Talk:Jordan Peterson/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Feminism/Views of Women?

I feel like there should be a section on Peterson's views on women and feminism since it's a major part of his thought and distinct from BIll C-16 and postmodernism etc. CartoonDiablo (talk) 20:42, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Could you supply the sources you would imagine forming the basis for this section? At present the article makes but one oblique reference to feminism and very little else that relates to gender equality. Obviously he is vocal on identity politics and gender pronouns (which is more a transgender issue, really) but we just don't have content at present representing any particularly strong views on women that we could move into your proposed section, meaning we would need to carefully consider it wholecloth. I'm not in support or opposed; this is not a topic which I have previously heard associated with Peterson, though I should not be terribly surprised if he is antagonistic to some elements of contemporary feminism, knowing his views on related issues. We would certainly need to see the sources and proposed content before making a call though. Snow ^{let's rap} 23:52, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm thinking of, among other things, his comments on equal pay and sexual assault in various media. I might put some RSes together. CartoonDiablo (talk) 00:14, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, sounds feasible, but just be careful of WP:SYNTH; we don't want to string together a number of comments on related topics in such a way that we seem to be making a claim about his views (that they are misogynistic or antagonistic to women's issues, for example) unless reliable sources actually connect those dots themselves and make such a statement. I wouldn't be surprised if there are some sources that do just that out there somewhere, but if it turns out that we can't find them, I expect any such section will be opposed as POV pushing. Honestly, it could be an uphill slog regardless, but I don't want to pass judgement until I see what you find. Snow ^{let's rap} 02:45, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

• See above at Talk:Jordan_Peterson#Revert:_section_11 for my intitial shot at that. Jytdog (talk) 03:00, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Well honestly I can see why that was reverted--you kind of set yourself up for it by framing the whole paragraph with that first sentence; that's just not the sort of thing we can say in Wikipedia's voice, but rather has to be attributed to someone. That said, the references you employed in that section would be useful to CD's revived effort at something similar here, particularly the Naureen Shameem source. I also think that comment regarding the Toronto incel mass-murderer is fruitful for retention; I think it speaks volumes about the subject's perspectives without our needing to insert ourselves via editorializing. It's always useful when BLP subjects provide their own words to frame themselves in a way that we would want to represent but would struggle to accomplish under policies regarding synthesis. Snow ^{let's rap} 03:52, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

I'd wonder if the section should be limited to feminism and women, or should we have a broader section on his ideas of gender and gender roles. --Kyohyi (talk) 15:43, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

That could work too, it would just be a matter of separating his critiques of postmodernism etc. as a mode of politics from the content of his thoughts on gender by itself. CartoonDiablo (talk) 21:50, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not saying it couldn't work under any circumstances, but I think we need to be careful here and not conduct "WP:OR by section header", if you follow my meaning. Organizing disparate isolated comments together under the header of "views on gender" if we don't have a single source noting that he has views on gender could be interpreted as WP:synthesis. I mean, it could just be that the man throws haymakers at anything that resembles a conservative bugbear. Or it could very well be that he has expressed strong views on gender which he is becoming a consistent proponent for. We have to choose the way we frame his comments in a manner that is consistent with the WP:weight of what is said explicitly in the sources (which in this case would ideally be independent WP:Secondary sources)--not with any editorial narrative in which we ourselves connect the dots (mostly from primary statements) and arrive at our own conclusions as to what all of these various comments mean about the man as an individual and a public figure, and how we can label his beliefs. I'm still waiting to see a list of proposed sources. I think, from a policy inquiry perspective, it is putting the cart before the horse to decide what the content should look like and then ask what sources can we use to support this description. We should rather look first at the sources and ask, what are they saying? So, what are our sources here? Snow ^{let's rap} 09:49, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Agree, that's basic editing principle. Would add that the talk page is not WP:FORUM and the discussions should be about specific content. Perhaps merge this as a sub-section of discussion "Revert: section 11". --Miki Filigranski (talk) 10:07, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Meh, I favour leaving the discussion here; the discussion is likely to get cluttered again soon enough, without our first smashing two threads together. As to WP:FORUM, I don't think I've seen anyone say anything yet that gets anywhere near that off-topic. In order to debate what are likely to be very nuanced editorial decisions, some degree of discussion of the record of the man's statements will be necessary. So long as as the ultimate content itself reflects only the perspectives of the sources, and not our own, that's what I think is most important. Snow ^{let's rap} 10:24, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I believe there's quite a bit of WP:PRIMARY material on Peterson's view of radical feminism, but it's a topic he certainly does throw haymakers on. Here's one such haymaker from his twitter [1] in which he claims radical feminism is Marxism "in disguise". He's also echoed the (right-leaning) claim that feminists don't criticize Islam (I'm not sure why he believes this) out of a secret desire to be dominated [2]. I'm sure there's WP:Secondary discussion of these tweets. Here's a Vox world news article from this year which includes discussion of his views on feminism: [3] (it discusses the Islam tweet and others). Here's a more general source from the Irish Times which could create a good lead to a section on feminism and women [4]. Here's a slightly WP:PRIMARY transcript of his Cathy Newman interview presented by The Atlantic (although I believe the original interview was done by Channel 4), in which he states that Radical Feminists are wrong on the wage gap [5]. It seems his arguments rest on what he perceives as a feminist push for "equality of outcome"... which explains why he believes radical feminism is a form of Marxism. As perverse and ridiculous as I myself find that understanding of those two discourses, I can see his "logic" (going from a low level understanding that Marxism = equality in all things, to seeing "equality of outcome" = Marxism). The question is; what onus do we have on us to point out that feminism is generally about equality of opportunity, not forcing some "equality of outcome"? Frankly I don't see feminists, per se, looking for "equality of outcome" - I think that's more a bureaucratic response to feminism. At any rate, the material regarding Jordan Peterson's controversial views on feminism and women's liberation is out there awaiting documentation. --Jobrot (talk) 17:29, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

This video gives a generalized background of Peterson's view of the world (from the horses mouth). --Jobrot (talk) 17:47, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

The topics covered in a section on feminism would be better covered by a stand alone section on Identity Politics DirkDouse (talk) 00:48, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Jordan Peterson: Alt-Right Intellectual

Should somewhere in this page list that Jordan Peterson as alt-right, or routinely associated with the alt-right? A flurry of new articles about him have recently came out, describing this, as well as many previous ones from reputable sources, including NBC. One article from New York Review of Books alleges that Peterson is sympathetic to Fascism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:982:4200:A6C:9459:D3F9:E9FF:76D (talk) 13:36, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Seeing as Peterson has repeatedly condemned Nazis and other members of the "alt-right" I would not say that it is valid to say that he is "alt-right". It is true that members of the "alt-right" have latched on to some of the things he has said, but that isn't the same thing as him actually being "alt-right", and trying to understand/explain where the "alt-right" is coming from isn't the same as supporting them. Several of those sources read like opinion pieces and/or partisan sources, but I haven't had time to go through them all. {{u|zchrykng}} {T|C} 14:07, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Should somewhere in this page list that Jordan Peterson as alt-right, or routinely associated with the alt-right?. None of your sources say he is "alt-right". I find the fact that you ask us if we should label him as such peculiar since none of your sources say such a thing. Putting aside the credibility, motives and qualifications of some of those writers you cite for now (most of whom issue opinion and with large doses of invective) some writers do say that some alt-right types like him, but no reputable source says he is alt-right. Given that most of those writers do not hide their hatred for Peterson, I cannot but assume they are practicing a sort of guilt-by-association tactic which is, unfortunately, too often used as debating tactic in today's culturally divided society. Were we to include the fact that some sources say some alt-right types like him, we would have to include that no reliable source says he IS alt-right...his hatred of identity politics puts him at odds with a rather core tenet in alt-right philosophy and your Esquire source says as much when it says, "But his refusal of the consolations of group identity also puts him at odds with the alt-right." and there are many more sources which say similar. Marteau (talk) 18:09, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

How about saying that so and so called him "alt-right" although Peterson has repeatedly condemned Nazis and other members of the "alt-right". We can distinguish between Wikipedia saying he is alt-right and Wikipedia reporting that his opponents have called him alt-right (or Wikipedia reporting that members of the alt-right claim him as one of them - the former is POV; the latter two are NPOV. --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:47, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Just wanted to add my two cents about the sources listed:

1. I didn't watch the video This video labels him as alt-right, but gives no justification in labelling him as such.
2. According to its Wikipedia page, the Daily Dot isn't a news source, even though they publish current events/opinions.
3. The Esquire article doesn't connect him the alt-right, just through Rebel Media which it describes as all-right. The article even says "But his refusal of the consolations of group identity also puts him at odds with the alt-right."
4. The Guardian article describes him as "alt-light, not alt-right (basically the al-right without its defining characteristic: white supremacy).
5. smh says "He describes himself as a classic liberal, but he's the darling of conservatives, hyper-conservatives and the alt-right." Basically grouping an entire spectrum of conservative beliefs.
6. The sciene20.com link is broken and just redirects to their home page. Even using their search function produced no articles about Peterson.
7. The NYR Daily link doesn't even mention the alt-right.

