Revision as of 15:14, 11 September 2020 editNewimpartial (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users24,776 edits →Expanding scope?: re: Jordan Peterson← Previous edit |
Revision as of 15:21, 11 September 2020 edit undoStAnselm (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers160,594 edits →Expanding scope?Next edit → |
Line 10: |
Line 10: |
|
|
|
|
|
: Do you have any reliable sources documenting use of the term in other senses? No-one had provided any, prior to the split. ] (]) 14:55, 11 September 2020 (UTC) |
|
: Do you have any reliable sources documenting use of the term in other senses? No-one had provided any, prior to the split. ] (]) 14:55, 11 September 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
:: is a balanced review that should be in the article; it also mentions the British use of the term. ]] (]) 15:20, 11 September 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
: Also, while I am happy to discuss her before inclusion and pursue improved sources, I don't see any serious opposition in the RS to the idea that Jordan Peterson has disseminated the conspiracy theory, and therefore no BLP violation in saying so since it is not a controversial claim. ] (]) 15:14, 11 September 2020 (UTC) |
|
: Also, while I am happy to discuss her before inclusion and pursue improved sources, I don't see any serious opposition in the RS to the idea that Jordan Peterson has disseminated the conspiracy theory, and therefore no BLP violation in saying so since it is not a controversial claim. ] (]) 15:14, 11 September 2020 (UTC) |
I'm glad that at long last this article has been created. It needs to be noted, however, that not everyone who uses the term is buying into the conspiracy theory. So my question is, do we want to expand the article to include the *term* and/or the thing people are referring to by it (if not the conspiracy theory)? StAnselm (talk) 14:41, 11 September 2020 (UTC)