Talk:Jordan Peterson/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

PregarU Video

@Miki Filigranski: can you explain this edit summary, and why you falsely state: "not exclusively stated in the specific podcast" when he very explicitly states it in the video and it's verified by sources provided? It's right here, plain as day, I find it unusual that you would make false statements in an edit summary, do you have a reason for this? Acousmana (talk) 18:08, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

First, I advise you to stop falsely and unfriendly name-calling editors, that's uncivil per Wikipedia policy. Second, I did not falsely state anything because he did not exclusively (only if you do not understand English) state such a claim in PregarU podcast, as well such a quote is already quoted in the section "postmodern leftist thinkers who are hellbent on demolishing the fundamental substructure of Western civilization. And that's no paranoid delusion. That's their self-admitted goal ... Jacques Derrida ... most trenchantly formulated the anti-Western philosophy that is being pursued so assiduously by the radical left", we really don't need a duplicate, nor every of cited sources is generally considered as the most reliable for citation.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 18:23, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

not sure what you are saying, it's not a duplicate, and there's no podcast, it's a video, entitled "Dangerous People are Teaching your Kids", produced by PragerU, where Peterson explicitly states that academics with a "resentment-riddled ideology" are intent on "undermining Western Civilisation," this is notable, and verifiable, not sure where you see the problem with this. Acousmana (talk) 18:32, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

It is a podcast per citation style, and it is a duplicate - states that academics with a "resentment-riddled ideology" are intent on "undermining Western Civilisation" is the same, but far less clarified, as postmodern leftist thinkers who are hellbent on demolishing the fundamental substructure of Western civilization. And that's no paranoid delusion. That's their self-admitted goal ... Jacques Derrida ... most trenchantly formulated the anti-Western philosophy that is being pursued so assiduously by the radical left.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 18:44, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

OK Miki, I get it, you don't want the stuff about the PregarU video mentioned in the article, no worries, thanks for all the advice, it really helped me be a better editor, some day I hope I can be as awesome as you. Keep the faith brother. Acousmana (talk) 18:51, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Listen, I won't continue the discussion if it is not about the content. Per guidelines, avoid as much as possible, although sometime is inevitable in a specific context, to comment on other editors or things which do not have anything to do with this article & talk page.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 18:55, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Miki, your diligence in explaining the finer point of Wikipedia conduct is exemplary, keep up the good work! Acousmana (talk) 19:11, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Postmodernism and identity politics - "States" vs. "believes

There seems to disagreement between at least two editors (see this diff, for example) regarding the first sentence of the Postmodernism and identity politics section. It's a one-word difference, between "states" or "believes".

Peterson [believes] [states] that postmodern philosophers and sociologists since the 1960s have built upon and extended certain core tenets of Marxism and communism while simultaneously appearing to disavow both ideologies.

I propose "asserts" instead, but I wanted to discuss first given the contentious nature of the topic. ;o)   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 20:24, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

@Larry Hockett: and @Acousmana: See Talk:Jordan Peterson#Postmodernism and identity politics - "States" vs. "believes.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 20:31, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

"states" is weaselly, it's unqualified, and unlike what he might "state" in his peer reviewed literature this is nothing more than an opinion stemming from what he believes. That it is something he "believes" is verifiable and incontrovertible. Acousmana (talk) 23:17, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. We shouldn't present a conspiracy theory in the voice of Wikipedia. Either "believes" or "asserts" is fine. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 23:58, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Meh, I'm fine with whichever. I usually think of these things in terms of WP:SAY (which suggests "says" or "states" and indicates that "asserts" might not be as neutral) and I don't think that statements always express beliefs, but I won't lose sleep over any of the proposed terms here. :) Larry Hockett (Talk) 06:02, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

hmm, so he is stating something he doesn't believe? an interesting conspiracy, what's he up to here then? Based on the amount of content he has created around his views on postmodernism, all things being equal, it's fairer to assume this is based on a deeply held belief. Acousmana (talk) 11:24, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

from the horse's mouth: "I just say what I think, I just say what I believe to be true...I say what I believe to be true...I'm just setting out to say what I believe to be true." Pretty conclusive there I think on him believing what he says. Acousmana (talk) 13:55, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

This is SYNTH and OR. Out of context.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 17:02, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

"Says" or "states" is more appropriate because it is not only a belief nor the same as "Cultural Marxism" conspiracy theory. What he says is heavily influenced by work Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault (2004) by philosopher Stephen Hicks. He is basically quoting Hicks. This is not exclusively Peterson's personal consideration. See transcript of their interview [1] where talked "about Postmodernism and its relationship to Neo-Marxism".--Miki Filigranski (talk) 17:02, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

nope, he believes it, it's a belief, like all his other beliefs, states this very clearly, on film, using his own mouth. Acousmana (talk) 17:45, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

This is not any kind of a proper argumentation for any consideration. A borderline disruptive editing.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 17:49, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

so following WP:VER is disruptive now is it? good one. Acousmana (talk) 17:54, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Except you didn't as you did not check all the references in the paragraph, of which two are quoting him on state funding. Also, this is not part of this discussion. If you want to have it then open it per WP:BRD.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 17:55, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

actually, Miki, this is an ongoing discussion, with other editors contributing, and specific to the "belief" aspect, not sure why you feel it's your place to shut it down and draw a line under it, but hey, swing your dick, affirm yourself. Acousmana (talk) 18:13, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

What "VER" issue has with this one? Do you want a report for "swing your dick" per WP:CIVIL? I advise you to "strike out" that uncivil comment or else.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 18:18, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Hey Miki, maybe you should consider WP:CIVIL before jumping to accuse editors of edit warring and posting snarky comments on their user page, no? Acousmana (talk) 18:22, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Article talk pages are not used for editors name-calling, yet about the article's content. I will answer you at your talk page.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 18:27, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

aggressively accusing an editor of "warring" is kinda not very WP:AGF wouldn't you say? Acousmana (talk) 18:34, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with the discussion.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 18:47, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

@Miki Filigranski:, perhaps you recall removing the citation for the "belief" component? your edit summary was "we don't need a source for "believes" as there's already several of them". So why remove an RS cite, that complies with WP:VER, on the question of "belief" and then come back later and strip the content you appear to take issue with? And, how can you insist that Peterson has not said that "he states only what he believes to be true," when it's also verifiable? Acousmana (talk) 20:06, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

The statements and quotes already have reliable sources, doesn't need citation WP:OVERKILL, doesn't need a citation for one word, in this case, "belief". I didn't insist anything, nor what you're saying about it has any importance for the article whatsoever. I'm not playing this cherry picked straw man game. Read WP:FORUM (specifically point 4. Discussion forums).--Miki Filigranski (talk) 23:49, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I mostly agree with Peterson on this topic and this section seems to summarize his views accurately. I like the section's current use of the verb "say" or "says". I forgot that "asserts" can connote skepticism -- good point.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 06:13, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

A Criticisms section

I'm surprised there's no Criticism section yet. One such criticism is that he has promoted Koch Bros. organizations via his twitter. This accusation has been made publicly on twitter by a Political Science Professor; David Tabachnick [2], of Nipissing University (Ontario), as well as from Brenden Gallagher, the political reporter for the daily dot [3]. Surely there are other distinct criticisms of Peterson that can be worked into an WP:NPOV section? --203.192.78.142 (talk) 20:55, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

