece is approximately 42 paragraphs long, and has 1 quote in passing on climate change, we should not be using that to source it's own sentence as well.

So what's the percentage of "mentions" in comparison to the "non mentions" of those articles? 1/32th for the Financial Times I see? What proportions does it suggest for the current Jordan Peterson page? 3%? 1%? How many words of the Wikipedia page is that? Can you please go crunch all the numbers and come back with a legitimate numerical answer? Good thing the tone in which something is said, or the factuality, completely doesn't matter to you. Because that's not what WP:BALASP is about. Hey after this you should go try this on the actual Climate Change page. Do you think that page should be modified to be 50% climate denial, and 50% science? 60/40? What would the ratio there be? --Jobrot (talk) 22:45, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm also pretty interested in what you meant by this The Sydney morning herald piece is approximately 42 paragraphs long, and has 1 quote in passing on climate change, we should not be using that to source it's own sentence as well. So if a source is sourcing it's own sentence, we shouldn't use it as a source? So do we remove all sourced sentences from Wikipedia now? I have a much better system by the way; if a source is reliable, then we can use it to cite a fact on Wikipedia. Any fact that is in the source. Large or small... and we let WP:BALASP be about WP:NPOV where there are multiple views on a topic. The subject of "What Jordan Peterson's views are" however, only has 1 relevant viewpoint to take into account (especially as it's WP:BLP), so we let WP:BALASP be about preventing a WP:COATRACK or WP:FORK... how about we even use WP:BALASP in tandem with WP:FALSEBALANCE? Isn't that a crazy idea! It's almost like it is about balancing competing POVs or something. P.S Have you crunched those numbers for me yet? --Jobrot (talk) 23:19, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

You're alphabet soup responses just show your lack of argument in this subject. WP: ONUS is on you demonstrate weight which you have failed to do. --Kyohyi (talk) 00:19, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I think you're right about WP:BALASP, and that I was just being rude to you about the whole discussion. Sorry about that. I lost WP:GF. I appologise, and accept the WP:ONUS. I do remain of the opinion however, that WP:BALASP is not about counting lines or paragraphs in individual articles, but is about making sure we have enough sources to fairly include a topic or view. In this case, we have 3 reliable secondary sources, and multiple primary sources, and then multiple unreliable sources, all pointing at the fact that Jordan Peterson doubts the models on climate change. I believe this is enough to prove WP:ONUS for inclusion (three sources seems to be the most common maximum before WP:TOOMANYREFS is called). In fact WP:TOOMANYREFS states: "A good rule of thumb is to cite at least one inline citation for each section of text that may be challenged or is likely to be challenged, or for direct quotations." (emphasis added) going on to say "Two or three may be preferred for more controversial material or as a way of preventing linkrot for online sources, but more than three should generally be avoided" - however, unless I'm mistaken; you're not disputing the fact that Jordan Peterson said what these major outlets are directly quoting him as having said. Whilst climate change may be a controversial topic, the material fact that he has a stated position on it (that the quotes are really his) - is not being debated? No? Ergo, whilst the topic is controversial, the fact that he has made statements on it, is not a fact which is controversial. Even he would admit he has made comments on being skeptical of the models. At any rate, I believe 3 WP:SECONDARY sources, and 1 WP:PRIMARY is enough to verify that he has an opinion, and to cover the WP:ONUS of inclusion. --Jobrot (talk) 00:38, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support Obviously. Thoroughly sourced and clearly WP:DUE in an article of this length. Endymion.12 (talk) 15:03, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
• Weak support - It is supported by sources. However, the topic does not seem to be one in which Peterson engages in a lot. Therefore, the paragraph is okay but should not be extended for danger of WP:DUE. Jonpatterns (talk) 15:14, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support inclusion He's a high-profile academic, and the issue of climate change is notable, so if he has made statements about it we should reflect that. Moreover, I don't believe that the WP:UNDUE argument is relevant here. The policy says that we should provide balanced coverage when viewpoints differ. The viewpoint in question here is whether he doubts the scientific consensus on climate change, so WP:UNDUE would only be relevant if there were some other sources suggesting that he agrees with the consensus. There is nothing in the policy to say that we have to consider the extent to which a source discusses an issue to decide whether or not it supports assertions about that issue. Girth Summit (talk) 15:16, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Balancing aspects is also part of undue. For the exact paragraph see WP:PROPORTION, which starts 'An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject ...' Jonpatterns (talk) 15:58, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

My comment was intended to address the argument made above by Kyohyi, not your own - I got an edit conflict with you when adding it and ended up out of order, apologies for any confusion. My point was that UNDUE does not say that we should count the number of paragraphs a source devotes to an issue when evaluating whether the source supports an assertion, as Kyohyi seems to be suggesting. I agree with you that WP:PROPORTION would apply, and I think that the paragraph as proposed is compliant with that; I also agree with you that it doesn't want to be any longer than it is. Girth Summit (talk) 16:49, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Just adding to the above to say that WP:PROPORTION wouldn't justify excluding the topic. Proportion (as the name suggests) determines how much we write about this specific area of his views. It doesn't mean his viewpoint can be excluded as WP:UNDUE (it's not undue) - WP:PROPORTION just means that we should avoid excessive focus on it, and not go beyond what the sources state. --Jobrot (talk) 22:03, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: is there a reason so much detail has to go into the paragraph? It reads very bloaty to me, and I have a hard time seeing why it couldn't be reduced to a single sentence. Just look at this ridiculous redundancy in the first two sentences. "Peterson doubts the scientific consensus on climate change" and "On the topic of climate change, Peterson has said he is "very sceptical of the models that are used to predict climate change"." The opening sentences of the paragraph, and they same almost the same thing! We can summarize much better than this, folks. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 15:22, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
• Weak support per Jonpatterns above. A short mention seems reasonable, but it probably shouldn't be more than that. Ideally, I think it would be preferable to trim this to two sentences and include it in an "other views" section alongside other topics where Peterson has taken a position - perhaps with the sourced-but-nutty stuff about DNA and snakes. FWIW: Peterson's views are also mentioned in this post from The Stranger. Probably not an RS for a statement of fact, but it might help establish notability and the existence of a disagreement. Nblund ^talk 16:05, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose, strongly this wording, which is misleading. I will revote below in a hopefully more bulletproof form I don't oppose inclusion of the topic, I oppose this summarization as misleading. This edit is motivated by climate zealotry and a lack of skepticism about science, rather than by motivation to fairly characterize Peterson's skepticism. His skepticism is entirely based on his perception of the politicization, and the paragraph should represent that (a perception, if you want to go into detail, based on his career as a psychologist and the study of how people form beliefs, and present themselves to the world) He makes no claims as a client scientist and should not be attacked as if he has. 98.7.192.88 (talk) 17:33, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Please assume good faith - don't tell other editors why are motivated to make an edit, limit your comments to the edit itself. Otherwise this discussion will descend into pointless bickering about one another's motives. Girth Summit (talk) 17:44, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't believe zealots act in bad faith, climate zealots are sincere in their belief that the entire planet is endangered. You do more damage to wikipedia be pretending that individuals here don't show patterns of interest. But that does not make this correct. I am making a good faith effort to improve wikipedia by keeping political POV out. Here is Jordan Peterson (back in 2011!) on environmentalism https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08stkynXUlc I am sure that you will hate that clip and you will find him to be a zealot; however, an accurate portrayal of his position would refer to his concern with the motivation of climate zealots and not the science of climate. 98.7.192.88 (talk) 19:32, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Changing your comments so substantially after posting them makes it difficult to correspond - we just edit conflicted, and I find myself rewriting this comment to remove discussion of Jehovah's Witnesses that you originally brought up.

