Talk:Jordan Peterson/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

OR and poor RS

Lots of original research and unsourced claims here. There's a touch of the fanboy in tone too. I've tried to fix a few instances, but have flagged others to leave scope for discussion. Thomask0 (talk) 02:45, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Just tagged as dead the only two non-Youtube references. I tried to find alternatives but Peterson's own website seems to be the only place available. It's peculiar because even on the UoT site, his links are to his own webpage, not a UoT page, and the email provided is one from yahoo, again not from UoT ([[1]]). Overall, with only some Youtube videos and the subject's own web pages as references, the article is beginning to look like it may even fail WP:NOTE. Interested parties may wish to find some much more robust RS or there may be a case for deletion. Thomask0 (talk) 03:02, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Evan Thompson link?

Why are the Evan Thompson and Jordan Peterson articles referencing each other in their "See also" sections? A Google search for both names together returns only the two Wikipedia articles, and a bunch of other sites that look like they've copied from WP. There's no problem with the links being there if they are relevant, but could someone who knows these guys make it clear in the article itself how they are linked. Thomask0 (talk) 03:15, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Cleaned up page, found citations

Cleaned up tone and unnecessary language. Found correct citations. Deleted Evan Thompson link - I went to his page and didn't see any substantive connection or collaboration between the subjects. If anyone knows why the link makes sense, please relate how it is relevant.--Greenleaf2014 (talk) 15:07, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality

Curious as to why my edit was removed. For reference, my addition was included in the Controversy section, and I believe was properly sourced, and it read:

"... Particular controversy resulted after Peterson stated that if a student requested that they be referred to by pronouns other than 'he' or 'she', Peterson would not oblige. This statement drew strong criticism from LGBTQ activists and various student organizations, and prompted members of the University's administration to write to Peterson indicating their belief that Peterson's actions would be 'contrary to the rights of those persons to equal treatment without discrimination based on their ‘gender identity’ and ‘gender expression."

If there was an issue with the source please advise. Otherwise, I don't see why the entire addition needed to be removed. I noticed that the user who made this revision has also made other edits in the past which appear to be a deflection of any criticism of Peterson. The Controversy section currently doesn't explain any controversy - it provides only an account of what Peterson said, in a distinctly favourable tone. Should the Controversy section not also explain the facts relating to the public reaction (i.e. the actual controversy) in a neutral tone? As it stands, the article does a poor job demonstrating to readers why there was controversy, where the controversy came from, who was involved in the controversy, and where the controversy currently stands.Cocunut200 (talk) 10:22, 27 October 2016 (UTC)cocunut200

Thanks for starting the conversation in this Talk page. There have been a few editors that have weighed in without any real discussion as to what should or shouldn't be included in this section. Regarding the scope of the controversy section, it seems to be about what legal and linguistic things that Peterson objects to and because this is not in-line with the current government and some people's views, it would be fair to title the section as "Contraversy". However, if you feel that there is a better title to the section, please suggest it.

Regarding the issue of Peterson's choice not to use gender-neutral pronouns, that's another thing altogether. The question that editors need to make is: Is this issue significant and notable enough to be worthy to be mentioned in a Wikipedia article. Yes, there are opinion pieces about it, but that alone doesn't make it notable. How did Peterson's personal choice affect his work, his career, public policy, or the wider world? Did Peterson's choice influence a wider social movement or a significant piece of art (like a novel or documentary)? Think of it this way, in five years do you think that this case will still meet notability criteria or will it just be a piece of trivia? The thing is we can add this to Peterson's Wikipedia page in five weeks, five months, or five years. If it is truely notable then it should be just as relevant then as it is now.