"reception" might be more appropriate (although Zizek gets a "Criticism" section so why not here?), also, demarcation between his professional and "popular" personas might be appropriate, plus there is no mention anywhere of: the "Peterson phenomenon" (broadly construed); his association with the so-called "intellectual dark-web" (multiple sources for that); his growing prominence as a "leading" public intellectual; his hugely successful global-book tour, his popularity on the public debate circuit, his "no meat" diet etc., it would seem that in terms of the amount of popular coverage he has received in 2018, across a range of usable sources, the article is badly in need of updating.2A02:C7D:2E54:3F00:F048:EE89:2F6:70D0 (talk) 23:06, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Criticism sections are not ideal because criticisms should be naturally spread throughout the article. Wikipedia pages shouldn't have sections which look like hit pieces, or conversely which segregate criticism so that people reading fringe views do not see them being challenged. The article does include criticism; take for instance the third paragraph of the Bill C-16 section. Are there any particular sections in which you think more criticism should be added? — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 03:34, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Most of the things are already mentioned or mentioned in other related articles of his books. The book articles already include criticism. Also, we already had a discussion about this joint reception & criticism section of him as a person, and the consensus was there's not enough rationale nor it's commonly practiced such a section on biographical articles. Slavoj Žižek#Criticism is not a good example for a proposed section because it is about Žižek's ideas, not him as a person. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 09:14, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

you're mischaracterizing the issue, there's an ever growing body of critical material from multiple WP:SECONDARY, WP:RS sources that address the ideas, not the man, ignoring this body of material runs contrary to the encyclopedic aims of the article.

You also seem to support the inclusion of WP:PRIMARY sources and blatant WP:OR in a WP:BLP article, are you sure you don't have a personal agenda here? 2A02:C7D:2E54:3F00:11A5:D70A:AD42:28EF (talk) 15:53, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Already answered. Also, comment on the content, not the editors. Primary sources can be cited in several scenarios, there's no issue there. There's no OR, that edit was about correct attribution. If anyone's showing a particular suspicious agenda then that's you whose ignoring editors replies.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 20:07, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

demonstrably, there are multiple instances of WP:OR and inappropriate usages of WP:PRIMARY sources, denying this is not constructive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:2E54:3F00:11A5:D70A:AD42:28EF (talk) 20:41, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Article's talk page is not a WP:FORUM, and for that there's already a discussion below.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 10:04, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Article needs protection

The article needs protection from IPs who come here to make multiple edits and then push its inclusion ignoring BRD process and current discussion starting edit-wars, or previous discussions like in the case of influences list of the infobox. The article gathers almost and sometimes even more views than articles by superstars such as Beyoncé or Jay-Z (see pageviews analysis) and yet doesn't have even a basic or semi protection. The revision for which existed a prolonged WP:SILENCE consensus is [4].--Miki Filigranski (talk) 10:13, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

BRD is consistently being misused here to hamper article development, when one disagrees with WP:RS sourcing, it's necessary to address this in the appropriate manner, consistently reverting content you alone disagree with is not progress. Note per WP:BRD-NOT:

• BRD is not a justification for imposing one's own view or for tendentious editing.
• BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes.
• BRD is never a reason for reverting. Unless the reversion is supported by policies, guidelines or common sense, the reversion is not part of BRD cycle.
• BRD is not an excuse to revert any change more than once. If your reversion is met with another bold effort, then you should consider not reverting, but discussing. The talk page is open to all editors, not just bold ones. The first person to start a discussion is the person who is best following BRD.
• BRD is not mandatory. Neither are editors obliged to start it nor are they obliged to stick to it just because you started it. They may try one of the alternatives given below, or even an alternative not mentioned here.

2A02:C7D:2E54:3F00:E58D:ADD5:309A:7E24 (talk) 13:11, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Miki Filigranski: complaining that editors are not following BRD is not a substitute for policy-based rationales justifying why the edits made were not improvements. Pages are not protected because they have high pageviews, only when there's a "significant amount of disruption or vandalism" (WP:SEMI). In this case, all the edits I see are good faith edits. A more productive thing to discuss is the content of the edits, so we can reach a consensus. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 13:33, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I didn't question the good faith, however, the faith fades when there is a disruption by the IPs in ignoring the discussion and are going for reverts, I won't allow that. As I already stated in the discussion above, the comments should be about the content, not the editors. We cannot have a constructive and productive discusion with IPs whose are disruptively reverting the revision to theirs, hence BRD in such case is first step, if not we are having an edit war which nobody wants.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 15:15, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Miki Filigranski: there is a consistent pattern of WP:TE#One who accuses others of malice here, it's problematic, and it's hampering the improvement of article content, disagreeing with an edit does not entitle an editor to place false accusations of "disruptive editing", and "edit warring" in edit summaries, and then continue that tone in discussions. 2A02:C7D:2E54:3F00:E58D:ADD5:309A:7E24 (talk) 15:34, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Seemingly the IPs are again ignoring the talk page is not for WP:FORUM comments, there was no false accusation as IPs evidently started the edit warring per revision history, ignoring both the BRD and discussion until is reach a consensus or started a dispute resolution. Also, first who started with "malice accusation" we exactly the IPs against me so, yeah, it's really problematic when IPs are trying to twist the reality and WP:GAME against a confirmed editor. Since the IPs are citing the editing policy a bit too much I seriously suspicion we are dealing with sock accounts as well.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 15:52, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

There is no "game" here, there is only an effort to improve a WP:BLP with WP:RS content. Can you explain why you ignored WP:1RR sanctions rather than state your objections to the properly sourced content that was added? 2A02:C7D:2E54:3F00:E58D:ADD5:309A:7E24 (talk) 16:00, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, when the IPs stop with POINT and WP:DISRUPTIVE reverts. We cannot have a constructive discussion without a stable revision due to edit-war the IPs as you started it. I'm starting to doubt the good faith of your effort when the IPs are trying to game the system when you FIRST ignored the 1RR sanction, ignored the BRD, ignored to engage in the discussion to reach a consensus, made reverts, and decided to report an editor instead and so on.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 16:13, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

re:"you FIRST ignored the 1RR sanction" -- categorically false assertion, if you have a diff that demonstrates otherwise please present it. 2A02:C7D:2E54:3F00:E58D:ADD5:309A:7E24 (talk) 16:35, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't need to nor you are obviously capable to understand I am reffering to (WP:EDITWAR), you are violating EDITWAR. You are intentionally WP:GAME the system to make traps (with 1RR) for other editors, while you are showing every symptom of WP:DISRUPTSIGNS, WP:CTDAPE, WP:LISTEN as stated above. You're not fooling anyone with this trap seen for a millionth time on Wikipedia.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 16:48, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

the sanctions banner is very clear for every editor to see when they choose to edit the page, you chose to ignore it, exactly how is that entrapment? 2A02:C7D:2E54:3F00:E58D:ADD5:309A:7E24 (talk) 16:59, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Again you are ignoring your use of multiple IPs (with which you superficially avoid 1RR) as well ignore the cited edit war symptoms. Stop commenting on editors, and not the content. This is my last warning abour your WP:FORUM commentary.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 17:10, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

still don't see any dif that demonstrates WP:1RR was violated by anyone other than you. 2A02:C7D:2E54:3F00:E58D:ADD5:309A:7E24 (talk) 17:47, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Adding "Public Intellectual" in the Intro

