Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Butterscotch Beluga (talk | contribs) at 00:30, 28 August 2024 (→Climate change continued: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jordan Peterson article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24Auto-archiving period: 3 months

Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article: You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances) Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Jordan Peterson, gender, or sex. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Jordan Peterson, gender, or sex at the Reference desk.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent.

This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Biography: Arts and Entertainment / Science and Academia This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by the science and academia work group (assessed as Mid-importance). Psychology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Canada: Ontario / Alberta / Toronto Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Ontario. This article is supported by WikiProject Alberta. This article is supported by WikiProject Toronto (assessed as Mid-importance). Conservatism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Alternative views Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Gender studies Mid‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Gender studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Gender studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Gender studiesTemplate:WikiProject Gender studiesGender studies Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. To-do list: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : see Unassessed Gender studies articles and Unknown-importance Gender studies articles Cleanup : edit to see Collaborate : see /Collaboration Copyedit : edit to see Deletion sorting : see /Sexuality and gender Expand : edit to see Infobox : see Gender studies articles needing infoboxes Merge : edit to see Notability : edit to see NPOV : edit to see Orphans : Brannon Masculinity Scale · Holy Virility · Media and gender · Michael Kaufman (author) · Women's education in Saudi Arabia Photo : see Misplaced Pages requested photographs of gender studies Split : History of feminism Stubs : see Gender studies stubs Translate : see /translation Update : edit to see Verify : Riot grrrl Needs attention : see Gender studies articles needing attention YouTube Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject YouTube, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of YouTube and related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.YouTubeWikipedia:WikiProject YouTubeTemplate:WikiProject YouTubeYouTube Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject YouTube To-do: edit history watch purge A list of articles needing cleanup associated with this project is available. See also the tool's wiki page and the index of WikiProjects. Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : see list. Assess : Apply the assessment scale on Unknown-importance YouTube articles + Unassessed YouTube articles Cleanup : See cleanup listing Maintain : This WikiProject Stubs : Category:Stub-Class YouTube articles Other : Substitute {{WikiProject YouTube/Invite Members}} on user talk pages Check out edit requests on Talk:List of YouTubers

The following Misplaced Pages contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. Jordanbpeterson (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article. This user has declared a connection. (declared here)

WP:FRINGE

This article needs a some serious rewriting to appropriately contextualize a lot of the things said about Dr. Peterson here. To put it lightly: "he is the very model of a fringey academical". Allan Nonymous (talk) 17:13, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Want to pick an example? North8000 (talk) 18:15, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

The article seems to paint him as largely within the academic and political mainstream, which he clearly is not see or . He is to put it lightly, closer to Andrew Tate, than he is to your typical psychologist. Allan Nonymous (talk) 18:36, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Peterson's academic credentials speak for themselves. He is a highly cited scholar, he has written an erudite intellectual work , and he has worked at several reputable universities such as Harvard. Trakking (talk) 20:28, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

By the way—Peterson and Tate despise each other. Tate has made fun of Peterson several times, while Peterson has been harshly critical of Tate. Trakking (talk) 20:32, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Both are traditionally considered cannonical figures of the manosphere, something that this article's lede, again, curiously omits. Allan Nonymous (talk) 20:39, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

There are no authoritative sources that identify Peterson as an exponent of the manosphere movements. Peterson has called MGTOW "weasels" and pick-up artists "psychopaths". Trakking (talk) 20:59, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

That's, frankly, quibbling over terminology. It's pretty clear he's on the same axis as they are, even if he doesn't agree with specific subgroups, you could say he's a "fellow traveler" (to reflect his sort of thinking back at him). Allan Nonymous (talk) 21:15, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

And yet those same men quote him or share his videos on a regular basis. Maybe not quite so much the Tate-loving incel types as the controlling, narcissistic misogynists, but they're all under the same umbrella. His reputation amongst the general public certainly reflects that but this article does not. His academic accomplishments are factual but they aren't what he's most known for, and the fact that he's on the verge of losing his license for unprofessional conduct certainly supports that. 24.113.229.172 (talk) 23:56, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I think this does a better job of explaining the issues I ever will: Allan Nonymous (talk) 21:13, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I am laughing out loud at anyone calling that trite bit of vacant obscurantism Maps of Meaning erudite. He's no longer teaching and no longer practicing as a therapist because he's so thoroughly WP:PROFRINGE. Simonm223 (talk) 00:36, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

I suspect one can find some good stuff by searching for his name and "woke". That's something he's allergic to, and he's also in trouble. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:26, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I think that he sets his own course on various views/positions. And through the lens of US/Canadian culture wars, that lens puts him generally on one side of those culture wars and for folks on the other side wars deprecating him becomes the main goal. IMO this article should just try to be informative on straightforwards facts regarding him. North8000 (talk) 23:24, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree with North8000 here. Given the culture war associations here it's hard to say if the disagreements are based on true academic issues vs associations with politics. The article covers this but we shouldn't pick sides in tone. Springee (talk) 00:06, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

The side we pick is the side of reliable sources, same as always. Politics can of course be a true academic issue, but Peterson himself has never been an expert on politics, so his own views should not be presented as credible. This is WP:FRINGE at its most basic. Grayfell (talk) 02:28, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

We should document the fact he is controversial and is criticized. We don't write hagiographies here. As the link I posted above shows, his profession itself is at odds with him. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:39, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

The article does include controversies and criticism. We just need to be careful that we are impartial in how it is presented. I'm not sure his "profession" is at odds with him vs the governing body is at odds with things he has said outside of his practice. Springee (talk) 03:04, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Are we presenting his views on politics as credible? His views on topics that are related to his academic background do cross over into areas of politics but so long as they are in areas where he has academic standing we need to be careful about presuming FRINGE etc. Springee (talk) 03:01, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

That ship sailed when he got barred from practicing therapy and stopped teaching classes. So, no, we don't have to be that careful here. He is obviously FRINGE.Simonm223 (talk) 03:04, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Not really. As I recall he was banned because he refused to submit to things that were not related to his treatment of his own patients. It seemed like a very political action vs one of malpractice. Springee (talk) 03:06, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

He was barred for potentially bringing his profession into disrepute. That is an example of fringe behavior. Simonm223 (talk) 03:11, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Let's assume he did something like stealing from a patient. Would you call that "fringe"? I mean stealing from a patient would certainly be a reason to bar someone but it doesn't mean their work was otherwise fringe. You have taken the reason he was barred, which appears to be that he said things the college did like, outside of his actual practice, the then leapt to the conclusion that his work in practice, when he was dealing with real patients, was fringe. That is a leap too far. Springee (talk) 03:20, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Granted, this thread is labeled "fringe", but there are other practices and views of his that are controversial, unprofessional, bring disrepute to his profession, and are a danger to the public. Those things should also be documented, even if they are not labeled "fringe". We don't even have to label them, just describe them the way mainstream sources describe them.

The College of Psychologists of Ontario, has as its mandate “to protect the public interest by monitoring and regulating the practice of psychology”. Peterson's public statements, which he admits are deliberately offensive, have gotten him in trouble. He said transgenderism was a “social contagion”, and that is a primitive view at odds with the profession of psychology, and he is thus subject to the discipline of the College of Psychologists of Ontario.

Whether one calls that fringe or not, it's unprofessional, primitive, unenlightened (IOW not "woke"), and very damaging to patients and the public. "The CPO told Peterson that they felt his comments “may cause harm” and had a significant “impact risk.” The CPO is a major RS on the matter.

I should add one fact related to fringiness. When one tries to find RS content on his views, one discovers he's a darling of fringe and unreliable sources, so that throws a wrench in documenting some of this stuff. That's also a red flag that says a lot about him. Per sourcing, he is fringe. Period. (Not policy, just my opinion.) We may have to depend on the few mainstream sources that mention him. We can also use a few of his own statements on Twitter and other social media (per ABOUTSELF) to document his views. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:56, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree with North8000 and Springee.

Peterson is not fringe; he is anti-postmodern, anti-Marxist, and pro-Christian. "Postmodernism" did not even exist until a few decades ago, and today it still barely exists outside of the Western world, making it a very fringe ideology. As for Marxism, it is another fringe ideology, especially in the Western world, where no parties have dared openly to identify as Marxist for many decades. Meanwhile, Christianity is the exact opposite of fringe, as it is the most global ideological phenomenon with billions of adherents all over the planet. Conclusion: Peterson is non-fringe, indeed he is explicitly anti-fringe and quite mainstream from a global and historical perspective. Trakking (talk) 07:34, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm gonna hard disagree with you on "no parties have dared openly to identify as Marxist for many decades". There are loads of marxist parties in the west, some electorally successful, such as the Communist Party of Spain (currently in government), and the Progressive Party of Working People (part of the government in 2013). OTOH "Cultural Marxism", something Jordan Peterson defends , is a conspiracy theory. Allan Nonymous (talk) 21:14, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I think that this conversation is about whether or not he is real-world fringe. IMO he is not. And wp:fringe is a different set of guidance which is clearly not applicable here. This is an article about a person, not about theories. North8000 (talk) 13:11, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Peterson may be controversial, but he's not fringe, at least not in the mainstream media these days. In the assessment of this profile in the Washington Post Andrew Tate makes "Jordan Peterson look like a cuddly old uncle.” So, some secondary sources see the figure as almost mainstream. In an assessment made by The New Yorker Peterson is "the Internet’s most revered—and reviled—intellectual". And I think that's how mainstream news platforms regard Peterson now.

MatthewDalhousie (talk) 05:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Disputed paragraph

Today I removed the disputed paragraph , citing its dependence on primary or low-quality sources, which is a violation of BLP policy (namely WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:BLPSPS). The paragraph was then restored by North8000 with the mistaken edit summary, Rationale given was "pending discussion" - that was not my rationale; my rationale was the poor sourcing. Others have also noted that the paragraph violates WP:NPOV through the inclusion of material, unsupported by independent or secondary sources, that exaggerates the importance of the BLP subject.

So this paragraph has now been removed twice based on good-faith objections to its inclusion rooted in BLP policy, and it has been restored twice by North8000 without a clear basis in policy. WP:BLPRESTORE specifies as follows:

To ensure that material about living people is written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Misplaced Pages's content policies.

North8000 has apparently restored the paragraph in violation of BLPRESTORE. Therefore I suggest

• that North8000 revert their latest restoration of the paragraph;
• that North8000 not re-revert this material into the article without consensus to do so;
• that no other editor restore this paragraph without consensus.

I have no objection to including a paragraph that briefly discusses the subject's scholarly work in this section, but it must be a DUE reflection of what independent, secondary sources say about the subject and thus comply with our BLP policies. Also, for editors to revert material into the article once good-faith BLP objections have been raised is a violation of a core enwiki policy and a bad look for the editors concerned, IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 14:54, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree and have reverted. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:01, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Given the paragraph is actively being discussed above and there is no consensus for it's removal, it shouldn't have been removed after N8k restored it the first time. Springee (talk) 15:12, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Springee - you have reverted material back into the article after three (!) other editors have raised good-faith BLP objections to its content, as documented in this section. You are in violation of WP:BLPRESTORE: please self-revert. Newimpartial (talk) 15:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, the original removal was BOLD (as were the removals of some of the sources several days back). Once it was restored and given there is an active discussion with several editors supporting keeping at least some version of the content, additional removals moved from BOLD to unhelpful. Springee (talk) 15:14, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

That's not how it works. When serious BLP objections are raised, the content is deleted, at least temporarily, until a consensus has been reached. BLP trumps in these cases. There is no rush. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:43, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

You are making a leap when suggesting this is a serious BLP concern. If this were an accusation of a crime or such I would agree. However, this is a statement, with sourcing, regarding areas of academic research. As there is no harm concern the BLP concern goes away. This is especially true given there is already an active discussion related to the material in question. Springee (talk) 16:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Folks are mis-applying/ mis-claiming policies and guidelines to try to delete a description of what his fields of study were / are. Also removal from context. The quoted items is when the contents themselves are contested. I.E that those were not his fields of study. The sources are appropriate to merely establish what his fields of study were/are. North8000 (talk) 15:21, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

That's not what is happening here. You've been told multiple times that primary sources are insufficient and that this section is inappropriately structured to describe the influence of a BLP involved in academic research. Find reliable secondary sources that discuss his academic impact and we can discuss replacement text. Simonm223 (talk) 15:26, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

We use primary sources to establish a birthday in most BLP because we feel that birthdays are inherently notable. Given Peterson's academic background, his areas of research are also inherently notable. Springee (talk) 15:30, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

This is disputed. Him having written papers about a variety of topics is not notable. Simply put this list is WP:UNDUE because it doesn't establish he's been influential to any of those fields. Find better sources. Simonm223 (talk) 15:33, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

The material is not about describing "influence"; it is about covering what his fields of study were/are. And sources simply to establish that. North8000 (talk) 15:33, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

That is undue and unimportant. Nobody except for his hardcore defenders is likely to care. At all. Simonm223 (talk) 15:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Academic publications don't work that way. I'm a co-author on an article that is way outside my area of expertise. I just helped with the statistical analysis and prepped the data section. You cannot cite PRIMARY academic journal articles to claim that a co-author has expertise in that area. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:37, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Right? Simonm223 (talk) 17:49, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

• At least as a placeholder, could we use this Vox source (already used in the article) to mention that he has published research on personality and creativity that has been influential? How about using this National Post piece to put his citation count at 8,000 as of 2017? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:39, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

  If you're asking me, my sense is that Vox is not a relaible source for the influence of academics, and citing Christie Blatchford for a citation count isn't really evidence that it is DUE for article inclusion. Newimpartial (talk) 15:44, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

  I am asking you (and others), so thanks for your thoughts. I think Vox is reliable enough for a (AFAICT) fairly unexceptional claim, especially since they did the legwork and spoke to subject-matter experts. I see citation counts so ubiquitously in biographies of academics (or former academics) that I don't personally have a high bar for DUE. I'm not pushing hard for either bit to be included, but I think it's sensible to include some bare-bones language on his academic work while discussion on a more detailed version proceeds. I'll repeat this below, but I'm fine also with Simonm223's proposed "Peterson's research has focused on personality traits such as creativity." Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:56, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

  Both seem due and well-enough-sourced to me. Zanahary (talk) 02:41, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Why do a few people keep talking about sourcing for "influence"? There's nothing related to influence the material that some people are trying to delete. It simply says what his fields of study are. North8000 (talk) 16:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

This is the critical point. When describing an academic it's perfectly reasonable to say what their areas of research are/were. Contrary to some of the claims above, these are not BLP concerns as these are contentious or potentially harmful claims about a person. Springee (talk) 16:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

So, I agree that it's reasonable to say what those areas are or were (and I think tense is an issue here), but the way this paragraph does it falls afoul of WP:SYNTH to me. There's an unspoken inferential leap that says "he published in this area, so it's a notable area of study for him," and I am not sure that is warranted. Academics can and do publish outside of their core areas, and I think this is bringing too much Wikipedian analysis to bear. Happy to see something like this in the article, but would definitely want secondary sourcing. As ever, that's just an old guy's opinion. Happy Friday to one and all! Dumuzid (talk) 16:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Exactly correct, Dumuzid. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:52, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

There seems to be a large amount of secondary sources validating the claims made in the paragraph, as demonstrated by a quick search on Google.

• A Glitch in the Matrix: Jordan Peterson and the Intellectual Dark Web (2019) by Leonard Payne: "His main areas of study are in abnormal, social, and personality psychology, with a particular interest in the psychology of religious and ideological belief." (p. 39)
• The Path to Meaning: The Philosophy of Jordan Peterson Explained (2023) by Julian Gen: "He has made significant contributions to the field of psychology, particularly in the areas of personality, social psychology, and the psychology of religion." (p. 15)
• Vox article "Jordan Peterson, the obscure Canadian psychologist turned right-wing celebrity, explained" by Zack Beauchamp (2018): "Peterson’s research specialty is personality traits; one of his most prominent papers is a study of what makes people more or less creative."

