Talk:Jordan Peterson/Archive 22

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Works

Do we need a whole Works section with three subsections for each of Peterson's books? These have own articles already, I suggest trimming that off. NicolausPrime (talk) 13:14, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Go ahead and propose some cuts. Simonm223 (talk) 13:16, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

support I also support cutting all the articles where he is the third or fourth author. Elinruby (talk) 13:20, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

I've made a start. Simonm223 (talk) 13:20, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm wondering if we could remove the Works/Books section altogether and integrate the book releases in the Career section, since there's already a Bibliography section at the bottom that lists all the books. NicolausPrime (talk) 12:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

It's both normal and also informative content. I can't imagine why anyone would want it removed. North8000 (talk) 14:11, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Articles about J. K. Rowling and Noam Chomsky, both high-profile and controversial Anglo public figures, don't have separate subsections for multiple works. But just now I noticed that the article about J. R. R. Tolkien does have such, though even there these aren't duplicated in a Bibliography section at the bottom. Not sure if these articles are comparable. I'm on the edge. At the very least it would be good to deduplicate. NicolausPrime (talk) 14:32, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

There is no universe where Jordan Peterson has even one percent of the lasting impact as an author as J.R.R. Tolkien. About the only thing they have in common is that they were both conservatives and they both taught in universities at some point in their career. Simonm223 (talk) 18:56, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

If someone is an author, we write what books they wrote. If someone is a band, we write what albums they made. There is no ultra high bar that that info has to have "lasting impact". North8000 (talk) 20:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Cruft

It's entirely irrelevant to list the former research areas of a self-help writer and conservative YouTube influencer. Peterson is not a researcher. He's not a teacher. He no longer has a clinical practice. A puffy list of every topic he ever wrote a paper on is WP:UNDUE. Simonm223 (talk) 20:51, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Peterson was a researcher and a teacher for many, many years—on the highest level as well, being active at Harvard. He is a highly cited academic in the discipline of psychology. And an article is not supposed to be occupied with WP:RECENTISM but ought to cover the topic in question from a historical perspective. Trakking (talk) 21:05, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I may be wrong, but I don't believe that the Jungian mashups characterizing Peterson's work within academic psychology have had much impact on the field. To the best of my knowledge, they aren't even well-regarded among Jungians. Newimpartial (talk) 21:15, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

@Newimpartial that's because he leaves out any parts of the unconscious that are inconvenient to his arguments. He's no James Hillman, that's for sure. Simonm223 (talk) 21:19, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I'd call "Impact on the field" high, but it really doesn't need to be argued. It's not a criteria for including what areas he studied in, what books he wrote etc. North8000 (talk) 21:20, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

@Trakking it's an undue level of detail. Simonm223 (talk) 21:21, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Trakking said it well.North8000 (talk) 21:14, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

@Newimpartial: According to Google Scholar, Peterson’s Jungian work Maps of Meaning has been cited almost a 1000 times, and his articles on creativity and personality psychology have been cited even more. Trakking (talk) 21:56, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Citation counts are a poor metric for influence IMO. I prefer to look at what is actually said about an author's work in assessing impact. Newimpartial (talk) 22:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

@Newimpartial also the reason people so often stop looking at Peterson's impact factor around 2021 is because his citation rate has fallen off a cliff since the induced coma and the unusual behavior that followed. Peterson us a fringe academic whose ability to garner attention through political grandstanding is in decline. Simonm223 (talk) 23:05, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

For my money, because Peterson's notability does not stem from his research or other academic pursuits, they don't need to be exhaustively detailed. Combine that with my mother's favourite aphorism, that brevity is the soul of wit, and I think some trimming would be appropriate. As ever though, reasonable minds can certainly differ. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 00:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Let's assess and annotate.

Peterson's areas of study and research within the fields of psychology are psychopharmacology,

Cited to two papers written by Peterson. Primary sources only. No evidence of third party analysis of his contribution to psychopharmacology. Not due inclusion on such a slim basis.

abnormal,

Again citation is just an essay Peterson is a co-author of. No evidence of third party analysis of his contribution to abnormal psychology. Not due inclusion.

neuro,

The same thing again as the first two. This is a pattern of citing one of his papers and then saying it was one of his areas of study. All this is WP:PEACOCK writing. There's absolutely no assessment of whether he made any significant contribution to the field.

clinical,

No citation given.

personality,

Same as the others with a citation given. Exactly the same.

social,

This paper is being used twice for two entirely different fields of study. Disgraceful.

industrial and organizational, religious,

No citation for either of these.

ideological,

Ah yes, Ideological psychology, totally a thing that exists and not just a lampshade for the fact that he regularly writes about ideology despite him not being trained in political philosophy or any other domain of study that would normally cover ideology.

political,

No citation given.

and creativity.