Multiple news portals have described Jordan Peterson as a Public Intellectual. The word has a definition on Wikipedia as well. IndianHistoryEnthusiast (talk) 05:02, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Proof, please. --Calton | Talk 05:27, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

We've had this discussion before at Talk:Jordan Peterson/Archive 3#Public Intellectual, which failed to reach consensus. Do not include this in the article unless a strong consensus for inclusion is reached. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 11:35, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Use of primary sources and original research in BLP

In accordance with WP:BLP guidelines on sourcing, a number of WP:PRIMARY sources were excised, [5], [6], [7], [8]. In addition very clear instances of WP:OR were removed, [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]. All of these edits were reverted by a single editor and no attempt was made in talk to address the concerns highlighted in the edit summaries.   - My IP (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:34, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Follow WP:BRD process and do not make WP:POINT reverts. Some of these complains are done due to wrong understanding of the specific editing policy. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 18:41, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

please address the individual diffs as presented above if you are disputing them, thanks.  - My IP (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:2E54:3F00:DC78:A146:2B0E:E92A (talk) 20:19, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

I warned you about the POINT revert, and you or your sock IP did it again ([15]). Don't do it again if you don't want to get reported at the admin's noticeboard for intentional start of edit-war (see note above You must not make more than one revert per 24 hours to this article). There was a silent consensus about the old revision information and references, don't revert it to new revision until for each issue is reached a consensus per WP:BRD. With some I don't agree, with some I don't, with some can be found secondary sources and hence removal of information is pointless (as stated in editing policy). I advise you to go point by point (10).--Miki Filigranski (talk) 10:01, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Not only were the IP's edits all reverted, Miki Filigranski also reverted edits by Grayfell and Bilorv. PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:40, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

What edits are you referring to? I don't understand why I've been pinged. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 20:58, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

@Bilorv: Whoops! It looks like when Miki undid a long string of edits by different users, he skipped yours. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:01, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

@Drmies: Why did you revert ([16])? The IPs edit has multiple issues, including of "public intellectual" which was previously discussed and there was no consensus for inclusion. Great, instead of first engaging in the discussion and showing the IPs an example how to properly follow the process, reach a WP:CONSENSUS and then making edits, you literally joined edit war the IPs started. Fantastic, and we didn't even start to discuss the major edit point-by-point. There was no rush, no patience, and completely irresponsible the situation we made for a bunch of IPs who are most probably sock puppets of an editor which already edited the article. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 19:48, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

• I reverted your edit because in my opinion it made the article worse, which I explained in my edit summary. Drmies (talk) 21:40, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
• BTW I don't know what you're talking about with sock puppets and stuff. Did you file an SPI? Is this a known sock? Are they blocked? Etc. As for edit war--well. Drmies (talk) 21:41, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

The birth date is unsourced again, as the primary source supporting it has been removed. Some other information is also now unsourced, such as the Norwegian great-grandfather detail that was sourced to a reddit comment by the subject. These sources seemed fine to include per WP:DOB and WP:SELFPUB. I have not looked at all of the other removed sources. Hrodvarsson (talk) 02:03, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

^ This among others which was not even mentioned because IPs did not follow BRD, or continued the started discussion, as we were bothered about POINT reverts and edit-war IPs started, 1RR and reports to admins. Another way it could have been handled was having placed templates tag about the need for a better source, verification and so on which would have been explained in the talk page, as it is stated in WP:EPTALK, but no... I will file an SPI.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 13:26, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Few days have passed, what are we going to do with the major edit?--Miki Filigranski (talk) 15:55, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

As there exist several problems with the major edit I will revert to older revision and those who want should continue the discussion without any edit war and similar schemes.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 17:39, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Look, dude, at some point you're beating a dead horse. You've already been blocked for your continued insistence on reverting several editors contributions. It's not your article; these things are collaborative, and you need to take into account what other people have to offer. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:11, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Look, dude, you are again ignoring to accept and acknowledge there exist issues with the IPs major edit, stop fooling around and blaming something on me. Actually, let's play your game - why are you making WP:POINT revert just to oppose me, because, your behaviour became blatantly obvious. This is not the first time you're doing it. Stop doing that. Instead to constructively engage in the discussion you're intentionally provoking another edit war, which I shouted out above to not be done, why? Why are you doing that? There's no consensus to keep these edits, there was no constructive discussion about the issues, both you and IPs don't follow BRD, you are again playing the IPs game. Why? Also, please, what "contributions from editors with accounts" did I revert? I will revert again the IP's edit to the old revision which has SILENCE consensus, I won't allow you to push IP's edit inclusion without a previous discussion about it, there exist an exact order of how things are handled and edited on Wikipedia. After that I will continue the discussion, point-by-point per BRD, but if you're going to revert, I won't engage you and we will see each other again at admin's noticeboard because your behavior is not considerate and friendly at all.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 17:42, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

@Miki Filigranski: as I am now the fourth editor to revert your reversion, you certainly do not have silent consensus. Please make a point-by-point list of the content you added back and why it should be included. Comments on editor behaviour will only muddy this process. If you were to justify each of the changes, then we could have a discussion to establish consensus one way or the other. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 17:55, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

What "my" revision? There's no "my" revision, there's an old pre-IP revision and new IP revision. What "my" silent consensus? There's no "my" silent consensus, I'm an editor, not an article, nor the old revision is "my" revision. There's a silent consensus about the old revision until arrived IP whose new revision didn't and still doesn't have any consensus for inclusion nor silence consensus. I will go to write now point-by-point issues, but this way of editing and discussing where the new revision is pushed without any proper discussion is really unreasonable and irresponsible. Why in this case the inclusion is pushed without respect to the order of BRD process? We had countless discussions on this talk page.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 18:31, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Per 10 points provided by the IP above, and additional 3 not provided:

1) Removal of a primary source substantiated with a misunderstanding of BLP guideline, specifically ignoring WP:BLPSELFPUB and WP:BLPSPS. However, there are already cited more reliable secondary sources.

2) Removal of a source which reliability cannot confirm due to current "maintenance mode", but a web podcast (?) doesn't necessarily indicate an unreliable source, and really don't understand what PRIMARY and OR have to do with it.

3) Removal of a primary source with which the claim "Norwegian great-grandfather" is now unsourced. Again ignorance of BLPSELFPUB.

4) Removal of a primary source only because the IP considered it "unnecessary", again partial ignorance of BLPSELFPUB because it is published by ResearchGate.

5) Removal of information about Peterson's podcast and academic guests, as well primary source, again because of ignorance of BLPSELFPUB. As the podcast was started in December 2016 perhaps there already exist secondary and tertiary sources for additional verification. Don't understand what it has to do with OR.

6) Removal of info and primary sources (Scopus and Google Scholar) for which don't understand what it has to do with OR or why it not suitable per WP:BLPPRIMARY.

7) Removal of primary sources (ResearchGate and Google Scholar) which are used for the basis of a reliable and verifiable inclusion of the listed journal papers, instead of Steven Pinker#Articles and essays which doesn't cite for what reason these articles and essays are noteworthy for listing.