I am genuinely happy to believe that you are making good faith efforts to improve Wikipedia, but you need to make the same assumption about other editors. If I read your comments correctly, you are saying that those of us who support the inclusion are doing so because we are misguided climate zealots - that is not good faith. Discuss the edit, not our motives. For what it's worth, which isn't very much, I have a degree in geology, and spent a lot of time studying palaeoclimatology; I have also spent many years doing geophysical survey work for the oil/gas industry. I would not describe myself as a 'climate zealot'. Girth Summit (talk) 19:53, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I am not labelling you a climate zealot, so you did not interpret my comment correctly. 100%. But that proposed text we are voting on could only have been composed with climate zealotry in mind, so I'm alerting you to the idea that you are voting in favor of propagandizing wikipedia.

Here is wording that I would support: "Peterson doubts the research on climate change, and is "very sceptical of the models that are used to predict climate change", saying "You can't trust the data because too much ideology is involved." That sentence has all the details of the proposed sentence, without the POV that is hijacked into the current proposal. 98.7.192.88 (talk) 22:13, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

You say that the 'proposed text that we are voting on could only have been composed with climate zealotry in mind' - we are back to square one, you are not assuming good faith. You have already said that you don't support the position - that is clear. Your continued ad hominem insistence that the people who suggested the wording are climate zealots is not helping your argument.

There are problems with your proposed wording - for example, replacing 'the scientific consensus' with 'the research' - that does not agree with the sources, or with the actuality. The wording as originally proposed is more accurate. (I've fixed your indenting, I hope that's OK). Girth Summit (talk) 22:31, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I previously did not have access to the paywalled FT article, but Jobrot posted a pastebin of it. While you claim that there are problems with my proposed wording, the problems run MUCH MUCH deeper with the proposal under vote vis a vis what is in the FT article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.7.192.88 (talk) 16:37, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I have retracted (struckthrough) my statements and will revote below. I did not want you to indent my comment, it was purposeful in the interests of clear threading. I might address some additional points on your talk page because I believe your constant references to good faith are covered under the good faith rule as failing the good faith test.

Apologies for the indent interference - I thought that it made the thread clearer, and wasn't sure whether or not you knew how to indent. Feel free to visit my talk page, but note above that I explicitly accepted that your motivation is to improve the encyclopaedia. My only concern was your repeated assertions about the motivations behind the proposed text that we are discussing - I wanted you to focus your comments on the text itself, rather than speculating on the motivations of the author.Girth Summit (talk) 16:36, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

You questioned my rewording of the proposed text, using the current proposed text as basis for a claim of some type of authenticity. Agree? But that text is not in quotes, so I went to the original article to look it up, and the original article does not even contain the root word science in any form; a word you are insisting there is a basis to preserve, it does not even contain, thanks though for your opinion. Furthermore, Snooganssnoogans links the phrase to a wikipedia article scientific opinion_on climate change which text *he* did not preserve but went out of his way to change to "scientific consensus" to make his POV falsely stronger. That article has already had an RfC vote to change its name to "consensus" which failed, but which Snooganssnoogans, brimming over with good faith, changed to suit his own preference in a totally unbiased way /s. I have put in work to become an expert on these matters (including Peterson, including going to read Snooganssnoogans citations) work which you have not put in, and yet you have strong opinions about my opinions? Read Snooganssnoogans cited articles, they are all opinion pieces, none of them on the subject of the environment. It's easy to quote Peterson, why just quote his detractors while pretending that they are not detractors?

I'd genuinely be happy for you to swing by my talk page and we could discuss this further without unnecessarily disrupting this RfC. Briefly though, I don't really understand what you mean by a claim of authenticity - the current proposed text is what we're voting on, so that's why I referred to it. I have no way of knowing how much of an expert you are on any of these matters; you similarly have no way of assessing my expertise - we can and should focus only on the content, not the editor, their level of expertise, or how much work they have put into their learning. Finally, I don't really see how you can describe the Telegraph FT article as an opinion piece - it's an interview, published by the most second most conservative serious newspaper published in the UK. As an aside, please could you sign your posts? Let me know if you're not sure how to do this. Cheers Girth Summit (talk) 19:33, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Apologies again - I confused the Telegraph and the FT. Struckthrough and amended above. Girth Summit (talk) 19:54, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

• Reject inclusion WP:NPOV RS show that Peterson has supported sending a letter to Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper from the President of UoT Marine Life Advocacy in which organisation brings attention to the issue of maritime sustainability. Peterson gave a lecture on the topic, later they got a response from the appropriate Minister. He is also a supporting fan of Boyan Slat and his Ocean Cleanup project. In my opinion all of it is WP:UNDUE in encyclopedic article about Peterson but if we want to include his "criticism of environmentalists" then his own environmental activism cannot be ignored in order to try to maintain WP:NPOV. WP:OR Last two sentences are quote from Financial Times article except for exclusion of ", whom he accuses of wanting fewer humans on the planet" after "environmentalists" - why was there an edit made to WP:SECONDARY source which dramatically changes its meaning? In 12 Rules Peterson's criticism is specifically limited to 'anti-human' rhetoric: one professor for telling students that 'If they wanted to regard themselves as ethical people, they all need to consider limiting the number of children they have to one', David Attenborough for calling humans 'plague' and Club of Rome for calling human species 'cancer on the planet'(all on p268 which is also quoted by Financial Times in the same paragraph). We need to remember that Peterson has written 2 books and given hundreds of lectures and interviews all over the world and never invested even 60 seconds to give his clear opinion on climate change or what should be done about it (we have just two one-sentence quips) - which is in very stark contrast to his other views (like Bill C16 or Communists) for which there are hours/kilometers of sources. He is not shy about his opinions. His concern about ideological influence possibly doing harm to climate science can be noted in other section including 2 short quotes that we actually have. Retweeting of a PragerU video may be sufficient evidence to brand someone as climate change denier on Twitter but Wikipedia articles should be based on multum of hard facts from independent sources and not conjecture Harcerz87 (talk) 18:43, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE doesn't really apply, he either holds a specific belief, or he doesn't. He can simultaneously doubt climate science/models, AND want a clean ocean (for whatever other reasons he might have). After all - he doesn't tell people to clean their rooms for environmental reasons (and yet, he still wants them clean). I believe the proposed text represents his actual viewpoint, and that none of it is a "quip" or joke (it's no joke man). Roughly speaking. --Jobrot (talk) 22:23, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support This is neutrally worded and reliably sourced. I'm sure he has many nuanced opinions about the environment, but this is an encyclopedia so we should briefly summarize according to reliable, independent sources. Isn't one of his 'rules' about communicating clearly? Peterson's statements, according to multiple sources, are perfectly clear. One doesn't need to view hours of lectures to understand this. If independent, reliable sources discuss his opposition to ocean pollution, that would be a separate discussion. Grayfell (talk) 19:48, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

WP:NPOV requires that if we want to note that Peterson criticised 'anti-humanity' environmentalists we don't hide the fact that he admires others (like Boyan Slat of Ocean Cleanup) and also is an environmentalist activist himself (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wE29TM_YtR0, https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/manage-canada-s-oceans-honestly#/). Current last 2 sentences cannot be left as they are as its WP:OR (Peterson in this source criticises only environmentalists that call humanity 'cancer', 'plague' or argue 'you should consider not having children as there are too many people already' - not all environmentalists) and WP:POV --Harcerz87 (talk) 17:39, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