--Ted87 (talk) 02:14, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

References

Canvassing on this page

Post has been deleted

See here - https://www.reddit.com/r/JordanPeterson/comments/94tvyg/jordans_wikipedia_page_is_about_to_be_subverted/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.37.149 (talk) archive --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:11, 5 August 2018 (UTC) This might need to be posted on the administrator's noticeboard. Thank you for finding and posting this. Gatemansgc (TɅ̊LK) 21:12, 5 August 2018 (UTC) IP sockpuppetry on this page. IP sock 86.26.37.149, if this is really important to you, please sign in with your Wikipedia account and make the same claim ethically and transparently. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 21:14, 5 August 2018 (UTC) @Winkelvi: I'm 100% willing to endorse the claim, and I'm logged in if that helps. I followed the link and there is a reddit user called 'FreedomGonzo2' that is asking users to come to this page and join him in his efforts to not mention Peterson's unorthodox views on climate change. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:27, 5 August 2018 (UTC) Were you the IP, Peter? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 21:29, 5 August 2018 (UTC) No, I am the IP and FWIW a different person, just don't want to be doxxed by alt-right redditors if at all possible. I am not voting or editing so no forms of socks here, just posting a link, the contents of which you can judge for yourself. 86.26.37.149 (talk) 21:34, 5 August 2018 (UTC) @Winkelvi: Nope! Is it required that I be for you to listen, or is this about your vendetta against Snoogans? PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:32, 5 August 2018 (UTC) What does Snooganssnoogans have to do with this? I never mentioned him or implied anything about him - what, precisely, are you trying to say? (and for the record, I have no vendetta against him - what a strange remark and connection you've made). -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 21:34, 5 August 2018 (UTC) Have a look at this edit. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:37, 5 August 2018 (UTC) @Winkelvi: It turns out I can read. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:39, 5 August 2018 (UTC) Still not seeing the connection. Seems like you're making a mountain out of a molehill that doesn't even exist. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 21:44, 5 August 2018 (UTC) So are FreedomGonzo and Winkelvi the same person? The text from that edit is in the reddit post. Amazing stuff. 86.26.37.149 (talk) 21:41, 5 August 2018 (UTC) The edit was done by Snoogans himself on his own talk page based on my reddit post and assuming, I am talking about him. It is clearly added to the talk page later, than the reddit post is posted. The fact that somebody assumes, I am talking about them on reddit and proudly posts it on their talk page, where a lot such materials are posted, just proves my point: this is an extremely biased account and many people confirmed that before. Are you Snoggans refusing to log in and sock puppeting? You seem to defend that account quite a lot without logging in. FreedomGonzo (talk) 01:22, 6 August 2018 (UTC) That's so ridiculous it doesn't even deserve a blink. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 21:44, 5 August 2018 (UTC) Here they go by FreedomGonzo. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:32, 5 August 2018 (UTC) Yes, I invited Peterson fans, that are Wikipedia editors and happen to be on reddit page to join the conversation. Here is what I wrote in the post: "If you want to contribute, learn the policies and use wikipedia policies to justify reverting their slanderous edits. Currently the page is very objective, but it won't stay like that for long, since these people are veteran wikipedia editors and they know, what they are doing. If you want to contribute to the cause: now is the time!", which is nowhere near request for "doxxing" or "join in him in effort not to mention Peterson's unorthodox views", I want those on his reddit page who are Wikipedia editors to join the conversation. No I am not Winkelvi and not connected to the account. Calling every person on Jordan Peterson's reddit "alt-right doxxers", all 74,000 of them, reveals PeterTheFourth bias and confirms my concerns from the reddit post 100%. All I am doing in the reddit post is asking other editors to join the conversation and fight bias from editors, that clearly have political agenda and want to use wikipedia for slander. Nowhere in the post is request for doxxing or subverting the page. In fact I clearly discourage any kind of trolling or brigading in my post. I am not hiding that I posted the request to join the conversation on reddit, if I would had an intention to hide something, I would be as anonymous as the IP that started this section, who obviously doesn't want to login to reveal his identity on Wikipedia. I am using the same nickname on both platform, as I have nothing to hide with this situation. FreedomGonzo (talk) 01:08, 6 August 2018 (UTC) unfortunately, the truth of the matter is that what you did is engage in partisan and biased canvassing in an effort to create a politicised battleground. In your reddit statement you openly disparage consensus building, one of the cornerstone of creating informative articles. I fail to see how any of this serves Wikipedia's aims. Acousmana (talk) 11:11, 6 August 2018 (UTC) FreedomGonzo you should perhaps learn Wikipedia's policies and guidelines yourself. Particularly WP:FACTION, WP:CANVAS, WP:GF and WP:NOTFACTIONS. --Jobrot (talk) 13:12, 6 August 2018 (UTC) Btw, my reddit post can PERHAPS be seen as canvassing, should you want to see it in negative light, but certainly not meat puppetry: I am not hiding in any way and using the same nickname on both platforms and both platforms are open. I am inviting people from the group to join the conversation and fight unreasonable bias following wikipedia policy to the letter, but I am not inviting any doxxing or trolling, in fact I clearly discourage that in the post, warning that it is against Wikipedia policies. FreedomGonzo (talk) 01:43, 6 August 2018 (UTC) I read FreedomGonzo's post on r/JordanPeterson. In fact, his post on Reddit prompted me to read this Talk page. I am glad he alerted me to this controversy so that I can follow the dialogue and chime in if I feel I have something helpful to add. I was impressed with FreedomGonzo's emphasis in his Reddit post on learning and respecting Wikipedia policies and procedures, e.g., "... engage on the talk page, following all Wikipedia Policies in a very polite way ...."   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 06:52, 6 August 2018 (UTC) The aforementioned policies (WP:FACTION, WP:CANVAS, WP:GF and WP:NOTFACTIONS) are designed to prevent the invitation of divisive and biased editing/groups... and given that your reddit post is titled "Jordan's Wikipedia page is about to be subverted by leftists and we can stop it!" I don't think you can make the case that your canvassing was non-political. It's a completely biased and politically motivated attempt to violate Wikipedia policy, and a ridiculous move in terms of your own credibility. The fact that you're STILL talking about inviting people to 'join the fight' (hello WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND) reaffirms that you still don't understand this very basic matter of Wikipedia policy: We're not here to fight. We're here to protect the journalistic, editorial and factual nature of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. This may mean reflecting Jordan Peterson's genuine viewpoints on controversial issues as best we can (using reliable and neutral sources). --Jobrot (talk) 13:41, 6 August 2018 (UTC) If some be concerned with meat puppetry, they can certainly report this to Wikipedia for investigation. The decision of Wikipedia will be the final judgement on this issue. However, to talk in a demeaning way to a suspect, not the convicted, is hostile if not uncivilized, as every human beings are presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. The issue should be calmly handled according to rules, rather than waging a self-righteous lynching. Zheng18552 (talk) 01:55, 6 August 2018 (UTC) "Innocent Before Proven Guilty" is a legal standard used in certain justice system rather than some sort of the universal moral rule. It's ridiculous to state that it should be applied universally. I mean the tone of discussion in the talk page has probably gotten too hostile but to act as if it's some great indignity for a fairly obvious violater of the rules to be talked badly about is ridiculous. Zubin12 (talk) 01:57, 6 August 2018 (UTC) I respectfully disagree. Neither my view or anyone else's view has any authority upon this issue. To act as if the issue solely depends on one's view, is self-righteous, when there is a clear guidance and reporting mechanism dedicated by Wikipedia. Whatever clear to one, may be perfectly arguable to others. The civilized way is wait for the result of investigation, rather than launching