Etc. Trakking (talk) 16:55, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

It would probably be best to add some of those secondary sources. The primary sources can also be included but adding the secondary sources would address the RS issues as well as the BLP claims. Springee (talk) 16:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, without endorsing any (simply because I haven't looked at them), those are the types of sources I would want to see--and we should restrict the areas of study to those listed in such sources (which might even be more than are listed in the disputed paragraph, I don't know). Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:12, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Much better. It's just patently wrong to say he researches psychopharmacology. He studies personality and religion. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:17, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

The Payne book appears to be self-published. Simonm223 (talk) 17:52, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

The Path to Meaning is also self-published. It is highly unlikely that either of them constitutes a reliable secondary source. Simonm223 (talk) 17:53, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

However, based on the vox article, I'd be willing to include, "Peterson's research has focused on personality traits such as creativity." Simonm223 (talk) 17:54, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Addendum, GPTZero says there is a 100% chance that The Path to Meaning was produced using LLMs. It is absolutely not a reliable source. Simonm223 (talk) 18:01, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

And as for A Glitch in the Matrix, the author has a history of plagiarism and that history applies specifically to this book. So these three sources are:

1. A plagiarized "curation" of other sources, likely including Misplaced Pages from the looks of some of the contents.
2. A book made on ChatGPT
3. An article in Vox that appears reliable. Simonm223 (talk) 18:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Scratch "likely" - Payne's article about the IDW in the Glitch in the Matrix book is obviously a direct copy of the Misplaced Pages page. He didn't even delete the citation formatting. That means, notwithstanding the self-pub and plagiarism problems, it is not viable as a source per WP:CIRCULAR Simonm223 (talk) 18:12, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I was just listing some of the first sources that showed up; I hadn't time to scrutinize them at the moment. My point was that there's a plethora of sources that included this piece of information—some are better, some worse. Trakking (talk) 18:19, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

"Sources exist" is not sufficient to draft specific copy. And haphazardly suggesting sources from "a quick google" is unhelpful when those sources are obviously and patently inappropriate for Misplaced Pages. Simonm223 (talk) 18:25, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I'd be fine with Simon's proposal. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:56, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

This is an area where I would suggest even a university bio page is sufficient. We aren't trying to establish notability in the field, only that these are his general areas of academic work. I do get the concern that sometimes academics might contribute to work outside their normal fields (I have such a case on my CV) but, like birthday, I don't see this as a contentious subject and thus the standard for evidence should be low. Springee (talk) 19:15, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

This is going to hit WP:DUE again if you try to use low-quality or primary sources to create an extensive list of poorly defined "research areas". I know you don't think this is contentious but it is significant to maintaining a neutral position on his impact as an academic. Whether intentional or not the old passage was patently WP:PEACOCK text that tried to inflate Peterson's mediocre overall contributions to psychology. His notoriety, as a BLP, is not his academic career but rather his media hijinks, his youtube career, his dalliances with far-right politics and his self-help books. Simonm223 (talk) 19:18, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

DUE and PEACOCK would require some level of consensus. As someone who was in academia I do pay attention to areas of research when looking up bios of academics. Like age, this is good, boiler plate background information. If I were to look up information on a former race car driver I would want to know what their record was and in which racing series. I would be fine with it coming from a primary source so long as the source was reliable. That is the real issue here. If you think the source isn't accurate or doesn't support the claim in question then I agree, there is a problem. However, if the issue is just that you feel weight isn't established, I would disagree. The moment we discussed his academic career, his areas of research became DUE as background information. Springee (talk) 19:25, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

It's undue to make a list of multiple sub-domains of psychology and claim them as part of his domain of study based on a primary source. These claims require secondary sources to establish that his research was of any significance. And most of the academics I have looked up on Misplaced Pages use secondary sources to describe their fields of study - in fact I've yet to find one that depended on primary sources, let alone one with a list structured like that para was.

The specific structure of the para and the specific nature of the citations used matter here. I've said, repeatedly, that I'm open to drafting material on this topic based on reliable secondary sources. I even proposed text derived from the Vox source. Please stop arguing that there should be something when what you're really arguing is that we should allow a long list of primary sourced claims of no specific notability. Simonm223 (talk) 19:30, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

You can argue that the specific list was flawed but I don't at all agree that it's UNDUE. This seems to have been the direction the previous discussion was heading before we got sidetracked with a dispute over edit warring. Springee (talk) 19:46, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Let's put it this way: A list built from primary sources does not establish that any given entry on that list is WP:DUE. For information regarding Peterson's research history to rise to the level of WP:DUE it requires more-than-passing mention in a reliable secondary source. Simonm223 (talk) 19:51, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Does it? Do we need a secondary source to establish that his birthday is DUE? Springee (talk) 20:00, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

The problem as I see it, anyway, is that age is an objective measurement while there is sometimes robust disagreement within academia about determining areas of research. All the more so when we start considering different levels of abstraction (e.g., is person X an expert in evolution, or the evolution of nematodes?). This is why I think it is wise to rely on guidance from secondary sources. But reasonable minds can certainly differ. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:02, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Well, actually a DOB kinda does per WP:BLPPRIVACY, or else it needs to be very publicly and unambiguously provided by the subject himself. The problem as I see it (and per my comments at WP:BLPN) is that the disputed paragraph comes off at first glance as rather apophenic and very, very SYNTH-y. Seriously, it's a mess of citation overkill which immediately raises some huge red-flags to the reader. Citing a primary source requires a full understanding of the source, not simply seeing his name and saying, "Wow, he must be an expert in that." For example, sources such as these are more often than not compiled by teams of people who are each experts in different fields, each of which may or may not be a different aspect of the research paper to various degrees, but it doesn't in any way, shape, or form mean that any of the authors are experts in the topic of the paper. Quite often they're just putting their heads together and coming up with a new theory. That's the danger in using primary sources, because they're so easy to misinterpret without some substantial background knowledge. Zaereth (talk) 22:26, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Two cents: because WP:PROFESSOR is a sorta-kinda lower bar than WP:GNG, we wind up including a lot of primary sources to fill out otherwise sparse articles. It's not ideal, but most professors aren't the subject of extensive biographies, news coverage, etc. -- they're notable because of their work (citations, named professorships, awards, etc.). We try to avoid primary sourcing most of the time, but sometimes it seems unavoidable. Peterson, on the other hand, is the subject of a massive amount of coverage, and most of it isn't about his academic work. As a result, the article doesn't have to rely on primary sources -- it can present aspects of the subject in proportion to the attention those aspects receive in the body of literature. People have absolutely written about his academic work (Maps of Meaning, etc.), and we should summarize those sources. There's no need to include material based just on his own work as though we're writing about a typical academic who otherwise has no exposure. No objection to using primary sources for basic biographical details (hometown, alma mater, parents' names, birthyear, etc.). — Rhododendrites \\ 22:55, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

It's been edit-warred in again, leading to a

page lock. Seriously, this is absurd. I guess secondary sources are optional when there's a fringe academic whose reputation needs laundering. Simonm223 (talk) 16:52, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: Good thought, but IMO there is a pretty big issue with that. As you noted, for academics, coverage of the academic material needs the WP:PROFESSOR standard otherwise their academic aspect won't be covered. This issue of nature of coverage coverage of their academic aspects remains if they move into the political public eye. So what you said lead to that if an academic moves into such a public eye, their academic stuff will be removed from / not receive coverage. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:18, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand this response, which may be a result of my own lack of clarity. My point is this: WP:PROFESSOR is a notability standard; it has nothing to do with the content of an article. Because it's a lower standard than GNG, we have a harder time finding the kind of sourcing we typically prioritize -- independent, secondary reliable sources. Hence we turn to lower quality sources in those cases. In this case, there's no need to do that. I don't agree that any particular job title necessitates some fixed minimum of content. Let that be decided by the independent, secondary RS as long as those exist. — Rhododendrites \\ 19:24, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

I think what @North8000 is saying is that, even if someone is a notable academic and a notable something-else, the notability of their something-else career will be easier to support with the kinds of sources we like best—but that doesn’t mean their notable academic career is just as well-supported in that kind of source. So, for JBP the academic, the sourcing standards for academics should be considered. Zanahary (talk) 19:41, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

@Zanahary I mean it's absolutely incorrect in the context of this article, this paragraph and this discussion. Simonm223 (talk) 20:17, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

I mean! Zanahary (talk) 20:19, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that's another was of saying it. To cover the academic portion, we need to use the types of sources normally used to cover academic. North8000 (talk) 13:37, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

This sounds to me like a recipe for creating a false balance between Peterson's public persona and his academic endeavors. The whole reason for taking a bit of a lax approach to professorial articles is because there is often a dearth of secondary sources. There is no dearth here. I would argue the same for any other academic: where there are traditional high-quality Misplaced Pages sources, we shouldn't bend the rules as we sometimes do. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:04, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't think the disputed paragraph actually does use the types of sources normally used to cover academic. The paragraph uses a combination of primary sources and COI sources to assert a range of expertise and importance through primary citation counts. I've looked at a fair number or academic BLPs since I opened this discussion, and have seen very little use of any of these strategies whether the BLP subject is controversial or not. Newimpartial (talk) 17:02, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to suggest something even though I admit I haven't done it myself... would someone like to post a redone version of the paragraph so we can try to get some consensus while the article is locked? I think most editors agree the paragraph needs to be fixed. The only question is what the fixed paragraph should look like. If I get a bit of time I'll take a shot at it but if someone beats me to it that fine to. Springee (talk) 19:07, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

I did. Based on the only secondary source provided. To whit:

Peterson's research has focused on personality traits such as creativity. With a citation to the vox article. Simonm223 (talk) 12:16, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Frankly the fact that the only other secondary sources presented included circular references to Misplaced Pages and literal ChatGPT content should be telling on how significant his contributions to psychology have been. Simonm223 (talk) Simonm223 (talk) 12:17, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

There ought to he something better to say based on Jordan Peterson: Critical Responses, one of the many higher-quality sources this article doesn't use. Newimpartial (talk) 12:49, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Marc Champagne, a philosophy professor at Trent University, described Peterson's psychological account of Genesis as amounting "to crediting a stone with flavoring a soup." Simonm223 (talk) 14:50, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

I also found a good quote from Viewpoint Magazine that could help in building out a paragraph on Peterson's research focuses. But Peterson has just released a new book, 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos. It is his first since 1999’s Maps of Meaning, a study of myth in modern thought. In that book, Peterson based his thinking on the mysticism of Carl Jung, following a pattern initiated by Joseph Campbell, whose influence is now primarily seen in Star Wars rather than scholarship on myth. Peterson neglected to engage with unanimously recognized predecessors in the field of study, like anthropologist Claude Lévi-Strauss, who had postulated as early as the 1950’s that myths are based on a recurring structure across cultures and eras. Simonm223 (talk) 15:12, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

No, that wouldn't be acceptable as a replacement for the material in question. That is a critique of his work, not a neutral statement of areas of research. That could be used in a critique of his work presuming the sourcing is sufficient and doesn't cross too far into opinion or is presented as the authors opinion of Peterson's work. Springee (talk) 15:15, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

From the same article Peterson makes a slight adjustment to the narrative in 12 Rules for Life. A Jungian psychologist, he seems to find it necessary to exonerate Freud. There is a brief reference to the Frankfurt School, represented only by Max Horkheimer rather than the more frequently cited Adorno or Marcuse or the still-living Jürgen Habermas (himself a devoted critic of postmodernism as he defines it). Peterson then jumps ahead a few decades and crosses the Rhine. Creating a designation of his own, he identifies not “critical theory,” but the “postmodern neo-Marxism” of postwar French philosophy as his intellectual adversary. Neither Derrida nor Foucault is cited in 12 Rules for Life. Apparently, not only has Peterson never bothered to actually read them, he seems not to have even read their Misplaced Pages entries.. Simonm223 (talk) 15:20, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

See my reply above. Springee (talk) 15:31, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

I would hope we could do better than just VOX. Stating areas of research shouldn't require much in terms of sourcing. It would be like asking which racing series a driver has participated in. A driver database site would be sufficient so long as the claims aren't contested. For example this institute has a small bio on Peterson "Peterson's areas of study and research are in the fields of psychopharmacology, abnormal, neuro, clinical, personality, social, industrial and organizational; and religious, ideological, political, and creativity psychology.". That would be straight forward and doesn't apply any positive or negative spin on his areas of research. Springee (talk) 15:13, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

This source, a biography of the person from a book review, could also be used for basic claims . Springee (talk) 15:17, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Again, Springee, we're coming up against the question of why it is due to state a long list of purported areas of research without any context regarding how that research has been received. That's why I'm looking at academic and critical responses in this thread now as a basis. I would suggest this would be a more productive thing to do than create a context-free list. Simonm223 (talk) 15:23, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Also I's suggest that the Claremont Institute doesn't represent a particularly reliable source so, while it is secondary, I would hesitate to give that article undue weight. Simonm223 (talk) 15:26, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

It's a perfectly fine since for this background. Why do we cover it? Because his areas of basic research are of interest. If it wasn't important why would sources trying to offer a quick background cover it? What is the harm of including it? Springee (talk) 15:31, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Come on. Claremont Institute senior fellow John Eastman aided Trump in his failed attempts to overturn the election results. The institute publications in recent years have frequently published alt-right and far-right opinion pieces. In what world is this going to forward neutrality? Simonm223 (talk) 15:32, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

This article is good too For example According to Peterson, everything in the world can be quantified and positivist science is the best means to understand people. He believes, for example, there exists a gender pay gap in the West, but that the cause of the gap cannot be reduced totally to the problem of gender. He cites studies in social psychology about male and female traits, essentializing human behavior and placing agency squarely in the hands of fundamental psychological characteristics that determine our lives. Simonm223 (talk) 15:31, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Another good excerpt for an interrogation of Peterson on postmodernism: What’s ironic about Peterson is that, by peddling nostalgia, he unwittingly aligns himself with his enemy, postmodernism, which cultural critic Fredric Jameson maintains is a nostalgic paradigm doomed to “imitate dead styles.” Under the banner of postmodernism, anything truly real slides uncomfortably into simulation and “blank parody.” “tylistic innovation is no longer possible,” Jameson writes of postmodernism, and the upshot is a culture that recycles past tropes in order to ward off the creeping tide of despair. Simonm223 (talk) 15:34, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

There's also an interesting piece about Peterson on postmodernism at university affairs. Where Dr. Stuart Chambers says, According to Dr. Peterson, what constitutes truth has shifted radically on university campuses. Referencing Nietzsche, Dr. Peterson claims that since God is dead and “all value structures have collapsed,” doctrinaire postmodernists have interpreted this to mean that truth is up for grabs. One’s version of truth is simply a “power game” – the product of a specific group’s interests, rather than a consensus. This, Dr. Peterson notes, was the “logical conclusion” postmodernists derived from the Nietzschean dilemma. With all due respect, this is not an accurate description of Nietzschean philosophy. The “death of God” simply refers to the death of absolute values, not the negation of competing values. Yes, postmodernism teaches that immutable truths – those fixed for time and eternity – do not exist, but this does not lead to the relativist nightmare dreamed up by Dr. Peterson in which truths are “equally valid” or “anything goes.” The “death of God” does not mean all knowledge is suddenly deemed untrustworthy. Simonm223 (talk) 15:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Once again, no. That is a critique or interpretation of his work. It might be useful in that context but not to replace a basic list of research topics. Springee (talk) 15:34, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Once again, yes. We need to review the reception of the work for it to have any relevance or validity. "He studied postmodernism" OK here's a long list of professors saying he seems to be shadow-boxing a caricature of Derrida that only exists in his head. "He studied psychology of religion" and here's a professor pointing out that he's trying to draw what isn't actually there out of simple phrases in a play of mock-profundity.