This is a speakers list for a conference - I don't think it even constitutes a reliable source at all - but beyond that little issue it still does nothing to establish he made any significant contribution to the field.

Peterson has authored or co-authored more than a hundred academic papers

Peterson got his PhD in 1991. He was working in academia from then until 2021. That's 30 years later. If he was writing or co-writing four papers a year it would bring him over 100. I could boast that level of output myself. It's not notable, not remarkable, it's normal. Calling it out here plays on the reality that most people don't work in academia and don't write any papers but, within the bounds of his profession, it's entirely non-notable. WP:PEACOCK

and was cited more than 18,000 times as of 2022.

Likewise this is WP:PEACOCK - and I called out above that the reason so many sources cut off at 2021 or 2022 for Peterson's h-index is because it's had a steady decline in the intervening two years. And, as has been mentioned by others, h-index is a weak actual measure of ones influence on the field. Getting your name on a bunch of multi-author papers is kind of easy and doesn't mean that many people really care what you think. Simonm223 (talk) 12:29, 22 May 2024 (UTC) Simonm223 (talk) 12:29, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Please make sure to include recently removed citations. I think a lot of Research Gate links were recently removed. The RG links may not be enough to establish weight but if weight is already established they may be enough to support facts. Springee (talk) 12:50, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Weight is most certainly not established.

This section has zero secondary sources. Except for Christie Blatchford mentioning his citation count. This paragraph should be blanked. Simonm223 (talk) 13:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

As a Prof at several top universities I see his areas of research as inherently notable. I don't think the whole topic should be wiped. Springee (talk) 13:06, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Your opinion doesn't change the fact that the paragraph, as written and cited, does not establish that he has had any significant impact on any area of study. Simonm223 (talk) 13:22, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

His birthday didn't have any lasting impact on that particular date or day. Does that mean we don't cover it? His high citation count does suggest his work has had an impact even if we don't have a source stating that explicitly. Why are we so concerned with removing uncontroversial material? Springee (talk) 14:04, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

The inclusion of WP:PEACOCK material violates our policies about biographies of living people. The sentence Peterson has authored or co-authored more than a hundred academic papers and was cited more than 18,000 times as of 2022 strikes me as an obvious PEACOCK violation, particularly given the primary/poor sourcing. (Also, the part of the paragraph preceding that sentence strikes me as something a university website would publish to attract incoming graduate students, not an appropirate part of a tertiary biography.) Newimpartial (talk) 15:06, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Because I don't find it uncontroversial for a Wikipedia article to be drafted such that a WP:FRINGE academic is treated like some sort of poly-expert in contravention of WP:PEACOCK and when I uncontroversially removed this fancruft I was reverted on the basis that it had sources. As I've demonstrated, no, it has citations but none that actually are appropriate to WP:RS for demonstrating what it claims to demonstrate. Simonm223 (talk) 15:10, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

”Peterson’s citation rate has fallen off a cliff since 2019”. No, Google Scholar demonstrates the exact opposite: it has been higher than ever the last couple of years.

Big Five is one of the most scientifically substantiated models in all of the social sciences, and Peterson participated in developing its facets—for example, the important distinction between Orderliness and Industriousness in trait Conscientiousness. This is mainstream psychology nowadays.

There is nothing peacocky about the sentence ”Peterson has authored or co-authored more than a hundred academic papers and was cited more than 18,000 times as of 2022”—it is just the facts. Trakking (talk) 16:05, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

See this thing about the big five is an exact example of what I meant. Per our page on the topic, Peterson's involvement was a "subsequent development" in which In 2007, Colin DeYoung, Lena C. Quilty and Jordan Peterson concluded that the 10 aspects of the Big Five may have distinct biological substrates. This was derived through factor analyses of two data samples with the International Personality Item Pool, followed by cross-correlation with scores derived from 10 genetic factors identified as underlying the shared variance among the Revised NEO Personality Inventory facets. Now do I need to link to Eugenics to suggest where Peterson was going with this line of reasoning? Regardless he was not significantly instrumental to the development of the theory. He played a questionable, fringey, and ultimately negligible role. Simonm223 (talk) 16:16, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Juat on the "Big Five" claim: the enwiki article on the big five mentions Peterson once - as third author of a paper - and cites two papers with his name on them - as second and third author, respectively. Of the four other authors on these papers, besides Peterson, two do not seem to have wikipedia articles at all, and the article on Colin G. DeYoung (first author of the main paper) contains no equivalent to the paragraph under discussion here.