lynching, however tempting it may be. Zheng18552 (talk) 02:06, 6 August 2018 (UTC) Rule must be respected. In the meanwhile, I do disagree that "Innocent Before Proven Guilty" should not be universally applied. To conduct lynching, despite clear authority and reporting mechanism, can be dangerously abusive. One simply must be patient and civilized, in controversial matters. Zheng18552 (talk) 02:10, 6 August 2018 (UTC) To compare mean words on a wiki talk-page with Lynchings, a tool used for almost 2 centuries to maintain white supremacy in america and is still used to this day to persecute minorities is ridiculous hyperbole. I agree that the discourse here has gotten to heated, but saying that people are not allowed to discuss or talk about an incident while reporting mechanism exist is just ridiculous. Zubin12 (talk) 02:16, 6 August 2018 (UTC) To compare different things with the aim to sense the logic behind is the method of seeking truth. In this sense, there is no reason why, for instance, Communism cannot be compared with socialism, as done in the book, The Road to Serfdom. The aim is not to equalize but to detect the subtlety if not simply difference. In this sense, I see no reason why lynching cannot be compared with such a hostile environment when the final verdict is not issued yet. The manifestation may be different in forms or degrees, but the spirit is the similar. In this sense, I am very disheartened by this hostile environment, unfortunately built up by reasons obscure to me, as a swing person. Such a hostile environment can be demonstrated by twisting people's words for attacks and lack of love and clam. Even a person who calls for clam and respect towards rules get such treatments. Sigh, I may very well better devote my time to read books, rather than wasting time here, dangerously hostile as it is now. Zheng18552 (talk) 02:34, 6 August 2018 (UTC) Verbosity isn't a virtue, expressing yourself clearly makes you sound smarter than trying to draw out a very simple point. Comparisons can be enlightening but you haven't done that at all. You have just equated them without any explanation or qualification. Means words or a hostile rhetoric on a wiki-page are very different things from a lynching, unless you explain the source of your similarity your simile remains baseless. Annoucing that you don't care about the debate or that is pointless in an attempt to have the last word is an old and shitty debating tactic that just makes look immature. Zubin12 (talk) 05:41, 6 August 2018 (UTC) I've taken this to WP:AN#Editor canvassing at Reddit to recruit editors for the Jordan Peterson article - we are being plagued with organised off-wiki editing to too many articles. Doug Weller talk 14:09, 6 August 2018 (UTC) I think you mean WP:ANI#Editor canvassing at Reddit to recruit editors for the Jordan Peterson article --Kyohyi (talk) 14:23, 6 August 2018 (UTC) Whoever did this, please don't do it in the future. The last thing we need is having and calling-out for possible or imaginative ideological polarization on Wikipedia. There already were various attempts for the inclusion of minor third-party viewpoints on Peterson or cherry-picking his statements to make some SYNTH narrative, and for now, we managed to deal fairly easily with such things because the Wikipedian policy is quite straightforward.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 14:45, 6 August 2018 (UTC) It's not canvassing and it's not against policy, folks: See Public requests on external websites. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:05, 6 August 2018 (UTC) WP:EXHELP (the document you're linking to) is a how-to-guide (and one that needs some grammar checking). WP:CANVASSING is a Wikipedia policy guideline. The latter (WP:CANVASSING) trumps the former (WP:EXHELP). Further more, the section of WP:EXHELP you're linking to states: "Websites well suited for such requests are the most relevant subpages on reddit, so called "subreddits", for the specific subject area or Internet forums with own categories for the subject area." [emphasis added] ...and Jordan Peterson is not an academic category of information. Categories are things like; Science, Art, Literature. I say this because WP:EXHELP was written in reference to WP:EXPERT. Your statement It's not canvassing and it's not against policy, folks - is entirely false. WP:EXPERT (and hence WP:EXHELP) is intended to help integrate expert users into the Wikipedia experience, it's not intended to be used as an excuse to violate the WP:CANVASSING policy. In case it still isn't clear WP:CANVASSING (particularly the politically partisan kind we've seen above) is entirely AGAINST Wikipedia policies and standards. --Jobrot (talk) 16:50, 6 August 2018 (UTC) It is canvassing and it is against policy. See Public requests on external websites is specifically about getting subject-matter experts to help, not about finding people likely to agree with you. It also explicitly warns you to ensure that you request doesn't result in WP:Canvassing, which is described as 'notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way' - I can't see any other way that this reddit post could be interpreted. Also worth noting the first line of WP:MEAT - Do not recruit... ...communities of people who agree with you for the purpose of coming to Wikipedia and supporting your side of a debate. None of this is OK.Girth Summit (talk) 17:25, 6 August 2018 (UTC) Agreed. --Jobrot (talk) 17:41, 6 August 2018 (UTC) no two ways about it, this was a concerted effort to foment conflict, and that's something that is antithetical to Wikipedia's values. Acousmana (talk) 17:52, 6 August 2018 (UTC) Whatever it is or isn't, the train already left the station, the horse is already out of the barn. If someone wants to warn FreedomGonzo do it, but can't stop the surf from rolling to this talk page's shore. What's done is done. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 18:59, 6 August 2018 (UTC) So let me get this straight, after claiming that it isn't canvassing and being told by many editors that you are wrong, your next step is to say we should roll over and let it happen? The hell? --Tarage (talk) 21:56, 6 August 2018 (UTC) Tarage: Let what happen - new editors coming to Wikipedia/this article and editing it? Yeah, we should let that happen (no rolling over needed). How are you going to stop them? They set up a legitimate new account, start contributing, and that's a bad thing? Considering the fact that Wikipedia is losing editors in droves, I'd say that's a good thing. Now, all we need to concentrate on here at the 'pedia is keeping the good ones who like editing honestly, like policy, and abide by it. Sounds like a win-win-win to me. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:11, 6 August 2018 (UTC) Your obliviousness is astounding. Don't ping me again. --Tarage (talk) 23:55, 6 August 2018 (UTC) How are you going to stop them? You must be new here. Welcome to Wikipedia! If you see the current page to which this talk page relates, you'll notice the lock icon in the top right hand corner. This icon means the article in question cannot currently be edited. Extending on that, I'll point out that this page (called a TALK PAGE, seeWP:TALK) is for discussions of an editorial nature. Talk pages are not for philosophizing about how Wikipedia works, or should work. They're for discussing changes to the page in question. Finally I'll point out that Wikipedia functions mostly on the reputation of its editors, who work voluntarily. There is no desire (on the part of established editors who know the rules, policies, and guidelines, which I suggest you familiarize yourself with) to have a sudden influx of new editors who are politically motivated, unfamiliar with the policies, and all targetting the one page. That would place an undue burden on established editors (who are already prone to burnout). Anyways, I hope that further clarifies Wikipedia to you. P.S As for editors who wish to violate or manipulate policies such as WP:CANVASSING, or WP:EXHELP, they are doomed to lose a degree of credibility when doing so. We all debate as best we can, but how we debate says a lot about us. It's always best to focus on the spirit and intention of a policy; in order to be seen as an honest editor, and not as a wiki-lawyer trying to twist policy to argument. Argument should bend towards policy, not the other way around. --Jobrot (talk) 01:06, 7 August 2018 (UTC) Posting that was wrongheaded, FreedomGonzo. Encouraging participation in a discussion might be acceptable, but not with such a non-neutral wording. Fortunately the post does not seem to have had much of an effect so far but I ask that you remove it. Also please do not post anything similar to that again. Hrodvarsson (talk) 23:59, 6 August 2018 (UTC) Agreed and seconded, FreedomGonzo would be smart to remove the r/JordanPeterson post, should they want to show their support of Wikipedia and its policies. --Jobrot (talk) 01:06, 7 August 2018 (UTC) Erased the Reddit post per your recommendation. FreedomGonzo (talk) 04:34, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Critique of right wing political correctness

