Talk:Jordan Peterson

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 [1] or [2]. 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 [Maps of Meaning], 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)

"It's pretty clear" = PoV/TF 46.244.245.85 (talk) 18:44, 16 December 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: [3] 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”.[4] 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.”[5] 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 [6], 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)

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) [he/him] 19:29, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

No. We have already discussed this topic and the consensus was that the label was unnecessary and unprofessional. Wikipedia 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)

Thank you Trakking and TFD for pointing out MOS:LABEL, a guideline I surely read in the past, but forgot about when replying here. I am glad to see that someone removed controversial. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 11:40, 1 September 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

Original: Nutrition experts point out that such a diet can result in "severe dysregulation"[183] and Mikhaila later claimed that Peterson experienced a "violent reaction" to this diet.[185]

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)

References

Climate change continued

@Connor Behan and Rhododendrites:, in looking at these recent changes [7], [8] 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 ^talk \\ 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 [sic] 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)

Already answered above. Springee (talk) 07:35, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

That is an accurate statement about what his political opponents have said about him. It's not coverage of him, nor his views and statements on the topic. North8000 (talk) 13:52, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

His political opponents are... climate scientists? Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 14:01, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

As a preface, we're talking about a portion of the text in question. No, a scientist would not write like that. North8000 (talk) 14:14, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I feel like I'm missing something as the article I linked had comments from climate scientists. If there's some miscommunication occurring I apologize, but I'm not clear on what your specific issues with statement are & what changes you'd prefer. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 14:40, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, consistent with that source, do not put in claims that he denies the central established tenets of climate change. Even more ideal would be to find a source that more thoroughly reviews/covers his statements on the topic. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:25, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

We have a whole sourced section regarding his views where you can find quotes like "Peterson doubts climate change is man-made", corroborated here. If your claim is that he shouldn't be referred to as a climate change denier because he only doubts some aspects of climate change, that is also covered here with regards to new denial i.e. the "I'm not a climate denier, but..." argument.

So again, he's referred to as a climate denier by multiple reliable sources, he denies a fundamental aspect of modern day consensus regarding climate change (the fact it is a man-made issue), & he has platformed other climate deniers. We are making no exceptional or controversial claims in the lead, so I still fail to see what specifically you're taking issue with. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 18:21, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

The second one is not behind a paywall and I don't see it in there. Can you quote the text to that effect from there? North8000 (talk) 19:41, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Summarizing that second source and the previously provided source, how about this as a summary?: "Peterson has been criticized by scientists for his statements regarding climate change. He has expressed skepticism about climate change projections, the degree of alarm over climate change, and of various mitigation measures." North8000 (talk) 20:23, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

The wording degree of alarm is out of the question. It uses the denialist framing that those who correctly follow the data are just Chicken Littles making mountains out of molehills while those who reject reality for ideological reasons are calm and collected. Wikipedia is not dishonest enough to pretend that attitude has any merit. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:00, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

What is the non-denialist way to express that Peterson claims people (more specific?) are over reacting. It is clear from the sources this is something Peterson believes. Overall the proposed sentence is more specific and more impartial than the current one in the lead. Springee (talk) 10:07, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

The central issue is this. Saying (or using a term that implies) that someone currently denies the central established tenet of climate change (e.g. that the earth is warming and that human activity is a significant cause of that) is the equivalent of accusing them of being a flat-earther and would need very strong sourcing, doubly so in a BLP. All of the other things that he actually did say ((criticizing the modeling projections or ability to do so, criticizing the degree of alarm being raised, criticizing proposed mitigation measures (in essence saying that the proposed cure may be worse than the disease) and which credible people have criticized him for) are in a totally different category. My proposal is consistent with this. North8000 (talk) 13:22, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

as has been firmly demonstrated here, tiptoeing around claiming one "does not deny the central tenets of climate change" while simultaneously denying everything about climate change does make one, in fact, a climate change denier. Lostsandwich (talk) 01:03, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Where do you think that has been firmly demonstrated? It's not a logically sound conclusion so it must be one based on an assumption that the *only* reason to agree with part but not all is to mislead. Springee (talk) 01:41, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Not only has it been reflected in this very talk page, but as, that very discussion demonstrates, it's also reflected in every source about the topic including wiki's own article. Lostsandwich (talk) 03:28, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia's articles aren't considered reliable sources. They reflect a combination of what sources we choose to cite say and the weight applied by the editors who write the articles. This is why people say don't cite Wikipedia. Again, you ignore that what you said is not logically sound. That doesn't mean someone who says "they believe in the basics but..." couldn't be lying or trying to mislead but it doesn't logically mean they are. If it were as clear as you claim then there would be a clear consensus. Still, you returned to this dormant discussion after almost two months. Why? Do you have anything new to contribute? Springee (talk) 03:54, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

That's not correct. A denier is someone who denies the central tenets of climate change. North8000 (talk) 19:56, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

To be precise: A "climate denier" is someone who denies there is such a thing as climate. If Peterson really said "There is no such thing as climate" (cited above), he's certainly a climate denier.