8) Removal of a sentence and primary source because it "needs" a secondary source instead of finding and citing a secondary source.

9-10) Removal of a sentence and primary source, but again it has nothing to do with OR and is ignorance of BLPSELFPUB.

11) Removal of a primary source for his date of birth, again a misunderstanding of BLPSELFPUB and WP:DOB.

12) The inclusion of RS for a claim of a "public intellectual" which in the previous discussion (Talk:Jordan Peterson/Archive 3#Public Intellectual) didn't reach any consensus for inclusion.

13) Unsubstantiated editing of sourced "There he developed an interest in the psychological origins of the Cold War, particularly 20th-century European totalitarianism, and was plagued by apocalyptic nightmares about the escalation of the nuclear arms race. As a result, he became concerned about humanity's capacity for evil and destruction, and delved into the works..." into a simple "There he began studying psychological origins of the Cold War, 20th-century European totalitarianism, and the works of...".--Miki Filigranski (talk) 20:07, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

@Miki Filigranski: Could you include the content alongside the reason? One without the other is not much use here. Additionally, could you explain what you mean by 'unsubstantiated editing'? Also, I don't quite understand what 'for which don't understand what it has to do with OR' means in point 6 - clarification would be appreciated. PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:16, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Also, it's important to note that 13 and possibly others were not edits made by an IP. Please stop labeling them as such. PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:19, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

he's very much a public intellectual, and was considered as such years ago in Canada, his international profile went stratospheric in 2018, so yeah, tons of reliable sources now refer to him as a public intellectual, pretty idiotic to argue otherwise, then again, there is some pretty dumb right wing fringe garbage in a big block quote in this article, so literally anything is possible here when fanboys are involved...117.204.142.221 (talk) 20:49, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

@PeterTheFourth: Look above at the IP's 10 links; this is what Miki Filigranski is ordering based on. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 21:49, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

@PeterTheFourth: Why are you constantly WP:ICANTHEARYOU? Did I write "10 points provided by the IP", I did, what's so hard to understand about that? What's the point of duplicating them when the discussion didn't reach a wall of text a repetition would be useful? Why should I clarify IP's lack of clarification? 11 was made by Volunteer Marek ([17]), 12 by the IP ([18]), and 13 by Grayfell ([19]), is it so hard to verify it in the recent revision history?--Miki Filigranski (talk) 08:52, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

@Miki Filigranski: Thank you for clarifying on those 3 other points! I had a few other concerns I noted above before addressing it in full if that is okay; I would like to have a more full understanding before I set to writing a complete reply, but I'd like to say that I agree with you on some points. Let's work together here. PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:55, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Looks like I'm in agreement with (3-5) and (11-12); thanks for the explanations. This wasn't previously clear to me from your edit summary, which was inaccurate in its description of IP editors (and why is it relevant if the editor is an IP?). For (1), as you say, there are other secondary sources so the primary source is not needed. For (2), I don't understand why Future Thinkers is a reliable source. For (3), (4) and (5), I agree that this is fine under WP:BLPSELFPUB. For (6), I can't comment as I don't know whether Scopus and Google Scholar values are generally quoted in academics' bios. For (7), I think 15 is too many journal articles anyway (surely 5 would suffice), but I think it's standard practice to just include the most notable articles without the need to explain the method of selection used. For (8), yes it needs a secondary source but you didn't provide one. For (9-10), I think it's better to quote Peterson directly as his "yes" is very reluctant. For (11) I agree; I thought this was sourced already in "Early life" but misleadingly, the NYT source doesn't cover it. So the primary source needs to go there instead. For (12) I'm agreed. For (13), the problem is flowery and POV language; for instance, "plagued by apocalyptic nightmares" is ridiculous content for an encyclopedia entry. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 21:49, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

(6) both Google Scholar, Scopus and ResearchGate are used for establishing scientist or scholar h-index, in that sense, they are highly reliable for substantiating such a claim, and as there exist differences between their list of papers and other, the most neutral viewpoint would be to cite at least two of them. His h-index is high, shows his academic impact, compared to RS like by [20] (The Walrus) which claimed that "he is not, however, is the author of any lasting work of scholarship, the originator of any important idea, or a public intellectual of any scientific credibility or moral seriousness", which is blatant example of a defamation. (7) I don't know how much is too much, I saw various numbers being listed on Wikipedian articles. (8) Maybe [21] is RS for a part of it. (9-10) No, he said that "the most straight-forward answer to that is yes", any kind of analysis like your's "very reluctant" is actually against WP:PRIMARY. Peterson said yes in an interview with Timothy Lott, who also stated in a secondary RS The Guardian that "Peterson is a devout Christian". There's also old discussion Talk:Jordan Peterson/Archive 2#Peterson a Christian. (13) The issue is the sources say that because of Peterson's interest for the psychological origins of the Cold War, totalitarianism, and his fear of Cold War outcome, his concern about humanity's destructive behaviour, he delved in the works of X authors. With the wording is removed context, although the wording could have been a bit less editorial.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 09:41, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm neutral on (6) still. With (9-10), you are still incorrect; taking the word "yes" alone is quoting him out of context, as is deducing "he identified as a Christian". We can say "When asked if he was a Christian, Peterson said: 'the most straight-forward answer to that is yes'". I'm not proposing we say he was "very reluctant" in the article; that's just my personal description of his response. Other interviews are not relevant to the sentence, which refers to one specific interview. For (13), feel free to propose different text. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 10:18, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

It looks like Miki will not be editing this page for a while. Bilorv, would you like to reimplement his changes that you agree with his reasoning on? I can also take a stab at it later but am unable to now with my poor mobile editing skills. PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:27, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

In this edit, I've implemented (3), (4), (5), (9-10), (11) [now in the correct place in the body] and (12) [and de-linked "professor" per WP:OVERLINK]. Still perhaps actionable are (6), (7) [should we reduce the number of journals cited? Do we need the note?] and (13) [should that content be rephrased?], and I've not looked too closely at the other points. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 16:49, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Looking good! I like the simplification that we have for 13 and don't think we should revert - I don't believe the expanded form does us any favours by digging that far into it. I'm not sure we should be describing the subject of a BLP as 'plagued by apocalyptic nightmares' - it's a bit too purple. PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:54, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

re:Scopus and Google Scholar, this is very much OR, and not covered by WP:BLPPRIMARY. If Peterson states these stats somewhere and it's mentioned here, then yes, covered, but a Wikipedia editor searching for stats on the subject on a BLP and then writing it up in the article is very specifically original research, and the question of BLPPRIMARY does not arise. BabaRamDevi (talk) 18:32, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

This does not make sense. The entirety of Wikipedia is written by editors who search for information and then write it in articles. There's no other way content can be added. The process you're describing is not original research. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 18:37, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

it makes sense, there's no source, ideally Wikipedia articles are supposed to reference existing secondary sources, i.e. reliably published research/reporting conducted by others. It therefore follows that unless a secondary - or admissible BLP primary source - has published mention of these Google & Scopus stats together, in a single source, and in direct relation to the subject of the article, then it's original research to combine two separate sources of data and write about them here; the editor has to create un-sourced content - combine two separate sets of stats - to actually present it in the article. There is no reference to a source that discusses Peterson in relation to his Google & Scopus stats, unless I've missed something? So how is this not OR? BabaRamDevi (talk) 19:07, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

This is a misconception: a primary source is not "worse" than a secondary one, just permissible in a different set of situations. Per WP:PRIMARY itself: A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts. That would be the case here.