The relevant part of the source reads as follows: Predictably, Peterson doubts climate change is man-made. His book is scathing about environmentalists, whom he accuses of wanting fewer humans on the planet. This, he says, causes students to “suffer genuine declines in their mental health”. Is there any evidence for that? One second, two seconds — 10 seconds pass. “No. There’s no hard evidence.” He suggests the problem is “an epidemiological matter”: “the instruments that people used to assess depression in the 1950s aren’t the same as the instruments now”. So the point is “more a hypothesis”. There is no WP:OR, the source clearly fully supports the last two sentences. Girth Summit (talk) 18:04, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

The source quotes p.268 of 12 Rules where Peterson criticises calling humans 'plague' or 'cancer' and professor who taught students that there are too many humans on the planet. The source recognizes that by specyfying of what Peterson 'accuses' environmentalists - wanting fewer humans on the planet. In current version this qualifier was omitted as if Peterson was "highly critical" of all environmentalists. Which is internally inconsistent considering Petersons own environmental activism and his warm praise for Boyan Slat. --Harcerz87 (talk) 23:51, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

• As I said, if reliable, independent sources discuss his opposition to ocean pollution, so be it. His own youtube channel and his own indiegogo project are not independent, not presumed to be encyclopedically significant, and not even particularly reliable for this content. Grayfell (talk) 21:29, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

When Petersons opinions on environmentalism are deemed to be worthy to be included in encyclopedia, the section (if it exists - and it's fairly new) should include all the facts, his support and his opposition as long as they are relevant (in this case: Peterson and environmentalism) and reliable sources exist. We can safely determine the fact of his maritime sustainability advocacy (and warm praise for Boyan Slat) from self-published material in compliance with 5 rules of WP:BLPSELFPUB. --Harcerz87 (talk) 23:27, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Their relevance is determined by reliable sources, which have not yet been provided. Not every opinion of Peterson's belongs here, and the way to determine which belong and which don't is through reliable, independent sources. Grayfell (talk) 00:08, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

The proposed section is on climate change, not environmentalism. I don't think Peterson can be seen as an environmental activist. He's a free speech activist. That's why the topic heading is climate change, not anything to do with any possible environmental activism Peterson may or may not have done. He's a free speech activist with an knack for defending controversial, often right-leaning statements/positions. SO all the headings pertain to that. In fact, the super-heading of "views" could conceivably be changed to "free speech activism" without any other content needing modification.

Making him out to be an environmental activist would be an WP:UNDUE WP:OR mischaracterization in my view. I think it's clear from his statements on climate change that he's not an environmentalist (although he does seem to have a slight obsession with cleaning). --Jobrot (talk) 00:12, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose He has received much more attention on the other issues listed in the article. Climate change isn't in his purview nor has it attracted significant media attention the way the other topics have. As a clinical psychologist, Academia and political correctness, Postmodernism and identity politics, Bill C-16, Gender relations and masculinity are all areas of relevance. --Ted87 (talk) 00:23, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

That Jordan Peterson comments on topics outside of his academic purview doesn't preclude including those comments. The page is after all about him and his views, regardless of whether his views are 'true' or 'false' by outside standards. We're not here to protect him from himself. If he holds a viewpoint, then Wikipedia should represent it. We're here to represent him as accurately as we can (regardless of whether we agree with his stance). --Jobrot (talk) 05:27, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

My point is that Peterson, like everyone, has a views on many topics. Whether he's right or wrong is irrelevant to my argument. Having a view on something doesn't necessarily mean it should be included in a bio. Otherwise everyone's bio would have a whole list of their views. The threshold for inclusion goes beyond that. The fact that his view on the issue has been covered by reliable sources doesn't necessarily meet the threshold either. When you compare the amount of time he's spent discussing the other issues listed and the amount of material the media has covered on him, climate change is rather insignificant in both regards. --Ted87 (talk) 18:07, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support inclusion while respecting due weight. It has received significant coverage but possibly should not get a separate section. A few sentences under "views" or "opinions" would suffice. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:32, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion per WP:DUE and WP:BLP. I don't believe I've ever edited this BLP before and am just responding to RfC. The sourcing appears both poor and lacking in depth. One source presented above appears to be a blog; Financial Times is behind a paywall; and The Sydney Morning Herald only includes one quote from Peterson on climate of "You can't trust the data because too much ideology is involved" and no additional context. Did a quick check to see if there's better sourcing by googling "Jordan Peterson" & "climate change" but entire first page of hits is blogs, reddit, twitter, etc with exception of one op-ed from the Guardian titled "How Dangerous is Jordan Peterson?" which seems to be an anti-Peterson opinion piece (scratching because article text actually does not mention climate change or global warming. Seems it only showed up in search based on comments, so there's actually zero reliable sources in first page of hits) Per WP:DUE and WP:BLP it seems this content should be excluded, at least at this point. That an entire section is currently devoted to this content seems unusual. DynaGirl (talk) 02:04, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Here is an alternate link to the ft source, and failing that here is the full text.

The current proposal is for a subsection under the heading 'views' (subheading 'climate change'), this is a common format for Wikipedia, and already present on pages such as Mike Pence, Slavoj Žižek or Milo Yiannopoulos. --Jobrot (talk) 05:16, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

There's also the fact that paywalled sources are fully acceptable on wikipedia, as are sources that are not available on the internet at all. WP:PAYWALL MaxBrowne2 (talk) 11:13, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the link Jorbot, looking over the link for FT source shows this text regarding climate: "Predictably, Peterson doubts climate change is man-made. His book is scathing about environmentalists, whom he accuses of wanting fewer humans on the planet. This, he says, causes students to 'suffer genuine declines in their mental health'. Is there any evidence for that? One second, two seconds — 10 seconds pass. 'No. There’s no hard evidence.' He suggests the problem is 'an epidemiological matter': 'the instruments that people used to assess depression in the 1950s aren’t the same as the instruments now'. So the point is 'more a hypothesis'" This seems pretty rambling and unclear, and this is by far the best source on this topic. Reading closely the "more of a hypothesis" and "no hard evidence" refers to declines of mental health, and not to climate change. I'm still not convinced this belongs in the article, but perhaps a brief, neutral sentence could be added to "other views" sticking close to this source such as "Peterson doubts climate change is man-made, based on his distrust of environmentalists, whom Peterson accuses of wanting fewer humans on the planet". If included, perhaps this should even be attributed as the interpretation of Peterson's viewpoint by the Financial Times author. If we're going to include this, in order to be in accordance with WP:BLP, we should do so neutrally, stick closely to the sourcing, and avoid WP:OR and WP:UNDUE.DynaGirl (talk) 15:07, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree that sourced material which is not made up of direct quotes from Peterson may need to be couched as the opinion/interpretation of the agency/author from which it comes. --Jobrot (talk) 12:23, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

It seems the direct quotes which are in reference to declines in mental health and not in reference to climate change should be excluded. These include: "No. There's no hard evidence ... the instruments that people used to assess depression in the 1950s aren’t the same as the instruments now" and it is "more a hypothesis". Seems we should stick to climate change here. DynaGirl (talk) 21:37, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Here are the pages of 12 rules to which I believe the FT author is referring. I think the lines concerned are "We do what we can to make the best of things, in our vulnerability and fragility, and the planet is harder on us than we are on it. We could cut ourselves some slack. Human beings are, after all, seriously remarkable creatures. We have no peers, and it’s not clear that we have any real limits. Things happen now that appeared humanly impossible even at the same time in the recent past when we began to wake up to our planet-​sized responsibilities." - "No one in the mod­ern world may with­out ob­jec­tion ex­press the opin­ion that ex­is­tence would be bet­tered by the ab­sence of Jews, blacks, Mus­lims, or En­glish­men. Why, then, is it vir­tu­ous to pro­pose that the plan­et might be bet­ter off, if there were few­er peo­ple on it?" - "I have seen uni­ver­si­ty stu­dents, par­tic­ular­ly those in the hu­man­ities, suf­fer gen­uine de­clines in their men­tal health from be­ing philo­soph­ical­ly be­rat­ed by such de­fend­ers of the plan­et for their ex­is­tence as mem­bers of the hu­man species."