This article focuses mostly on Peterson's well known critiques of left wing political correctness and neglects his condemnation of white nationalism and Nazism.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/08/20/jordan_peterson_if_the_right_degenerates_into_identity_politics_the_left_wins.html

https://youtube.com/jMqQBLZwRIE

It does not neglect as mentions he explored Nazism atrocities for many years, "In regard to identity politics, while "left plays them on behalf of the oppressed, let's say, and the right tends to play them on behalf of nationalism and ethnic pride" he considers them "equally dangerous" and that instead should be emphasized individualism and individual responsibility", as well he is focused on the left-wing PC because that ideology is far more prevalent in academia than right-wing.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 14:32, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

However, the RealClearPolitics source could be used as a reference for a minor expansion of the cited sentence.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 14:55, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I have asked some Canadians.... cuz everyone's talking about American rhetoric. See what some Centrist Canadians have to say. It's amazing how polarizing American politics is with all the labels. --Moxy (talk) 14:42, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Simply stating that he studied Nazism is not sufficient. Part of his cultural criticism has included a criticism of far right ideology such as that which was on display in Charlotsville. (JakeTheKing42 (talk) 15:41, 7 August 2018 (UTC))

I think it would make sense to make Peterson's critique of right wing political correctness its own subsection under the critique of political correctness section. His commentary on it is significant and deserves a larger space so as not to imply that he merely mentioned this in passing. It's a significant aspect of his work and since wikipedia is the entry level source for many people it's important that this misconception be avoided. Furthermore, the editors deemed Peterson's criticisms of Marxism worthy of inclusion and I think it's only fair that his study of Nazism and the Holocaust be mentioned as well. (JakeTheKing42 (talk) 03:20, 8 August 2018 (UTC))

it's another one of the things said in passing, and this largely in response to allegations he is cosy with the alt-right etc., so how about adding the context for this? maybe we should catalog all the passing remarks, such as those on global warming, feminism, marriage, access to sexual partners, the resurrection of Christ, and all the other eyebrow raising stuff he seems to have a penchant for stating, i mean it's strange there is nothing in the lead about the controversy surrounding a number of his remarks, or about his growing profile as a public speaker etc. the money he is generating from this etc. the lead is strangely cleansed of anything of this, despite the amount of coverage we have seen in the press. he's a public figure now, not some dude stuck in his ivory tower, the article needs to start reflecting this.2A02:C7D:2E54:3F00:2557:DAD:EF83:85F8 (talk) 09:22, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Ancient Discovery of DNA

Unless there's secondary RS coverage of 'Ancient Discovery of DNA', it clearly does not meet WP:DUE requirements and thus does not belong in this article. Stop edit-warring over this. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:38, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Even having secondary RS coverage it doesn't have requirements. What is the most suspicious - all these minor views (from climate change, enforced marriage, DNA...) were previously highlighted on his RationalWiki article. This is a Wikipedian article with specific editing principles, stop pushing unbalanced POV.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 21:52, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Reversions by HappyWaldo

The user @HappyWaldo, has continually reverted the Contributions of myself and other editors on the basis that "Enforced Monogamy" is a standard sociological term, the section on climate change misstates Peterson view on the topic and the section on his view on DNA are irrelevant. The contributions include other aspects such as more critical comments about his view on Bill c-16 that he hasn't voiced an objection too. I would like for him to state his full argument for reversion and to support his claims. Zubin12 (talk) 02:45, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

(1) The DNA stuff clearly does not belong, if there isn't secondary RS coverage of it. I endorse HappyWaldo's removal. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:53, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

(2) The language on 'enforced monogamy' is fine in the last edit by HappyWaldo[6], and I endorse the language. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:53, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

(3) It's unclear if George is commenting on JP's interpretation of the law, so George's view shouldn't be juxtaposed against those of legal experts explicitly commenting on the legal interpretation. George can have his own sentence, but his view should not be used to thin out legal interpretations. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:53, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I've removed the Ancient DNA portions so that issue is closed, I prefer the language of the other revision as the current revision feels passive and a bit disconerting but i'm not too hung up about it. The third issue is most important as including the view of the legal establishment on his complaints is more important than noting that a singular academic supports him. Zubin12 (talk) 03:51, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

If only those sources were more reliable, not some primary stuff or some fringe websites. Learn how to edit according to principles (especially taking into consideration WP:BLP) with proper reference style.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 22:07, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

FYI

A recent Reddit thread discusses perceived inaccuracies regarding climate change in this article. –dlthewave ☎ 22:10, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

The matter has already been dealt with in an earlier section of this talk page, the result being the voluntary deletion of the reddit thread. --Jobrot (talk) 04:04, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Climate change

Two editors have removed a short paragraph on Peterson's climate change skepticism.[7] The content is sourced to the Financial Times, Sydney Morning Herald and the London Review of Books, all of which are WP:RS. The content is also covered by Peterson in his own writings. There is sufficient sourcing for WP:DUE, and the content also fits into a broader theme of skepticism towards academia and concern that academics are causing harm to students and society. The content therefore fleshes out his views in a way that helps readers understand the man and his views. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:33, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

One paragraph in the Financial Times, one individual sentence in passing in the Sydney Morning Herald, and one individual sentence in passing from a blog on the London Review of books, does not make WP:DUE weight. If we're taking what he's self published on the topic into consideration, we should be comparing that to his full collection to determine it's weight. --Kyohyi (talk) 17:11, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

No, we don't need to understand the context or watch a 5 hour lecture to have a decision on this. It's easy to trust the 3 reliable sources we have here - it isn't undue to chuck a paragraph in on it. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:41, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Context is crucial for WP:NPOV. I don't agree for the inclusion of this info which is not related to the section's topic. So-called skepticism towards academic and political correctness, as well as relating climate change and environmentalism&depression, is WP:SYNTH.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 08:09, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

If that's your genuine concern, then the section "Critiques of political correctness" can simply be re-named "Critiques of academia and political correctness", because that's what the section is more about. The accusation of WP:SYNTH is false, as the text fully adheres to the cited sources. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:30, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

No it cannot. Where in the RS the relation is not SYNTH?--Miki Filigranski (talk) 10:40, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

He's literally criticizing the field of climate science, says the data in the field is unreliable due to "too much ideology" and argues that students are being harmed by the teachings of environmentalists. It falls perfectly under both a section titled "Critiques of political correctness" and an alternative section titled "Critiques of academia and political correctness". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:45, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't fit perfectly. The RS can be eventually used to reference the intro sentence of the section where is mentioned environmentalism.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 00:35, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Please elaborate on what you're trying to say. Are you saying that we're not allowed to cover Peterson's views on climate science, even though they are covered by several RS, except to briefly and misleadingly say "Peterson's critiques of political correctness range over issues such as... environmentalism"? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:27, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

How is that misleading? Did he make some remarks, which are really minor views compared to his other viewpoints, or not about environmentalism?--Miki Filigranski (talk) 07:44, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

It's misleading, because it does not flesh out his actual views, which is that climate data is unreliable, that he doubts the scientific consensus on climate change, and that he believes without evidence that students are being harmed by environmentalists. Criticizing "political correctness" among environmentalists could be everything from opposing radical environmentalism to denying the scientific consensus on climate change. We do our readers a disservice by not specifying his views. It's like saying "Ken Ham disagrees with political correctness in academia" without specifying that he believes that the Earth is 10,000 years old and that multiple scientific disciplines are engaging in fraud on a massive scale. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:02, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