My sense, based on the sources I've seen, is that in co-authoring a couple of papers Peterson has not, in fact, made an important contribution to mainstream psychology.

My sense is also that there is no convention concerning psychology professors that their enwiki biographies should be enhanced by publication or citation counts, whether the intention of editors doing so is to make the BLP subject seem more important or not. Newimpartial (talk) 16:23, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

It's not clear his research was considered FRINGE. Springee (talk) 16:17, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

His body of work is largely fringe - the question of "was" is irrelevant. It is now pretty well recognized that the man is not a strong scientist. And frankly those Harvard anecdotes about him jumping onto any research project no matter how bizarre should have been a bloody warning sign from the start. Simonm223 (talk) 16:19, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

But here's the thing: the ferocity by which this poorly sourced paragraph of say-nothing cruft is being defended so vehemently stems directly from the realization that even Peterson's defenders have that he's not ever going to be a James Hillman, a Wolfgang Giegerich or a Jacques Lacan - profound figures within psychoanalysis have bodies of work and theoretical bases that stand the test of time and that have a significant impact on the field.

Peterson doesn't have that. He's got one book of obscurantist pseudo-philosophy and a couple of self-help books. His hundred-odd bog-standard papers are the only bulwark he has against the irrelevance of his career to the broad thrust of his profession. Simonm223 (talk) 16:26, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Wolfgang Giegerich? How many people know about this random guy—a hundred? Although famous, Lacan is widely criticized and denounced in the intellectual community.

The fact remains that Peterson is more cited than 99% of his academic peers. And his articles have not been controversial. Trakking (talk) 16:41, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Listen bud I don't know what to tell you but I pointed to those three rather specifically: Hillman is one of the most significant post-Jungians. Giegerich is probably the most significant orthodox Jungian. And, love him or hate him, but Lacan is the most influential single person to psychoanalysis post-Freud. Your lack of knowledge of the three isn't my problem. Simonm223 (talk) 16:56, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Along with Dumuzid I can see a question of how much to devote to this area of Peterson. I can't see removing it entirely. I would suggest those who wish to reduce make a proposal as to what to remove here so we get consensus on the changes and avoid any of the recent back and forth. Springee (talk) 11:36, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

This is sensible. Riposte97 (talk) 00:42, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

The The Harvard Crimson is a student newspaper, and is hardly a reliable source for such an inflammatory comment. Maybe it was edited by a student who got a poor grade from JP at some point? Considering WP:BLP, I would suggest that we exclude all "newspaper" comments, because they are not necessary accurate nor objective, and summarise from there? Wdford (talk) 12:48, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

No. Simonm223 (talk) 12:02, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Interesting attitude. Projecting such determination to protect the use of unreliable sources, it hardly a display of a neutral POV. Wdford (talk) 12:45, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Wrong. Simonm223 (talk) 13:47, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

So now we clearly have a POV-pushing problem. Wdford (talk) 13:56, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

No we don't. Aside from the POV pushing you are doing. Please come back when you have something policy driven to complain about. Simonm223 (talk) 14:05, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

In an article about him we need to cover what he studied, taught, wrote etc. That coverage is not conditional on showing that those items are of of epic importance, recognition or prominence.North8000 (talk) 14:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Frankly how his area of study is addressed in this article is highly dissimilar from the treatment of most academics. How many times does the Lacan article mention how many people cited him? Where in the Freud article does it enumerate every sub-domain of psychiatry he wrote about? Where is the h-factor of Miguel Nicolelis? It is unusual to include these sorts of lists, absent detail or context, in an article about an academic. If he made a significant contribution to a domain of study then that should be described as per reliable secondary sources. This list is not how Wikipedia does things. Simonm223 (talk) 14:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

References

Disputed paragraph

Today I removed the disputed paragraph [1], 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[2] 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 [3] [4] based on good-faith objections to its inclusion rooted in BLP policy, and it has been restored twice [5] [6] 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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia 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 ^talk \\ 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 ^talk \\ 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 [7] "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 [8]. 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 [9] 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.” “[S]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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia. Simonm223 (talk) 16:30, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

A quick search on "cited times google scholar" on Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia?

  I think we'd all agree that we're editing Wikipedia 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.[8] 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 [10] 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[11] and in the body[12], 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)