Even if you think the case is notable, I would argue that the wording of this case, should be consistent with what is written in well sourced newspaper articles (not opinion pieces or editorials). That way it is reflecting what Peterson actually said, as opposed to a lot of "I think that is what he said", which will result in an edit war.DivaNtrainin (talk) 02:27, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Is this issue significant and notable enough [...] consistent with what is written in well sourced newspaper articles

I'm not sure if I'll ever have a view on this debate, but I thought it worth pointing out that you seem to be answering your own question, or at least asking the relevant question which should have a straightforward answer. HTH, Samsara 13:21, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

I think you are mixing up "being in a newspaper" with "being notable". There is a lot of information in a newspaper, even in well-sourced articles. However as editors, we need to ask: what things are significant enough to be included in this person's Wikipedia page. Being in a well-sourced newspaper adds to the credibility and notability of an issue, but we as editors still need to take a step back and say "Is this within the scope of the Wikipedia page, or is this trivia". I have provided some questions that we can consider in my previous post to help us determine this question.DivaNtrainin (talk) 14:56, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Where did he state that? In a discussion on the UoT campus that was uploaded to YouTube, he said that it would depend on what he thought was the motivation of the person. Chilton (talk) 11:35, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

I think the decision not to talk about the sizable public response to his statements is a political decision in itself, and harms the neutrality of the page. While I get that reasonable people can disagree on what is "notable", I can't see how other components of the article - such as Harvey Shepard's opinions of Peterson's works - could be considered more "notable" than a fair and balanced take on the recent controversy. In five years, we may very well still be talking about this controversy (certainly, if nothing else, for its value to the debate about political correctness), but I'm sure we won't be asking about one of Harvey Shepard's 2003 reviews. This is especially true considering that Peterson himself has embraced his role at the centre of the controversy, and is now participating actively in online and media efforts to garner support for his positions. Furthermore, it seems contrary to Wikipedia's stated objectives (ie open and free collection of knowledge) for editors to take such a strong position on a controversial issue so as to actively eliminate an entire side of the controversy because they deem it not to be "notable". Wikipedia's LBGTQ readers especially would likely take issue with the position that Peterson's statements are featured prominently in the article with a distinctly mitigating tone, but there is no fair coverage of the criticism that Peterson received. I would suggest that a compromise would be for the controversy itself to be the subject of a separate article, but this seems to be unnecessary when these issues can be so easily addressed with the inclusion of a couple of sentences in this article. 2607:FEA8:3D1F:F561:A90D:3A6:54B3:DFF0 (talk) 18:11, 31 October 2016 (UTC)cocunut200

Well,cocunut200, can you suggest some wording that should be added to this article, and then we can debate it?

Although I don't have a problem with adding a sentence or two about this controversy, and I do think this entire entire controversy can be summed up in an sentence or two, there is a lot of problems with what you have just said. You say that Peterson is participating actively in online and media efforts. Can you give some examples of this. I mean, I see some opinion pages when I go into google news, but even that is waning. Also, you say that Wikipedia's LBGTQ readers would take issue with the position that Peterson's position. Well, I suggest you reach out to LGBTQ community and talk to them about what they are concerned about, because the issue of gender-neutral pronouns in that community is far from decided. There is already a Wikipedia page for Gender-specific and gender-neutral third-person pronouns and if you feel that the issue of persons not respecting the wishes of others to use gender-neutral prounouns, then that is the place to put it. However, I would recommend that if you add a "Controversy" section to that page, it not just be about one Psychology professor in Canada with no connection to linguistics or gender studies. Instead, what's the larger, world-wide prevalence or legal standing regarding use of gender neutral pronouns. Is there any academic studies or evaluation of the use of gender neutral pronouns.DivaNtrainin (talk) 00:54, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