I think Jordan Peterson sees a belief in man-made climate change as being innately anti-humanist. The FT author seems to be commenting on these statements from his book. Whether including that commentary is WP:OR on our part seems to be the key question to resolving the RfC early. --Jobrot (talk) 06:59, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support: I see multiple reliably sourced references of a public figure's views backing neutrally worded prose. If this was Michael Jordan, who isn't notable for his commentary on politics or sociology, then WP:UNDUE would have relevance, but Jordan Peterson is a popular academic who makes a living from and rose to notability with his commentary on those subjects. →‎ GS →‎ ☎ → 09:55, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support: The content is accurate, adheres to the cited sources and is supported by three reliably sources. The concerns over weight are strange, as the content fits into a broader theme of Jordan Peterson's criticisms of academia and political correctness, and fleshes out those views further (it's absolutely bizarre to claim that JP's criticism of academia is not one of his core themes). Furthermore, the article already notes that Jordan Peterson is critical of "political correctness" as it pertains to "environmentalism" without elaborating on what his precise complaints are. It does our readers a service to flesh out those views, using reliable sources. Lastly, JP is a public intellectual (not a no-name scientist with a niche specialty), so his views (as covered by RS) on social and political issues should be covered in the same way as, say, Noam Chomsky's and Paul Krugman's. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:31, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support: Facts are facts, these ones are newsworthy and relevant, and the wording is almost completely neutral. Perhaps remove the "highly" from before "critical", about environmentalists. Unnecessarily subjective. Rollo (talk) 15:25, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose emphatically because this text is egregiously misleading. I will propose alternative text in a new section below, and lay out the argument for it. 98.7.192.88 (talk) 16:22, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

(replying to myself) not going to follow thru on that because I'm wasting too much time on it. I am quite interested in the topics at hand, so I am willing to devote great attention to the details, but I then realize I can't calibrate my writeup to your (collective) level of interest and detail: most of you have not read the cited sources. You should all go read the pastebin of the FT article that Jobrot posted above, you will see that it is a hatchet job opinion piece--notwithstanding it's in the FT-- written by a satirist and (sub)titled on the topic of gender, not climate. I continue to believe that this proposed change is unwise and inflammatory in its "denial of Jordan Peterson's natural climate". I am going to take my case to a community that will be interested in all the details of my research, /r/JordanPeterson . I will urge them not to meatpuppet this discussion; Wikipedia can handle the few nutjobs who won't listen to me, but the bulk of the people over there are quite reasonable and they actually read a dissection of this broken process with interest. (Peterson talks frequently about speaking precisely and not quoting out of context, which is exactly what is taking place here. Perhaps the article will benefit from that POV as well: when is wikipedia big enough in media that it actually should rightly be a topic of itself?)

Whilst the author of the FT article (Henry Mance) also has a weekly satire column, there is no indication that the Peterson article is intended as satire. Mance has numerous articles which are just straight journalism, and I believe this is one of them. --Jobrot (talk) 20:27, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I think that is sound reasoning. However, do you think another sentence from the same article - "Peterson hates carbs as much as Marxists." is also encyclopedia-worthy? Does it accurately describe Peterson's views? Both are said in the voice of Mr Henry Mance. Do we have other sources of Petersons opinion on how humanity influences climat change to rely on eccept for one sentence from Mr Henry "Peterson hates carbs as much as Marxists" Mance?--Harcerz87 (talk) 22:39, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

The Jordan Peterson quotes we're using aren't said in Henry Mance's voice. They're said in Jordan Peterson's voice (from direct quotes) as reported by the Financial Times and its editorial review board. The article was published, so we can assume it was read and vetted by an editor or chief editor.

I don't see anything (that wasn't derived directly from Peterson quotes) that is disputed. We all agree with the sentence "Peterson doubts the scientific consensus on climate change" - don't we?

What of our proposed text, do you take issue with exactly? We're here to debate what we're putting IN to the encyclopedia, not what we wouldn't bother putting in, or what is not credible enough to put in. We're not here to debate imaginary inclusions. --Jobrot (talk) 23:50, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Here's a 7 minute excerpt from a 2 hour Q&A Peterson did, it details his views on overpopulation and tangentially environmentalism. His viewpoint seems to be - that some environmental biologists and climate scientists may be exaggerating due to "underlying" anti-western, anti-capitalist and anti-humanist philosophies, and that because of this, he can't determine whether their science is good or not. He believes some scientists are malthusians, and are thus according to him, anti-humanists. He expresses the belief that humanity will find a way around climate change should it become an issue, and that cleaning up the ocean is an good thing to do (although he doesn't expressly link this to climate change). He also states that repopulating the oceans with fish could be done quickly "if we left the damn oceans alone for 15 years". --Jobrot (talk) 20:42, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support as DUE because it is also reported in The Guardian; contra what is written above, the Guardian piece is not opinion, is factual, and would be incorporated in this paragraph of the article IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 22:21, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Newimpartial, The Guardian source does not actually mention climate change. Here's link to only Guardian source in search of "Jordan Peterson" & "climate" [1]. It includes no article text regarding climate. Apparently, it shows up in search only because of side bar advertisement for another article unrelated to Peterson titled US interior secretary's school friend crippling climate research, scientists say. Check the link to confirm. DynaGirl (talk) 15:35, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

• Conditional Support Oppose - I changed my vote to Oppose (on 17 Aug 2018) because it is clear that those who support this climate change subsection are not willing to compromise on the content. I oppose the subsection as written because it cherry-picks quotes to portray Peterson as an insensitive, misinformed, and unsavory character.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 19:48, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

- If we craft a more accurate description of Peterson’s nuanced views on humanity’s responsibility for our planet’s health, which includes his his skepticism about some aspects of how climate change research is conducted, interpreted, and presented to the public. For example, from the video Jobrot posted (thank you), one or more of these Peterson quotes ought to be included in the article:

01:32 “... and our increasing willingness to take broader responsibility for the large scale health of the planet...”

04:33 “Now that doesn’t mean that we’re managing everything that we should manage properly, we’re really wreaking havoc on the oceans...”

06:02 “I do think one thing we’re doing is we’re fishing out the oceans like, idiotically, it’s really, really awful...and trawling is a very damaging process...”