To be more precise: "Climate denial" usually is a religious category, blueprinted from the Holy Inquisitions concept of "denial", which is rather vague. Here's one case of someone really denying the existence of climate. That's an opportunity, isn't it? --- 46.244.245.85 (talk) 18:58, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

This is a very strange sidebar and I have to remind you that WP:NOTFORUM applies. Please, let's be clear, we're talking about his denialism regarding Anthropogenic Climate Change and nothing to do with the Roman Inquisition. Simonm223 (talk) 19:00, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Please don't play silly linguistic games. Everybody knows that "climate denier" is a slightly sloppy way of saying "climate change denier". Please don't treat us like fools. DanielRigal (talk) 19:42, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

More than a dozen reliable sources are in the "Climate change" section, so it would be reasonable to cite its best sources for a short and fair summary. Llll5032 (talk) 21:29, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

The problem is most of those all refer back to the same Rogan interview. If we look at sources that say why Peterson is known etc they aren't going to focus on these climate change comments thus they really shouldn't be in the lead. They aren't part of the summary of why he is notable. This is beyond the very reasonable issue that North8000 notes regarding the soft definition of climate change. Springee (talk) 12:29, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you're wrong - it is a part of his pattern of advocating for fringe beliefs, conspiracism and far-right politics. A such it absolutely is apropos in the lede. I mean his rampant transphobia and <redacted BLP vio>; but this is due inclusion. Simonm223 (talk) 12:31, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I get you don't like the guy, but BLP applies to talk pages. When you go on a rant about a BLP, it would be wise to make sure all that you are alleging is true. --Kyohyi (talk) 13:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Those statements are absolutely supported by reliable sources. Simonm223 (talk) 13:19, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Example:

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

I can keep going with such citations at some length. There's rather a lot. So not a BLP violation so much as unvarnished truth. Simonm223 (talk) 13:24, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

This is serious WP: CIR. You posted a number of links, which none of them say he has lost his license. Which is not surprising considering the college of ontario psychologists license lookup still lists him as a member. How about this, you find one, just one source that exlicitly says he lost his license, or was disbarred. Not one that says he may be disbarred, not one about the court case, one that says he was disbarred. --Kyohyi (talk) 13:32, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Look I understand that you like the guy but squabbling over a disbarment he has sworn not to go through the necessary steps to clear and a revocation of his license - functionally the same outcome in that the college will not permit him to take patients - on a talk page is WP:POINT territory. Simonm223 (talk) 13:34, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

So you agree he was not disbarred. Great, now we can move onto the next point. He has, since the final court case, actually agreed to go through with the training.

[14]

[15]

So WP:CRYSTAL type statements about what you think are inevitable are not really appropriate here. --Kyohyi (talk) 13:41, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I suppose it could be worth it to be a bit more precise and specify his dispute with his licensing body is due to ethics violations, undermining public trust in the profession and the risk of harm to the public. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:43, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

The extent of that content in the lead is a reasonable discussion point but I would suggest it should be it's own section rather than lost in this one. Springee (talk) 14:06, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry you are wrong. His comments about climate change, regardless of how they have been spun, are not part of what makes him notable. If you want to claim this is part of a pattern etc, what RSs do you have that make that claim? You might see it as a pattern but even if true then this is just supporting evidence and again shouldn't go in the lead as an independent claim. Springee (talk) 14:01, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

He is notable for talking about lots of things he has no clue about, and climate change is one of those. If you delete them all because all of them are just "one of those", you have successfully whitewashed him but that is not the purpose of Wikipedia articles.