Your notion of "presenting data together" is one I assume you took from WP:SYNTHESIS, but again this is a misreading. Synthesis applies only to cases of material implication, and this is not the case here (we're not implying that Peterson has Scopus X because of Google Scholar Y or vice versa). The idea you use would invalidate every single piece of content on Wikipedia, because using multiple sources requires that we combine the content from them into one coherent piece of prose (and of course an article with only one source has problems of its own). — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 18:25, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

nah mate, it's not a "notion," nothing to do with syn, the sentence is, for all intents and purposes, usourced, it's original research, not sure how one could argue otherwise: "Best practice is to research the most reliable sources on the topic and summarize what they say in your own words, with each statement in the article attributable to a source that makes that statement explicitly." If an editor queried google scholar, and wrote a single statement of fact, use of priamry sourcing covers it, and likewise for scopus; therefore resulting in two separately sourced sentences using admissible primary citations. But, clearly no source, whether primary, secondary, tertiary, exists for the statement in the form that was presented in the article; hence OR. It's pretty plain. One also needs to question why it was even included, who is deciding this is in fact notable for this BLP? on what grounds? for what reason? don't see google scholar/scopus stats added for a whole host of influential and impactful scholars, so why is it highlighted in this BLP? Someone trying to make a point about this guy's academic credentials? It's OR, simples. BabaRamDevi (talk) 09:22, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

If something is acceptable as two sentences then it is acceptable to combine them into one sentence, assuming there is no material implication involved (as there isn't here). This is trivial copyediting. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 12:56, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Word-Choice in the C-16 Subsection

The word "transsexual" in paragraph 2 of the C-16 section ought to be changed to "transgender", "transgender and transsexual", or possibly just "trans". There are salient and important differences between the words, transgender being preferable to transsexual unless Peterson was explicitly referring to individuals who've undergone a surgical sex-change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcello Ursic (talk • contribs) 02:58, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

@Marcello Ursic: Sorry for not seeing this for so long! Thanks for pointing out this. I've changed the word to "transgender" since it seems to be that "transsexual" was the term chosen by the Globe and Mail rather than Peterson, and "transsexual" is generally considered outdated. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 02:45, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

The views of 14-yr old JP

Two editors have tried to insert text at the start of the 'views' section about his views from when he was as far as I can tell a 14-yr old. This seems bizarre to say the least, and should be added to the 'early life' section (if it isn't already sufficiently incorporated there). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:25, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Indeed it's not appropriate as the first part of "Views". I do think we should add the content to "Early life": specifically, I'd add the words "Aged 14, Peterson unsuccessfully ran for Vice-President of the Alberta NDP." — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 02:40, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

It's not appropriate for the "Views", but more than enough for the "Early life" section, however, Edmonton Journal reference doesn't mention his vice-president candidacy, while The Post Millennial could have a doubtful reliability (only 1-year-old) although are just reporting on article by Edmonton Journal from 1977.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 18:21, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I am not a frequent editor here on this article, maybe I have never edited this article before. What is the issue with including his early views? Is this some sort of NPOV or BLP issue? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:25, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

The section is about his "current" views, it's basically out of WP:SCOPE, but not for "Early life".--Miki Filigranski (talk) 21:16, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 February 2019

Change "no-fault divorce" plaintext to a link to the wikipedia entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-fault_divorce Jonlorusso (talk) 00:17, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done DannyS712 (talk) 00:39, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2019

Why isn't Jordan Peterson in the category "Canadian anti-communists?" He's not only a critic of the theories of Marxism but also is an outspoken critic of communist countries or former countries like the Soviet Union and China. Liberscriptus19 (talk) 19:52, 27 February 2019 (UTC) Liberscriptus19 (talk) 19:52, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

He is certainly critical of particular communist regimes, but has he specifically stated that he is anti-communist? Maybe that is the same thing; something that is suggested by some of the entries in the rather poor article Anti-communism. He has also been rather critical of aspects of the Nazi regime, but has not been categorised as a Canadian anti-fascist either. Not sure any of these categories are particularly useful to attach to this somewhat free-thinking individual. Poltair (talk) 21:00, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. there is disagreement about whether to add this category or not DannyS712 (talk) 22:18, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2019

Ref [12], Jordan_Peterson#cite_note-12, an NYT article titled The Renegades of the Intellectual Dark Web is 404 at this time. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/08/opinion/intellectual-dark-web.html might be a working link. Please fix if acceptable? Thank you 2606:6000:CB87:F400:48A3:482D:8B8F:C06F (talk) 07:19, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done There was a missing space. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 07:57, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Sabbatical?

8 Oct 2017: "Peterson is currently on sabbatical and not teaching classes at U of T."

Was Peterson permitted to go on his sabbatical for 2 years? --87.170.199.206 (talk) 15:25, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

*self talk*: No, he has... "taken an indefinite sabbatical from teaching to continue his journey into a curious sort of fame, one without any clear definition, fixed limit, or certain future." Reference. --87.170.197.153 (talk) 17:29, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Edition needed in quick info.

In numerous lectures he mentions numerous influences other than just Carl Jung, direct references to their work can be seen all throughout his. Some of the more obvious ones are: Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Friedrich Nietzsche, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and Jean Piaget. Smokegrass420 (talk) 14:26, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

His major influences—Jung, Dostoyevsky, Nietzsche and Solzhenitsyn—are mentioned in the prose of the article. In the lead, we only list Jung as less is more and the infobox documentation says: "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 (for example, the scientist may have identified a predecessor as providing the foundation for one of their major achievements)." — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 19:47, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

This entire article is trash, filled with inaccuracies and subjective opinion pieces

Editors should be ashamed

and this: https://www.lrb.co.uk/blog/2018/03/15/samuel-earle/outselling-the-bible/ is NOT a source; nor is it accurate as peterson believes in climate change

2601:283:C001:832C:2908:E9A6:4B55:FF94 (talk) 04:05, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

1) The London Review of Books is bloody well a source -- a reliable source, even.

2) Reliable sources also disagree about Peterson's lack of understanding regarding climate change.

3) Some people should be ashamed, but it's not the editors here. --Calton | Talk 11:33, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Regardless he has stated he believes in it... User:Bgrus22 —Preceding undated comment added 08:31, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree that its a valid source, but the point he is making is that the author is heavily biased.

Would you say the summary of Petersons points of view are positive or neutral?

I personally think just two biased sentences don't do any reader justice.

Especially since this is a page about Petersons views not someone else's.

I think there is a more interesting question.

How should an encyclopedia use first grade information by the author himself?

These are videos of him talking about his views about climate change.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bRDbFU_lto&t=1219 20:20 stamp.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7dnGWB8l0s

His problem with climate change is what to do about it.