DivaNtrainin, I've made a suggestion; I authored the original edit, which was removed by you and is quoted above on this page. It makes three claims. 1) That Peterson specifically stated that he generally would not honour requests to use pronouns other than "he" or "she". This has been widely reported, although if you take issue with that specific wording and can phrase it more accurately to your understanding of Peterson's statements, I'm sure that could be done without jeopardizing neutrality. 2) That Peterson has been criticized by LGBTQ activists and student organizations. This is a neutral and fairly incontrovertible statement. Everyone from campus news sources to major media outlets such as CBC have reported on this criticism, which I'm sure you would find with a quick Google search. 3) That the U of T administration wrote a letter to Peterson that took a particular position. Again, this was sourced in the edit and has been reported by major media outlets, so I'm not sure where the issue is. While I disagree with your position on the issue of gender neutral pronouns, both of our opinions are entirely besides the point. The Jordan Peterson article does not need to decisively conclude a prominent debate in "linguistics or gender studies". It simply needs to discuss Peterson's particular role in that debate. Right now, it reads as "Peterson said some stuff, and said some more stuff to defend his position." It should read as "Peterson said some stuff, various stakeholders were upset and criticized him for his statements, then he said more stuff to defend his position" because that is an accurate summary of what actually transpired. To decide that you don't want to include any information about the criticism that Peterson drew simply because you feel that "the issue of gender-neutral pronouns in [the LGBTQ community] is far from settled" is disingenuous, and is not in keeping with a neutral editorial position. 2607:FEA8:3D1F:F561:4484:A975:CDE6:CC0B (talk) 05:13, 1 November 2016 (UTC)cocunut200

This article, like all others, shall have to be written in accordance with WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:BLP, etc. Samsara 00:02, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I have reverted an old edit that was removed by another editor. The wording of this edit is very close to what is written in the newssource, so as to try and be as accurate as possible and not to try and infer what was actually said.DivaNtrainin (talk) 01:18, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Raised as a "Christian conservative"

This article, at the beginning of the "Biography" section, states, "Peterson was raised as a Christian conservative, and began questioning religion in his early teens." The source cited, a long video on YouTube (91 minutes long) does not quite bear up the claim. Jordan very briefly discusses his religious background at about 59:50. There he describes his background, "I was in a mainstream Protestant church. The mainstream Protestant church in Canada, the United Church, which has become a hotbed of social justice warriors over the last ten years . . ." Now, whether or not anyone wants to agree with the bit about "social justice warriors" (no need to argue the point on Wikipedia), it's not quite accurate to sum that up as simply "conservative Christian." The term "mainstream" or "mainline," within Protestantism in the United States, refers specifically to the churches on the "progressive" or "modernist" or "left" side of a major split within Protestantism that occurred in the last quarter of the nineteenth century and first quarter of the twentieth. Something similar seems to be true of Canada. For example, to give you a bit of flavor, here's a little bit from the "Beliefs" section of the United Church of Canada article:

The United Church believes that the Bible is central to the Christian faith and was written by people who were inspired by God. The church also believes that the circumstances under which the books of the Bible were written were of a particular place and time, and some things cannot be reconciled with our lives today, such as slavery. The United Church of Canada uses the historical-critical method of interpreting the bible. . . . Remembering that Jesus was reported to have welcomed tax collectors, prostitutes and other "undesirables" to his table, the church attempts to welcome everyone, regardless of age, race, class, gender, sexual orientation, or physical ability.[16] In the same manner, there is also no restriction on those interested in entering ministry. . . . Believing that marriage is a celebration of God's love, the church recognizes and celebrates all legal marriages, including same-sex couples, previously divorced people, and couples of different religions. . . . The church believes that there are many paths to God. . . . The church supports the right of women to have access to safe abortions that are covered by provincial health care . . .

Now, looking from some vantage points, I'm sure the mainstream Protestants of Canada are"conservative." But simply to tag their beliefs as "conservative" without further discussion in a Wikipedia article is a bit of a step too far, especially given that Peterson himself, in the source cited, doesn't use that language. Instead, he simply uses the term "mainstream" with is not a synonym, and in fact an antonym, for some uses of the word "conservative." So I'll edit the article to reflect what Peterson actually said in the source cited. Alephb (talk) 20:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Relocate unsourced influences list here