You people have tried all sorts of invalid approaches, from red herrings about tuxedos, framing his critics as "political opponents", denying that "climate-change-is-man-made" is a central established tenet of climate change, framing the debate as users "not liking the guy", and so on. It is clear that this discussion does not follow the pattern "We have reason 1, 2 and 3, and For these reasons, this does not belong here", but the pattern "this does not belong here, and I will invent reasons for that until one of them is accepted or until everybody gets tired". --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:40, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

HG, as an experienced editor you should be well aware of FOC. Please review it. Springee (talk) 11:02, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

The section should be re-written in a neutral tone. To begin with, instead of saying that he  "is a climate-change denier," it could report his position. For example, "Peterson does not believe that climate change is caused by human activity" or "questions the scientific consensus on global warming." Readers do not have to be reminded multiple times that he is wrong.

Furthermore, quotes and names of individuals are overused. We are not assembling evidence against him, merely reporting his views. We have to be careful too that his quotes represent what he meant. Peterson could not have meant for example that there was no such thing as climate, because must be aware that the Arctic and the jungle have different climates.

The writing comes across as polemical and narrative style when it should be concise and neutral. TFD (talk) 17:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Do we know if Peterson is "aware that the Arctic and the jungle have different climates"?

The whole issue is experts saying he doesn't know/understand the science of climate at all, so I don't think we can assume what aspects he does/doesn't know on the subject. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 18:43, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Any reasonable listener would have interpreted his comments as irony, which is why it's better to use writings in secondary sources by writers able to distinguish irony.

Even the two places in Canada Peterson lived - Northern Alberta and Toronto - have widely different climates, which Peterson must have noticed? How do I know? Because if he prepared for the winter in N Alberta like did in Toronto, his car wouldn't start and his ears and nose would fall off. TFD (talk) 21:40, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

May I ask what you mean when saying his comments were ironic & how you know? Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 22:11, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

He does not mean it literally, which is clear from his use of the term in other interviews or writings, specifically as reported in this article he said in the same interview that Earth's climate is too complicated to accurately model. This article also has experts who analyze his position as being a "new denialist" who either says there is nothing that could be done about it or that it would not be beneficial.

Some people have difficulty understanding irony or sarcasm particularly when spoken words are put into writing. That is one reason, per no OR, that we should use reliable expert secondary sources that analyze what he meant, rather than just quoting him. TFD (talk) 00:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

You cannot asssume that climate change deniers have an internally consistent position. It is well-known that they routinely apply kettle logic. Their goal is that nothing is done against climate change, and they grab every reason to prevent this that they can think of, irrespective of contradictions to their own previous reasoning. Your deliberations based on your assumption that Peterson thinks rationally about the subject are WP:OR. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:35, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Climate means, "the average course or condition of the weather at a place usually over a period of years as exhibited by temperature, wind velocity, and precipitation." (Merriam-Webster)[16] No one believes that weather patterns are the same, whether one is in the Sahara, at the South Pole or on Mars. Saying that Peterson denies that there is such a thing as climate may be great agitprop and a good clip for a Michael Moore film, but it hurts the credibility of this article since no reasonable reader would believe that. TFD (talk) 09:39, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:OR says it "does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards." Obviously we can discuss what primary sources actually mean before using them to add to the article. While it may not be obvious what Peterson meant, it's obvious that he was not speaking literally and therefore the section does not belong in the article unless explained by experts in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 09:49, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

That old chestnut again? Yeah, you can use OR on talk pages but you cannot use the conclusions from your OR in the article. Which makes OR on talk pages pointless because talk pages are only for improving the article.

Saying that Peterson denies that there is such a thing as climate is to reflect what he actually said, according to secondary sources. it's obvious that he was not speaking literally Your exegesis "he did not mean it because it would be inconsistent" is irrelevant.

Obviously we can discuss what primary sources actually mean That is the job of secondary sources, not yours. You want to pick-and-choose based on the unreasonable assumption that he is not using kettle logic. You can't. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

It is the job of editors to evaluate secondary sources and decide if they are accurately reporting what was said and if what ends up in the Wikipedia article is accurate to what the secondary sources (and the primary source) said. In this case it's clearly inaccurate to present Peterson's sound bite as a statement that he doesn't believe climate exists. Even that is clear from the secondary sources that are critical of Peterson. Springee (talk) 11:52, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Indeed it is the job of secondary sources to discuss what Peterson meant and it is OR on your part to assume what he said he meant literally.

While it is also OR on my part to say he was not speaking literally, unlike you I am not advocating adding that to the article. Instead, I am saying we should exclude it.