I propose either adding more balanced sources or simply deleting the Climate section since he himself doesn't focus on the subject. NichtAllwissender (talk) 16:06, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree with much of what you wrote, and your (our) position is a minority viewpoint. Therefore to be effective you (we) need to take a long-range view; make sure we thoroughly understand Wikipedia rules and guidelines; make sure you (we) have set up a user page ("User pages are for communication and collaboration") and an accompanying Talk page; and remain civil at all times.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 08:04, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

What you (both of you) also should do is find reliable, independent sources summarizing this issue. Selective highlights of a prolific self-publisher are of limited use on Wikipedia. Grayfell (talk) 04:57, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

• It's amusing to see editors claiming to know more about climate change than Peterson who has read hundreds of books on the topic. wumbolo ^^^ 00:20, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Specialy after he is so frequently characterized as far-right Koch Brothers sell-out, haha. So amusing. Not. --93.211.223.221 (talk) 04:55, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

What's amusing is an editor believing Peterson having read "hundreds of books" magically makes him an expert, while having studied a pertinent science doesn't make you an expert. It's hilarious when someone so openly declares he defines competence by outcome, not by actual expertise. --2A02:810C:380:1DEC:1516:B6A:4F82:5327 (talk) 09:39, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2019

Jordan Bernt Peterson (born June 12, 1962) is a Canadian clinical psychologist, philosopher, and a professor of psychology at the University of Toronto. His main areas of study are in abnormal, social, and personality psychology,[1] with a particular interest in the psychology of religious and ideological belief[2] and the assessment and improvement of personality and performance.[3] AzizAlM (talk) 04:30, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

It's unclear what changes you want made, that seems to be the current introduction. – Þjarkur (talk) 11:43, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Authoritarianism and collectivism

@Snooganssnoogans: The section needs more references, and it is a bit confusing to be standalone because it is related to the third paragraph from the "Academia and political correctness" section. However, it was reverted mainly because of the second paragraph. It is a critical opinion by a journalist whose not even notable per se, not published in the most mainstream magazine & journal, it was also not attributed. Did other mainstream media report such a viewpoint as well? The opinion as such is problematic because as said in the edit summary, it's "an example of guilt by association, only because Peterson was there for an event and then met by Orban does not mean Peterson advocates such policy".--Miki Filigranski (talk) 22:05, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

JP meeting with Hungarian autocrat Viktor Orban belongs here

JP, the free speech warrior and anti-collectivist thinker, had an amiable meeting with Viktor Orban who has been responsible for democratic backsliding in Hungary, kicked out a world-class university and spoken fondly of collectivism. There is no indication that JP criticized Orban in any way during this meeting. During this meeting, JP instead criticized Islam and political correctness. The Orban regime subsequently boasted about this, along with the pro-Orban Hungarian media (and Russian state propaganda outlets RT and Sputnik) who used JP's appearance to legitimize the regime and it's anti-Muslim rhetoric.

That a public intellectual would meet with and lend legitimacy to Orban is absolutely notable, and there is enough RS on this (NY Magazine, along with Hungarian media) to meet the burden of WP:DUE. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:10, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans: you did not reply to my section yet opened a separate section [22] where were not properly addressed the issues. Why? Media like RT, and possibly even Sputnik, are not considered very reliable for citation. How can we be sure due to lack of unbiased sources that Peterson did not say anything critical of Orban during the meeting? Why should be expected Peterson done such a thing if possibly was not even informed what's happening in Hungary? Like what, Peterson should not meet and speak with anyone controversial, depending on the politically correct viewpoint, if is not critical of them? Peterson did not lend legitimacy to Orban, this is association fallacy, not the first Peterson had, and we should be careful as it could be defamatory. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 00:22, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute - June 14, 2019

The article portrays Jordan Peterson as a legitimate psychologist and professor, whereas he is basing all of his knowledge and arguments on pseudoscience. The article doesn't reflect the very important fact that all of his work is pseudoscientific. If the article was balanced, it would have had a prominent explanation of this in the lead section, and a critical tone of speech throughout its entirety. I haven't read the entire Wikipedia article here, but I skimmed through the lead section and infobox, searched for "pseudo", "conspiracy", and "scien" in the article, and skimmed through the talk page and all of its archives, and found that this article has a serious neutrality issue that nobody talks about or mentions. I read this article (archived copy) and skimmed through this one (archived copy) to understand that his work is pseudoscientific. If I'm right, then I believe this entire article needs to be reviewed. 85.64.33.163 (talk) 15:30, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

This is not worth of discussion. Saying that an associate professor at Harvard and professor at Toronto University was not a "legitimate professor", that he is not a "legitimate psychologist" with decades of clinical experience and writing of scientific papers is problematic, not because of him, but because it is depicting these universities and psychology as pseudoscientific. Not everything that's written in the news articles and opinion pieces can be regarded as true as you could find other reliable sources who support the opposite viewpoint.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 17:53, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 June 2019

Add the following template to the page:

85.64.33.163 (talk) 15:33, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. In your previous section, #NPOV Dispute - June 14, 2019, another editor has disagreed with your assessment. Please obtain consensus. NiciVampireHeart 12:19, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

External links

Peterson has spoken several times about the importance of his Youtube channel. I think it should be linked to. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 09:32, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

What about the WP:RSs? --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:24, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

WP:ELMINOFFICIAL specifically discourages this. I count two very prominent links to his youtube channel on his official website's homepage. This is therefor redundant with his website, so it should be removed. Grayfell (talk) 09:10, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

That's a good point, but it is nonetheless not unusual to make such links even in the presence of some redundancy when the website is of special importance to the individual. The goal is to prevent excessive links, and two links does not exactly make a link farm. In this case it may be merited since Peterson's Youtube channel is likely more important to him than his official website. Perhaps we should vote on it. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 21:33, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

See WP:PNSD. We are interested in the quality of arguments, not the quantity.

Right now the independent sources for the section of the article about his youtube channel mainly discuss Bill C-16, which is historically relevant. The section also selectively highlights some podcast guests, but it does this by citing his own website. This is already a problem, as it's using a thin primary source to imply arbitrarily selected trivia is encyclopedically significant. Regardless, it's still his own website, so this demonstrates this relevant information is hosted on his website. It doesn't really matter how important his channel is to him as an individual. What matters is reliable sources, with a strong preference for independent sources, per usual. Grayfell (talk) 21:51, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

We don't need sources to place external links. I think this is a great time for a poll. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 21:56, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

You can think what you want, but Wikipedia is not a directory of links, and we already provide a link to his main website. His own website provides links to other platforms, such as youtube, podcasts, etc., and there is no reason to think this won't change with time. So far no reason beyond editor opinion has been presented to add redundant links to this section. Peterson has spoken several times about the importance of countless things. We are not a platform for him to share what he thinks is important, and we are also not a platform for individual editors to speculate on what he thinks is important. Grayfell (talk) 06:25, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, the person did gain the media's coverage and popularity due to its YouTube channel activity regarding Bill C-16 and other content. Due to this fact perhaps it could pass...? However, practically speaking, I mostly agree with @Grayfell, a link to his official website (which has links to YouTube channel) is enough anyway.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 13:50, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Jordan Peterson a conservative?