If the only objection to this content is that it's in the wrong section, it can be moved to a different section. This is a lot better than removing it constantly. PeterTheFourth (talk) 14:46, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm new to this article, but shouldn't there simply be a "Views" section in the article (where 'Postmodernism' is one sub-section)? For instance, I see no mention of "enforced monogamy" or any of his views on more specific political topics (despite his extensive commentary and RS coverage of his commentary). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:53, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Minor views should not be included nor have separate section. Learn how to edit according NPOV and WEIGHT.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 00:35, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Again, this is covered by RS, substantiating that it's WP:DUE. To me, it just sounds like you're whitewashing content that you believe reflects poorly on Peterson. Your desire to keep a sentence that misleadingly says "Peterson's critiques of political correctness range over issues such as... environmentalism", but not content which fleshes out Peterson's actual views on environmentalism and climate science indicates that there's a strange inconsistency. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:27, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

This isn't a 'minor view', we have three reliable sources covering it. Jee whiz. PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:16, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Being covered by RS per se does not make it notable for detailed citing and sub-section. An advice, if you want to get support for your opinion then don't comment other editors per FAITH and PERSONAL.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 07:39, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

@Miki Filigranski: Have you read WP:DUE? PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:57, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

"Jee whiz"? Edit warring with "Yikes, buddy" as an edit summary? Please read WP:EQ. Hrodvarsson (talk) 23:47, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

FreedomGonzo There is no requirement that sources be freely available. See WP:PAYWALL Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:20, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

And even if there were, there are two other sources. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:26, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

it would seem notable to mention that this high profile public intellectual is a climate change skeptic, particularly when he so often defers to scientific 'truth' when it suits his argument. I think we should include this paragraph. Moreover, we need a 'Reception' section that covers the significant commentary critical of Peterson's ideas, there has been plenty in the press etc. in the last 12 months, the majority of it RS, but I don't see it represented in the article. It's unbalanced right now. Acousmana (talk) 17:45, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

The two sections describing his views at the moment are the ones that brought him to prominence and are main points that he delivers in his messaging over the last few years: Bill C-16 controversy and criticism of "Postmodern Neo-Marxism". These are his key talking points and hence is relevant. He is not a climate-change scepticism activist, he made a few comments in passing. It is as relevant as his meat-only diet, controversial trivia. If we want to list some of trivia about Peterson in a separate section, I guess we can. But I see no reason to do it in section that summarises his main points that he as "public intellectual" preaches, because it will misrepresent him as active climate change denier, who is engaged in constant propagation of these views. Clearly not the case: most of his videos and articles are bashing "neo-marxism", "big 5 personality traits", "christianity" and then he retweeted two things about climate change a couple of times and mentioned in interviews. If you want a criticism section, we can have it, but mentioning it as major viewpoint that he brings to the table would be excessive. FreedomGonzo (talk) 07:03, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps Acousmana is right and things like that belong in "Reception" section, but a separate section for just climate change scepticism is excessive, as his meat-diet would be, as they are not the key messages, that he is known for, not even close, as you can see from 99% of articles describing him in any light. Certainly better than "Critism" section, which are, as far as I know, discouraged. FreedomGonzo (talk) 07:07, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

'Reception' would seem adequate, and what's clear is there are two JPs: the academic (who publishes peer reviewed research) and the 'public intellectual' (who riffs on a wide range of "controversial" topics). Let's not confuse the two, but do let's give equal coverage to both. Peterson, having stepped out of academia and onto the public speaking circuit, has said a lot of stuff, publicly, most of which amounts to little more than opinion. None of it should be viewed in the same light as his scholastic output. We cannot avoid the fact that his views, expressed publicly, have resulted in significant press coverage. Dismissing this coverage, and the commentators responsible for it, by saying "it is out of context...they don't understand...they haven't watched the videos" is nonsense. JP said stuff, commentators responded in RS publications, there's enough of this material out there to begin a "Reception" section, without it, the article is unbalanced. Acousmana (talk) 10:41, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I think any "reception" of Peterson's views should be integrated into sections about those views, not split off into a separate section. As WP:CRITS states: "... sections within an article dedicated to negative criticisms are normally discouraged. Topical or thematic sections are frequently superior to sections devoted to criticism." Also "reception" doesn't sound right. Peterson isn't a TV series. And I agree with FreedomGonzo that climate change is so far down on Peterson's list of favoured topics, and so far outside his areas of expertise, that it is probably not worth covering here. - HappyWaldo (talk) 10:58, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

First of all, my client never borrowed the vase. And the vase was broken before they borrowed it. And when they returned the vase, the vase was in perfect condition. As you can see, there is no way my client could have broken the vase. PeterTheFourth (talk) 11:02, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I'll try clean it up for you. "Criticism of Peterson's views should be included in sections about those views, per WP:CRITS. Given how rarely Peterson mentions climate change, it probably deserves one sentence at best, per WP:DUE." HappyWaldo (talk) 11:18, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

"Also 'reception' doesn't sound right." Really, contrast and compare with another academic who became a "public intellectual" and has strong sociopolitical views (Noam Chomsky). A "Reception and Influence" section wouldn't be out of place here also (not that Peterson's academic career compares to Chomsky's, it doesn't; Peterson is famous for his public engagement activities, not his scholarship). Acousmana (talk) 11:42, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• BTW WP:CRITS is an essay, it's not policy. But if you do want to follow its advice it clearly says, for example "if a politician received significant criticism about their public behavior, create a section entitled "Public behavior" and include all information – positive and negative – within that section." Seems pretty clear. Also, "alternative section titles which avoid a negative connotation include "Reception", "Reviews", "Responses", "Reactions", "Critiques", and "Assessments". Again, pretty clear, so not sure why we are avoiding what the essay tells up to do. Acousmana (talk) 11:51, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Chomsky has a reception section. Christopher Hitchens doesn't. WP:Other stuff exists. I'm just saying in this case, it would be better to address criticism of his views in sections about those views. This is also a length issue. Why two sections when one would suffice? - HappyWaldo (talk) 11:57, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Sure, other stuff exists, but you are also citing an essay like it's a guideline while at the same misinterpreting it; not to mention pretending same doesn't offer the word 'reception' as an perfectly acceptable section title. Sorry, you argument just doesn't stack up. Acousmana (talk) 12:04, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

WP:CRITS , "Often the best approach to incorporating negative criticism into the encyclopedia is to integrate it into the article, in a way that does not disrupt the article's flow. The article should be divided into sections based on topics, timeline, or theme – not viewpoint. Negative criticism should be interwoven throughout the topical or thematic sections." There's nothing to misinterpret here. If anything, you misinterpreted the example about the politician's "public behaviour", which would be for anything unbecoming and potentially career-threatening. - HappyWaldo (talk) 12:32, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Pal, it's an essay. If we're going to continually refer to things other people wrote to back up our argument, could it be Wikipedia's policies and guidelines?PeterTheFourth (talk) 12:46, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

There is no policy or guideline against referring to essays during discussions. WP:ESSAY encourages the practice if it helps editors better understand certain positions and arguments. - HappyWaldo (talk) 14:02, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

You're linking to an essay about essays to support yourself, but you're yet to actually explain why we can't use content from reliable sources in the article. PeterTheFourth (talk) 14:38, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

An essay WP:POLICIES encourages us to read. And there are reliable sources covering Peterson's views on a wide range of topics. The guy probably has thousands of hours of livestreams and interviews at this point, so he's bound to touch on climate change and other stuff. Do we include it all, or do we give due weight? If Peterson actually did a lecture devoted to climate change, then that would be worth mentioning. - HappyWaldo (talk) 14:54, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Simple: We include the stuff that has RS coverage. "If Peterson actually did a lecture devoted to climate change, then that would be worth mentioning." That's absolutely not how this works. If Peterson does or say something that receives RS coverage, we include it. This whole discussion is absurd anyway, because the Peterson article currently contains vague critiques of environmentalism and academia, so his views on climate science absolutely fits within the broader themes that are already in the article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:03, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

So then we need to include all other trivia about his views and lifestyle supported by RS: his meat-only diet, the collection of soviet-era propaganda posters, his daughter's health problems, him being honorable member of native american tribe, how many other little things we need to cover, just because they have RS? He said and done a lot of stuff over 56 years of life and much of it covered by RS. Do we add it all now and throw in the kitchen sink for that matter? FreedomGonzo (talk) 15:10, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