If you have difficulty determining when written or spoken statements should be taken literally, I suggest you ask people you know outside Wikipedia. Note that a lot of communication is indirect. Because this is an encyclopedia, articles are supposed to be direct as are editors' comments. But that is not the case with most human communication. TFD (talk) 12:15, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

If you have difficulty determining when written or spoken statements should be taken literally I do not need your patronizing pomposity. We should just keep following reliable sources without injecting your opinion about whether what Peterson said was meant seriously or not. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:50, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I do agree that there is some scope for exercise of editorial judgement in terms of, e.g., DUE, which is in essence OR, but is there any reason to believe that our readers would interpret Appearing on The Joe Rogan Experience in 2022, Peterson said that "there is no such thing as climate" as "Peterson literally believes there is no such thing as climate"? Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:16, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Beluga and Hab Gadling say they believe that's what he believes. While reasonable readers may not have that interpretation, they may believe that is what this article is trying to convey. TFD (talk) 13:11, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that's what they said but I feel there's an easy way to settle this: Butterscotch Beluga, Hob Gadling, as I have thus far been able to avoid the use of my psychic powers on Wikipedia and would like to continue doing so, and nor do I wish to engage in the literary analysis of other people's talk page comments, can I get the two of you to confirm that you are not making statements or inferences on Peterson's mental state with regard to the specific quote in question (there is no such thing as climate) and are instead arguing that such statements and inferences should not be made?

I recognise this isn't exactly a neutral question but it's not like I'm starting an RFC, and I don't really see the point in this line of discussion so I think it would be best if we could take the most expedient path to resolving the question such particular tangent is brought to a close. TFD, would you be agreeable if the answer were "yes"? Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:37, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I am not making statements or inferences on Peterson's mental state with regard to the specific quote in question. I am instead arguing that such statements and inferences should not be made. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:52, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I was saying that we shouldn't be making assumptions. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 13:56, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

OK so let's address what reliable sources acutally say then.

Panu Raatikainen at Tampere University says 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.”

In the Guardian, Graham Readfearn says, Canadian psychologist and darling of conservatives and the alt-right, Jordan Peterson, has been on an all-out attack on the science of climate change and the risks of global heating... The titles of Peterson’s latest offerings give a flavour of the content. “The World is not Ending”, “Unsettled: Climate and Science” and “The Great Climate Con”.

In DeSmog, Geoff Dembicki writes, Fringe climate crisis deniers who claim that the earth is "cooling" and greenhouse emissions are good for "biological productivity" are getting exposed to millions more people than they normally would on YouTube thanks to conservative influencer Jordan Peterson.
That’s according to viewership data newly reviewed by DeSmog, which reveals a massive visibility boost for public figures who’ve been active in the climate denial movement for years but whose ideas — such as the claim that plants are growing much better due to increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere — are now rarely taken seriously by most legacy media outlets.

In the National Catholic Register, Adam Barnett says Canadian climate science denier Jordan Peterson's new right-wing project launched last week with claims that carbon emissions have "declined" and that the climate crisis is a "secular religion."
The three-day Alliance for Responsible Citizenship (ARC) conference in London featured speeches from UK Cabinet ministers Michael Gove and Kemi Badenoch, and culminated with a high-profile event at the 20,000-seat O2 arena headlined by Peterson.
ARC is backed by the UAE-based investment firm Legatum Group and British hedge fund millionaire Paul Marshall, who together own the TV channel GB News. ARC's advisory board contains several high-profile climate science deniers and pro-fossil fuel politicians. As revealed by DeSmog last week, Marshall's hedge fund holds $2.2 billion worth of shares in fossil fuel companies.

Another DeSmog article by Geoff Dembicki “We’re in a culture war now,” Peterson explained in a tone both reedy and authoritative, sounding like a nasally smalltown preacher from the Alberta prairies, where he grew up. This war was started, he claimed, because the idea that we can lead moral lives and build a just society based solely on scientific facts “turned out to be wrong.” Peterson was there to create hype and advance sales for the book he’ll be releasing in November, as well as stoke enrollment for his new online school called Peterson Academy that launches September 9. He was also communicating a worldview that’s increasingly central to the political strategy of his allies in the U.S. conservative movement – that environmental advocates who push for urgent action to avert climate catastrophe are followers of a “pseudo-religion” seeking to impose socialist control over every aspect of modern society.

So, no, it's not just Rogan. And, yes, lots of reliable sources are talking about the significance of his climate change denialism. Simonm223 (talk) 13:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I never said that's what he believes, and as far as I can see, neither does Beluga Butterscotch. It is you who wants the article to be based on your own understanding. Stop projecting.