@Simonm223: If 2 journalists in opinion pieces mention in passing that they feel Jordan Peterson is conservative (without providing justification or rationale), should that be mentioned or would it be considered undue weight? Better sources than opinion pieces are needed here. WP:GRAPEVINE applies. Dig _deeper ^talk 14:59, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

I am struggling to think of a singItalicle source, including the man himself, that have referred to his political position as anything other than Conservative. Please see WP:BLUESKY. I will gladly self-revert if you can find a single reliable source that disputes what I'm taking to be an obvious statement. Simonm223 (talk) 15:01, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Like do we need an academic source that Andrew Scheer is a conservative? Simonm223 (talk) 15:03, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

here, Peterson is quoted as saying Donald Trump is a liberal - the article explicitly calls him right wing.

[23] In this article the author interviews Peterson and he says some stunningly misogynist things.

I mean, hell, the New York Times called him "the custodian of the patriarchy". Simonm223 (talk) 15:08, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Of course he is. There is a weird trend among various conservatives to portray themselves as something else (possibly to seem more authoritative and unbiased when they spend all their time bashing the left and defending conservatives). We follow what RS say, not how figures like JP self-describe. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:10, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

BS, as usual. SunCrow (talk) 20:05, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Then there's the Toronto Star [24].

And, not really a reliable source but supports all the rest, [25] Libertarianism.net.

Here the National Post calls Peterson conservative [26] The National Post of all the papers, do you know how conservative you have to be before NatPo calls it out?!? Simonm223 (talk)

Per WP:NEWSORG, "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, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact". Editorials and opinion columns are specifically named as a type of primary source at WP:No original research#defs. None of the publications listed ("The New York Times", "The Guardian", "The Toronto Star" "The National Post" etc) have called him conservative. Good luck finding a news story (non op-ed, non-editorial) that actually does this. All of the above sources are op-eds or editorials. So we have not meet the requirement of secondary sourcing per BLP policy.

Not all essays are created equal. The essay WP:BLUESKY has very few pages linking to it. There's a reason for this unpopularity. On the other hand the essay WP:But it's true! is widely used. There is also a reason that a countering essay WP:You do need to cite that the sky is blue was created by an editor.

Here's a news story that cites an outside source (linguist McWhorter) and calls Peterson a classical liberal [27] This secondary source also explains the difference between classical liberal and the liberals of today. It's worth a read.

Regardless, it's a violating of BLP and should be removed until a reliable secondary source is found. Good luck finding one. Dig _deeper ^talk 01:14, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

As Snooganssnoogans says in this edit summary, the relevant passage from the source is—"the label classical liberal is embraced by decidedly un-liberal figures in today’s parlance, such as the Canadian psychologist Jordan Peterson". So the source in fact says that Peterson is not a liberal, and as a quick glance at our Wikipedia article on the subject categorises classical liberalism as a subset of liberalism (as you would expect). — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 20:50, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

I've warned the user for deliberate introduction of factual error. If it happens again they'll be summarily banned from this article. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 22:43, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

That NatPo link is from opinion section, so not worth anything. I can't read the Toronto Star article (don't have subscription), can you quote the relevant sentence? Galestar (talk) 06:11, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

"Given Jordan's tendency toward grandiosity, it should not be surprising to learn that he is politically ambitious. He would have run for the leadership of the federal Conservative party but was dissuaded by influential friends." I think it's safe to say that a person who considered running for leadership of the federal Conservative party is a conservative. Simonm223 (talk) 14:52, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

If that's all the source says, it's OR to state that he is conservative. Galestar (talk) 16:26, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

This study states that Peterson's youtube channel, among others in the IDW, can "act as an entry point to more radical channels, such as those in Alt-right", and there are "blurry lines between the I.D.W. and the Alt-lite".[28]  Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:02, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
This article discusses the IDW, Jordan Peterson, and "classical liberalism" versus conservatism.  [29] Kolya Butternut (talk) 12:38, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Peterson identifies himself as a "classical liberal", so we could look for interpretations of that term, such as from the above Politico piece which calls it "the password for a fully fledged sleeper cell within the Republican Party." or something from the WSJ article " "Is ‘Classical Liberalism’ Conservative?"[30] Kolya Butternut (talk)

I removed the classical liberalism cat from this and several other pages. The only people who uncontroversially fit this category are long dead folks like John Locke and David Ricardo. Nblund ^talk 16:58, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with Dig _deeper . Philippics published in newspapers with unapologetic left-wing agendas do not enhance understanding. (The "left-wing agenda" is not uniform within either the New York Times or Washington Post but it's hard to miss the liberal bias if you read either paper for a few days days. I still like both newspapers for other reasons. I have subscribed to the New York Times for decades, I just wish they would return to traditional journalism standards and ethics.)   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 01:43, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Peterson is called a conservative in the Wall Street Journal. "The 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."[31]. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:34, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Now that is a good essay! I still have an old school newspaper subscription to the Journal, but I missed that one. (IMHO the Wall Street Journal is one of the few newspapers that remains true to principles of objectivity and ethical journalism.) Thank you Kolya Butternut. :0)   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 17:24, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

I added the quote from Yoram Hazony's essay in the Wall Street Journal that Kolya Butternut posted (diff).   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 18:03, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

I also found: "Peterson may well be the deepest, clearest voice of conservative thought in the world today."[32]. Noam Chomsky has said that an article by Nathan Robinson about Peterson is "one of the things [he] send[s] out more than anythng else".[33]. Robinson states that after reading George Orwell, Peterson was convinced not to be a socialist. Robinson observes that "Peterson concludes that Orwell thought socialist policies was flawed because socialists themselves were bad people", while "Orwell flat-out says that anybody who evaluates the merits of socialist policies by the personal qualities of socialists themselves is an idiot. " Peterson "says he is against 'ideology'".[34]. Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:40, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

I disagree with Robinson's accusation—it's not accurate. But I really like the book review in Quadrant because it's engaging, written reasonably well, and insightful regarding Peterson's 12 Rules book. I particularly like this line: "In our secular times, it [12 Rules for Life] is something like a Confucian tract for a civilisation that has lost its way and refuses to be guided by religious teachings."   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 20:46, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