Finally, we set a bad precedent when we use a poorly-written, significantly biased, vituperative blog post as a “reliable” source, rather than the original source (a YouTube video). Let’s not reify “secondary sources”.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 00:23, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

As I'm sure you must know by now, Wikipedia does strongly prefer secondary sources and your subjective opinion about the quality of those sources is irrelevant. So why on Earth would those specific quotes deserve special attention? Of all the thousands of hours of lectures and talks he's given, what makes those quotes special, other than your personal opinion? Grayfell (talk) 00:38, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Would you consider any material from that blog to be a reliable source? Re: The quotes — I am simply looking for an objective encyclopedia article. As it stands now, the climate science section consists of cherry-picked quotes covered with anti-Peterson syrupy prose.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 00:58, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I've already stated above that I think passing Jordan Peterson off as an environmentalist is an WP:OR mischaracterization, and that his main focus (as well as the focus of the "views" section) is right-leaning free speech advocacy (particularly in reference to criticizing the left). I think this is where his views on climate change come from, and are focused. It's also the heading for our section ("Climate Change" not "Environmental Activism"). Climate change being a hot-button topic Jordan Peterson is reserving the right to deny or disagree with (as is his want). --Jobrot (talk) 00:43, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I do not wish to characterize him as an environmental activist. I agree with you that that would be an inaccurate description. At the same time, the section as it stands now is clearly biased against Peterson and sorely needs a more balanced, objective perspective.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 01:22, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't really see the proposed text as being "biased against" Peterson. He has a viewpoint on climate change, we report that viewpoint (without judgement).

I disagree. The subsection cherry-picks quotes and connects them together to form an unappealing image of the man.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 20:23, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Also when heard as full sentences and in context, your first two timestamped quotes are actually about technological responses to climate change. He's not offering them up just on the topic of environmental stewardship, he's saying; "Hey I'm not concerned about climate change because we'll come up with technological answers later!" - this seems to be part of his viewpoint (perhaps a way to avoid the hypothetical climate-depression he mentions in the article). The stuff about the fish population... I don't know what his point is there. Maybe that technology can also have detrimental effects? But I don't think he's known for his views on wildlife, and I think too much extrapolation on the topic would be WP:OR. --Jobrot (talk) 01:47, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with your interpretation of his statements in the video. He takes a historical view, noting that as an international community we have only recently assumed the responsibility to care for our planet. It is a helpful perspective, although he neglects the importance of legislation, subsequent regulation, and enforcement, e.g., the Clean Air Act (1963) and Clean Water Act (1972). I would prefer if he said something like, "innovative, entrepreneurial efforts such as (the guy making the machine to gobble up plastic bags) are also part of the solution, along with laws and regulations to rein in industrial excess" - that's off the top of my head, but I think you get my point. Over all I see this subsection as suffering from poor writing as much as a lack of objectivity. I suspect that you (Jobrot) and I have more similar views than it might seem at first, but we are debating this subsection as it is currently written. We could forge a true consensus if we (editors who are willing to commit the time and effort) worked together to write a new subsection, instead of voting Yea or Nay on this poorly-written paragraph.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 20:23, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

He mentions neither the Clean Air Act or the Clean Water Act - nor is his opinion on the benefits of having a clean ocean necessarily related to his view on whether or not man-made climate change exists; that view being; that he doubts the current climate models, and suspects scientists might be deluded by a kind of political or ideological anti-humanism (this goes along with his general theme that left-wing politics is delusional and creates monsters). So to make too much out of his statements about the ocean is to try to fabricate a position he has not expressed on the matter. You can label it "a historical view" but I'm not interested in "a historical view", I'm only interested in Peterson's viewpoint. I think we should stick to what he has expressed, rather than trying to create a position which hasn't been expressed.

On that matter, the first partial quote you've put on this talk page from that video is “... and our increasing willingness to take broader responsibility for the large scale health of the planet...” but when consulting the transcript of the video we see that his full statement (when parsed as a much longer sentence) is:

"I mean there's been a huge argument for years between the economist and the biologists you know the biologists often are pessimistic and they basically adopt a Malthusian perspective and that is that we'll continue to breed until we exhaust the planet and do in our all of our resources and the economists always counter that by saying hey don't be forgetting that we can constantly figure out how to do more with less and that we're pretty damn smart and I'm afraid I'm on the side of the economist but even more to the point you know the projections right now indicate that will probably take somewhere around nine or ten billion something sometimes by the middle of the 21st century and then our population will start to decline pretty precipitously and I think there's every reason to assume especially at our current rate of technological progress progression and our increasing willingness to take broader responsibility for the large-scale health of the planet that we'll be able to manage that without too much problem we can certainly grow our food to do it if we put a little bit of effort into that we're going to squeeze out a lot of other animals on the way I'm afraid especially some of the big predators and mammals that are up approximately our size and that's you know there's there's a price to be paid"

So that line is more about the "economist" viewpoint (to use his terms), that "we can constantly figure out how to do more with less" - I say all this regardless of the fact most biologists aren't Malthusian and are more likely to subscribe the theory of Carrying capacity - but at any rate, Peterson is not advocating a "willingness to take broader responsibility for the large-scale health of the planet", he's merely saying that a willingness exists, and he's definitely not advocating that willingness in response to man-made climate change. He's just extolling the virtues of responsibility and cleanliness that he's known for.

I think the quotes in the proposed text are far more direct and relevant to the topic at hand. --Jobrot (talk) 12:23, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

@Jobrot: (1) I wrote:

It is a helpful perspective, although he neglects the importance of legislation, subsequent regulation, and enforcement, e.g., the Clean Air Act (1963) and Clean Water Act (1972). I would prefer if he said something like, "innovative, entrepreneurial efforts such as (the guy making the machine to gobble up plastic bags) are also part of the solution, along with laws and regulations to rein in industrial excess .... (emphasis added

::::::::(2) I proposed a compromise, which I subsequently learned was not appropriate until this RfC ends so I deleted it, but I trust you will discern in it my willingness to "first seek to understand before you are understood" and to offer concessions if it will help achieve a compromise solution. Here is my don't-consider-it-an-official-proposal-until-the-time-is-right proposal:

Peterson doubts the scientific consensus on climate change[108], explaining that he is "... very skeptical of the models that are used to predict climate change ...",[109] and "... you can't trust the data because too much ideology is involved."[110]

Thus, I am suggesting will suggest, when the time is right, that the above sentence constitute the climate change subsection. That one sentence and nothing else. (For now.)   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 18:38, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support: covered in reliable sources, with sufficient weight. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:29, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• strong oppose per the strong reasoning by Users Harcerz87 and DynaGirl.desmay (talk) 16:25, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose because editing policies (from NPOV, DUE, BALANCE etc. as mentioned above) do not support the inclusion, especially not for a separate section. Almost all the comments who support the inclusion are basically ignoring that fact. It is far from being a prominent viewpoint by Peterson or that it was widely covered by mainstream media. Simply because it his alleged viewpoint (as editor Jobrot argued above in support) it does not make it notable by itself. The viewpoints general notability is subjectively perceived by editors and as such it should not be included.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 18:21, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

If you read WP:DUE it uses the term "views" 10 times, and the letters "view" appear 28 times (including 7 times for "minority view", and 4 for "majority view"). This is not talking about an individuals core or main beliefs, vs passing opinions and lesser beliefs. In terms of Peterson's views, there are no minority and majority views. There is just 1 view: Peterson's... and if it appears as quoted in a reliable source, it's up for inclusion (there's no getting around topics he's made statements on). No we should not focus on any one of his views excessively. This page shouldn't become part of the general page on Climate Change, but describing his viewpoint, as a public figure, does warrant inclusion. It fits squarely in the purview of WP:BLP.