I am saying we should report what he said, according to RS, without injecting any he-believes-this, he believes-that exegesis. I don't think he "believes" in any of the pretend reasons he gives for rejecting climate science. It is the usual contrarian bullshit that rejects what science says without any care whether it makes sense, without any care whether it is consistent with his other statements, and without any care whether it is consistent with the facts. That is how denialism works. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:50, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

And multiple reliable sources have demonstrated that, in addition to his comments on Rogan, Peterson has:

• Delivered talks challenging the scientific consensus on climate change
• Claimed that climate change is a socialist conspiracy to control culture
• Platformed climate change deniers

So, yes, his climate change denialism is reported upon in multiple reliable sources and extends beyond a single badly-worded statement on Rogan. This is legitimately part of Peterson's overall conservative project. Simonm223 (talk) 15:02, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

And the information is part of the article. Unfortunately most of the sources above seem long on rhetoric and short on actually addressing the claims (right or wrong) that Peterson has made. Much of it reads like sports fans for one team explaining why the other team isn't that good. At this point we are well past summarizing what Peterson actually claims and then summarizing the reasons why experts think his claims are wrong. Instead we seem to have a lot of, lacking a better description, culture war, type explanations. Springee (talk) 17:29, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a way of getting away from reliable sources. Simonm223 (talk) 18:10, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Please don't confuse "not liking" with the sources (at least the parts you quoted) not making a reasonable case to support their claims. Springee (talk) 18:29, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

The claims are just fine and the sources are reliable. Your claim that the sources are long on rhetoric is not a policy based objection. Regardless, WP:RS/N is that way but I think you'll probably also want to read WP:GUARDIAN before you file. Simonm223 (talk) 18:32, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Is our objective to reproduce every negative thing said about Peterson or to inform readers? The best way to inform readers is to find RSs that accurately summarize what Peterson's views are and then explain, without emotive language, the rights/wrongs of what Peterson is saying. The more a RS wades away from facts and into rhetoric, innuendo, and implication the more we should take pause in taking their claims at face value. What I'm saying doesn't make Peterson "right" about any of this. However, it does better inform the reader and better adheres to NPOV's guidance on being impartial. Springee (talk) 19:56, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Probably there is a way to consensus. Summarizing an influential person's influence according to the best RS is a neutral objective. Llll5032 (talk) 20:09, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it's suitable or proper for Wikipedia to place greater emphasis on Peterson's views before going into RS views on those views and/or pick and choose RS on such a basis. As for tone or diction, we don't have to be a carbon copy of the sources we use, but pointing out specific examples rhetoric, innuendo, and implication would be more actionable. Alpha3031 (t • c) 20:28, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

We're here to build an informative article. There's huge variability on how editors use sources. At on extreme, they can use them to put in information free negative value-laden and even erroneous characterizations, or they can be used to actually inform on the topic. I think that it's best to do the latter. North8000 (talk) 21:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I object to the first half of your sentence starting with At on extreme. Even if you are not referring or intending to refer to any specific editors, I believe the statement is needlessly inflammatory and not conducive to a collaborative editing environment. Additionally, as I've pointed out, such accusations are less actionable if specific examples of the objectionable wording is not given. I would ask you to please strike it. Alpha3031 (t • c) 00:18, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

On a different angle "Climate change denier" means denying the basic tenets of climate change. In current times that's like calling somebody the extreme of being a flat-earther. In a BLP we'd need really strong sourcing to put such a characterization in. And doubly so in the voice of Wikipedia. We don't have it. And from what I've seen in the specifics in the sources that is because it is false. I did take some time to look into the sources and he critiques many things that are said and done in relation to climate change and the advisability of promoted mitigation measures, but does not deny the main tenets of climate change. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

That's not an accurate definition of what a "climate-change denier" is though, as the term is actually much broader then that.

TLDR: It means to deny or diminish, in-whole or in-part, the scientific evidence regarding climate change & its effects.

The longer explanation:

CAP defines a climate denier as:

1. Believing that climate change is not real or is a hoax
2. Stating that the climate has always been changing as a result of natural factors and that today’s warming is a continuation of natural cycles, despite direct scientific evidence to the contrary
3. Thinking that the science around climate change is not settled or that nonscientists cannot assess the body of evidence that confirms its existence
4. Claiming that while humans are contributing to a changing climate, they are not the main contributors, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary

This article by Pascal Diethelm & Martin McKee first gives a general definition of denialism, as defined by the Hoofnagle brothers: "the employment of rhetorical arguments to give the appearance of legitimate debate where there is none,5 an approach that has the ultimate goal of rejecting a proposition on which a scientific consensus exists."