See this is what I've been getting at. His research: not well received. Putting his research and citation count out there without that context violates WP:NPOV. And if you think I'm not being neutral I'd suggest finding sources a bit more neutral than a Jan 6 conspiring alt-right book review website to source for a counter-point. Because I'll point out I left the obviously partisan stuff like the Jacobin piece out since I didn't think it would be appropriately neutral. Simonm223 (talk) 15:43, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

It sounds like you are saying that straightforward facts commonly including for biographies have a pro-Peterson bias, and that criticism of Peterson is the context that needs to be added to those facts. North8000 (talk) 16:02, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Please find another academic whose areas of study and citation count are presented in that fashion on this website. Simonm223 (talk) 16:05, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

What to you mean by "that fashion" for a straightforward listing of areas of study? North8000 (talk) 16:07, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

A list of reported areas of study, without any context, using primary sources and ending with a claim about their number of citations. If this paragraph is a straightforward thing that is normal in biographies then it should be easy to find some examples of other biographies that do it. Simonm223 (talk) 16:12, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm supposed to search Misplaced Pages for a sentence that you would agree matches all four of those criteria as worded by you? And that is required to consider it legitimate to advocate to include a straightforward listing of his areas of study?North8000 (talk)

I mean the argument for inclusion is that this is a normal thing we do for academics on Misplaced Pages. So I'd think it shouldn't take you that long. Unless, maybe, it's not actually a normal thing we do for academics on Misplaced Pages. Simonm223 (talk) 16:30, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

A quick search on "cited times google scholar" on Misplaced Pages generates 11,896 results, meaning that there are thousands of articles in which the citation count of academics is presented. Trakking (talk) 20:58, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

No, (per my post which this was responding to) having to search Misplaced Pages for a sentence that you would agree matches all four of those criteria as worded by you in order to include a straightforward listing of his areas of study is not a normal thing we do for academics on Misplaced Pages. North8000 (talk) 14:26, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Broad set of proposed deletions

This discussion is about a broad set of deletions included in Newimpartial's initial large deletion, and then subsequent re-deletions of the same broad range of things. It covers a wide range of things. Fields of study, fields of research, description of his paper publishings, description of how many times he has been cited and the sources for those areas. We'll never get anywhere by treating this wide range of potential deletions as a monolithic "disputed paragraph". There's probably nobody who is strongly for or strongly against every single thing in that big diverse bundle. We really need to be more specific. North8000 (talk) 16:40, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

What are you talking about? It's about that one paragraph you keep reinserting over multiple objections. Simonm223 (talk) 16:43, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, my own view is that a shorter paragraph could, and probably should, be added based on independent secondary sources that mention the areas where he has been published/fields of research. Peer-reviewed HQRS would be best for this, but other independent RS can be considered. In the biographical article of a controversial academic, primary and COI sources should not be used for unattributed statements IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 17:57, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Well, to start dealing with specifics, here are areas covered in that bundle:

1. Areas of study
2. Areas of research
3. Overview of number of published papers
4. Statement about the number of times that he has been cited

North8000 (talk) 23:14, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Any of those topics are fine by me, though I would want to see them cited to reliable secondary sources and some showing that they're WP:DUE (which are obviously entangled inquiries!). Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:24, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

This entire discussion has been that these claims are inappropriately sourced and absent relevant context. Simonm223 (talk) 12:11, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

IMO fields of research is probably a subset of fields of study and so it would probably be best to separate those. A safe start would be to remove "research" from that sentence. And step 2 would be describing areas of research. North8000 (talk) 14:30, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Again, with all due respect, this is entirely unresponsive to the concerns raised. There are many valid ways to structure the content so long as it is validly sourced and due for inclusion. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:38, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Exactly. The structure of the paragraph is not the principal concern - I provided some secondary sources yesterday mostly around Peterson's activities surrounding the topic of postmodernism. Have you got any secondary sources that are more reliable than a Jan 6 conspirator-run alt-right book review site? Simonm223 (talk) 14:47, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I know that some folks would rather that we not write about books that he has written, published papers he has written, what his fields of study are, what his fields of research are, and how many times his works have been cited. I don't think that those folks would be happy with any outcome that covered this these things. And advocate a tougher standard than is normal for including this type of academic information. IMO stated concerns are that this "tougher than normal" criteria has not been met......one can simply disagree with the "tougher than normal" criteria. North8000 (talk) 14:54, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Ok this is approaching disruptive at this point. Yesterday, before you started this sub-topic that tried to suggest a dispute about one paragraph was far grander than a dispute about one paragraph, I asked you to demonstrate with evidence that the paragraph was, in fact, normal. You refused, saying ) having to search Misplaced Pages for a sentence that you would agree matches all four of those criteria as worded by you in order to include a straightforward listing of his areas of study is not a normal thing we do for academics on Misplaced Pages. Since I have reviewed several famous and influential academics and literally none of the ones I have reviewed had any paragraph like this one I am contending this paragraph is not, in fact, normal at all. So please stop dithering and present some actual reliable secondary sources. Not, as Trakking alluded a vague handwave in the direction of Google Scholar. Clearly I visited that page for some of the secondary sources I provided yesterday. Find. Appropriate. Specific. Sources. Simonm223 (talk) 14:59, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the scope of the proposed removals, I listed the 4 areas of statements included in that bundle. I am disagreeing with applying the "tougher than normal" criteria, and you are asking questions which pre-suppose applying that criteria. Your previous question as asking me to go though an impossible-to-meet Simonm223-defined gauntlet with the implied premise that that be a requirement for covering his fields of study. I have decided not to step into either of those, and quit the crap of calling that approaching "disruptive" . North8000 (talk) 15:41, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

The criteria would not be impossible to meet if the paragraph were anything even approaching a standard for academics on Misplaced Pages. This is obviously not the case. Simonm223 (talk) 17:09, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

The one concern that I described so far and proposed set of changes to fix it is that fields of study and fields of research are bundled into the same list. This does not give clarity on which are fields of study and which are fields of research. North8000 (talk) 15:44, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks to this discussion I have read a fair number of academic biographies on-wiki, and I don't recall seeing any significant number that describe "fields of study" for academics that are not also fields of their research or publications. Unless we have good secondary sources describing Peterson's "fields of study" outside of his publications or YouTube videos, I suggest that we follow the more general practice and leave them out. Newimpartial (talk) 16:05, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

The bundle in question is a brief high level summary of the four areas that I listed. Looking at what is useful for the article (using the numbers from my breakdown above), perhaps attempting this for #1 and #2 in the body of the article is less useful, particularly since it currently bundles study and research and thus doesn't provide info on which is which. IMO an overview of the number of publications is useful and appropriate info and pretty straight forward factual, neutral info. IMO the "cited" overview would need more particulars to be really useful info for a typical reader. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:24, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

• I've been busy IRL but wanted to add my view here. I think number of publications and general areas of research (or topics or similar) make sense. They are frequently included in the sort of bios that are given when introducing a speaker before a guest lecture or similar. They aren't meant to endorse the work product but they are the sort of background that's of general topic interest. The paragraph in question should be improved but the bar for such basic claims should be little more than the material is sourced to a 3rd party. When it's time to evaluate the quality of the work or it's impact, then we need a higher standard. Springee (talk) 15:52, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

  We are not doing a guest lecturer bio. We're doing an encyclopedia entry. So no. Primary sources remain insufficient. Honestly I don't know why there's so much resistance to using secondary sources here. Simonm223 (talk) 16:31, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

  Such bios give an example of what is expected. You are correct in so much as the encyclopedia entry should cover more than just that boiler plate content. Also, I've suggested secondary sources that cover much of the material in question. Springee (talk) 17:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

  With all due respect to all involved, I don't think this sort of jousting in the abstract is particularly helpful. We really need a proposed text (whether a paragraph or even a sentence or two) in order to move forward. But I'm just some guy on the internet, so take that for what it is worth! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:22, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

  The Claremont Institute isn't really a reliable source in this context, is it? For a biography of a contraverial figure, I think we have to do better than a right-wing think tank as a source, especally when tone and WP:DUE are at issue. Perhaps you have suggested another secondary source, but I can't seem to locate where you might have done so. Newimpartial (talk) 19:59, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

  It's perfectly fine in this context. Remember, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Misplaced Pages article and is an appropriate source for that content." Remember, we are talking about boiler plate sort of facts. We aren't making claims about his qualities as an academic nor his impact in his field of research. We accept many left wing activists sources for contentious claims. Why is this source unacceptable for very benign claims? Springee (talk) 23:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

  To answer your question, any statement that a controversial academic is a specialist in X field should never be cited to a highly partisan source. If it were truly uncontroversial, boilerplate information, better sources should be available. Newimpartial (talk) 23:18, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

  Why wouldn't that same reasoning apply to material from a source like Pink News? Beyond that, no, per BIASED we can use biased sources so long as the claims taken from those sources aren't affected by the bias. Do you really think CRB is going to say he researched in area X if he didn't? And no, often times this sort of back drop information isn't going to be covered by sources like VOX but they are of interest to some readers. That is likely why this content has been in the article for several years. Springee (talk) 23:38, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

  To answer your question I wouldn't cite a left-wing publication (like, say, an anarchist collective) for the fields of expertise of an academic, either. And I have every reason to expect a biased source to apply a lower threshold of expertise to support a sympathetic review than I would expect them to do to accompany a hostile review: that's what biased sources consistently do.

  I also think you have to allow the possibility that the attention of editors sympathetic to Peterson's views - which were rather popular for a hot minute - might represent another reason that his "credentials" might be presented uncritically in the status quo text. I remember some editors even wanted to shoehorn in "philosopher" in the lead, based on rather dubious sources. Newimpartial (talk) 01:13, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

  The CRB is hardly the same as an anarchist collective. They are a respected, conservative institute with multiple publications. It is unreasonable to claim that their high level, basic statement as to areas of research should be treated like a partisan assessment. Again, this isn't the same as claiming Peterson is "a leader in his field" or "has shifted the topic" etc. Your second claim, "editors sympathetic" can just as quickly be reversed, "editors who don't like his POV..." Also, there are different types of credentials. I can try to use the fact that I studied economics to claim I have credentials in the field. It is correct to say I've taken advanced courses in economics while incorrect to present me as an expert in the field. We aren't claiming Peterson is an expert, only that his research has been in the following areas. Springee (talk) 04:08, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

  Hi folks. I'd like briefly add my 2 cents here.

  One thing that's easy to lose sight of in a discussion like this is: why are we editing Misplaced Pages?

  I think we'd all agree that we're editing Misplaced Pages to be of service to our readers. We want to volunteer our time to make sure that as many people in the English-speaking world as possible are well-informed.

  So, when I see a discussion about whether or not to remove a piece of sourced content (whether primary or secondary), I ask myself "is this content likely to be interesting and useful to our readers?"

  Of course, we have policies and guidelines. But I would argue that those policies and guidelines, rather than being laws, are better understood as the community's best attempts so far at describing how to achieve the goal, which is something like "create a useful and interesting encyclopedia for our readers". I think that's the spirit of WP:IAR.

  I agree with the editors who have said "there should be secondary sources". They are preferable, when available. But I do not think we should lose sight of the goal. If a primary source is the only source available to provide useful and factually uncontested information to our readers, I think it should be cited.

  With that said, if a reliable secondary source has disputed a claim that our article currently cites to a primary source, we should probably exclude the claim, unless reliable secondary sources exist to support it. Unsourced material should obviously be removed. That's my view. Cheers. Pecopteris (talk) 05:00, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

  After reading all this, I still wonder why is a defamatory comment in The Harvard Crimson being retained and protected, despite WP:BLP? Wdford (talk) 09:23, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

  This is about the 'willingness to undertake unconventional research' comment? Dumuzid (talk) 11:24, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

  Indeed. This and other statements from subjective "journalists". It seems a bit skewed to have a huge argument about demanding reliable secondary sources to describe something as innocuous as the guy's areas of research or interest etc, but to happily accept subjective low-quality sources when they are being critical of the guy. Not only a concern for WP:BLP, but also WP:NPOV. Wdford (talk) 13:39, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

  For the record, I don't think either the statement sourced to the Crimson or the preceding statement based on a PRIMARY source (about alcohol and aggression) should be in the article, primarily on sourcing grounds. The idea held by some editors, that there is a lower sourcing standard to say nice things about BLP subjects then there is for things that are less nice, is not backed up by a plain reading of WP:BLP, IMO. Potentially defamatory material is in a different category, but that isn't what we're talking about here - we are discussing more or less flattering comments about Peterson's work. Newimpartial (talk) 14:06, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, this is my thought too. Perfectly fair to challenge the sourcing there, but to see a benign quote from a fawning article as defamatory is a bit strange. Dumuzid (talk) 18:54, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think the question is "nice things" was the issue but I will come back to that. No, the issue is boiler plate things (taught the following classes, published X number of papers) vs subjective or interpretive claims. RS is clear that the quality of the sourcing varies with the nature of the claim. We don't need a strong source to say "Ms Patel went to school in France". As for "nice" this ARBCOM case makes it clear that BLP should be careful about negative content. "In cases where the appropriateness of material regarding a living person is questioned, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm."". That means we should be less willing to accept negative vs positive material given equal sourcing. Again, that isn't the case here. Springee (talk) 22:53, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

  I disagree with Springee's interpretation of Arbcom's statement, an interpretatuon that amounts to applying a lower threshold for the inclusion of nice things than to less nice things. If the forms of harm that are meant were to include the consideration, "would the content make the BLP subject and their fans feel sad?" - well, that would be a straight-out WP:NPOV violation.

  I credit Arbcom with more wisdom than that interpretation allows - I think they meant actual harm, including harm related to libel and slander, harm from impacts to privacy, and risks to personal safety for example. Deciding to "Do no harm" in this context does not mandate the equivalent of including positive ratemyprofessor reviews while excluding bad (though non-slanderous) ones, which is essentially what Springee is proposing.

  And as far as boilerplate goes, I don't think what courses a professor has taught is typically considered encyclopaedic information - sure it is in cases like G. W. F. Hegel, lecture notes from whose courses had an impact on intellectual history, but that is an extreme edge case. Most academic biographies onwiki do not actually include this information, presumably because it is "kruft". Newimpartial (talk) 23:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

  You are welcome to disagree but the ARBCOM case clearly said, when dealing with BLP material we need to err on the side of do no harm. That certainly doesn't mean don't say bad things that are reliably sourced and factual. Rather it means we need to be more careful when the content is negative. But, as I already said, that is not what is at issue here. I think Pecopteris's comment really gets to the point. Readers may be interested in this sort of content. Per wp:V, no one is claiming the sources can't be trusted. I recall a similar case a while back where editors were getting upset that articles on cars might contain specs like gear ratios and transmission options. Yeah, to many readers that's not interesting information. However, it is interesting to some readers and keeping it in the article causes no harm. That is similar to what we have here. Springee (talk) 01:26, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. If the consensus is that The Harvard Crimson is a reliable source, then we should avoid cherry-picking, and we should reword that sentence properly and neutrally, to read as follows: “An article published in The Harvard Crimson said Peterson developed “a reputation for being an engaging and enthusiastic teacher,” that he was "the perfect thesis advisor," and that his “wide breadth of knowledge allows him to create "beautiful" theories linking together ideas from mythology, religion, philosophy and psychology.”” Why select only the sentences which use the words “unconventional” or “cult following”, and ignore the context? If we are going to include subjective journalism, then surely balance and context are extra important? Or not? Wdford (talk) 22:16, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I have thought neither long nor hard about the reliability of the Crimson, but my gut reaction would be to simply not use it as a source. Happy to go wherever consensus leads, however. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:29, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I would agree. That would be a good start. Then we also need to clean up all the other subjective journalism, and ensure neutrality and balance. Meanwhile, a start must be made. Wdford (talk) 08:11, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

With all due respect, subjectivity is not a problem for sources, assuming they are both reliable and WP:DUE. Per WP:NPOV, we should be as neutral as the reliable sources are. Just an idle thought from me! Happy Friday to all. Dumuzid (talk) 13:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I'd advise we WP:TNT the whole crimson paragraph, it's a mess. Allan Nonymous (talk) 14:58, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Agree with that suggestion by Allan Nonymous. Delete everything after “arising from drug and alcohol abuse”. Stick to the facts, and exclude subjective opinions.

Is a non-neutral source still a reliable source? If reporting objective facts, then obviously yes. If giving a personal opinion, then probably no. Was Donald Trump born in New York? Yes, regardless of who is writing the report. Is Donald Trump a great person? Well that depends very much on who is writing the report. It is interesting that the article on Donald Trump, which is very much larger than this article, and which describes a much more polarizing person, contains fewer examples of subjective journalism. That article is critical of Trump, but it reports all his many flaws and mistakes in a neutral, encyclopedic manner and tone. Why can we not apply the same level of quality here?

For example, there is a lot of subjective journalism in the “Views” subsection. Among other things, in the “Religion” sub-subsection, some editor has seen fit to include the following paragraphs:

• “Writing for The Spectator, Tim Lott said Peterson draws inspiration from the Jungian interpretation of religion and holds views similar to the Christian existentialism of Søren Kierkegaard and Paul Tillich. Lott also said that Peterson has respect for Taoism, as it views nature as a struggle between order and chaos and posits life would be meaningless without this duality. He has also expressed his admiration for some of the teachings of the Eastern Orthodox Church.”
• “Writing in Psychoanalysis, Politics and the Postmodern University, Daniel Burston argues that Peterson's views on religion reflect a preoccupation with what Tillich calls the vertical or transcendent dimension of religious experience but demonstrate little or no familiarity with (or sympathy for) what Tillich termed the horizontal dimension of faith, which demands social justice in the tradition of the biblical prophets.”

Is this WP:DUE? Is it relevant? Is this even about Petersen, or is it the subjective interpretations of arbitrary commentators? All that Petersen actually said on the subject of religion, is that he is a Chistian but does not believe in God. The rest is BS. Bring lots of TNT please. Wdford (talk) 15:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I will just make a couple of brief obvservations: (1) please see WP:BIASED; and (2) objectivity is often in the eye of the beholder. That being said, make any proposals you like and we'll see if consensus can be reached. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:52, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Agreed with Dumuzid. I am aware of the general rules of WP:BIASED, although in this context we need to consider also the specific rules of WP:BLP, which specifically says “Instead use clear, direct language and let facts alone do the talking.” That is what I am proposing that we do for this article too. If we include a few selected in-text-attributed personal views, we will run into problems with balance - which is a BLP issue, and which I believe has happened here already. Rather than a subjective quote-fest, let's just use actual facts. If they could do it in the Donald Trump article, why not do it here as well?

Regarding your invitation to make specific proposals, to start out I already included three proposals in my post above – delete the bulk of the Harvard Crimson paragraph in the "Career" sub-section as described, and entirely delete the two paragraphs in the “Religion” sub-subsection, reporting the views of Tim Lott and Daniel Burston. That's a good start. Wdford (talk) 17:01, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I have already said that I support the removal of the primary sourced statement about the alcohol and violence topic as well as the comments sourced to the Crimson - I don't think either mention belongs in an encyclopaedia.