The article already includes mention of his meat-only diet and his collection of soviet-era propaganda, as they should in his 'personal life' section. I see no RS coverage of him being a honorary member of a Native American tribe, but I see no reason why that can't be included in his 'personal life' section. I'm not aware of RS coverage of his daughters' health problems, but if RS report that his daughter has had serious health problems, I don't see any reason why a sentence can't be included on that in his 'personal life' section (though there may be restrictive Wikipedia rules specifically on family members that I'm not aware of). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:19, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and none of these points have a separate section and they shouldn't have, since they are minor. So is his climate change scepticism. Unless, it's from a perspective of climate change activist, that uses Wikipedia to promote a certain agenda and sees this as major point everywhere, no matter the person, their background or key areas of interest. But I am not assuming you're one of those, no bad faith assumptions on my part. I am sure it's just a misunderstanding. FreedomGonzo (talk) 15:34, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm arguing that it deserves inclusion per WP:DUE and WP:RS. You have provided zero arguments based in Wikipedia policy for why the content should be excluded, except your own arbitrary and irrelevant assessments of what's notable and what's not. This makes your thinly veiled accusations of bias and bad faith even more absurd. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:41, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I am not arguing the content should be excluded. I am arguing it doesn't deserve a separate subsection, as per WP:COATRACK and WP:KITCHENSINK. FreedomGonzo (talk) 16:04, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

If that was your genuine concern, why not add it to a more appropriate section then? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:07, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I would happily do that, but the article is locked from editing. I can not do it at the moment. I would add it to the bottom of the first section of "Critiques of political correctness" before the "Postmodernism and identity politics" section. And would shorten it too. FreedomGonzo (talk) 16:16, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

"Often the best approach to incorporating negative criticism..." But why are you characterizing what intelligent commentators have written, in RS publications, as "negative criticism"? So, informed critical responses to sociopolitical opinions should automatically be viewed as "negative"? JP right, everyone else wrong? Is that what this boils down to? Acousmana (talk) 13:10, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

"JP right, everyone else wrong?" JP's views, other people's views. Or, WP:NPOV. I really don't follow your point about "negative criticism". - HappyWaldo (talk) 14:02, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

criticism has different forms, it's not automatically "negative," Peterson postulates, others respond, hence "reception," couldn't be any simpler really, it's people engaging in a logico-deductive process. Acousmana (talk) 14:30, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Alright. Having finished this detour, I'll say again that a section devoted to criticism, reception, whatever, is unnecessary, and climate change is very much a peripheral issue for Peterson, therefore worth a sentence at best. - HappyWaldo (talk) 14:39, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm confused about where this discussion is heading. This discussion is supposed to be about Peterson's views on climate science and climate change, yet editors are now debating whether the Peterson article should include a 'reception' or 'criticism' section. Start a separate discussion on that. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:06, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion is as to wether his views on climate change are relevant enough to deserve a whole section and so far no policy-based argument has been made to support a position that it is due weight. One suggestion was to add such esoteric claims of his, that are not central to his key messages in a separate section, but bunch a lot of them together, rather than give undue weight to every single one. That's how the idea of "reception" section came about. Please read the discussion more carefully next time. FreedomGonzo (talk) 15:14, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for that condescending response. A 'reception' section has absolutely zero to do with Peterson's views on climate science, which is why the whole discussion is absurd. There is no "reception" of anything. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:24, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I see nothing condescending in my response, please do not assume bad faith where there is none. So remind me why his views on climate change suddenly deserve a whole section, if they are essentially mentioned in passing a couple of times in a few interviews, plus few RS? Is he a climate denial activist? No proof of that. He expresses a lot of views, why this one is singled out for a whole section? Bill C-16 understandable, his main talking point. "Postmodern Neomarxism" understandable, another major talking point. Big 5 personality traits: another thing he is prominent for. Why suddenly climate change? My point remains, it should be a passing point, a one liner in one of the section. But please inform why it suddenly deserves a whole section all of a sudden? FreedomGonzo (talk) 15:30, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

It should be in the sub-section "climate change" or "climate science" under "Critiques of postmodernism" (which can alternatively and more appropriately just be named "Views"). There's nothing wrong with having four sentences under a sub-section. Again, this is reported by RS, which flies in the face of your own arbitrary and meaningless view of what's "notable" about Peterson's views. This furthermore fits perfectly within Peterson's broader themes criticizing environmentalism and academia, and fleshes out precisely what he means. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:38, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

"your own arbitrary and meaningless view", now that is actual evidence of condescending response, not just empty accusation. Please remain civil on talk pages as per WP:Civility. He is critic of PARTS of academia to an extent (even though he himself is part of academia and interviews many academic he agrees with, so "criticising academia" is unnecessarily broad statement), but not environmentalism, in fact he has multiple times supported, different environmentalist campaigns, including creating one himself: https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/manage-canada-s-oceans-honestly#/ , there are also many tweets and interview qoutes of his, where he is very concerned about state of environment, oceans in partiuclar. I am not sure what flies in the face of what, if you look at the amount of RS overall, this is a minor point in passing, comparing to what he is clearly known for in the press, which are clearly: Bill 16 controversy, critic of left-wing academics, psychology of personality. Please explain, how his few one liners on climate change is relevant enough to change a whole section to views and make it a subsection. It is not what he is known for and is as important as his meat-eating diet. FreedomGonzo (talk) 15:54, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Hey, I can do WP:OR too: JP the environmentalist[8]. Note though that I would of course never throw OR into an article or argue that reliably sourced content should be scrubbed because of my own pointless views about what's notable and what isn't. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:03, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, twitter OR can be done forever both ways: Peterson the ocean saver[9] and I am not including it in the article and not intending to. What I am saying that a whole new subsection devoted to this point is WP:COATRACK and WP:KITCHENSINK. The onus is on you to prove why this suddenly deserves a whole new subsection, since you're adding this. FreedomGonzo (talk) 16:10, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support removal. As other editors have pointed out, his comments on climate change/global warming are in passing and do not deserve a section. Doing so would be a vio of WP:UNDUE. Attempting to put those snippets together to create the appearance of WP:DUE would be a vio of WP:OR as well as WP:SYNTH. And FreedomGonzo is correct about WP:COATRACK as well as WP:KITCHENSINK. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:14, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• Everyone, meet Winkelvi, who has been stalking me to a half-dozen Wikipedia articles that he has never edited before in the last few days only to interject on behalf of whomever I'm having content disputes with. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:29, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

WP:AGF again and again. So what about that coatrack and kitchen sink? FreedomGonzo (talk) 16:44, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Read WP:COATRACK, it has absolutely nothing to do with anything that's discussed here. You're not applying WP:KITCHENSINK accurately, as the content in question is substantiated and covered by multiple RS, meeting the requirements of WP:DUE. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:48, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

WP:COATRACK has everything to do with the add discussed here and I qoute from the policy page: "A Journalist Mentioned It in Passing. Amanda Pubilchep is a journalist. One day she wrote an article about Conspiracy Theory X. The main points of Conspiracy Theory X are as follows... followed by paragraph after paragraph about the conspiracy theory." This is clearly that case. As for WP:DUE, it is certainly NOT due weight, as been mentioned before: of the sources used, the blog, and the Sydney morning herald have one sentence on the topic each, and the financial times has a paragraph, while the coverage of Jordan Peterson is hundreds if not thousands of articles, many of them RS, that never mention his position on climate change (which you tried to pretend is somehow my "meaningless" personal assesment). So it is not only undue, it's actually WP:SYNTH that you are trying to do here. FreedomGonzo (talk) 17:19, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