They then define denialism in more detail as "a process that employs some or all of five characteristic elements in a concerted way." Those 5 characteristics being (summarized for brevity)

• Conspiracies: The idea that, instead of scientists & researchers independently studying evidence & reaching the same conclusion, they are actually part of a conspiracy to hide a secret truth.
• Fake Experts: Elevating the claims of supposed experts that hold fringe views "inconsistent with established knowledge" & rejecting/denigrating/discrediting actual experts who contradict them.
• Selectivity: Cherry-picking.
• Impossible Expectations: They specifically give an example of climate denial here - "those denying the reality of climate change point to the absence of accurate temperature records from before the invention of the thermometer. Others use the intrinsic uncertainty of mathematical models to reject them entirely as a means of understanding a phenomenon."
• Misrepresentation & Logical Fallacies: Overall bad-faith arguments in discussions.

Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 22:33, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I know that you felt that your post refutes what I said but it actually agrees with what I said so other than your characterizations of it I agree with your post and think that it is good info. The definition that you provided is about denying the well established tenets of climate change. North8000 (talk) 13:42, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

This gets back to something that was discussed (either a few months back here or perhaps in a related notice board discussion, what do readers think when they see "climate change denial". The definition provided by CAP, seems to be very broad, perhaps that is deliberate as it allows any critic of any aspect of "climate change" to be labeled as a denier. MW's definition isn't nearly as expansive, "rejection of the idea that changes in the Earth's climate or weather patterns are caused by human activity"[17]. The Cambridge dictionary is similar, "the argument or belief that climate change is not happening, or is not caused by human activity such as burning fossil fuels:"[the argument or belief that climate change is not happening, or is not caused by human activity such as burning fossil fuels:] Neither suggest a denier would also include CAP's items 2-4 though 2 and 4 would be inherent in outright denial. I suspect the dictionaries are more likely to try to align their definitions with the common understanding of the terms rather while a policy advocacy organization might pick definitions as much for strategic interest as for common language understanding. Springee (talk) 00:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

The use of the term denial is well established in literature. It's inappropriate to attempt to overturn that using popular tertiary sources. Alpha3031 (t • c) 01:08, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

In engineering literature the differences between power, torque, force, work and energy are well understood but in many media articles the terms are used in ways where the differences may not be clear to readers. The dictionary definitions here suggest what the typical reader will think when presented with a term. If we want to use something other than the commonly understood definition then we should define the term in our article and ensure that our use fits the evidence. Springee (talk) 01:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Compared to scientific/expert analysis, a dictionary definition is always going to be simplified & lack nuance/details, as it's meant for a general audience. For scientific topics, we should prefer scientific sources.

For example, NCSE - "in common with a number of scholarly and journalistic observers of the social controversies surrounding climate change — opts to use the terms “climate changer deniers” and “climate change denial” (where “denial” encompasses unwarranted doubt as well as outright rejection)" They then go into further detail & supply sources analyzing the topic to support them. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 01:18, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

What are readers likely to understand the term to mean? Do and dictionaries suggest the typical reader would understand the term to be so broad? Conversely, if the meaning is so clear why would dictionaries have it wrong/too narrow? Springee (talk) 01:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

If they're unsure of what climate denial means, they click the link to our article on the topic that says the same thing I'm saying. If they don't know why Peterson is considered a climate denier, they'll continue reading the article for when we describe his positions on the matter & why he's considered a climate denier.

As for "why would dictionaries have it wrong/too narrow?", dictionary definitions are supposed to be a layman's understanding of the term. For example, Merriam-Webster describes a lizard as:

"any of a suborder (Lacertilia) of reptiles distinguished from the snakes by a fused inseparable lower jaw, a single temporal opening, two pairs of well differentiated functional limbs which may be lacking in burrowing forms, external ears, and eyes with movable lids

broadly : any relatively long-bodied reptile (such as a crocodile or dinosaur) with legs and tapering tail"

A perfectly serviceable definition for casual conversation, but not entirely accurate as legless lizards exist & most geckos lack eyelids. Also, lizards have 2 temporal openings, not 1 as they're diapsid, so that part's just wrong.