We're discussing opinions about his politics.  The critical Robinson piece discusses Peterson's thinking on socialism and ideologies in general.  We could also add opinions showing the reception of his books in the books section.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:35, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM - no WP policy argument has been put forward to exclude this material, just a long-winded definition of the word "vacuous"
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following sentence was recently added to the Political views section (diff): In a critique often shared by prominent intellectual Noam Chomsky, Nathan Robinson of Current Affairs magazine opines that 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." Thus, according to Robinson, Peterson's political view is devoid of substance or meaning. But that's not right, because Robinson states, when discussing Maps of Meaning, "It’s not that it’s empty of content ...." Presumably then, Robinson means that Peterson's political view is inane, unintelligent, and just plain stupid. Robinson's long, verbose article, in which he frequently uses italics to bang home his progressive points, did not persuade me. I understood the passages Robinson quoted from Maps of Meaning. My background in psychology no doubt helps, but Robinson (a sociology PhD candidate at Harvard) should either have some familiarity with the pertinent psychological theories or read up on them. The quote from Robinson that was added to the Political views section is a particularly harsh attack from a writer who does some of the same things in his piece that he takes Peterson to task for doing. vacuous, adj. ... 1. b. Devoid of substance or meaning; vapid or inane: a vacuous comment. Cite: American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. 5th ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2011, https://ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=vacuous vacuous, adj. ... 3. a. Empty of ideas; unintelligent; expressionless. 3.b. Indicative of mental vacancy. 4. Devoid of content or substance. Cite: Oxford English Dictionary. 2nd ed. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1989, https://oed.com/view/Entry/220956 vacuous, adjective ... 2 : marked by or indicative of mental vacuity or lack of ideas or intelligence : lacking substance : thin in intellectual content : dull, stupid, inane <a vacuous mind> <a vacuous expression> <a vacuous play>. Cite: Webster’s Third New International Dictionary of the English Language, Unabridged. Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster, 1961 (continually updated as Merriam-Webster Unabridged, most recent update in 2016), http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/unabridged/vacuous   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 22:00, 2 September 2019 (UTC) Robinson is not stating that Peterson's political view is devoid of substance or meaning; he is stating that Peterson's words which may describe his political view are devoid of substance or meaning. The quote in context: [H]e is so consistently vague and vacillating that it’s impossible to tell what he is “actually saying.” People [see] him 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. Kolya Butternut (talk) 08:43, 3 September 2019 (UTC) Our opinions on the article are not relevant. Length, verbosity, hypocrisy or authorship by a "progressive" writer are not reasons to exclude a reliable source or a significant piece of critical commentary. I will say, however, that In a critique often shared by prominent intellectual Noam Chomsky is a rather questionable piece of prose, not least because "often shared" implies (I think falsely) that Chomsky sometimes disagrees with the quote. It looks to me like Chomsky happened to agree with the author in an interview with them, but this makes too much of one small detail. We shouldn't mention Chomsky unless he contributed new ideas. — Bilorv (talk) 11:50, 3 September 2019 (UTC) I agree with Bilorv re: attributions to Chomsky, and I see that Kolya Butternut modified that sentence. I don't think that Robinson's article constitutes significant critical commentary, but I'm going to let it go at this point. I do object to erasing this discussion from the Talk page. If no one finds it worthwhile it will disappear into the archives. At the same time, other editors might want to discuss Peterson's political views and Robinson's critique. // I made my remarks a subsection to make editing easier, but I deleted the subheading so it doesn't give my view prominence over other editors' viewpoints.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 12:51, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Climate Change section

The part of this article regarding climate change both misquotes him in garishly offensive ways, making him say something completely different, and begins with a statement that is a whole cloth fabrication. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wigglewortz (talk • contribs) 09:15, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Chomsky's back-patting of Current Affairs

Under Political views I read that the Current Affairs has often been referenced by Chomsky, backed by a source that doesn't even mention Peterson in any way. Why is this so important for readers to know? I feel like its inclusion is a curt attempt to coatrack. You've gone incognito (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:47, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

The source does mention Peterson. Chomsky is the most notable person to express an opinion on Peterson, and he said it's the piece he sends out more than anything. Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:43, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree with You've gone incognito. Since I've been castigated for my comments on this section before, I will say no more.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 10:46, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I would suggest that Chomsky's views on a public "intellectual" are almost certainly WP:DUE the arguments against seem to be misinformed by claiming incorrectly that Peterson wasn't mentioned. Simonm223 (talk) 12:49, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Indeed Current Affairs is a reliable source and Chomsky a prominent intellectual in many fields that relate to Peterson's area of interest. I'm not convinced by Chomsky's description "prominent libertarian socialist intellectual" because he's also a philosopher, cognitive scientist, historian etc. (and those are just the ones relevant to this passage) but it's difficult to sum up the man in less than a thousand words. — Bilorv (talk) 14:53, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 June 2019

Good evening,

My suggestion is to append the following names to Dr. Peterson`s influences list.

• "Alfred Adler"
• "Carl Rogers"
• "Erich Neumann"
• "Friedrich Nietzsche"
• "Fyodor Dostoevsky"
• "Jean Piaget"
• "Leo Tolstoy"
• "Martin Heidegger"
• "Mircea Eliade"
• "Sigmund Freud"
• "Viktor Frankl"

To attest the authenticity of those names one may look at his "Great Books" list on his website (link bellow), as well as his lectures posted on YouTube some of which are named after men on this list.

I also took liberty of combining the existing list, with the recommended names above and organized them in alphabetical order. The final list should look like this:

| influences = Aldous Huxley, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Alfred Adler, Arthur Schopenhauer, Ayn Rand, Carl Jung, Carl Rogers, Erich Neumann (psychologist), Friedrich Nietzsche, Fyodor Dostoevsky, George Orwell, Jean Piaget, Leo Tolstoy, Martin Heidegger, Mircea Eliade, Sigmund Freud, [[Viktor Frankl]

Best regards and keep up the good work.

Cz68hdi57

Cz68hdi57 (talk) 07:02, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello. Template:Infobox scientist 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 (for example, the scientist may have identified a predecessor as providing the foundation for one of their major achievements). Unless the scientist was clearly building on an earlier work, avoid adding influences that were only via study, as such influences are generally too many and hard to separate. Only list influences who are notable enough to warrant their own wiki article." This has already been discussed on this talk page several times before, as well. My opinion is that the section is already too long, for multiple reasons. I do not believe adding even more entries would be a positive change. Pending a change in WP:CONSENSUS, I have set this request to "answered". Please do not let that discourage you from discussing further, however. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 08:38, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello. As a fan of Peterson's work, I'd say the following are worthy of adding to his "Influences" heading: Friedrich Nietzsche, Fyodor Dostoevsky, George Orwell and Sigmund Freud. Peterson often refers to these scientists and authors in his lectures. If the Wikipedia community insists that Peterson must "build on previous work" of another author, then at least Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn should be added to Peterson's influences. Not only did Peterson refer to Solzhenitsyn's ideas in his book Maps of Meaning, it is also the case that Peterson wrote the introduction to the fiftieth anniversary publishing of Solzhenitsyn's book The Gulag Archipelago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evan Sauve (talk • contribs) 03:30, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

"If the Wikipedia community insists..."? Okay. As the template documentation explains, almost all significant scientists will have many influences which are difficult to succinctly categorize. In this regard Peterson is no different from any other professional academic. As for Solzhenitsyn, do you know of a reliable, independent source which emphasizes Solzhenitsyn as an influence? By independent, I mean independent of Peterson, per WP:INDY. If this source is already cited in the article, all the better, but something should be used to help prevent bloat and editorializing. Primary sources are of limited use, especially because Peterson is so prolific. Grayfell (talk) 09:01, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Maps of Meaning is not a peer-reviewed academic work in Peterson's subject area. It is at best a pop science book. If he somehow referred to Solzhenitsyn in his psychology publications at the University of Toronto then we could consider listing him as an influence (with reliable secondary sources to verify this) but an author he mentioned in Maps of Meaning is simply not what the parameter is for. — Bilorv (talk) 11:13, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

As far as I understand Maps of Meaning was used as a text book by Peterson at several university courses. We are clearly not here discussing Peterson only because of his work as a researcher in psychology. The reason for this discussion, is clearly that his "subject area" is not so easily encapsulated. So something like "... his hero, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn ..." and "... Solzhenitsyn, Peterson’s revered mentor ..." could in my mind easily be used to argue for the case of Solzhenitsyn being an influence. It is clear beyond any doubt that Solzhenitsyn is very present in Peterson writing and speech.--Thorseth (talk) 08:29, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

References