However, I disagree with the proposal of the material sourced to Burton - this a WP:HQRS academic monograph, one of the best sources hsed in the article, and the current article content is attributed currently to the author. Analysis by HQRS is part of the facts on which an encyclopaediac biographical entry should be built - it is misleading to regard such informed commentary as personal opinion, IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 18:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, as such primary sources and kruft should be removed or replaced per Simonm223's original edit. DN (talk) 06:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

For the sake of the folks that are not as thoroughly deep in on this, maybe we could could start with a small scale specifically defined proposal. North8000 (talk) 17:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I am happy to keep both Burston and Lott in the sub-section on "Academia and political correctness". However this entry in the “Religion” sub-subsection, presenting their own opinions about Petersen's perceived similarity to the theories of Tillich and Jung, is not relevant to an article about Petersen. It is as relevant as having a paragraph in the Donald Trump article where an uninvolved professor of English Literature gives their own personal comparison between Trump's speeches and the soliloquies of Hamlet. Wdford (talk) 11:01, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

I have no strong feeling either way on this but playing devil's advocate just to sort this out....could you not say that this is giving an informative (secondary source) expert description of Peterson's views on religion? North8000 (talk) 13:28, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

I absolutely agree this is a relevant secondary source. Peterson has obviously made religion a notable part of his studies and public persona. Saying religious context is not applicable to the author of Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief strikes me as not particularly compelling, but reasonable minds may certainly differ. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 13:47, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

My point is, did Petersen actually say that this is his religious stance, or is an outside stranger inferring things? I am not a Petersen expert, but does JP actually talk about the theories of Jung and Tillich, or not? Are these actually Peterson's own views on religion? If Donald Trump repeatedly references Hamlet - or Shakespeare - then its a very valid point to make. However if Trump thinks that Hamlet is a deli sandwich, then including a discussion on Shakespeare in the Trump article would be a stretch. If Petersen actually discusses these particular theories, then the article should say so clearly. Did JP actually say that this is actually his stance? Wdford (talk) 18:35, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

With all due respect, it doesn't matter. Experts are allowed to take a look at his work and say "this belongs in tradition X." We certainly shouldn't imply that Peterson has endorsed these views, but it's perfectly reasonable to quote secondary sources this way. Preferable, in fact. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:49, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Again, I don't have much of an opinion either way but to help discuss this. Could those not be terms that an expert uses to describe the nature of Peterson's views? Like saying that someone has Reagan type conservative views or a Friedman type view on economics? North8000 (talk) 20:15, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

"I am not a Petersen expert, but does JP actually talk about the theories of Jung?"

Yes. A lot. Like, a lot. If you don't understand Jung, you cannot understand Peterson, especially Maps of Meaning. If a secondary source has mentioned this, it should absolutely be included in the article. Knowing about Peterson's intense interest in Jung is key to understanding his thought. Pecopteris (talk) 21:15, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Lead Summary

Newimpartial this is not a WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY issue. I left in mention of his illness, so it was still there, and that guideline is largely about not having novel information in the lead. The reason I removed it is because it is an atrociously bad summary of the main. What you have put back tells us that he had benzodiazepine withdrawal syndrome. It notably doesn't explain what he took benzodiazepine for, nor what that involved. It wikilinks to a page that also doesn't tell us what benzodiazepine is used for, and you have to click benzodiazepine on the linked page to find that out. Which you might argue is fine... someone can find the info if they want. And, indeed, they could find more information by scrolling down this page. But that is the problem. The lead is not a summary at all, if a reader can only understand it by clicking multiple wikilinks or scrolling down the page to fill in the blanks. This does not meet WP:LEAD. Please either put my edit back or rewrite the lead as an actual short and self contained summary. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:13, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I have rewritten the medical passages in the lead and in the body, based on the CBC source, to address this concern. I removed the ABOUTSELF dosage details in the body as being less relevant to readers than why the medication was prescribed. Newimpartial (talk) 23:45, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, that is clearer. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:27, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Reverting

Posting this here because Trakking appears to have an issue with the changes I made. He's free to revert specific ones or make changes, but i'm going to need to see policy based arguments as to why you reverted the section about the Newman interview? Given that's what the source says. The source does not say that she was criticized by youtube commenters and journalists for her 'performance'. That is a gross misrepresentation of the source and inconsistent in every way with Misplaced Pages's core policies. Chuckstablers (talk) 15:37, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Your edits violated many of Misplaced Pages's fundamental guidelines:

• WP:CON: There has been a consensus in Talk for including information such as the citation count.
• WP:VANDAL: Addition of incomplete sentences such as "He has been criticized" and "He has" in the middle of nowhere is pure vandalism.
• MOS:CLAIM: Changing neutral words like "attribute" and "argue" to "claim" and "assert" is not acceptable. (Changing different neutral verbs to a repetitive "said" is also against this rule.)
• WP:DISRUPTIVE: Removing authoritative sources such as Peterson's reference to Fred Singer is disruptive editing that has no place in an encyclopedia.
• WP:MOS: Your edits are full of typos such as "condemneds" and "teach in" (missing a hyphen), violating the fundamental principle of writing correctly.
• WP:NPOV: You accused Peterson of making "broad generalizations" etc. which is non-neutral wording.
• WP:WQ: Removing sourced information and writing "who cares" is showing a lack of etiquette.
• WP:RS: Propagandistic and ideological sources such as Jacobin are not considered reliable sources.

But don't worry, other people will revert your vandalism and disruptive edits. My reversion has already received thanks from other people as well. I would be surprised if you received consensus for even a single one of your edits. Trakking (talk) 16:23, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Not to nitpick, but per WP:RSP, Jacobin is actually considered a reliable, though biased, source. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: I see that you have already begun the tedious work of cleaning up this disruptive mess. I have never seen a user commit so many violations at one time. We ought to revert back to status quo and let that user seek consensus for any additional edits.

@Dumuzid: Thanks for the information, but the Jacobin source was used to claim that Peterson is a "member of the far-right". It was just ideological propaganda and nothing else. That edit has already been reverted, by the way. Trakking (talk) 16:41, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

It's the old "lots of edits where some look constructive and some don't" conundrum. Hard to say what the best procedure is. Some of the edits look good to me, so I just fixed what I saw as the most problematic of the edits (the fragment and the "member of the far-right" claim per my edit summary). I'm inclined to think cleanup is preferable to just a full-undo in this case, but it's complicated. Regardless, I don't think characterizing obvious mistakes as vandalism is helpful. Ditto characterizing removing reliable sources as disruptive -- just because a reliable source exists doesn't mean it has to be included after all (WP:ONUS and whatnot). — Rhododendrites \\ 16:50, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Rhododendrites, I think you have the right approach. The constructive stuff will find its way back in. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:59, 21 July 2024 (UTC)e

To be clear, I am not vouching for the edit, merely wanted to clear up an apparent mix up. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:58, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Trakking; Jacobin is on the reliable source list. It isn't ideological propaganda; that's false. It's the statement made by a reliable source that he is a member of the far right. I'm fine with it being removed if you feel it's not due, but I'd like to see an argument for it in the future? Thanks. Chuckstablers (talk) 19:27, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

There's a long range of counter-arguments throughout the article:

• Peterson identifies as a classical liberal—a centrist position.
• Peterson has stated that he is usually mistaken as right-wing, supporting some policies that are usually considered left-wing.
• Commentators such as Cathy Young have denounced the accusation of far-right as unsubstantiated.
• Peterson is equally critical of identity politics of the left and right.
• Many of Peterson's associates are centrists or centre-leftists—Joe Rogan, Bret Weinstein, Russell Brand etc.

Trakking (talk) 19:52, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

That isn't a policy based argument. We use reliable sources. A reliable source calls him a member of the far right. Your original research on his positions do not cancel that out. You would need a reliable source SPECIFICALLY saying that he is not a member of the far right. Do you have one? Chuckstablers (talk) 19:57, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

No, the burden of proof lies on the part making a claim. You have only found ONE source in support of your claim—a source identified by Misplaced Pages as "biased" and therefore problematic. Meanwhile a range of commentators have refuted this accusation. Trakking (talk) 20:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Trakking, could you let me know where the consensus in Talk for including information such as the citation count might be found? The information presented here does not correspond to what I see included in other BLPs. Newimpartial (talk) 17:08, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Newimpartial, someone removed the citation count earlier but were reverted because they did not receive consensus for that edit in Talk. Trakking (talk) 17:14, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

OK, but could you point me to the relevant discussion on Talk? If there wasn't one, then I think it's safe to say the content in question no longer has WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS (if at least three editors have objected). It may of course have explicit Talk page consensus - which is what I'd like to find out. Newimpartial (talk) 17:27, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

We're including citations to his books. That's my issue. I'm fine having it there if we're only including citations to his actual academic articles. Chuckstablers (talk) 19:29, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:CON: Where is the consensus? They're not indefinite.

WP: VANDALISM: Which were fixed by the time I was done.

WP:MOS: teach-in is a term. It's used in the source.... It's a word referring to a sit in on a campus where people come to teach others. In this case it was a teach-in held by a hundred trans and non binary students on campus. That's not a protest. They are different words referring to different things.

WP:NPOV: That was what the source said. The source used those words exactly. But I've since changed it to now make it clear who exactly is saying those words.

WP:WQ: Yes, I removed content that I felt was given undue weight. I think the only real significant section I REMOVED instead of rewrote/replaced was his economic beliefs section, given that it was two sentences sourced I believe to a youtube video of his? Don't really see an issue with that. If you have some argument as to why this is WP:WQ

WP:RS: Jacobin is a reliable source according to the perennial source list.

Your comment that "But don't worry, other people will revert your vandalism and disruptive edits. My reversion has already received thanks from other people as well..." is needlessly inflammatory and inconsistent with a constructive editing environment. Please reassess your approach. I'm open to people changing it (I've already cleaned it up to a large extent) and to policy based arguments. Cheers. Chuckstablers (talk) 19:53, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Reversion of vandalism and restoration of status quo

Yesterday this article was under assault by some new user making a thousand edits that were disruptive and destructive. The user removed large parts of information without explanation, they cluttered the article with typos and grammatical errors, they tried to add extremely ideological language to the very first line of the article referencing a source identified as biased by Misplaced Pages guidelines, and they violated all sorts of rules such as MOS:CLAIM. They did not receive any explicit support in Talk for any specific edit either. It was just pure vandalism and disruptive editing. If that user wants to make any drastic change to the article, they must argue for it here and seek consensus. We have had major debates about minor edits in the past—some random new user is not allowed to turn the entire article upside down without discussion. Usually there are many different users reverting this sort of vandalism on this article, but Misplaced Pages is rather dormant during summer and some of them might not be back until a short while, so I decided to take action. Trakking (talk) 09:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I support your revert. And I agree with your suggestion that if User:Chuckstablers wants to make those significant changes, he must come to the talk page first. Masterhatch (talk) 09:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Trakking, you've just violated the great big arbitration remedy at the top of this page. You should self-rv before someone opens an WP:AE. Repeatedly characterizing someone else's edits in extreme and misleading ways (saying chuckstablers did so "without explanation" when there are lengthy edit summaries in nearly every edit, for example, or calling it vandalism or disruption) is not great either in a contentious topic. There are problems introduced in the recent edits, but there are also improvements, and people have been saying for some time that this page needs some trimming/rewriting. It's not clear to me which version has fewer problems. — Rhododendrites \\ 11:49, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

According to Misplaced Pages policy, one is allowed to revert more than once in instances of vandalism. How is it not vandalism to make vast unexplained removals, rampant grammatical errors, blatant policy violations, extreme ideological accusations such as calling Peterson a fascist in the introduction, and avoiding to reach any form of consensus in Talk? Every time someone else has made this sort of edits they have been reverted immediately. I’ll self-revert just in case all of that madness does not count as vandalism, but @Masterhatch is free to revert my reversion. Trakking (talk) 12:19, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOTVAND (also pinging someone to make an edit on your behalf after you've passed the 1RR threshold is not great, either). — Rhododendrites \\ 13:41, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Rhododendrites, could you please show me a single improvement made by that user? There have been serious attempts by other editors to improve the article quite recently, but I don’t see any signs of it in this particular instance. Trakking (talk) 12:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't know, let's just look at the first big edit here. We had a paragraph that used an op-ed rather than a reliable source to set the tone (that "Newman's performance was criticized") and downplayed the abuse which was central to that story when in fact the sources are pretty clear that the abuse is one of the major pieces of the story. So yes, that one was an improvement. — Rhododendrites \\ 13:41, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Great, so there’s one arguably relevant thing out of hundreds of disruptive edits. Still, the sensible thing is to roll back the onslaught and discuss any possible changes in order to reach a consensus. The latest move that user pulled was to clutter the lede with a bunch of ”citation needed” templates even though this violates the recommendations at Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Lead section#Citations. This combined with frequent violations of MOS:CLAIM and other rules indicates that they don’t understand the basic rules of editing. Trakking (talk) 14:13, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Can we just stop with the WP:BATTLEGROUND characterizations here? Still mischaracterizing the edits as "disruptive" when it's obviously not WP:DE (like repeatedly calling them vandalism, when they're obviously not). It's not an onslaught -- it's editing, some of which was sorely needed. I clicked the very first big edit and it was constructive. And it just took me about 10 seconds to fix those cn tags just now -- probably less time than it did to complain about them here. In the sum of the edits I see a few MOS:SAID issues, but also several fixes of MOS:SAID issues. — Rhododendrites \\ 14:47, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. Please read MOS:SAID more carefully though. The first sentence states that ”repeated use of said is considered tedious, and writers are encouraged to employ synonyms.” Not only did the user violate the MOS:CLAIM rule by changing a bunch of neutral verbs to claim and assert, they changed a bunch of neutral verbs to a repetitive said, which is also against the recommendations. Trakking (talk) 15:03, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

You have misread MOS:SAID. In some types of writing, repeated use of said is considered tedious, and writers are encouraged to employ synonyms. On Misplaced Pages, it is more important to avoid language that makes undue implications.. — Rhododendrites \\ 15:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Trakking -- very much with Rhododendrites here. Vandalism is not synonymous with "not an improvement" and certainly not with "changes with which I disagree." Good faith editors will often have different viewpoints and different visions of how an article should look. That's a feature, not a bug. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:21, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

The Manual of Style also states: ”In order to avoid the twin pitfalls of biased wording and tedious repetition of ’he said ... she said ...’, consider rewriting the prose to remove the need for such verbs in the first place.” Cluttering the article with ”He said” sentences is not an improvement. Trakking (talk) 15:33, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Here are some concerns I see with the current state of the article:

1. "Conservative views on cultural and political issues" in the lead seems to simply fail verification and should be removed.
2. I can't find any source saying he recieved two bachelors degrees; this too seems to fail verification by current sourcing.
3. Do we normally note that a published book didn't make the NYT bestseller list? That reads pretty POV to me.
4. Nosheen Iqbal's statement that he denied the pay gap is verifiably false. I understand that this is attributed, and maybe that makes it worthy of inclusion. But it's a really bothersome take given that it's straighforwardly, factually false.
5. Why are we removing the statement that there was violence at some of the protests of Peterson?
6. "Climate change denier" fails verification in the provided sources.

Shinealittlelight (talk) 16:08, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I believe that #1 is covered sufficiently, if not in the lede then later in the article. It should be easy for us to find a source for such a basic piece of information as #2. However, #3–6 are all new disruptive edits that ought to be reverted. Good job at pointing out these errors.

Once again, it would be easier just to revert back to status quo and readd separately whatever possible improvement was made in that vast amount of edits. Otherwise we are just leaving dirty job for other editors to clean up later. Trakking (talk) 17:00, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

These issues are all being addressed appropriately by incremental editing, IMO.

As far as I can tell, the status quo version to which Trakking refers contained many, many passages that lacked either implicit or explicit consensus - many editors objected to these passages and elements.

Let's continue to fix issues as they are identified, through the editing process and discussion here on Talk. Let's not revert to a version that was never particularly good, just because it existed at a certain point in time. Newimpartial (talk) 17:06, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

"Conservative views on cultural and political issues" seems to me like an significant oversimplification of the views for which he has attracted attention, and if it can't be sourced with that langauge, I would suggest removal. Can you point out sourcing for 1 or 2? I can't find sourcing for either one, but I haven't looked that hard. Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:07, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

It's sourced. His biggest claim to fame was refusing to call trans students by their preferred pronouns. That is generally associated as a conservative view these days. Again; I'm going by RS's. If we have like a policy based concern about using RS's in this case then I'm open to it?

It certainly is true that back in 2016-2018 there was a lot of pushback against calling his views conservative, but that's not the case anymore. He's very clearly identified as a conservative figure by reliable sources after 2020-2021 when he really went downhill. Chuckstablers (talk) 20:31, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Trakking; this very clearly isn't disruptive or vandalism. You've been told this mutliple times now. Please see the vandalism policy: "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism.".