These unsourced lists are a concern for me, because even if this unsourced list were correct, there is nothing stopping a bad faith vandal from just adding in random philosphers or thinkers. These unsourced lists of influences are popular as well in rock band and movie director articles. I would much prefer to see this in prose, with each influence sourced. (e.g.,"Peterson was influenced by Foo Barkley's 1999 monograph Notes from the Underwear." [Note: this is fictitious example and a silly fictitious reference!]OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 22:07, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

• Fyodor Dostoyevsky
• Friedrich Nietzsche
• Carl Jung
• Jean Piaget
• Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
• Charles Darwin
• B.F. Skinner
• Mircea Eliade
• Carl Rogers
• George Orwell
• Leo Tolstoy
• Jaak Panksepp
• Northrop Frye
• Nikos Kazantzakis
• Søren Kierkegaard
• Aldous Huxley

See this https://jordanbpeterson.com/category/reading-list/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hrodvarsson (talk • contribs) 22:54, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Some of the entries in the list are from the Books page, which doesn't indicate that those works actually influenced his thinking and academic work, which is what the field in the infobox is for. Both the Book List and Intro to Maps of Meaning explicilty say that some of the listed thinkers influenced him, so they should be verifiable enough for inclusion (notwithstanding a debate over whether or not such a lengthy list should be included at all). ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 08:09, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

In that case, I think the influences section should wait until there are sources outside Peterson's own website to reference as the current is long-winded yet simultaneously incomplete. (Chang included for Rape of Nanking but Piaget not despite Peterson's frequent references to the latter in lectures) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hrodvarsson (talk • contribs) 13:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

References

Deborah Gayapong cite

In this edit, Hrodvarsson provided a source at Churches should 'tremble' at social justice warrior agenda by Deborah Gyapong. When I looked for it, the site gave me a 404. It's not a misspelling - Google thinks the article was there but does not provide a cached view (not at Wayback, either). What I found instead, by the same author and same date, was Churches should ‘tremble’ at transgender agenda, professor says; but this article does not contain information supporting the biographical information the other article was being cited as a source for. I suspect the difference in title was a result of editorial choices by the different publications and that the base article from Canadian Catholic News is the same. Those same editorial choices, however, could have removed the biographical information we are seeking support for. Shall I just template it for 'deadurl' or for 'failed verification'? Anyone have something better? — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:14, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

It's a BLP, so if we can't verify the source, I think we need to remove the unsourced material. The Toronto Life article supports a self-description as "bookish" and learning to read at age 3, though I'd question how encyclopedic either of those statements are; they read, naturally, more like magazine article colour. Attending the United Church needs a working source. Having a Protestant work ethic also needs a source, and would need to be attributed in-text rather than stated in Wikipedia's voice.--Trystan (talk) 13:34, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed this discussion and made several related changes. Revert if necessary. Grayfell (talk) 23:10, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Looks good to me, thanks.--Trystan (talk) 23:17, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I thought that was just down for me, but the quote is "Peterson grew up in Alberta in a family that attended the United Church". There is no mention of "Protestant work ethic" though so it has rightly been removed. Hrodvarsson (talk) 07:02, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Peterson has publicly stated...

Peterson has publicly stated that he will not use non-binary pronouns such as 'Zhe' in reference to others, even if requested.

Could someone point to where he stated that? In a discussion on the UoT campus that was uploaded to YouTube, he said that it would depend on what he thought was the motivation of the person. Chilton (talk) 20:15, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I took this from http://www.torontosun.com/2016/09/29/u-of-t-prof-rips-bill-outlawing-gender-identity-discrimination , which says "Peterson also refuses to use non-binary pronouns such as “zhe” in reference to others — even if they request it. He told the Sun that the watering down of “fundamental axioms” such as “he” and “she” is a recipe for social strife."DivaNtrainin (talk) 04:21, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I know (I've seen the article), but news reporting is often inaccurate. I'm curious as to where and when he publicly stated that. Chilton (talk) 10:01, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