If you seriously can't understand what that quote is saying, I'm not sure there's any point trying to continue this discussion. The concerns about three reliable sources being insufficient is particularly absurd, given that the sources very simply just quote JP and his publications, and given that JP article currently features a considerable amount of text that is sourced to non-RS. Sourcing JP himself and fringe websites that traffic in falsehoods is perfectly fine in terms of WP:DUE and WP:RS, but multiple RS that quote JP and his publications are not? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:41, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I could very easily find multiple RS that mention Peterson's views on abortion. Does that mean it's worth covering in detail here? No, because it's not WP:DUE. He's not known as an abortion activist, because he rarely mentions it. And he's not a player in the climate change debate, because he rarely mentions it. - HappyWaldo (talk) 22:24, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I just googled "Jordan Peterson" and "abortion", and did not find a single RS about Peterson's views on abortion in the first five pages of search results. The claim that he rarely mentions climate change is incorrect, as shown by RS citing his writings on climate change (see RS in our dispute) and Peterson himself repeatedly promoting climate change denial content[10]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:32, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Climate change is exceedingly rare, in proportion to many other topics. That's our point. Also it's pretty funny that you'd cite Rationalwiki while demanding RS. - HappyWaldo (talk) 23:02, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

At no point have I tried to insert RationalWiki as a source in Peterson's article. I cited its collection of JP climate change denial tweets here on this talk page to contradict your claim that JP rarely mentions climate change. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:27, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Even Rationalwiki notes the "RTs not an endorsement" disclaimer. And that's all it is, a handful of retweets amongst thousands about psychology, mythology, politics etc etc. - HappyWaldo (talk) 23:51, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Jordan Peterson, earlier today[11]: "Even the stalwart Economist is becoming politically correct" and retweeting a climate change denier who is criticizing the Economist for running a front page about climate change and wildfires. And there are editors here who argue that Peterson's views on climate change do not fall under "critiques of political correctness"... Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:32, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Keep References to Climate Change Denial it's important to inform people that a notable public intellectual with a large following doubts the scientifc consensus on climate change due to his belief that the field is biased. Addtionaly the lead should contain information that his attacks on C-16 are not substansiated with legal or actual implementation ie that they were false. Zubin12 (talk) 00:12, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Peterson almost never mentions climate change, I would consider his views on this topic trivia, not a part of his work and certainly not deserving of an entire section. He occasionally expresses a distaste for those radical environmentalists that view humanity as a "cancer upon the earth"[12], but it is the misanthropy he is objecting to, not the environmentalism. 118.209.143.15 (talk) 02:42, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

It might be more accurate to say that Peterson is opposed to radical environmentalism rather than environmentalism per se or of climate change science or activism. He, for example, once cited a teenager's plan to remove a large amount of plastic from the ocean as an example of positive and useful activism. He also believes that Elon Musk and his efforts to reduce carbon emissions are positive and to be supported. His criticism of radical environmentalists is primarily that they overestimate the imminence of the threat, not that the threat is nonexistent. He has said that since we've only known about it for 50 years that we should be proud of our progress and that innovation and creativity will be capable of dealing with it. (JakeTheKing42 (talk) 06:58, 6 August 2018 (UTC))

Where can those examples be found, JakeTheKing42 - do you have links? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:01, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

https://youtube.com/xfZZLSWbY3g Not sure if this link works but it's his video on overpopulation. (JakeTheKing42 (talk) 15:35, 7 August 2018 (UTC))

• Include views on climate change. They have received significant coverage, most recently here. His Twitter history certainly suggests that he endorses the views of the "climate change skeptics" despite the disclaimer. And by the way, the argument that FT should not be cited just because it is behind a paywall is utterly bogus. See WP:SOURCEACCESS. FT is one of the most reliable and objective newspapers there is and can be cited anywhere on wikipedia. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:58, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

@PeterTheFourth: do not make WP:POINT revert when there is still no consensus and the dispute is on-going.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 17:52, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

@Miki Filigranski: What does my reintroduction of the material have to do with WP:POINT? PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:37, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Everything - the discussion did not finish, there's no obvious consensus for the inclusion, and there's no patience for respect of WP:BRD. Hence the disputed section will be removed until the issue is settled.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 21:47, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

@Zubin12: your revert of re-inclusion brought the inclusion to the point of being disruptive - WP:BRD process did not finish nor there's any obvious WP:CONSENSUS as claimed in the edit summary. I call out the administrators to remove the section "Climate change" until the dispute is settled properly, without constant pushing by few editors (who are basically WP:GAMING due to 1RR) with whom others do not agree as shown in the discussion.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 19:56, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Climate change quote

In the climate change section is this sentence:

He has also said, "You can't trust the data because too much ideology is involved."[109]

The citation is:

Callaghan, Greg (2018-04-20). "Right-winger? Not me, says alt-right darling Jordan Peterson". The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved 2018-08-02.

The quote appears, unreferenced, in a "call out" box in the middle of the article. The author of the newspaper article did not interview Peterson, so it is not clear where the quote originated. I searched Google for the quote but found only the Sydney Morning Herald article or references to it. IMHO, we should remove the above sentence unless someone can find a reliable source for the quote. Simply because it is in a newspaper article, does not mean the quote is reliable, particularly given the editorial nature of the article and the fact that the article does not indicate the source for the quote.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 03:33, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

The Sydney Morning Herald is a reliable source. We do not 'fact check' our sources. This is WP:OR. PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:59, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

It's odd that the "call out" boxes in this article aren't highlights from the article itself, but are taken from other sources. The other "call out" boxes state their sources, but this one doesn't. It would be preferable if the original source could be found. Jonpatterns (talk) 12:03, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I understand the rationale for not trying to fact check every reliable source we cite. At the same time, with a highly controversial article like this one, common sense would suggest that we not cite a patently one-sided editorial piece that does not provide a citation for the quote. The quote is probably available somewhere, most likely in a YouTube video, and IMHO it would be better to omit the quote until we find its origin, i.e., a truly reliable source. Parenthetically, I should perhaps note that I disagree with Peterson regarding the causes of climate change and the actions we should take, and I fear that his statements will, along with many other people's skepticism or denial, slow progress toward cleaning our atmosphere and cause irreparable harm.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 15:09, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

What makes you think the Sydney Morning Herald is one-sided and not 'truly' reliable? Would you like to take it to our noticeboard for reliable sources? PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:22, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Question: Cite blog post or YouTube video?

I had removed this sentence:

On the topic of climate change, Peterson has said he is "very sceptical of the models that are used to predict climate change."[109]

explaining, "The reference is a blog post that includes the quote but without any indication of the origin of the quote. Thus, it is an unsourced, secondary reference."

@Snooganssnoogans: reverted my edit, explaining, "it's from this interview, time 30:47: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OD-VCRNIp-U".

Naturally, I have no problem including the quote since anyone can watch & listen to the video and witness Peterson making the statement.

My question has to do with what we cite. Shouldn't we cite the video instead of an editorial blog post?   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 14:59, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

We can cite both, but my philosophy is that all content should be sourced to a secondary RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:24, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

'however he has never denied that climate change is caused by human activity'

Could we get a quick whip round consensus on removing this so an edit request can be made? It doesn't appear to be supported by reliable sources, and is a pretty ridiculous inclusion by an IP who doesn't understand that the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence when it comes to sourcing. PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:50, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Support clearly WP:OR per the edit summary Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:01, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Ah, this has just been done. Thanks Audacity! PeterTheFourth (talk) 10:21, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Edit request: climate change

The same Financial Times source is used three times in the climate change section. Can someone please group the three using a ref name --Ted87 (talk) 00:33, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support using a refname. The request is to correct a minor technical issue and should be noncontroversial. –dlthewave ☎ 00:12, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done (page protection expired) –dlthewave ☎ 12:06, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Financial Times source

Discussion moved from "Edit request: climate change" section.

you should read the original FT article, it is not worthy of even one citation on the subject of climate change. Jobrot linked to this version of it https://pastebin.com/FdALHzNw search for the word "science" to find the small section on climate science... oh, that's right, the opinion piece does not contain the word science, so search for climate, the article does use that word once. 98.7.192.88 (talk) 19:46, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

It's not an opinion piece, it's an interview with the subject of the article, published by a respectable conservative British newspaper. If you can point to a policy or guideline that says we need to assess how much of a particular source needs to be devoted to an issue in order for it to be used to support an assertion, I'd be interested to read it. As discussed above, the source clearly supports the assertion. Girth Summit (talk) 20:05, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

(1)False. That's not an interview. There may have been an interview, it may be reporting about an interview, but interviews are transcripts--sure, potentially edited down--but not paraphrased. Do you disagree with my assertion? to keep you on topic, it's yes or no, and then if yes, citations please, show me definitions or interviews where there is no transcription in some Q/A format. This is not an interview, please correct your assertion. 98.7.192.88 (talk) 20:24, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

(2)"Predictably, Peterson doubts climate change is man-made." Defend the choice of the word "predictably" if it's other than simply the author's opinion. Where in that article is there a basis for predicting what Peterson would say about climate change? Answer: there isn't one, it's an opinion piece. I've gone into detail here--which I could do for the entire rest of that opinion piece--but before we do that, you should answer in detail strictly on this topic. Why did the author say "predictably"? 98.7.192.88 (talk) 20:24, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

(3)"As discussed above, the source clearly supports the assertion." Where? show me where somebody indicates that they read this piece--not FT in general, this piece--and detailed (you know like with quotes) any defense of it supporting this assertion? 98.7.192.88 (talk) 20:33, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Reasonable points - let's discuss.