Please specifically address what passages or additions or removals have been made that you feel are vandalism if you're going to keep claiming it, otherwise it needs to stop. Chuckstablers (talk) 20:37, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) - replying to Shinealittlelight's initial list. Some reasonable points here. Made some edits and responding to a couple below:

1. "conservative views" doesn't fail verification. Frankly, we should just get rid of the citations in the lead because anything it contains should be well-sourced in the body (as this one is).
2. two bachelor's degrees is, again, sourced in the body e.g.. No objection to removing it from the lead for other reasons, though.
3. No, that's a weird thing. Fixed.
4. Included a quote from the interview (quoted in The Guardian) and tried to summarize/fix issues with the rest, including that she received criticism for mischaracterizations.
5. Haven't looked at this one.
6. There are a lot of sources for climate. For example, there was a CCDH report which named Peterson as one of the chief figures of "New Denial" (a new approach to climate change denial which uses different strategies than the "Old Denial"). report, and reported in the verge, newsweek, bloomberg, etc. Not sure what the best approach to the article is, though, and that's probably all the time I have for edits today. — Rhododendrites \\ 17:12, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for fixes on 3 and 4. On 1, can someone just provide a source? I don't see it sourced in such simplistic terms, and frankly I doubt a high quality source can be found that characterizes his views so simplistically. I missed that source on two degrees, sorry about that. On "denier" none of the sources you provide is straightforward for that claim. We need it explicitly in the source for inclusion in a BLP since it's a fairly incendiary claim. "New Deniers" is some kind of weird technical term in that report, for example. Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:25, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I support purging the lede of sources as per the rationale given by Rhododendrites. It does not make sense that the first section of the lede includes 9 sources while the other sections include none. Trakking (talk) 17:30, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Go for it then! I'm fine with rational changes being made if there's an error :) Chuckstablers (talk) 20:33, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Though you might want to wait at this point for more input? What I'm gathering is that as long as the sources appear in the body it's fine, but just make sure that they do first I suppose. Chuckstablers (talk) 20:42, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

The lead should be a summary of what is in the article. We should make sure that whatever is in the lead is in the article, and the same for the sources/cites. Then remove the cites from the lead. North8000 (talk) 18:52, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I can add more reliable sources identifying him as a conservative if you would like? Chuckstablers (talk) 00:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

@Chuckstablers: I'm not questioning that sources widely portray him as a conservative. I'm questioning the verification of the claim He began to receive widespread attention in the late 2010s for his conservative views on cultural and political issues. This is a much more specific claim: that alleged "conservative views on cultural and political issues" are what first brought him widespread attention. I'm skeptical of that, and I don't see it in any source so far. Can you provide a source for this specific claim? Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying, I get the concern now. Feel free to remove that, I'll add it again if I find an RS specifically supporting that statement as a whole. Chuckstablers (talk) 02:07, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

@Shinealittlelight Removed it myself (agree it's weak for that statement). Chuckstablers (talk) 02:10, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Of the zillions of sources out there I sure that someone could find some that call him whatever one is looking for. Conservative has different common meanings in the US vs. Europe. Both the closest match to his ideas and his self identification is what would be called a classical liberal in the US and a liberal in Europe. Some of the positions he has taken on some of the US culture war issues are the same as those of conservatives, but that's just those. North8000 (talk) 02:24, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

1.) "Of the zillions of sources out there I sure that someone could find some that call him whatever one is looking for." I would disagree. I've searched and have yet to find an RS calling him a socialist or left-wing or liberal. I've found a couple from 2017-2018 where he SAYS he is a "classical liberal". I've found a LOT that use the epiphet "conservative" or "right-wing" or more weakly, frame him with the alt-right.

2.) "Conservative has different common meanings in the US vs. Europe." That's correct to an extent, there are obviously differences but they're not THAT different. There are shared features of conservatism that are conserved in the western world and to a lesser extent the entire world. I'm not seeing the relevance though?

3.) " Both the closest match to his ideas and his self identification is what would be called a classical liberal in the US and a liberal in Europe." You would need a reliable source calling him a classical liberal, identifying him and his beliefs as most consistent with that ideology. As it stands that's your opinion (which is fine, but it's not a basis for anything that can go into the article).

Ultimately we should only really concern ourselves with what actual RS's say and the arguments made within. That's why I removed the conservative epiphet I added previously from the start of the lead; because it was pointed out to me that the sources didn't directly support what was being said (that it was his conservative views that brought him to fame, not just his views). Otherwise we end up with heavily editorialized content with a LOT of synth like a decent chunk of the views section (see below for an example).

One segment of the views section read that Peterson was "heavily involved in THE public debate around cultural appropriation", or "featured prominently in" or something like that, when the source doesn't say that. The source was an interview he did with the Toronto Sun about a journalist who got demoted/punished after making a public tweet saying he'd setup a "$100 appropriation award" for the winner of a debate he arranged and held about cultural appropriation with other journalists. There was a social media backlash and public backlash which led to him being demoted at his job. It was tangentially related to cultural appropriation and Petersons responses were more about the "mob" and claims of "self-censorship" that "many journalists" he spoke to after this guy got demoted are "self censoring". Yet that was being used as a source for the claim that he was "heavily involved in THE debate about cultural appropriation", a pretty clear violation of WP:V/WP:RS (and by extension WP:BLP I suppose). Chuckstablers (talk) 03:31, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I generally agree with you overall but to respond specifically: On #1 I kept it brief and meant (just) amongst the many plausible possibilities not the extreme implausible ones. On #2, it was a general reminder that various such political labels have different meanings in the US vs. Europe and it's probably best to minimize such ambiguous over-generalizations (which context usually makes value-laden) and try to be more informative instead. #3 Just a reminder that such conversations are useful and normal on the talk page. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:29, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I think it would be pretty outrageously dumb to call the guy a "fascist" in the lead, but I looked through the article's revision history and I didn't see anything like that. Does anyone have a diff for that, or what? jp×g🗯️ 23:48, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Climate change section

@Newimpartial: I understand your desire to include a statement to the effect that Peterson denies the consensus. So here's a constructive way to do that: reinstate the edit I made (which made a ton of improvements that have nothing to do with your concern) and add a source which explicitly says that Peterson denies the scientific consensus. If you have a reliable source which says exactly that (not something different!), then I'll agree it should be included. Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:12, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I looked into this some. It seems that he is a critic of the measures being promoted more than a denier. Or "the cure being promoted is worse than the disease". For example https://www.quora.com/What-is-Dr-Jordan-B-Petersons-stance-on-climate-change-Do-you-think-he-is-qualified-to-talk-on-science-issues-and-related-topics North8000 (talk) 19:08, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

That sounds kind of right to me. Most importantly, though, I just literally don't see a source that straightforwardly calls him a "denier". Also, there were like a million other problems with that section, including a self-published source and a mis-quote, which got reinstated. Shinealittlelight (talk) 19:13, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you both that Peterson seems to be a skeptic not a denier. For many years, the section on climate change included only these three sentences:

Peterson doubts the scientific consensus on climate change. Peterson has said he is "very skeptical 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".

Yesterday some random user added a bunch of irrelevant, false, and/or biased stuff to that section. Shinealittlelight did a meticulous work of cleaning it up, but then Newimpartial reverted it with the pseudo-arguments

1) that it was "status quo"—when in fact it was merely one of many new disruptive edits, the majority of which have already been reverted or corrected by different editors; and

2) that climate change denial/skepticism is "a key part of Peterson's activism"—even though there seems to be only a handful of instances in which he exclusively deals with this topic out of hundreds of lectures, interviews, and discussions, and all of those specific videos, as far as I can tell after looking into it, have been published in the last two years, making the focus on this topic a form of WP:RECENTISM.

But more fundamentally I would ask the question—why are we even including a section on Peterson's views on climate change at all? An equivalent section about his views on Economics was removed two days ago with the justification that it was WP:UNDUE. Peterson is an authority on Psychology with extensive knowledge in Political science and a keen interest in Religion; he is a social scientist, not a natural scientist. His opinion on climate change is completely irrelevant. Trakking (talk) 21:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Seems like we have a consensus that my version was an improvement. @Trakking: would you mind reinstating my edit? I also think that mention of this section in the lead is UNDUE. We don't mention almost any of his other specific positions in the lead. Mentioning this looks pretty clearly POV. Shinealittlelight (talk) 23:33, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I also agree the reversion makes the article worse. Peterson's association with climate change is minimal at best. Springee (talk) 01:14, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

@Shinealittlelight: Yes, that sentence in the lede is a clear violation of WP:NPOV that borders on vandalism and it ought to be reverted ASAP. I have already removed it once and would like to see someone else do it. I could, however, reinstate your improved version on the climate change section after 24 hours have passed. Trakking (talk) 12:36, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't understand assertions on Talk such as Peterson's association with climate change is minimal at best or His opinion on climate change is completely irrelevant. In a cursory search I found the following:

• a chapter-length contribution to Jordan Peterson: Critical Responses (not currently cited in this section), titled Jordan Peterson on Postmodernism, Truth, and Science, discusses Peterson's "denialist message" about climate change.

• the piece from The Guardian (cited in this section) refers explicity to Peterson's "all-out attack on the science of climate change and the risks of global heating".

• the National Catholic Reporter reporting (also cited in this section) refers to "Canadian climate science denier Jordan Peterson" - so a source for the term is already used in the article.

Additionally, the current section is sourced to The Independent and CNN as well, among others. It is for RS - not Misplaced Pages editors - to evaluate whether Peterson's activism on this issue is relevant.

So no, we don't have consensus that the whitewashed, "maybe Peterson has a point" version of the Climate denial section is an improvement, much less consenus to remove the entire section. As far as the article lead is concerned, it mentions several of Peterson's controversial views and I don't see why his views on climate change should be excluded. Newimpartial (talk) 15:48, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I can understand your disagreement with some of what other editors have said. I agree that Peterson's position on climate issues deserves a sub-section. But this response does not speak to my concerns. Take for example the issue of sourcing on calling him a "denier". The Chapter you cite is not RS as far as I can tell. It appears to be published by the same press that does all those bullshit "pop culture and philosophy" books. THe piece in the Guardian does not call him a "climate change denier". The NCR piece is really a peice from DeSmog--a largely unknown source that is clearly at best a non-neutral source and would need attribution, in which case it is undue since "According to DeSmog.com..." sounds manifestly ridiculous. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:58, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

As to the reliability of the academic source I linked, it is edited by a Sandra Woien, who teaches Philosophy at Arizona State University. The chapter in question is written by Panu Raatikainen, who teaches Philosophy at Tampere University in Finland. The other chapters in the anthology are also written by scholars, so I don't see why the book wouldn't be consisered an academic source - it offers a scholarly apparatus for each chapter; it is independent and of higher quality than most sources used in this article (not simply in this section). This is not Jordan Peterson for Dummies.

As to the veracity of the "denier" label, Michael Mann, director of the Penn Center for Science, Sustainability and the Media at the University of Pennsylvania, says of Peterson, He is promoting climate change denial at a time when it is increasingly untenable. I don't see how "denier", "promotes ... denial", "denialist message" and "all-out attack on the science of climate change" are anything but a consistent depiction of Peterson's stance by RS, and I don't see any alternative view presented among reliable sources (Quora is not a reliable source). If anyone has a better formulation than "denier" - such as "promotes denial" or presenting the quote denying that the climate exists - I certainly accept that other formulations are possible. But it is clear from RS that he denies the scientific consensus about climate change, and it is clear that Misplaced Pages policy does not allow us to refer to those who do so using the fig-leaf of "skeptic".

P.S. as far as alleged "misquotes" and WP:SPS, I'd be happy to answer any questions about sources in this discussion - I can't guess from Shinealittlelight's edit summaries what the supposed issues might be. Newimpartial (talk) 17:02, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

These "X and philosophy" books published by this publisher are generally edited by and written by academics, but they're not generally regarded as academic contributions. We can discuss whether the "Jordan Peterson and Philosophy" book, or the opinion piece you linked are legit RS. The deeper point is that you reverted a ton of improvements to the section with no good reason. I suggest to address your issue about "climate change denier" that we reinstate my edit, which made a ton of improvements that you're saying you didn't read closely to even identify, and then go ahead and intoroduce a sentence calling him a climate denier with the source you're proposing. Current sourcing for that claim fails verification. We can debate your proposed sourcing. Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:09, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I think Shine's edits are an improvement. If the sources don't call Peterson a denier or if the sources that do make that claim are not accurate to Peterson's statements (or if they provide no reference for their claim) then we need to "do no harm" and not make that claim ourselves. This is a BLP thus we always err on the side of caution Springee (talk) 11:50, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

This is a blatant mischaracterization of the sources provided already, and I suspect it is willful and ideologically driven on your part since this is consistently your WP:ADVOCACY. jps (talk) 18:22, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Please AGF. If the sources don't back the claim BLP limitations clearly apply. Springee (talk) 19:20, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Abundant RS, including a published monograph and The Guardian - as well as an expert quoted in The Independent - all document Peterson's antagonism towards climate science. The "BLP" objection appears to be more WP:CRYBLP. Newimpartial (talk) 20:00, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

We've got promoted a denialist message in the volume published by the "pop culture and philosophy" press. We've got the Guardian saying saying he has engaged in an all-out attack on the science of climate change and the risks of global heating. And the Independent is just quoting "DeSmog," and I think there are better sources for Mann's view. Shinealittlelight (talk) 20:16, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Again, specific claims made by Peterson would be helpful. Someone who is concerned that politics within the community could be impacting research is not the same as saying there is no man made climate change. I do recall seeing Peterson saying something like that, that he is concerned about the process and it's politics, not that he doesn't believe in climate change or human impact on claims change. These are different things and we should get them right given the BLP issues here. Springee (talk) 20:20, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

We don't need specific claims made by the subject. If there are multiple reliable sources which speak to the subject's antagonism with climate science then we are quite entitled to cover that. TarnishedPath 23:33, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Springee and North8000 appear to be proposing that we ought to base the content of this article on editors' collective evaluation of Peterson's views, and whether editors believe RS have presented sufficient evidence to chatacterize these views as "climate change denial". I remember Springee making similar proposals (to evaluate the evidence RS invoke when they apply various terms) on other topics.

I believe these calls amount to a call for editors to base article content on their own original research; I don't believe that editing based on whether editors are collectively convinced that the sources are correct is compliant with enwiki policies and guidelines.

It seems to me that only two questions are relevant: (1) is there RS support that Peterson is engaged in promoting climate change denial?, and (2) is there RS opposition to this characterization? I believe the answers to these questions are (1) yes and (2) no, but in any case editors offering their own interptetations of Peterson's podcasts, etc., are not contributing to a resolution of these questions as policy allows - at least, not AFAICT. Newimpartial (talk) 19:08, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

You have completely mischaracterized what I wrote here to what would be an absurdity in Misplaced Pages terms. Please stop. North8000 (talk) 19:25, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

NewImpartial, I think you fail to understand OR. OR applies to the content within the article. It does not apply to discussions regarding how much weight to give claims made in various sources. Stating "Peterson is a denier" in wiki voice would mean we give primary weight to the few sources that actually make that claim vs the many other sources that either don't say that or are more nuanced in their claims even while not agreeing with Peterson. This is a question of weight and per OR, talk page discussions regarding the quality of various claims is does not violate OR and is part of establishing a consensus on weight.

Here *some* sources that say "Peterson is a denier" but other sources do not. Should we, in wiki voice, say Peterson is a denier? To decide we can look at the claims in the sources and see how that compares to what is actually said by Peterson; are the sources are being true to what was actually said by Peterson? Are the sources unbiased? These are questions to establish weight per NPOV. This really isn't anything unusual on Misplaced Pages.

tldr\ As North8000 noted, you are mischaracterizing the arguments. Springee (talk) 19:41, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

For there to be a dispute among the sources, there must be some sources that don't just use words other than "denier" - they have to actually state or present evidence that Peterson does not deny the scientific consensus on climate change. Otherwise there is no dispute among sources, no controversy. I have asked repeatedly for sources representing alternate views to be presented here on Talk, but instead all I've seen is personal interpretations of primary sources by editors. Using such approaches to make editorial decisions is exactly what WP:PRIMARY discourages.

If an editor feels that I have mischaracterized their position in this discussion, I'd be happy to retract (and strike through) my error. But for another editor to say that I fail to understand OR - that doesn't even establish that OR is something different from what I understand it to be, and it is completely tangential to the (unsupported) claim that I "mischaracterized" their views. Insisting that the sources we use "show their receipts" so editors can decide whether they are correct in their assertions - well, we are supposed to rely on RS to make determinations about source quality rather than trying to kit-bash our own evaluations, at least the way I understand it. Newimpartial (talk) 20:12, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

In reply to, "For there to be a dispute among the sources, there must be some sources that don't just use words other than "denier" ", that is incorrect. When you are trying to apply a LABEL it isn't sufficient to say "well those sources don't dispute the label". You linked to PRIMARY but I think you fail to understand the context. Look at the opening sentence to that section, "Misplaced Pages articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources, and to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. " It says the article should be based on mostly secondary sources but doesn't say primary sources can't be used and more to the point, you need to look at the opening of OR which should make it clear your interpretation is wrong, "This policy does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards." We are evaluating sources that could be used for article content. So yes, you fail to understand OR. Springee (talk) 20:31, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

While I do understand that editors are free to express their opinions on how to interptet and evaluate sources, I don't think it is correct to suggest that these editorial discussions are supposed to set aside basic principles of PRIMARY and secondary sourcing when determing article content. Two of the numbered points from WP:PRIMARY seem especially relevant in this context:

2. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation...

4. Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.

In this discussion, we are weighing the evidence to decide how this BLP article should refer to Peterson's stance on climate change. In this discussion, some editors are basing their evaluation on their own interpretation (and synthesis) of primary sources originating from Peterson, and also on their own interpretation of secondary sources (as "not presenting satisfactory evidence"). Other editors are basing their judgement on what reliable, independent, secondary sources say about Peterson, and also on what reliable, independent secondary sources say about those characterizing Peterson's position.

In line with the introducory statement Springee has quoted, there may be some room for both approaches. However, since article content is supposed to be based in the first instance on what independent, reliable sources say about a topic, I think it is clear that our P&Gs require that we prioritize secondary source perspectives over the original interpretations and opinions offered by editors. Newimpartial (talk) 19:43, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't think you understand NOR. Let's go with the extreme example, should we include a hypothetical fact reported by a RS. Our discussion regarding weight, our references to RSP etc are all OR because we don't have a source that says, "The article on X should include ".

The NOR passages you are quoting refer to article content. Can you point to any content that has been proposed for addition that would violate those rules? If so, what and how? For example, one of the big points of debate is between using the LABEL climate change denier, vs using phrasing that mirrors what sources say Peterson has said. Are either of those OR? Using primary sources/other sources to refute claims made by a secondary source is acceptable OR, in fact it's what we do all the time. For example, when editors felt The Telegraph made false claims related to trans issues, they engaged in OR to look at the claims and compare them to accusations. Are you suggesting that such work to establish if a source is reliable is not acceptable? Springee (talk) 23:35, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

To answer your initial question, competing article content is being proposed to address the issue, "how should this article describe Peterson's stance on climate change?" Editors are approaching this question in two ways: some are saying, "I have read/watched/listened to Peterson's statements on climate change, and his view is X, so this article should reflect X". Other editors are saying, "reliable sources characterize Peterson's position on climate change as A/B/C, and A/B/C are mutually-compatible characterizations, and no reliable source treats Peterson as 'not-A/B/C', and the sources saying A/B/C receive positive approval in secondary sources on them, so this article should reflect A/B/C, probably by saying A or B or C".

Now I recognize that the situation is not as simple as, the former editors are doing WP:OR and the latter editors are not. That would be an oversimplification. But I do think the former editors are basing their preferred article text on OR (their own interpretation of primary sources) and the latter editors are not (they are relying on what independent, secondary sources say). Further, I believe our sourcing policies tell us to do the latter while discouraging the former. (The way I usually express this in my edit summaries is something like, "enwiki articles are to be based on independent, secondary sources and not on the opinions of editors".) Newimpartial (talk) 00:27, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Your concern about what might be added is fair. I don't think anyone has proposed a specific addition so it might be early to say something is OR but you are correct that if we the editors consult primary sources/statements by Peterson, then include our own summation of "what he really means" then that would be OR. However, I don't think removing "is a climate change denier" and replacing it with something closer to some of the summaries of his views presented in RSs would count as OR. I agree with the IP editor who suggested we, via RS, say what Peterson said his views are/what he has said, and then follow that with the reaction to his views from his critics (who don't have to be called "critics" in the article text). Hopefully that will put your OR concerns at ease. Springee (talk) 01:55, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

You also didn't reply to the fact that you reintroduced mis-quotes and self-published sources, which is pretty disruptive in my view. Shinealittlelight (talk) 16:00, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

See above. Newimpartial (talk) 17:02, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

In conclusion, there are no authoritative sources explicitly stating that Peterson is a "denier".

After looking into this issue, I have come to the conclusion that Peterson believes that climate change is real, but that it has both positive and negative consequences on the environment. And he argues that environmental policies keeps the third world poor. And most of all, he is critical of the most fringe environmentalist activists, who explicitly say nihilistic and murderous things like "humans are a cancer on the planet" and "we need to reduce the population to 1 billion". That skepticism of extremist views is not very sensational. And he has received support from climate scientists such as Bjørn Lomborg, Alex Epstein, and Richard Lindzen.

Tricky topics such as this one ought to be presented in a nuanced and balanced way according to Misplaced Pages guidelines, but I don't see any justification for its inclusion at all. Peterson is known for his opposition to Bill C-16, his best-selling self-help books, his debate with Slavoj Žižek, his Biblical lectures, his Jungian philosophy etc.—not his views on climate change. Trakking (talk) 18:10, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Lomborg is not a climate scientist, but an economist who has no clue about climatology and talks a lot of bullshit about it. Epstein is the same, with different but also non-climate-related fields. I don't think you should talk about the subject if you cannot even get simple facts about it right. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:26, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps, but the only prominent climate scientist cited against Peterson's position is Michael E. Mann. The opposition is not very overwhelming. Trakking (talk) 18:36, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Must be a dream of yours. If you look at the article, you see lots of climate scientists saying Peterson has no clue. And of course you see lots of other clueless deiners agreeing with him. This is a mainstream encyclopedia, we prefer experts to buffoons. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:47, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

"Denier" is often used or mis-used as a vague pejorative term for people who don't deny the main tenet of climate change but who dispute other aspects such as proposed measures. Merely having someone who used the term it is not per se a reason to include it in the article. If we're going to get into that we should be more informative and specific instead. North8000 (talk) 17:42, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

He definitely seems to be "denying" the core tenets of anthropogenic climate change (eg the relationship between greenhouse gases like CO2 and the temperature), but I agree its best to be specific.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 18:08, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Exactly. It is clear he is a denier, and his layman misunderstandings of the field should not be quoted. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:26, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

What's the source which says he is a denier again? Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:31, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with DeSmog. They are specialized for that. Also, WP:SKYISBLUE: his statements are clear enough. there is no such thing as climate and the Earth's climate is too complicated to accurately model - huh, then why are the models' predictions so accurate?

Every time we have a heat record, climate change deniers get active on Misplaced Pages, trying to propagate their fringe beliefs... --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:47, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't agree. DeSmog is clearly a biased source and needs attribution. And I don't agree that this is a SKYISBLUE situation: we should follow sources because it is a BLP, and "denier" is very incendiary. I might be ok with "Mann says that Peterson has promoted climate change denial" using the "Tyee" source (never heard of it) above. But it seems obvious that we should have a clear source for such a claim as "He's a denier" in a BLP. Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:53, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

DeSmog is clearly a biased source only in the sense of WP:YWAB. See also WP:FRINGE and WP:FALSEBALANCE. In a fight between science on one side and clueless, dishonest people on the other, Misplaced Pages is on the side of science. A guy who literally denies that climate exists is a climate denier. The sky is still blue and does not need attribution. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:40, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

HG, can you provide the reference North8000 asked for? Springee (talk) 21:15, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Like it or lump it, climate change denier is the term used to describe those who claim that either global warming isn't happening, it's not being caused by humans, or it's not as bad as the climate scientists say. Jordan Peterson falls into the latter group by claiming that mitigation efforts will result in outcomes worse than the effects of climate change. They only way one can do this is to downplay the actual effects that climate scientists say global warming will have/is having. jps (talk) 17:45, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

We should follow reliable sources, which so far do not directly call him a "climate change denier". We don't just get to infer that label in a BLP. Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:48, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

We have the reliable sources. That you don't like them is immaterial. Jordan Peterson is an unapologetic climate change denier. That's clear. jps (talk) 17:52, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I have no problem including if it’s in RS. Can you provide a direct quote from RS please?Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:06, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

. "Peterson has, as a matter of fact, shown a tendency towards advocating pseudo-scientific ideas. For example, in August 2018, Peterson shared on Twitter a video titled “Climate Change: What Do Scientists Say?” with his own comment: “Something for the anticapitalist environmentalists to hate.” In the video, Richard Lindzen, a notorious climate change denialist who is known to have received money from fossil fuel interests, speaks as the only “scientist” (Herzog 2018). This is not the only time Peterson has downplayed climate change and promoted a denialist message. Peterson seems to be open to pseudo-scientific propaganda if it can be used as a weapon against “the left.”" jps (talk) 18:09, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Shinealittlelight, if you are splitting hairs between "climate change denier", Peterson's "denialist message on climate change" and his "all-out attack on the science of climate change" - I don't think there is a basis in policy to treat those as anything but synonymous statements by RS, and the sources for each of these have been linked above.

Nor has anyone presented RS evidence (since Quora isn't reliable, and neither are editors' impressions of podcasts) of any disagreement among RS as to whether Peterson denies the reality of climate change - some such disagreement would be needed for attribution to be called for in this case.

(Also, if attribution is eventually required because of sources not yet presented that dispute this characterization, Michael E. Mann is a relevant expert whose characterization of Peterson has been sought out and published in many RS, and would be DUE for an attributed statement.) Newimpartial (talk) 18:14, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Then, if we're going to cover it here, why not actually cover it here in an informative manner instead of trying to put in a one word vague epitaph?North8000 (talk) 18:20, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what? Last I saw, the opposition to identifying Peterson as a denier were interested in removing entire sentences to that effect. jps (talk) 18:25, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

My posts on this topic have all been about the vague "denier" epitaph. I'm all for more thorough informative coverage regarding this. North8000 (talk) 18:52, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

You mean epithet? How is climate change denial vague? It's extremely well-defined. We have oodles of sources on it. It's perhaps the best understood of all the anti-science positions that exist today. jps (talk) 01:01, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

The central tenet and scientific consensus regarding climate change is that the earth is warming and that a major cause of this is human activity. A climate change denier is someone who denies this. That is well defined. The ill-defined parts are when people apply it to people who don't deny that but question or dispute things that do NOT have scientific consensus. Such as projections of the severity of impact, whether or not certain promoted mitigation measures are good or bad ideas etc. North8000 (talk) 02:57, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

You just defined climate change denial. Lostsandwich (talk) 07:40, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Agree with North8000. Additionally, JPS, I don't think that volume is RS: it's published by the pop culture and philosophy people. And, in any case, if RS says "promoted a denialist message" then that's what we should say. If they're equivalent then I don't see the issue. Is there some reason you prefer your variant phrasing, Newimpartial? Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:24, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Are you fucking serious? That's the genre in which Peterson is active. Critics in pop culture and philosophy are the ones that are best equipped to identify his rhetorical style. This is just naked WP:POVPUSHing at this point. I see from your account that this is what you do consistently. Should we ask that you be topic banned? That's a way forward. jps (talk) 18:26, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I'm serious. Sorry if I upset you. My take is that "The Simpsons and Philosophy" is not a serious work, and the publisher of these kinds of volumes is on the face of it not RS. But maybe I'm wrong. Trying to follow policy here. Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:51, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

You are wrong. The Simpsons and Philosophy is not only serious, it is highly regarded. To be clear, your continued pushing in this direction is evident from this talk page to be in only one particular direction. Whether you intend it or not (and I'm bound by WP:AGF to assume you are not intending it), your advocacy is firmly planted towards denying 'climate change denial which is a big enough problem that there were two arbitrations on at Misplaced Pages. Thus, my section below. jps (talk) 18:55, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Ok, well, we have a good faith difference of opinion about whether the "pop culture and philosopy" series is a serious work of scholarship. My informal sense is that my view is widely held. But maybe others can weigh in. Shinealittlelight (talk) 19:01, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I am open to a variety of phrasing; what I am not open to is editors paring back or denying Peterson's denialism.

As far as the critical responses source is concerned, it is a chapter by an academic professional, with a scholarly appatatus, in a book edited by an academic professional. The idea that it isn't a reliable source (as opposed to a peer-reviewed scholarly source) seems highly tendentious.

This is an article where a whole disputed paragraph in the Careers section is sourced entirely to primary and non-independent, biased sources. Any of the sources we are discussing for the client change characterization are levels in source quality above those used in the paragraph in question (a paragraph that has been supported in its current form by at least two of the editors questioning the climate change sources). Newimpartial (talk) 18:47, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Well I'm not commenting on the other section you mention. I certainly agree with using independent reliable sources there too. A lot of these "pop culture and philosophy" volumes are written by professionals but have an air of whimsy and are marketed to a mass audience rather than being serious contributions to the field. It's weird that we can't find a more serious source for this if it's really DUE in the article. Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:54, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Newimpartial that Critical Responses is a RS. I trust books, especially scholarly ones, significantly more than sensational journalism, which much of this article is based on, unfortunately. However, I would like to see a verbatim citation from the book in support of the claim. Trakking (talk) 19:15, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:CHEESE. It has been given twice already. jps (talk) 19:16, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Trakking, I think the key quote is This is not the only time Peterson has downplayed climate change and promoted a denialist message. If this were RS then I would think this justifies saying he has promoted a denialist message. But I don't think it's RS. Sounds like I may be the only one who thinks that here. Shinealittlelight (talk) 19:29, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

There is a draft of what i think is the chapter in question available at PhilArchive, unable to find the published version. fiveby(zero) 23:59, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I speed watched 90 minutes at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Q2YHGIlUDk which was informative. Not denying the main tenet of climate change and on the contrary seems to accept it. Is questioning and skeptical on a wide range of related things as such as projections, promoted measures, projections of severity of impact etc. North8000 (talk) 20:11, 25 July 2024 (UTC).

This is textbook climate change denial. There is zero debate. jps (talk) 20:46, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Stating "I'm not denying that the climate changes" while denying essentially everything related to climate change is very much textbook denial. Lostsandwich (talk) 21:19, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Indeed; that's been a part of the denialist playbook for years now. XOR'easter (talk) 22:31, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Any concerns with ...climate deniers such as Judith Curry... fiveby(zero) 00:20, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

So "not denying" climate change is the sign of a climate change denier.  :-) North8000 (talk) 16:43, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

We do have an article on climate change denial if you do not understand what that encompasses. — Rhododendrites \\ 16:50, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Good article, it reinforces what I've been saying. Perhaps you should read it.  :-) North8000 (talk) 18:47, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

We really should be careful about assuming definitions. The literal meaning of "climate change denial" would be saying the climate doesn't change. The problem with using such terms is, even if the term has an understood meaning on Misplaced Pages, it may not be understood by readers who don't follow our blue links and it many not be the intended use by a source. This is why we have cautionary rules about putting links within quotes. Going back to what North8000 is saying, if someone says, "climate change is real and humans have an impact but I think politics etc..." then it seems illogical to say they are "denying" climate change. Certainly we should be careful about saying such a thing in Wiki voice. We can say RSs have said this "I believe but..." type statement is a form of climate change denial. What we should be careful about is stating that it is denial when the plain reading of the phrase "climate change denial" only implies a denial of any form of climate change. Please note that such absolutist type phrases are politically useful because they paint the "other side" in the most extreme light. As an encyclopedia we should be more concerned with the details of his views (and the details of the responses) rather than using broad, often political, labels. Springee (talk) 17:17, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

On one hand, if we're focused on what the words themselves mean absent how they're actually used, we should probably also explain that Jordan Peterson isn't actually the son of some guy named Peter (argumentum ad absurdum acknowledged). On the other hand, yes, we should be careful with labels. Nuance matters. What do you suggest? I'm going to push back on As an encyclopedia we should be more concerned with the details of his views though. Peterson is not a climate scientist, even if he speaks with confidence on the subject. An encyclopedia should be prioritizing the views of people who actually know about climate science when it comes to the claims made by influential people who are not experts in the field (but nonetheless have an influence on popular opinion/discourse). Obviously we should misrepresent Peterson's views, but that representation should be done through the lens of experts. — Rhododendrites \\ 18:16, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, after a couple hours of research, it looks like the reality is "Peterson does not deny the main premises of climate change but expresses skepticism regarding the advisability of various promoted mitigation measures, future projections of climate, and assessments of the severity of the impacts of climate change." Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:42, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Ideally we can find an objective source that did some analysis. North8000 (talk) 20:05, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Peterson is not a climate scientist, even if he speaks with confidence on the subject. I just want to point out, that the problem here isn't just the confidence, but the slick, well-produced videos that are film quality productions, combined with his snazzy dress and way of speaking. There are many people who are instantly smitten by this kind of thing, and whatever critical thinking they once had goes right out the window. I call this the optics over substance problem, and it's what the kids call rizz or charismatic authority. Peterson is intentionally manipulating his audience. Viriditas (talk) 00:02, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

The literal definition of climate change is irrelevant to the discussion, since "the climate changing" is not, and has not ever been up for debate for as long as we've known about the existence of the ice age(s) or any previous climate epochs- by that very definition nobody is a climate change denier (other than perhaps Young Earth Creationists). The concern is not, and has not ever been, in any real capacity, whether or not "the climate changes." The relevant part, the part that matters is what constitutes the real definition of "climate change".