If you guys really want a policy to argue from; it shouldn't be WP:DUE, WP:NOTABILITY or WP:BALANCE - those are all about balancing multiple viewpoints. It should be something from WP:BLP. But even there I suspect Wikipedia supports inclusion. --Jobrot (talk) 00:15, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Part of WP:Due is WP:PROPORTION that starts - 'An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, ... ' . Undue is not just about balancing different view, but also the topics covered should be in a similar proportion as covered in the sources. Jonpatterns (talk) 09:42, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

WP:PROPORTION doesn't lay out a case for exclusion. Merely for limitation of writing style/content. Besides which, all the headings are subjects Jordan Peterson has defended the right to free speech on. This seems to be one aspect in that theme/lineage. --Jobrot (talk) 12:43, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support per just about everyone else. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 01:29, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support inclusion I'm not convicned by most of the opposes that cite WP:UNDUE broadly: that policy very obviously is about balancing opposing view points in much different articles from a biography and especially a section on the subject's viewpoints. I think it's highly significant that an arm of the London Review of Books took copy space to quote him saying he is "very sceptical of the models that are used to predict climate change". It's not his main schtick, but not including it would go against WP:PROPORTION. We would be giving no coverage to quotable views he holds that is mentioned in reliable secondary sources like the London Review of Books Blog and the Sydney Morning Herald. They mention it, we should mention it, I don't see how either of those policies could be used to justify removing a view he holds from a section on views he holds. We shouldn't give it a lengthy treatment, obviously, but a single paragraph in a section that has 4 other subheadings, over 13 other paragraphs, a block quote, and a pull quote is not the lopside coverage I think many of the opposes make it out to be especially considering it consists mostly of his own quotes. It's not perfect as is, but that's not a reason to remove it entirely, that's a reason to expand it with content like Harcerz87 mentions in their oppose above. (Summoned by bot) Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 19:32, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support. Peterson's stance on climate change is notable, as it has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. The length of the coverage is not WP:UNDUE, as this subsection is much shorter than the other "Views" subsections. However, the phrasing could use some improvement. I'm not sure where the "very sceptical" quote comes from, but the origin of the quote should be mentioned. The "can't trust the data" quote is a pull quote from the Sydney Morning Herald, and the article should mention that the quote came from the newspaper's interview of Peterson. Finally, the last Financial Times quote should be shortened to "No. There is no hard evidence" and "more a hypothesis" since the "depression" comparison lacks context and isn't relevant to the subject. — Newslinger talk 22:33, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
• support well sourced, and quite relevant for any putative "public intellectual". It should stop after "You can't trust the data because too much ideology is involved.".... The content about his speculations about the mental health of environmentalists is clutter and doesn't belong.Jytdog (talk) 10:24, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support per Jytdog, and trim as suggested. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:34, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose... but I agree with the two supporters directly above me. I think one or two sentences is fine. The question posed is "should we include this paragraph" and my answer to that is: no, it's undue weight. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 00:37, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Peterson is not a climatologist, so hopefully it's obvious that the only possible reason the sources might have for bringing this up is to discredit him in his unrelated area of expertise. By itself, the existence of such motives cannot constitute cause for exclusion here, but at a minimum it indicates a level of controversy and suggests we should proceed with caution. Following that, I see no direct quote on climate change in the FT article, only a statement in the author's voice that "Peterson doubts climate change is man-made." The other two sources speak only briefly to skepticism about the models and are utterly devoid of context. Given this flimsy sourcing, it's entirely likely we could be inaccurately portraying his views here. Whatever one thinks of Jordan Peterson, that doesn't seem acceptable to me. Furthermore, the statement that he "doubts the scientific consensus" is vague and potentially inaccurate. Vague because it's not clear if we mean he doubts the existence of the consensus (for which we have no sourcing) or the content thereof (for which we have flimsy sourcing), and inaccurate in that there is absolutely no indication that he doubts all the claims for which there is scientific consensus. By my reading of the sources, the only claim he may doubt is that warming is anthropogenic; he very likely concurs with the rest of the scientific consesnsus on climate change. In sum, the sourcing seems inadequate here, and even if it were adequate, it doesn't support the specific language currently employed in the article. 148.87.23.9 (talk) 04:26, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

When should this survey end?

Question: When does this RfC end?  - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 18:40, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

There is no hard rule, but four weeks is often long enough. From WP:RFCEND 'An RfC should last until enough comment has been received that consensus is reached, or until it is apparent it won't be. There is no required duration, but 30 days is a common default for contentious discussions. ' Jonpatterns (talk) 09:13, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Jonpatterns. I wish we could end this survey and forge a compromise instead of dragging this out another 21 days. Is there a flaw in this hope, i.e., do Wikipedia policies and procedures require us to follow the traditional schedule, whether or not editors would rather achieve compromise? Do you (anyone reading this) believe we can reach a compromise?   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 12:52, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Its fine to finish a RfC if no one objects. With this RfC it seems most people who want to comment have done so. Maybe leave it a couple more days then we can move on to seeking a resolution AKA compromise. Jonpatterns (talk) 15:18, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

At the moment it's exactly 2:1 in favour of including the text originally proposed - if a compromise is put forward, its wording should take into account the prevailing wind here, and be close to the original proposal. Girth Summit (talk) 16:43, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Looking over the votes, it appears some of the support votes indicate general support for some sort of content regarding climate change, but maybe not in a separate section or this exact text. This actually appears to be true for some oppose votes as well. DynaGirl (talk) 21:28, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, that's why I prefer the term resolution. The result will not (necessarily) please everyone.Jonpatterns (talk) 17:39, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

• What exactly is meant by "compromise" or "resolution"? Normally an uninvolved editor will assess the consensus and close the discussion. –dlthewave ☎ 02:58, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

My meaning of resolution is the discussion has finished and an action based the discussion has been carried out. There are several ways a RfC can end including an uninvolved editor closing (from WP:RFCEND):

1. The question may be withdrawn by the poster (e.g., if the community's response became obvious very quickly). In this situation, the editor who started the RfC should normally be the person who removes the {{rfc}} template.
2. The RfC participants can agree to end it at any time, and one of them can remove the {{rfc}} template.
3. The dispute may be moved to another dispute resolution forum, such as mediation.
4. The {{rfc}} tag can be removed and a formal closing summary of the discussion can be posted by any uninvolved editor.
5. The discussion stops, and no one cares to restore the {{rfc}} tag after the bot removes it.

Jonpatterns (talk) 09:25, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Jonpatterns for posting the material from WP:RFCEND - good learning for me! Your post also got me to read more of WP:RFCEND. The three paragraphs immediately after the list you posted are relevant to our current situation:

When an RfC is used to resolve a dispute, the resolution is determined the same way as for any other discussion: the participants in the discussion determine what they have agreed on and try to implement their agreement. Like other discussions, RfCs sometimes end without an agreement or clear resolution. Please remove {{rfc}} template when the dispute has been resolved, or when discussion has ended.

Anyone who wants an uninvolved editor to write a closing summary of the discussion (ideally with a determination of consensus) can formally request closure by posting at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. If the matter under discussion is not contentious and the consensus is obvious to the participants, then formal closure is neither necessary nor advisable. Written closing statements are not required. Editors are expected to be able to evaluate and agree upon the results of most RfCs without outside assistance.

An RfC should last until enough comment has been received that consensus is reached, or until it is apparent it won't be.