Dictionary definitions should only be looked at for surface level understandings, not as something to trump scientific definitions. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 02:05, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that the dictionary is wrong? If our article on climate change is a RS why do we say Wikipedia articles aren't RSs? Look, you can claims, and not without some reason, that the sources that use the term climate change denier actually intent the more expansive definition. However, we can't assume the reader will assume that nor should we assume the definitions presented by those sources are universally accepted. I bring this up since you brought up definitions as some sort of trump card in this discussion. I'm not even sure what content we are discussing at this point or if we are just debating because this is Wikipedia :D . Springee (talk) 02:35, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I brought up definitions because the comment I was originally replying to was arguing for exclusion of the term climate denier, based on an inaccurate definition.

I gave academic sources because climate denial, like any form of science denial, is an academic topic. This was done to support the idea that the definition is more expansive & as such, due for inclusion. You dismissed this with the dictionary. The definitions I gave aren't generally controversial or niece in scientific fields so there's no reason to assume that experts accusing him of climate denial mean wildly different things & you've yet to present any reliable sources that dispute that.

I don't understand your argument that readers will "assume" a different definition of the term. It doesn't matter what the reader assumes before reading as we're supposed to explain what we mean with sources, either here or in other articles linked from here. If we don't properly explain that, that'd be a different issue, but not a reason for excluding the statement.

Also no, I'm not saying "our article on climate change is a RS", but the sources we cite there are. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 03:41, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Are you saying the two dictionaries are inaccurate definitions? Are they inaccurate in terms of common understanding of the term or of the sources we cite? Do you have any sources that say the dictionaries need to expand their terms? Considering your comment about understandings, if the article says "Peterson is a climate change denier" and we cite a source. Have we explained why he is a "denier"? If we go a step further and say "Peterson is a denier. He has questioned what he calls perverse incentives in the climate change science community". Does that make it clear that we are calling him a denier not because he claims humans do not affect climate but because he thinks the scientific methods are compromised by perverse incentives? Note: I'm using the perverse incentive statement for argument sake. So given that example, can we assume a reader will see that claim and realize the denier label is applied because he questions the methods/process, even though he does state that humans affect climate? It certainly doesn't seem reasonable to jump to that conclusion and if our intent is to make sure we don't misrepresent what sources say (and ideally that the sources don't misrepresent what Peterson says) then we should use the more narrow definition provided by the dictionaries. Presumably the dictionary definition is going to better align with common understanding vs a specialist source (or a politically motivated source). Conversely, if the reader needs to dive into the sources to understand the the "our" specific meaning of the term perhaps we should just avoid the term and instead use the evidence the sources based their claim upon. We can use RS to present the facts rather than the characterization labels. Springee (talk) 05:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

If I am trying to communicate with someone, I don't deliberately choose wording that is likely to be misinterpreted. Following the example of MOS:JARGON, we should either use wording that unambiguously conveys the correct meaning or explain what we mean by denial. Using links and expecting the reader to click on them and learn that the term can have various meanings is against guidelines but also against common sense.

While I appreciate that global warming is a serious issue, we should not implicitly misrepresent writers. Articles do not exist to persuade readers. The best we can do is present the facts. TFD (talk) 08:37, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

The denial deniers should just stop throwing red herrings around. Comparing what dictionaries say about climate change denial with what reliable sources say about Peterson's climate change denial is WP:OR. It is gainsaying the RS. End of story. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:26, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Please review wp:FOC. Springee (talk) 11:58, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Reliable sources were presented that demonstrate that Peterson is a climate change denier and that this denialism is more significant than a one-off comment on Rogan. No effort has been made to demonstrate that these sources are disallowed in any policy manner with the objections failing to rise above WP:IDONTLIKEIT - I have no interest in going in circles on this. If the editors who want to down-play Peterson's denialism or its significance want to bring this up further I suggest they bring it to the attention of appropriate noticeboards but I have no interest in playing "whoever keeps arguing longer wins" on this talk page. This discussion is thoroughly exhausted. Simonm223 (talk) 12:42, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I think a source review was conducted a while back and we didn't have sufficient sources to apply the label in wiki voice. Springee (talk) 13:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

If you are referring to this discussion, I don't think the summary is we didn't have sufficient sources to apply the label in wiki voice. A better summary might be, some editors disputed the label without providing any support for their position in reliable sources. Newimpartial (talk) 13:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