Stating "I'm not a climate change denier, I don't deny the climate changes" is moot. It's an attempt to soften a ludicrous statement and appear reasonable. However, as I've already noted- essentially no one is a climate change denier by that metric. If you do however, deny the real working definition of the term, as it is understood by just about everybody and has been understood by just about everybody for decades, then you are in fact a "climate change denier". Lostsandwich (talk) 22:49, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Do you actually have any evidence that readers of Misplaced Pages will understand that when we say "climate change denier" that could include people who do think humans are causing climate change and even agree with big the changes are but, for example, argue that the change is something we can accept. Do you have evidence that people who are concerned that climate change research and policy may be driven by politics more than science are not going to be confused with people who say "humans have zero impact on climate"? What evidence do you have for that claim? Springee (talk) 23:25, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Peterson explicitly says he doesn't believe that science of climate change is reliable. Sources clearly reflect that. We follow sources, not personal hunches about how readers may be confused about the different flavors of climate science denial. 12.75.41.13 (talk) 23:37, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken he says he is concerned about how the science is being conducted based on perverse incentives for funding etc. That he isn't a climate change scientist doesn't mean he can't make reasonable observations about, what amounts to group behavior. As an example, one of the scholarly papers studying the Ford Pinto fires is "Pinto "Madness" as a Flawed Landmark Narrative: An Organizational and Network Analysis" by Matthew T Lee and M. David Ermann. Neither author is a engineer nor an expert in automotive design nor automotive safety. Instead, they are organizational phycologists. They look at how organizations operate. They tried to understand how and why Ford was willing and able to produce a car that gained such a horrible reputation for safety. It is worth noting that many of the decision makers, even at the VP level purchased Pintos for members of their own families. If Ford felt the car was so unsafe, why would they do that? Peterson certainly isn't a climate scientist. Peterson, right or wrong in detail, seems to be taking on a roll similar to Lee and Ermann. Using his specific area of knowledge as well as experience working in a similar academic system to judge where he thinks mistakes are being made. That doesn't mean he is correct and certainly people who want to deny climate change (and more often the measures taken to address it) wouldn't use such concerns, even if we assume they are valid, for invalid purposes. Springee (talk) 02:22, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages articles are supposed to follow the reliable sources on the topics discussed in articles; the preferred term in the relevant literatures to evoke the wide range of dissenting positions concerning climate science has been "denial" for some time. Newimpartial (talk) 01:00, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Since most sources don't call him a climate change denier following the sources would mean we also don't call him one. Springee (talk) 01:58, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

The vast majority of sources on Peterson's views on climate change indicate that he denies, or promotes denial of, or doesn't understand, the scientific consensus on climate change. As demonstrated above, the preferred term for this whole range of characterizations is "climate change denial".

We are supposed to determine article content by underanding what RS mean and then using consistent, encyclopedic terminology to reflect that meaning (as we do with other public figures who deny the scientific consensus). We are not supposed to calculate the percentage of sources using a term to decide whether to use that term. Newimpartial (talk) 10:32, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Luckily, there's an entire Misplaced Pages article on the topic, with a considerable amount of supporting literature. One thing you'll notice is that "climate change" vis a vis "climate change denial" does not cover the "literal definition" of the term, because that would patently absurd. Couching "I don't deny climate change" in actual climate change denial is transparent and obvious. You do not get to say you don't do something while doing that exact thing just because you opened with a (purposefully strawmanned) statement. Lostsandwich (talk) 01:57, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

What we the editors of Misplaced Pages have decided is meant by "climate change denier" is not the same as what readers might think when they see the term. Do you have evidence that the average or even 25th percentile reader of Misplaced Pages is going to understand how broad in scope some people view the phrase "climate change denial"? Beyond that, per BLP and LABEL we should not use a value laden label just because some, but not most or perhaps even half, of the sources choose to use it. Springee (talk) 02:03, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

What policy are you referring to when asking what percentage of Misplaced Pages readers know what global warming denial is? You are sealioning. Keep the goal posts in one place. What do RS say about him when discussing his views on global warming? They say, as demonstrated above, that he is a denialist and science professionals find his stance to be "ridiculous". That is what this article should reflect, unless you have some RS showing his positions are aligned with the scientific consensus on human caused global warming. 12.75.41.13 (talk) 02:23, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

The goal of Misplaced Pages is to accurately convey knowledge. When we use phrases that imply one thing via plain text, yet are meant to mean something much broader we risk conveying something false to our readers. Beyond that, many of the RS that discuss his comments related to climate change do not call him a denier. That has already been discussed. Only a few, and many of lesser quality, are the ones that specifically call him a "denier". Springee (talk) 03:15, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Everyone knows what it means to deny climate science. Your argument that this concept is too hard for Misplaced Pages readers is without merit. 12.75.41.13 (talk) 03:21, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Really, what evidence do you have for that claim? What evidence do you have that the average, non-editor reader, when reading the "climate change denier" will understand that even someone who believes in anthropogenic climate change can be a denier? If you read that John Doe is a climate change denier are you going to reasonably assume John actually does believe in anthropogenic climate change? Again, this is why we should look at what a range of sources say rather than pick the most extreme label used only by some. Springee (talk) 03:41, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Please see WP:SEALION. Many citations have been provided. It is borderline disruptive to ask for a source on what words Misplaced Pages readers use. Stay focused. Provide sources to back your assertions and preferred wording, or take those which have been provided to WP:RSN if you'd like to convince the rest of us that they are not as reliable as we think. 12.75.41.13 (talk) 04:11, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I believe a number have and upon review only a few actually call Peterson a denier. Shinealittlelight went through them. Perhaps we need to start a review table so we can be clear about which sources say what. You also dodged the question regarding your own claim, "Everyone knows what it means to deny climate science". Well, what source do you have for that? Springee (talk) 04:32, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Can you link the studies of Misplaced Pages reader vocabulary you rely on? This is the definition of sealioning. Provide sources backing what you say (that he is within the scientific mainstream), or discredit the sources that say he has fringe beliefs. 12.75.41.13 (talk) 04:56, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Merriam Webster says the definition of climate change denial is more narrow than Misplaced Pages. Is it unreasonable to think readers might be thinking of MW's definition vs Misplaced Pages's? Per MW "rejection of the idea that changes in the Earth's climate or weather patterns are caused by human activity" . Their definition of climate change denier is also consistent: "one who denies that changes in the Earth's climate or weather patterns are caused by human activity" . Springee (talk) 12:40, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand this debate about definitions of "climate change denier". What source is proposed for this? Don't we need a source that calls him exactly this to include it? Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:30, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

We have multiple sources that call him a climate science denier, but the argument presented to us is that Misplaced Pages readers would not understand what that means. It is an argument without merit and can be ignored. 12.75.41.13 (talk) 04:06, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

The common meaning of denier is denying the part that is scientifically established. This is a claim of severe ludicrous behavior. Especially for a BLP we need strong sourcing that he specifically did that. Just somebody hurling that epitaph is not that.North8000 (talk) 12:52, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

So, you do not see how ludicrous his statements are? Seems to be a WP:CIR problem. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:11, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Is there a single reason to believe that any readers may "actually" get confused about what the term climate change refers to beyond your (and anyone defending this) disruptive attempts at deflection? As this apparent position, which is that when people talk about climate change with respect to climate change denial they just maybe might be kinda sorta referring to the fact that "climate changes" which has been known for decades, if not centuries? Is there any reasonable justification that such a thing needs to be noted anywhere, including on the page for climate change denial which itself explains the position, beyond running interference for the individual(s) in question?

Do you *any* evidentiary basis for harping on "the literal definition" of the term being a reasonable measuring stick for anything? Lostsandwich (talk) 03:18, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Again, we are applying a LABEL. As such it either needs to have a consensus among sources (so far it doesn't appear to). While denier certainly applies to those who don't believe in anthropogenic climate change, it is more questionable to apply it in cases where the person says they do believe but have other concerns. Regardless, you specifically made the claim that readers would understand. It appears you don't actually have evidence that such a common understanding exists. Again, as a BLP we are instructed to err on the side of caution. In this case that would be not using the label and instead stating what he actually says while still including the strongly, negative reactions to it. Springee (talk) 03:46, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

So you have zero evidentiary basis with which to claim there is any notable misunderstanding of the term climate change such that one can reasonable label themselves "not a climate change denier" and be truthful about the statement because they were simply referring to the fact that they do not deny the ice age existed?

It was of course, not me who brought up the "literal meaning" (because there is no reason to). That was you. So, unless you're capable of demonstrating that "I don't deny the ice age existed (or any other period that is irrelevant to the topic)" is a reasonable justification for dismissing the label of climate change denier we can easily disregard your entire line of thinking to that end. Lostsandwich (talk) 08:18, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

How about Merriam Webster: "rejection of the idea that changes in the Earth's climate or weather patterns are caused by human activity". So if a reader understands the term to have the same meaning as MW, yeah, using that LABEL could mislead the reader as to what Peterson believes. Springee (talk) 12:36, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Really driving home the point of you not acting in good faith. You provided nothing resembling what was asked in order for your pointless obstruction to have any merit. At this point I'd consider requesting a topic ban. Lostsandwich (talk) 16:41, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Don't accuse others of acting in bad faith. I asked for evidence that our readers would interpret CC denier the same way the Misplaced Pages article does. None was provided. When I was asked for evidence that readers wouldn't I provide a MW dictionary definition. Springee (talk) 19:39, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Request denied. We do not perform studies of Misplaced Pages readers language abilities as part of our writing process. You were unable to provide any such studies you use when writing, making me suspect this is a road block that has been invented for this purpose. There is no need to prove what people will understand. We reflect what WP:RS says instead. Do you have any WP:RS? Yes or No? 12.75.41.13 (talk) 20:02, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Let's review, the concern is that not all readers may understand that the Misplaced Pages definition of "climate change denier" includes people who agree with anthropogenic climate change. Some editors pushed back and suggested that all readers would have the Misplaced Pages understanding of the term. I asked for evidence that this understanding was true. None was provided. When I was challenged to show it wasn't true I provided at MW dictionary definition that conflicts with the Misplaced Pages definition. Are you suggesting MW is wrong? Springee (talk) 20:14, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages readers confused about the term are welcome to review the article on the very topic.

Notice how the article on the very topic doesn't say anything about the "literal meaning" because that would be patently absurd, and pretending that is has value is the same tactic deniers of all stripes hide behind.

Denying that the moon landing footage is faked, but agreeing that humans landed on the moon, privileges one to the "moon landing denier" label. Denying that some six million people were killed by the genocidal machinery of the Holocaust, but agreeing that many died from typhus privileges one to the "holocaust denier" label. That is how language works. Just as in this case "agreeing that the climate changes" (which is not, and has not ever been in contention, as you have failed to demonstrate) in the same sentence as denying everything that is germane to the topic does in fact privilege one to the climate change denier label. Quite simple really.

More importantly, if you were to in fact demonstrate (which you've continually failed to) that "climate change just means the climate changes so no, no one denies that!" is a reasonable statement to make, you would also need to demonstrate that such an empty aphorism effectively rebuts the remaining volume of statements made to such a degree they can be ignored in favour of the previous claim. Lostsandwich (talk) 20:49, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

The "dictionary definition" does not support your claim. It was again, you who brought up the "literal meaning" as something that was supposed to be important and have continually danced around supporting that claim. Lostsandwich (talk) 20:38, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I think I made it very clear early on that I was referring to human caused climate change. I believe my 17:17 26 July comment was the first time I brought this up in the current discussion and the first time I see that I used the word "literal". In that edit I said, "We really should be careful about assuming definitions. The literal meaning of "climate change denial" would be saying the climate doesn't change. The problem with using such terms is, even if the term has an understood meaning on Misplaced Pages, it may not be understood by readers who don't follow our blue links and it many not be the intended use by a source. ". I believe that was before your first post in this discussion. So I already was clear what we were not talking about a claim that the climate has never changed since the history of time. I'm sorry if, by arriving after that was said, you mistakenly thought I was referring to your "literal meaning". I hope we are clear on that now. Springee (talk) 23:43, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

All this is a waste of time. We say what reliable sources say. We do not stop doing this just because a user does not like it. If the user keeps trying to get his own opinion preferred to the statements of experts, and keeps wikilawyering in that same topic for years to protect the proponents of an anti-science ideology, topic-ban the user. --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:51, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

You are right. We say what RS say. If those sources don't use the term climate change denier then we don't use the term. We can and should say what RS have said Peterson has said about the subject and what experts have said about Peterson's statements. What we doing do, per policy, is apply contentious labels because we want to. When I got some time, hopefully later today, I will start a table of references and we can see what the various sources actually say vs just using editor's interpretations. Springee (talk) 10:14, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Springee, you have been presented with multiple, reliable sources that use variants of "climate-change denier"/"denial". I think you are approaching stick-dropping time - if not already there. Newimpartial (talk) 12:26, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

As an experienced editor you should know that we distinguish between sources that say things like "his comments support" vs "he is". I will also note that this was a recent change to the article (see the pre July 20 version of the section) and we have no consensus for the charges. Per NOCON, which is policy, the section should be rolled back. The previous version made it clear his views were disputed by experts, included fewer quotes that are out of context from the RS (or possible not supported at all) and made Peterson's central point, regardless of it's validity, clear. There are at least 4 editors who don't agree with the recent changes. That puts us squarely in NOCON territory. Springee (talk) 12:55, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

You have no leg to stand on. This guy actually said there is no such thing as climate. WP:SKYISBLUE. No honest person would deny that he is a climate denier. Stop disrupting this talk page to push your POV. --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:29, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Please provide Peterson's quote. Not the quote from a source that may have taken it or of context, which would then make that source of questionable reliability, process Peterson's quote. The claim that Peterson actually said their is no such thing as climate is clearly REDFLAG. Springee (talk) 10:28, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Springee, why would it be compliant with policy to offer a primary source for the quote in question, when many, many independent RS are available as sources for the quote? I feel that what you are asking comes from the bizarro world version of wikipedia. Newimpartial (talk) 14:00, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Who is suggesting we add primary sourced quotes to the wiki article? I'm not and if I've given you that impression I apologize as it absolutely isn't my intent. I think it is reasonable to consult a primary source to see if a secondary source is presenting a quote in context within the secondary source. It is also reasonable to ask if we should present a quote used in the secondary source if we don't include the context the secondary source also provided. To be very clear, I'm not proposing we add any material sourced to a primary source to the wiki article. One of the dangers of long threads like this is we all lose track of what others have actually proposed or, worse yet, we get an incorrect impression of what others have said and then argue against what we think they intend vs what they actually intent. Really at this point we need to look at what was in the stable version of the text as well as the recent changes and perhaps start over with this discussion with something more like a set of diffs to look at. Springee (talk) 14:34, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

This is just more disruptive sealioning. We don't need to dive into podcasts as a group to determine whether reliable sources are mistaken. If the sources are wrong, Misplaced Pages is wrong. Please stop asking for people to perform original research. If you think a source isn't reliable, tell us which one and why. If no agreement is had, let's ask WP:RSN. Let's stop running in pointless circles. You have no sources, and you refuse to name which sources are unreliable. If you aren't interested in discussing reliable sources, stop derailing this thread. I considered taking this behavior to WP:ANI but it is semi protected at the moment. 12.75.41.13 (talk) 22:09, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Let me say this again as clearly as possible. The beginning of the very first sentence in the current version of the climate change section of the article is Peterson is a climate-change denier... For this we provide four sources. Not a single one of these four sources uses the word "denier" or any other version of the word "deny". What a ridiculous claim that somehow Springee is at fault here. Springee and I both agree that we should accurately summarize these sources. The current version blatantly violates WP:BLP and blatantly fails verification. It is we who want to move the text closer to the sources. Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:57, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure how closely you've read WP:V, but citations directly supporting "denial"/"denier" are already in the paragraph in question. If you are concerned that the clicky numbers aren't in (what you think is) the right place, you should be clear that if they happen to be in the "wrong" location in the paragraph, that situation cannot in itself result in fails verification. That just isn't what verification involves. Newimpartial (talk) 01:12, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I know WP:V, obviously. I can't tell which source in this paragraph you think supports this label. Are you referring to this "DeSmog" source: ? Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:46, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

To answer your question: both that source and The Guardian directly support the characterization, as I have discussed in our exchange earlier in this section. Newimpartial (talk) 09:43, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

The Guardian source says Peterson has been on an all-out attack on the science of climate change and the risks of global heating. I would support use of this source to include the claim that Jordan Peterson has attacked the science of climate change. That's not the same as labelling him a "climate-change denier," which the Guardian source does not do. As for "DeSmog," it is a group blog (previously called "DeSmog Blog") that has received some discussion at RSN, where it is generally regarded as either unreliable or biased. So not RS, at least not without attribution. Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:53, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

According to WP:USEBYOTHERS principles, the inclusion of this particular DeSmog source by the Catholic Reporter - as a news and not an opinion article - lends to support to the reliability of the specific article cited.