(1) This is clearly an interview. The author describes the interview, including what they ate, what the surroundings were like etc., but we should be clear that this is unequivocally an account of an interview. Statements by the subject are quoted directly, and framed by the questions put to him. I'd like to turn this around - on what grounds do you say that it's not an interview.

(2)It's not my job to defend the author's choice of words- we use sources as they are, not as we would like them to be. You seem to be implying that this word makes the source unreliable, in which case you can discuss at WP:RSN.

(3)I was referring to my own comments, where I actually quote the source in full. It's in green text, so it should be easy to find. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Girth Summit (talk • contribs) 20:58, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I already laid out what constitutes an interview in my question. Not only do you not know the meaning of good faith, you don't know the meaning of interview (or you pretend you don't) and quite a few other things I now realize; it is pointless to discuss this with you. I believe you are engaging in a "smother dissent" tactic to get your way, obscuring precise points I make with your BS strongly in favor of this proposal. Why so eager to get this proposal, but not eager to discuss Peterson? I'd be happy to reengage on the topic if you delete what you've written and we can have a clean blackboard for discussion to eliminate your "drown the argument in rules minutiae" strategy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.7.192.88 (talk) 23:29, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

next time if I label individual points 1 2 3 and sign them individually, reply to them each on their own instead of rolling it all together. Not possible to conduct an orderly discussion your way. 98.7.192.88 (talk) 23:31, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

That's not how discussions on Wikipedia work. Additionally, inserting your own comments in the middle of those by other editors is discouraged, as it makes it unclear who the comments belong to (hence the signatures). You should review WP:TPG to see how Wikipedia discussions are conducted, and maybe you ought to check out WP:CIVIL while you're at it. clpo13_(talk) 00:04, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I have already offered you a substitute text which contains generally the same information, in the same order, and which a Peterson-cognizant person would agree with. Please explain in detail how the current proposed text is better supported by the sources than is my text. Here is wording that I would support: "Peterson doubts the research on climate change, and is "very sceptical of the models that are used to predict climate change", saying "You can't trust the data because too much ideology is involved." Discuss why the current proposal is better than that, supporting your argument with reference to these sources. I believe you might find that your POV gets in the way 98.7.192.88 (talk) 20:41, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Let's be clear - we are not aiming to write an article that a 'Peterson-cognizant' person would agree with - we are writing an article that reflects what reliable sources say about him. The proposed wording under discussion per the RfC is what we should focus on. As for your proposed rewording, I believe I already expressed my concerns about that in our discussion above. You would be very welcome at my talk page, per your earlier suggestion, to discuss this until the cows come home. Girth Summit (talk) 21:13, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

people like you always pick one phrase to go off on, and ignore substantive on topic discussion. Wikipedia is interested in an encyclopedic entry on Jordan Peterson, his views accurately described, criticism of his views labeled as such, etc. I have submitted material here that takes up the actual topic, and your responses are "yeah but here's why we can get away with doing it our way" 98.7.192.88 (talk) 23:34, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

You say "we are writing an article that reflects what reliable sources say about him" - ok. However there is only one source on this (Peterson's opinion of human impact on climate change) and it contains one sentence which is not attributed to a qoute and not represented in any primary (2 books and 700 hours of lectures and interviews) or secondary sources. The article is partly interview - signified by quotes - and partly opinion of Mr Henry Mance of Peterson. And he has no expert opinion on Peterson as he is not his biographer - just met him once. In the article he writes "Peterson loathes carbs as much as Marxists." Do you think we can have 99-100% confidence that Peterson said "I hate carbs as much as Marxists"? The same goes for "[Peterson is like] Frasier without the humour.". Can we attribute this with 99-100% to Peterson, like the 'man-made' sentence? Why this and not the other since none of them are quotes? What is wrong with waiting until we actually have a 1 minute response (or 1 paragraph) from the subject of the biography before his views are described? WP:BLP requires being careful: The idea expressed in meta:Eventualism—that every Wikipedia article is a work in progress, and that it is therefore okay for an article to be temporarily unbalanced because it will eventually be brought into shape—does not apply to biographies. Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harcerz87 (talk • contribs) 21:57, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't really know how you would like me to respond to this (if at all?). It seems that you don't like the sources - OK, discuss at WP:RSN. Assuming the sources are OK, then they support the proposed text. Girth Summit (talk) 22:12, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

You are literally arguing that in order to challenge one article in the Financial Times, we'd need to overturn the entire Financial Times? I hope you live a long happy life, but when your maker takes you that there is a special ring of Hell for people like you to burn for eternity, you are that infuriating. 98.7.192.88 (talk) 23:38, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Secondary sources are by their nature WP:SECONDARY. If a secondary source simply repeated everything Peterson said, it would become a WP:PRIMARY source (it would be a transcript). That's also why journalists use quote marks, to differentiate between things the subject definitely did say, and things the reporter is making observations about (reporting and observing are intrinsically linked). Likewise, if reporters consistently re-affirmed that their own account was mere opinion; perhaps speaking of their account in the third person such as "Mr. Journalist claims this happened next" or "The author of this article believes X" interspersing attributed accounts with undisputed and consensus-based facts, then that would become encyclopedic writing (the kind we intend to do).

So given that the Financial Times has an editorial staff, which overseas articles and is responsible for retractions and corrections should a party find something false (ie. given that the FT is a WP:RS reliable source), and that we are quoting Peterson in the article from direct quotes the reliable source has published; I don't see your complaint as having merit. If we were to quote Henry Mance's opinion that "Peterson loathes carbs as much as Marxists" - we'd have to state something like "Henry Mance of The Financial Times claims that..." but we're not; we're using quotes collected by a well known media outlet with its own editorial oversight - that's what makes the source reliable; that their would be repercussions if they misquoted Peterson.

What counts as an "opinion piece" is a deeper and more philosophical discussion, but given the Financial Times editorial team has not filed this article under its "opinion" section - that's a fair indicator that it's not intended as an opinion piece, and that the quotes we're using are genuine. If we were quoting Mance you might have a point (and our language could be modified to reflect who we're quoting). But we're not, we're quoting Peterson, and the FT is a reliable source to do that from. --Jobrot (talk) 22:55, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Removed personal attack by 98.7.192.88 (talk) 23:15, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I wasn't replying to you. Please review WP:INDENT to see how Wikipedia's reply structure works. --Jobrot (talk) 23:40, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

@98.7.192.88 - You've inserted new comments at various points above, which makes it rather difficult to respond to all of them; some of them aren't worth responding to obviously, but I would ask you to tone it down a bit. I did not suggest that you need to 'overturn the entire Financial Times' - I don't know if you've ever looked at WP:RSN, but it doesn't just label sources reliable/unreliable in a binary manner: sources are discussed in the context, and what is reliable for one thing might be unreliable for another. You could make a case there to say that this particular interview is not reliable for these particular assertions, without fear of having to prove that the FT is entirely unreliable. Girth Summit (talk) 08:29, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

//Premature attempt at compromise deleted.//

Please wait until the RfC is over to suggest more changes. PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:28, 19 August 2018 (UTC)