The last sentence is the crucial one: "An RfC should last until enough comment has been received that consensus is reached, or until it is apparent it won't be." I said a while back that I doubted we could reach consensus. I changed my mind. Thus, a new section, Talk:Jordan Peterson#Let's do our best to reach consensus (below).   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 01:17, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Tally

Tally (so we know where we stand at this point):
Support (14) [56%] | Weak Support (2) [8%] [| Oppose (9) [36%].   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 20:37, 17 August 2018 (UTC) // Note: See below for the correct tally.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 00:55, 18 August 2018 (UTC) //

Nothing wrong with a tally, but since this discussion has attracted outside attention and new editors, I will remind folks that the raw quantity of "votes" is not the deciding factor here. Per Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion, it is the quality of policy-based arguments which will best help the closer decide consensus. Grayfell (talk) 21:55, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Grayfell. That is a very important point which I neglected to mention.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 22:26, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it's possible for a consensus one way or another to achieve, if we roughly define consenus as 70% support and I don't think any comprimise will be accetable to either side of the dispute. We should just go further in the dispute resolution proccese as their are far too many outside factors influencing editor opinion. Zubin12 (talk) 23:52, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps, but that is not how Wikipedia defines consensus. See Wikipedia:Consensus and Wikipedia:Closing discussions. Grayfell (talk) 00:23, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm only using 70% support as a rough proxy for consensus, any possible description of his stances on climate change whether they be a full and richly detailed sub-section will or a single passing reference will generate reflexive opposition while a total exclusion will be equally unacceptable. WP:Snowball indicates we should try and minimize pointless time consuming procceses so perhabs it would be best to call in formal meditation? Zubin12 (talk) 00:39, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I only count 8 oppose at this time. Is it possible that you have counted both of the votes cast by 98.7.192.88? He/she voted once, then struckthrough it in order to vote again (oppose both times). By my reckoning, the tally should be as shown below. Markworthen, if you agree that I have counted correctly, would you please strike through your previous tally?

Tally (so we know where we stand at this point):
Support (18) [64%] | Weak Support (2) [7%] [| Oppose (8) [29%]. Updated, but note that several support !votes call for some trimming. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:42, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct @Girth Summit:. Thank you for catching my error. :O)   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 00:34, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

To avoid any confusion, I've taken the liberty of striking through your original tally Markworthen - hope that's OK. Girth Summit (talk) 00:38, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I shoulda done it myself. :^) Thanks!   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 00:48, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Just want to note here that writing "oppose emphatically", "strongly oppose" etc does not actually enhance an argument, and a "weak support" is still support. See also WP:AADP, because I see a lot of those "arguments to avoid" here, e.g. complaining about paywalls. There is also evidence of canvassing via reddit. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 11:10, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Since it is not a vote, indicating one's degree of support or opposition seems perfectly fine to me. It's all about one's rationale, which might rightly include conditional or qualifying adjectives to immediately convey pathos perhaps in an effort to buttress logos. (Whether the end result persuades others is a different topic.)   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 18:12, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unsourced "influences"

Are all the influences sourced? One was added today, but there's no coverage of this person being an influence on JP in the body. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:22, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Should all the influences be mentioned in the body? Alexander Luria is cited in his book Maps of Meaning (also mentioned in 12 Rules), university lectures, while in the recent Oxford Union speech (transcript ref) said "It’s an elaboration of something the Russian neuropsychologist—that’s another answer to the question about the Russians. I was a devotee of the Russian neuropsychologist Alexander Luria and his students, Sokolov and Vinogradova, who were arguable the three greatest neuropsychologists of the last half of the 20th century. Vinogradova and Sokolov discovered the orienting reflex, which was probably the biggest discovery in psychophysiology in the last 50 years of the 20th century", with "about the Russians" referring to the question "You also use several examples from the novels of Fyodor Dostoevsky, to illustrate some points about psychology. I was just wondering, is there any other way that Russian cultural history has left a mark on your ideas?" and answer "Well, they aren’t the only Russian thinkers who influenced me. I read a lot of Leo Tolstoy, including The Kingdom of God Is Within You. Bulgakov, whose Master and Margarita...". Perhaps Sokolov and Vinogradova can be added as well.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 00:39, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I think we should add those cites to the infobox then. I mean, otherwise folks could just add unsourced influences (perhaps to smear JP). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:45, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Agree. I will add S&V because of their connection to psychology, but currently don't know how much Tolstoy and Bulgakov influenced him and were cited by him in books and lectures.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 00:48, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

• The infobox documentation says "List names of any notable people who influenced the scientist significantly. Influences should be restricted to a small number, i.e. two or three, where the scientist was clearly and directly building on the work of a predecessor". The current article lists nine (!), and should be heavily trimmed. I'm no expert on Peterson but I don't think any of the listed people are significant enough. For each one, ask yourself "had this person not existed, would Peterson have still have worked in the same subject idea or come up with the same ideas?" That's the level of influence that's needed to be listed in the infobox, not "he once said in an interview that he thought this person was smart". And I don't think any of the listed people are that to Peterson—this is not like Riemann building on the works of Dirichlet, but of someone being very abstractly inspired by historical figures. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 02:02, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Well, articles like Steven Pinker, Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris etc. don't seem to follow a pattern of only "2-3". As much I am familiar with the work of Peterson, the "clearly, directly" influence regarding your question would be Carl Jung, all others are more-or-less. Also, note that the list is divided between psychologists/neurologists and philosophers/writers.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 02:11, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
    • It shouldn't be a newsflash that most of Wikipedia is low quality and needs fixing. Those pages and this one are clearly the result of over-eager fans and people unaware of the documentation—all people acting in good faith, I'm sure, but not achieving the optimal result. The documentation is the authoritative source and it demonstrates a higher level of consensus than this talk page does. Template talk:Infobox scientist is right there if you want to contest current policy. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 11:59, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
      • These articles do not have low quality, exactly the opposite, Pinker and Dawkins are GA quality. It's not the first time an article of good quality wasn't completely edited by policy. If anything, as said, Carl Jung can be surely kept, while others can be temporarily removed until consensus on the topic is reached.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 16:09, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
        • Infoboxes are not covered under the GA criteria (other than that its information needs to be verifiable, but this is unrelated to complying with documentation). I didn't mean to imply that the articles are crap, just those specific parameters. I've done a bit of cutting from the articles you list and removed every influence from this page except Jung. Choose whichever set of between 0 and 3 influences you like, but the prior version of 9 influences both flagrantly violates consensus and is also unhelpful to readers (less is more). — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 01:43, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
• I'm pretty sure we could list "Freud" as an influence for every psychologist ever. The Jung influence is well documented and seen as fairly central. Solzhenitsyn is also often-mentioned, but Jung alone may be sufficient. Nblund ^talk 19:53, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

POV seems off

This article seems to need a bit of work to nudge it into the neutral POV. I'm not familiar with the subject of the article or his work, but since I disagree with the views he's described as holding I think the decision about flagging it should be made by people who couldn't care less. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Margaret Robinson (talk • contribs) 14:03, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Could you be a bit more specific about the content you found to lack neutrality so we can discuss and edit it? Otherwise, commentary such this is WP:FORUM which is not supported on Wikipedia's talk pages.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 20:05, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Climate science - again for some reason

Okay so we have a consensus this should be included. Now apparently we need a consensus on whether or not we should remove all the sourced content except a couple sentences, because the RfC that lasted ages with all the people saying the material was good wasn't enough. Go for it. If this were my job I'd quit it. PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:20, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

PeterTheFourth is referring to my edit here in which I revert their unilateral undoing of an RfC, not by contesting the closure but simply by readding the content. I then asked them about it on their talk page because you can't simply override an RfC when you don't like its result. PeterTheFourth is using a deliberate strawman here, and the burden of proof is on them to show that the RfC's closure was demonstrably wrong. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 08:44, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I see see that the blog of an unnoted Peterson opponent, Samuel Earle, is used a primary source of truth for what Peterson says about climate in the current version. I doubt that Samuel Earle has actually talked to Jordan Peterson. Surely blogs do not qualify as good sources? Dr Petersen has expressed himself in hundreds of scientific articles, in his books and Youtube videos, in his own blog and in filmed interviews, and I think these sources should be used for what he has to say. Or any proper interview in writing, with all questions and answers spelled out. Qwertenius (talk) 07:06, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

This appears to be the London Review of Books WP:NEWSBLOG. It is used to provide a non-controversial quote from Peterson summarizing his position on an issue which is of documented significance. Wikipedia favors WP:SECONDARY sources, and for this routine point this source seems fine. Encyclopedia articles are intended to be a summary, and readers can go to Youtube if they seek his lectures. Grayfell (talk) 19:32, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

It is LRB Blog, the blog of London Book Review.