In any case, I hope all editors can see that this is not a fails verification scenario. Personally, I would prefer to employ a reference to the Critical Reactions piece by Panu Raatikainen, but I haven't tried to insert the citation because some editors have objected to the tone of other books, in a different series, by the same publisher. !!?? Sigh. Newimpartial (talk) 13:07, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Ok, progress. You're not disputing that the Guardian piece you referenced does not support use of the label "climate-change denier". You're claiming that a source appended to a different sentence--"DeSmog"--is RS without attribution in this case. Let's get clear on what exactly in "DeSmog" is supposed to support this label. The "DeSmog" article says:

1. Peterson is now planting doubt via his podcast and social media posts about the severity and urgency of global warming in the minds of younger generations.
2. ...Peterson’s frequent downplaying of climate risks...
3. ...Peterson is among the most visible promoters of climate crisis denial.

Which of these (or did I miss one) supports the label in your view? Once you say, I'll be glad to take it to RSN. We can also check the Raatikainen piece there if you want; it says Peterson has downplayed climate change and promoted a denialist message. I assume that's the quote you think supports the label "climate-change denier". Shinealittlelight (talk) 13:52, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

To answer your questions: as I have said before, "promoter of climate change denial", "promoted a denialist message" and "all-out attack on the science of climate change" all support the label "climate-change denier". As also noted previously, I am not attached to "denier" vs. "denial" vs. some other formulation of his attack on the scientific consensus about climate change. Many policy-compliant options exist.

What I do not think policy allows is milquetoast, apologetic language like observing that "Peterson argued against the accuracy of climate modelling" and that several scientists "denounced Peterson's statements on these topics". Of course these things happened, but they are not a DUE summary either of Peterson's position or of how it was received. Instead, such formulations come across as, "Peterson has a view, and some scientists disagree with him", which would be a WP:FRINGE violation if presented in this article.

Also, back to the narrower question of terminology: the standard term on-wiki as off-wiki for those engaged in objecting to the consensus about climate change is, in fact, "climate change denial", as I have already documented. This term is used by RS about Peterson. If there is a policy-based reason not to use this standard term, I certainly haven't seen it presented in this discussion. What I have seen is editors offering interperetation of primary sources by Peterson to the effect that they aren't convinced that what they hear from Peterson fits what they understand "denial" to mean. I certainly welcome a policy-based objection, perhaps in a new Talk section, but that surely isn't it. Newimpartial (talk) 14:53, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Posted on RSN: Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:50, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I've said what I have to say on this. I've started to see terrible wiki-negative mis-characterizations of what I wrote....I called those out but don't plan to engage further on such things, and those persons should please stop. I also don't plan to repeat what I said already. If somebody feels that I can give helpful thoughts or help craft a solution, please ping me to make sure I know. Otherwise I plan to bow out of this thread. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:34, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Potential compromise wording - there are plenty of sources about the ridicule Peterson has received about his misunderstandings of math, science, and the climate. Instead of getting into how he is wrong, it may be more fruitful just to describe his pseudoscience as being often ridiculed by professionals. ], ], ]. These are a few sources, hundreds more exist to document the ridicule Peterson has received for his basic mistakes in STEM areas. That seems significant enough to cover, and DUE. 12.75.41.13 (talk) 22:19, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Call a spade a spade. Just say that others have described him as a denialist, that he believes the measures to prevent further change are worse than the change itself, etc. Just do it concisely. But we can't avoid the mention when it's clearly DUE. — Shibbolethink 14:32, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

This article is covered by arbitration sanctions

I see no fewer than four different accounts active here who are nakedly POV-pushing: user:Trakking, user:Shinealittlelight, user:North8000, and user:Springee. Should we request at WP:AE that they be topic banned?

jps (talk) 18:29, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Your latest response starts off with "Are you fucking serious?" which is a clear violation of WP:CIVILITY. Everyone else is engaged in fruitful discussion. Personally I believe that everyone here has a point although on different matters. Let's talk and reach WP:CONSENSUS. Trakking (talk) 18:59, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:CIR. This is not fruitful discussion. This is WP:TE WP:PROFRINGE WP:ADVOCACY. There is no "good people on all sides" going on here. This is a clear matter of climate change denial being pooh-poohed in the classic ideological direction of WP:CRYBLP we have seen promoted here at Misplaced Pages. jps (talk) 19:15, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

This is a clear violation of CIVIL. You claim POV push but why isn't the same true of your actions in the other direction? Honest editors can disagree. Let's turn it around, do we have the actual interviews or Peterson statements on which the claim denier are based? Per LABEL if this term is going to be used in wiki voice or needs to be well supported. Are we at that widely supported point yet? Springee (talk) 19:30, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

It is well-supported. That you are pretending it is not is the problem and it is consistent with your ongoing WP:POVPUSHing WP:ADVOCACY at this site to try to remove reliably sourced identification of climate change denial. jps (talk) 20:45, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Your assertion is wrong and out of line on many levels, including blatantly false and baseless accusations. It's time to stop doing that. North8000 (talk) 20:14, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Identify the blatantly false accusation I made. jps (talk) 20:43, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Who is "we"? If you feel so strongly about this, go make the case. Beware of WP:BOOMERANG. Have a nice (warm) day. Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:22, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I have requested admin help at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Jordan_Peterson. jps (talk) 20:53, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I recommend that everybody dial it back a bit and slow down. Jordan Peterson is an overt and proud climate denier; anyone who denies this is just ignoring the heaps of evidence. The fact remains, unless we have good sources about this subject, it will continue to be controversial to discuss it. I don't believe DeSmog is a bad source, and we've discussed this before in other places, but we should attempt to find additional sources. FWIW, Peterson is a vocal advocate of the fringe climate change conspiracy theory which believes climate scientists are in cahoots with world goverments to impose communism/totalitarianism on people who drive their ICE cars to work. It's just so absurd and ridiculous that it's difficult to discuss without breaking out in laughter, but sadly, this is a popular conspiracy theory on the right that is believed by millions of conservatives. Viriditas (talk) 22:00, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I forgot to note, the podcast Decoding the Gurus has repeatedly highlighted and documented Peterson's climate denial, and it's one of the most bizarre things I've ever heard. It was on that podcast that I first heard Peterson deny anthropogenic climate change was real, and quite predictably, he followed up with variations on the Narcissist's Prayer argument (Climate change didn't happen, and if it did, it wasn't caused by humans, and if it was, it isn't bad for the planet, and if it is, it's not important, etc.), which many here may be familiar with since it is one of the hallmarks of oil-funded disinformation that predates Peterson by many years. I don't know how or why Peterson started parroting oil industry talking points, but he did and he still does. There's rumors that he's funded by right-wing organizations with links to oil interests, but I haven't looked too deeply into it because Peterson is such an obviously disturbed person. What's odd and unusual is that he's considered some kind of prophet on the right, and that makes me extremely uncomfortable, so I tend to avoid this topic. Viriditas (talk) 22:14, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

That sounds interesting. I'll look into that but I'm buried in RL today so it will be tomorrow. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:50, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I didn't notice that you were just referring to a podcast series in general. If you have something specific that is on this topic I'd be happy to and would like to look at it. North8000 (talk) 13:01, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

My guess is that material that has already been linked to on this page is used as audio clips on the show. Viriditas (talk) 22:54, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Climate change didn't happen, and if it did, it wasn't caused by humans, and if it was Yes, that is also called Kettle logic. It is pointless to detail what position a denialist opposed at one point in time, since they deny whatever they can get away with. If one of their positions is refuted, they will change their song slightly and deny another thing. The only constant is that one should not regulate any markets, the reason why one shouldn't varies in the way you wrote: didn't happen, wasn't caused by humans and so on. It's motivated reasoning. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:25, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Well said. Skeptical Science highlights several aspects of this rhetorical tactic. Viriditas (talk) 22:56, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

All true. But remember we're talking about the use of a particular term. One which is pejorative because it denies things which are scientifically established as being true. Hob Gadling describes people who avoid doing that and that they avoid doing that. North8000 (talk) 14:17, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Peterson is an object of ridicule because of his inability to understand the science behind climate change, but he wants to continue making YouTube videos denying the science is valid. That is climate denialism - just like the RS say it is. 12.75.41.13 (talk) 18:45, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I think we can pretty comfortably say Peterson is a climate change denier. Allan Nonymous (talk) 21:45, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Without addressing that, that really is not related to and does not address the points in my post, which it was indented under. North8000 (talk)

Is Jordan Peterson "controversial"?

I think the general consensus from most media sources (heck, even some of those on the right), is that Peterson is a controversial figure with controversial views. I think the article and lede should reflect this. Allan Nonymous (talk) 21:39, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't think there would be any issues with this change. Peterson is a popular YouTube influencer who says controversial things for views. 166.198.21.32 (talk) 18:24, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I am not opposed to controversial, but I would also consider polarizing, the adjective used in the article, or a synonym like contentious or polemical. I like some of what Peterson has written, and in the past he did a great job educating people about the (mostly positive) role of religion in society (and to a more nuanced understanding of the Bible), and he has introduced younger people (Gen Z)) to Nietzsche, Jung, Dostoevsky, and other important late 19th and early 20th century thinkers. But boy does he like to provoke arguments for the sake of argument (or for getting more clicks). Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 19:29, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

No. We have already discussed this topic and the consensus was that the label was unnecessary and unprofessional. Misplaced Pages guideline explicitly states in MOS:LABEL that we must avoid contentious labels such as ”controversial”. Trakking (talk) 19:50, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Being controversial is his job as a YouTube shock jock. It would be silly to skip this Nest of Chum (talk) 21:07, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

MOS:LABEL says, "Rather than describing an individual using the subjective and vague term controversial, instead give readers information about relevant controversies." So we have to do that unless someone wants to get the guideline changed. Otherwise, I see no reason to make an exception here. Peterson is far from the only controversial individual with a biography. TFD (talk) 23:05, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Paywalled source

Not sure what wiki policy is on paywalled sources, but citation 4 is behind one. Public source would be preferable.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2021/04/what-happened-to-jordan-peterson/618082/ 24.113.229.172 (talk) 00:04, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

See WP:PAYWALL. Difficulty accessing a source is not a reason to reject it. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 00:26, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 August 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Original: Nutrition experts point out that such a diet can result in "severe dysregulation" and Mikhaila later claimed that Peterson experienced a "violent reaction" to this diet.

The violent reaction was an allergenic reaction he had from a stew before he adopted the lion diet.

Change: Jordan Peterson suffered a severe allergenic reaction which caused many symptoms but primarily severe akathisia. His doctor then prescribed him benzodiazepines to alleviate these symptoms. At the same time Jordan grew in notoriety and his wife was diagnosed with cancer. His prescription was then increased. Eventually he tried to get off it but suffered severe withdrawal. He couldn't find anyone in America who could detox him without putting him on other drugs. Eventually he found a place in Russia that was willing to detox him without the use of other drugs that were making his akathisia worse. This reaction would go on to cause him to he adopt the elimination diet dubbed the lion diet to avoid such problems in the future. For the full story watch Mikhaila Peterson explain what happened to her father in the following video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGi5zorf5is Brian543d (talk) 00:00, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: 1. This is a primary source which is generally inappropriate for BLPs. 2. This gives WP:UNDUE weight and is promotional with the final sentence. TheWikiToby (talk) 23:59, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Climate change continued

@Connor Behan and Rhododendrites:, in looking at these recent changes , I thought it was worth asking if there is a better way to address this content. Honestly, I think this is an example of The Independent showing itself to be a poor source and injecting a lot of bias into their reporting (beyond using biased language like "Dressed in a tuxedo, Mr Peterson croaked out a cascade of other questionable claims" Why do his clothes matter? Why use the condescending "croaked" instead of "said"? So the claim by Peterson is that the solar industry takes more lives per year than nuclear. Per The Independent this appears to be a case where two different sources provide conflicting answers, likely due to what which deaths each includes. I'm not sure why we should trust "Our World in Data" more than a Forbes contribution. The Independent doesn't seem to say they think one or the other is correct and they note that OWD's information is rather old. Where I think The Independent shows their strong bias is when they go on to imply it's misleading because both are low compared to fossil fuels. Why would that matter? If two people are arguing alternative energy sources, solar vs nuclear, why would it matter if carbon is much worse? This is a good example of a source showing bias in a way that should have us downgrading it's reliability for this topic. Once the bias is removed they basically say, depending on your source, Peterson may be correct. However, The Independent frames this factual content with a lot of biased tone and the larger negative claim regarding carbon deaths almost implying that Peterson ignores those. At the end of all this I would suggest we simply remove this example as it isn't a good example of Peterson being misleading. What do you think? Springee (talk) 15:54, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

I went to look at the original clip it's talking about. Peterson says some dumb things in there, but the solar/nuclear thing just sounds like a tangential fun fact rather than a rhetorical argument. It is in fact entirely plausible that Peterson would talk about deaths from other sources of energy while sowing doubt about climate solutions -- in fact in this clip as soon as he gets out that fun fact he seems to notice an opportunity to do just that and throws in something like "when you change systems, people think only good things happen" -- as in, this switch to solar isn't all good, folks. In other words, there's something to call out there, but that Independent piece missed the mark a bit. I don't have a problem just removing that line.

I do have a problem with making the lead fail to summarize the body. — Rhododendrites \\ 17:13, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't think the climate change content should have been restored to the lead. First, it was a recent addition and despite the long discussion above, no consensus on the content, much less the inclusion in the lead was reached. Second, the sentence is not encyclopedic; "In particular, he has been widely criticized by climate scientists for..." It's not clear he has been "widely criticized" and what counts as "widely" anyway? Also, why is this "in particular"? Pulling back, the lead should be the high level summary of the person. Most sources discussing Peterson, and there are many, say nothing about his views on climate change because they just aren't an important part of why he is notable yet isn't typical BLP boiler plate like home town etc. Springee (talk) 22:01, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Though tangentially related to your question, I feel the need to echo @Rhododendrites' comment, why did you remove the section on his climate denial from the lead? You claimed that "there doesn't appear to be an consensus on keeping this material in the lead", but 1) previous discussions were not focused on the lead so I'm not sure where you could find such a consensus and, 2) said discussions here & here determined that Jordan Peterson reliably denies (fully or partially) climate change, so it'd be best to leave that in the lead to better summarize the body's contents. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 20:12, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

The removed text was inaccurate. I'd be all for intelligent coverage of him on this topic and a brief accurate summary in the lead but what we had in the lead was certainly not that. Vague inaccurate epitaphs written by people who are his political opponents. I've not seen anywhere where he denied the main established scientific facts of climate change. He has done a lot of criticism of other policies, initiatives, accusations of sometimes skipping science in the name of advocacy, actions etc. related to climate change. North8000 (talk) 22:13, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I do not see how the text was in any way vague, it very succinctly states "he has been widely criticized by climate scientists for denying the scientific consensus on climate change and giving a platform to climate-change deniers." Any more detail would be undue & honestly unnecessary for the lead.

As for "where he denied the main established scientific facts of climate change", he said “there’s no such thing as climate". Regardless, our job is to write what reliable sources say on the matter & as previous discussions have repeatedly shown, he's referred to in several reliable sources as a climate denier. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 23:16, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

What is the definition of "widely"? How many critics do we need to establish "widely"? The "no such thing as climate" statement was part of a rhetorical argument. The logic of the argument may be wrong but presenting it as if that is his complete view on the topic is mislead at best. CNN, while not trying to summarize his argument does try to include more context to show that he is using that statement as part of a larger argument. Springee (talk) 00:24, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

So is your issue only with the use of the word, "widely"? Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 00:30, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGi5zorf5is

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Biography articles of living people
• C-Class level-5 vital articles
• Misplaced Pages level-5 vital articles in People
• C-Class vital articles in People
• C-Class biography articles
• C-Class biography (arts and entertainment) articles
• Mid-importance biography (arts and entertainment) articles
• Arts and entertainment work group articles
• C-Class biography (science and academia) articles
• Mid-importance biography (science and academia) articles
• Science and academia work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• C-Class psychology articles
• Low-importance psychology articles
• WikiProject Psychology articles
• C-Class Canada-related articles
• Mid-importance Canada-related articles
• C-Class Ontario articles
• Mid-importance Ontario articles
• C-Class Alberta articles
• Mid-importance Alberta articles
• C-Class Toronto articles
• Mid-importance Toronto articles
• All WikiProject Canada pages
• C-Class Conservatism articles
• Low-importance Conservatism articles
• WikiProject Conservatism articles
• C-Class politics articles
• Low-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• C-Class Alternative views articles
• Low-importance Alternative views articles
• WikiProject Alternative views articles
• C-Class Gender studies articles
• Mid-importance Gender studies articles
• WikiProject Gender studies articles
• C-Class YouTube articles
• Mid-importance YouTube articles
• WikiProject YouTube articles
• Articles edited by connected contributors