"Without providing any support"? I think there was quite a bit of support in RSs. If a RS doesn't say "Peterson is a climate change denier" then they didn't use the LABEL we are applying to him. When an article reads like our objective is to attack the person due to their views rather than just state what their views are impartially we are failing as writers/editors. Interestingly, none of that was the original reason this section was even started. It seems to have ended up here because editors made comments that didn't relate to the original concern and others (myself included) replied to those off topic comments. Springee (talk) 13:59, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Where in that discussion is any support provided from secondary sources for the assertion that Peterson doesn't deny the scientific consensus on climate change? What I see in that section is sources saying that Peterson opposes/denies/doesn't understand the scientific consensus, versus editors objecting either because a source doesn't use the complete phrase "climate change denier", or because the editor's OR reading of Peterson's statements on the topic doesn’t align with that editor's personal understanding of what climate denial ought to mean. If you see something else there, I'd love to know what that is. Newimpartial (talk) 14:11, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

You seem to be inventing requirements. But I will reiterate, we all seem to be arguing for the sake of arguing at this point. Springee (talk) 14:27, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Do you have any sources that support down-playing Peterson's climate change denialism? Simonm223 (talk) 15:04, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Are you speaking about WEIGHT, a concept that isn't taken directly from sources but instead from our summary of sources? Are you speaking about summarizing? That again is up to us to decide how to IMAPRTIALLY summarize sources. Yet again, we seem to be arguing to argue (which I'm clearly playing into by replying to these questions). Springee (talk) 15:42, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

No. I'm asking you what reliable sources you have to support that Peterson's climate change denialism is only incidental, ironic or misinterpreted in some way. Do you have any reliable sources that suggest any such thing? Because so far this discussion consists of those people who believe this is due inclusion providing reliable sources and then a bunch of weak arguments as to why said sources should not count. Do you have reliable secondary sources to support that there is any dissension around Peterson's denialism? Simonm223 (talk) 16:04, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Your question is a red herring. We as editors decide how much weight etc should be placed on sources. Additionally OR is explicitly allowed when making such decisions. At this point the discussion becomes a repeat of what has already been discussed and what has resulted in a discussion lacking consensus. Since you found this discussion "thoroughly exhausted" why keep it going? Springee (talk) 16:43, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

So that's a no. Simonm223 (talk) 17:04, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

It should be presented in a neutral tone without misrepresentation, IOW it shouldn't read like it was written by Blue MAGA. In any case, writing in an obviously biased fashion discredits anything the article says. It's like presenting a prosecution case instead of the judge's verdict. TFD (talk) 17:19, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

This claim is not adequately demonstrated to be applicable. Again the article is following the reliable sources. If there are sources being missed that would effect the balance of the article and demonstrate that the article, as it stands, has a POV problem, please present them. Simonm223 (talk) 17:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing neutral tone with neutral point of view.

"Wikipedia describes disputes, but does not engage in them. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone; otherwise, articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view. Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tones can be introduced through how facts are selected, presented, or organized. Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article.

"The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial, formal tone."

The article should read like an article in an encyclopedia or textbook, not like a description on the Rachel Maddow show. TFD (talk) 15:32, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

The reasoning "I have sources that do not say it", if it were really applied, would destroy Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. This article, for example, would be reduced to the name "Jordan Peterson" because there is not a single statement in the article that is backed up by every existing source. Why are you wasting people's time with that silliness? --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:17, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Please review wp:FOC. Another red herring. Comparing what dictionaries say about climate change denial with what reliable sources say about Peterson's climate change denial is still WP:OR no matter how often you dodge the fact with irrelevant WP links. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:17, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Failure to FOC can lead to CIVIL issues thus violating policy. A number of editors have explained their disagreement with what your are saying. At this point we have a NOCON with regards to that particular point. Springee (talk) 11:54, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Springee: are you under the impression that we have actual, policy-based NOCON on how to write about this aspect of Peterson's notability/notareity? Or do we actually have WP:STONEWALLING from a few editors who don't want to hear what our policies and guidelines require? Newimpartial (talk) 12:24, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Hidden Book

Does anyone know why "ABCs of Tragedy" isn’t listed in Jordan Peterson’s Wiki book list? It's arguably his most controversial work—so much so that it was even removed from his website. Any idea what's going on with this?

YouTube has two good videos about it.

One of him announcing it and the other is a group reviewing the book Pragmatic Person (talk) 00:53, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

https://m.youtube.com/watch?si=JhivLbMyq8w_-Df8&v=ZvfGn4phwlE&feature=youtu.be

And for more information on the book itself. Try:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?si=NKDtYbEbreo3iUBG&v=18O9bap8MgI&feature=youtu.be Pragmatic Person (talk) 00:59, 3 September 2024 (UTC)