They accept unsolicited submissions as can be seen here: https://www.lrb.co.uk/submissions

The name of the author is Samuel Earle. He has posted his text as a private person. Here is a list of the LRB editors, Samuel Earle is not one of them: https://www.lrb.co.uk/about

The blog post does not even quote Peterson or claim they have been in contact. The next sentence after the one containing the word 'climate' goes: "It may be tempting to ignore Peterson and hope he sinks back into obscurity." In summary, the text is not in any way neutral or a source, nor does it contain a pointer to a primary source.

I suggest we find the real source instead and use that. I am in no way a Peterson expert myself, had never heard about him before last week, and do not have much opinion on the fact matter. It is just that we should expect Wikipedia sources to point to actual sources, or at least point in the right direction. This one does not. Refer to Wikipedia policy on user-generated content. Qwertenius (talk) 06:19, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

There are two problems here.

I am familiar with WP:UGC, but it's not clear that's what this is. Looking at unsolicited submissions is common among outlets, including reliable sources. Having a large number of established professional editors is a sign that this has editorial oversight, which is an indicator of reliability. Having a dedicated blog editor for a blog which is publishes only a few posts a week is another sign this might be reliable. Not everything with "blog" in the name is unreliable. We also do not expect sources to be neutral on every possible position. We're not looking for balanced sources, we're looking for sources to build a neutral article.

The second problem is that we should focus on secondary sources whenever possible, and interviews and lectures are not. This quote is non-controversial in that nobody is disputing he said it, right? Nobody is disputing that this is a position he's made and stood by? He's doubled-down on this position by tweeting PragerU videos on this, so it's not a passing comment he's ashamed of, or anything. If I'm wrong, let's see sources for this. The quote is supported by a third-party source as a summary of his position on climate change, and it's succinct, which helps us preserve WP:DUE. He's said a lot of things, but is notoriously difficult to summarize. This is, incidentally, something his fans and many of his critics seem to agree on. I've been told the video for this specific quote is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OD-VCRNIp-U but I haven't watched it. Again, we should strongly avoid citing primary sources for these kinds of things. It opens up a floodgate to editors including information that they, personally, think is informative, but we need to summarize issues according to reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 17:13, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

For me it is alright until there's unsubstantiated depiction of him as a climate change denialist, because in his recent blog post, "And the mere fact that I have occasionally tweeted something indicating something indicative of the dreadful complexity of the climate science debate (something I did in fact study for several years while working on the UN Secretary General’s High-Level Panel on Sustainability: Final report available here) does not mean that I am a “notorious climate denier”." As I stated in a discussion about the specific section above, his view on climate change is one of the most minor views he has stated and to give it a separate paragraph and section is a WP:BALASP issue. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 21:50, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Who gets to decide it's one of the most minor views he has? A National Post article makes a claim that it's an example of "scientific relativism" and is precisely the kind of "postmodernism" he claims to challenge. To me, that seems pretty significant, but of course, it's not up to me, and it's not up to you, either. It's up to sources. Grayfell (talk) 22:10, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Who gets to decide it's one of the most minor views he has? The community, in the RfC above, closed with "Consensus that a brief mention of one or two sentences is appropriate." — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 02:38, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

No, the RfC was not that simplistic. We are not interested in subjective opinions based on Peterson's blog posts. There is no possible way to neutrally rank his views from most major to most minor, and no benefit in trying. As I said during the RfC, Not every opinion of Peterson's belongs here, and the way to determine which belong and which don't is through reliable, independent sources. That is still true. If your claim is that the RfC somehow excluded this source or this quote, you are mistaken, otherwise... what is your point? Grayfell (talk) 03:33, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

@Grayfell: Who gets to decide? Isn't it obvious - Jordan Peterson's work itself? It is blatantly obvious that in his clinical and scientific career, lectures both in the university and public, and published books, the amount of times he mentioned his view on climate change is almost non-existent. The National Post's source, originally published by The Conversation (website), doesn't mention Peterson's view on climate change, you literally made a SYNTH connection and claim. What you claim is pushing a specific POV. Very "it's up to sources".--Miki Filigranski (talk) 22:10, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

We are not interested in providing Peterson with yet another platform to share his specific ideas -he already has several. We are interested in summarizing reliable sources about Peterson. Are we agreed on that? We are not here to provide a summary of Peterson's works based on our own understanding. Wikipedia is a tertiary source. We are interested in significance, not raw quantity of mentions. If even a single mention is significant according to reliable sources, the article will have to reflect that. Further, he is an academic, but he is also a youtube celebrity, and a pundit, now also a pop-culture figure, and so on. He is evaluated based on how sources regard him, not based on a limited sample of his professional career. If his work is in a narrow field, and his popular commentary is in wider fields, so be it. He's certainly not the only academic who's become notable for stepping outside of their area of formal training.

The Post article doesn't mention Peterson's views on climate change, at least not directly. It does directly mention Peterson's views as part of a trend of scientific relativism, of which climate change is listed as an example. Is pointing that out synth? I can see that, but I'm not so sure it's that simple. Even if that's the case, this is a talk page, not an article, and we need to be willing to discuss the substance of a source, not just the most superficial reading of it. I specifically said To me, that seems pretty significant, but of course, it's not up to me, and it's not up to you, either. It's up to sources. My entire point was that just because we can paint a picture with a source doesn't mean we have to. It's not up to me to decide that his relativism is significant, and it's not up to you to decide that his views on climate change are his "most minor" ones. Clearly, at least some sources consider it worth discussing. Grayfell (talk) 00:47, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Who decides which of tens of thousands potential secondary sources are relevant and reliable? I argue that the LRB blog which wants to label Peterson as a climate denier is irrelevant, unreliable and gives undue weight to a two-second passage of an answer in an interview with Peterson. The cited LRB blog has only one sentence mentioning climate. It goes "He picks and chooses his scientific literatures, however, saying he’s ‘very sceptical of the models that are used to predict climate change'" This refers to video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OD-VCRNIp-U (Thanks Greyfell), and it refers to nothing else. The context in the interview is one of Petersons rules. The interviewer is the first to mention the climate. He asks Peterson to use the climate issue to exemplify something about the rule. Peterson first of all declares, in a very emphatic voice, (at 25:10) that we must be very concerned about climate change. He also declares that he is not an expert on the topic. He mentions admirable environment initiatives. He does indeed say (30:40) 'I am also very skeptical to the models that are used to predict climate change', which is of course different from denying that climate change is a fact, especially when taken with the other, unquoted, statements. The source is a private unnotable blogger who obviously misrepresents a primary source, and now we know that. How does Wikipedia policy guide us?217.211.53.145 (talk) 14:32, 5 November 2018 (UTC)