I haven't seen anything with a direct quote from Peterson, which is what I would prefer to have in this Wiki page. If you know a better quote, then please put it in. I will try and find something where he has actually quoted what he has actually said.DivaNtrainin (talk) 18:16, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQ-M5MgqVOo 80.221.149.214 (talk) 04:52, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Contested deletion

While the person who posted the speedy deletion tag may believe the videos Peterson posted was the most significant thing that he did, clearly he has done other things which, considered separately, are credible claims of significance. For example, look at versions of the article before September 2016 (before the controversial events related to the subject of this article). Just because something controversial happened in relation to the subject, does not mean this person is known only for that controversial thing. For these reasons, I don't see how WP:A7 can be successfully argued. --BurritoBazooka ^Talk Contribs 04:38, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

"Homophobic videos" what a nonsensical accusation. But certainly typical of the left. JDiala (talk) 07:22, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 October 2017

Start writing more about his personal life. This man is too interesting for that. 2A02:A443:C17F:1:D43B:348:2C49:E6A9 (talk) 02:04, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 13:44, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Notability of political label?

In a video Peterson published today [2], JP made a strong point of rejecting the 'far right' label and identifies himself as 'classic British liberal' (3:50). According to WP:BLPSELFPUB, the youtube video would be fine to use as a source.

For many commentators we don't see any label (Douglas Murray (author)); for some people like Sargon of Akkad (YouTube) we get a brief section of political views; for others we get entire articles (Political views of Richard Dawkins). I'm pretty sure it's notable but I don't see where to stick it, and I'm not in the mood to awkwardly shoehorn something in. --Nanite (talk) 01:06, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, it seems J. Peterson is not politically a far right as some media want to portray him. Not only he condemned the far right, and left, but identify as a "classic British liberal" (see Business Insider and The Spectator). I will add this information, with reference to these two sources, because of the recent media misinformation.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 06:03, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Dr Peterson's critiques and commentary

User Jmcgnh deleted various references to Dr Peterson's critiques of poltical correctness and other matters without refercing the Talk page as per the rules of Wikipedia. I have reverted these edits and request that further changes are referred to the talk page. Keith Johnston (talk) 20:06, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Happy to discuss this with you.

The edits I reverted all appeared to be based on a YouTube video of Peterson in a debate. This constitutes a primary source, not an independent secondary source. I have previously reverted edits which are only sourced to Peterson speaking on YouTube. Peterson's emergence on the public stage is surely accompanied by other people talking about him and that is the sort of sources which Wikipedia needs.

As to the "rules of Wikipedia", I think I've been following them fairly well, though occasionally my actions are disputed by another editor. Improperly sourced material about living people can be removed with just an edit summary explaining why, even if that is just the notation WP:BLP. You've now started a talk page discussion, which is the proper next step. It was not proper to re-instate the disputed material until consensus was reached in this discussion. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks also happy to discuss.

With reference to primary sources Wikipedia rules state:

″The accuracy of quoted material is paramount and the accuracy of quotations from living persons is especially sensitive. To ensure accuracy, the text of quoted material is best taken from (and cited to) the original source being quoted. If this is not possible, then the text may be taken from a reliable secondary source (ideally one that includes a citation to the original).″

For that reason the vast majority of the text added is quotes, directly from the original source, which is also sourced properly. Only where direct quotes are not possible should secondary sources be used. Do you believe the additions are unimportant or do not accurately reflect the authors view?

On the talk page, my understanding is that the edits should remain and you should start a talk page with a view to reaching a consensus if you wish to revert them, not visa versa.Keith Johnston (talk) 20:36, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

You now have a large portion of the article depending entirely on self-published sources. For the notability of these views, some independent sources are required. I'd like to hear what some other editors have to say. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:45, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

The rules relating to self-published sources are:

Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;

it does not involve claims about third parties;

it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;

there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;

the article is not based primarily on such sources.

This policy also applies to material published by the subject on social networking websites such as Twitter, Tumblr, Reddit, and Facebook.

I reject the claim that article is now based primarily on self-published sources. It is a long article and the additions represent only a small proportion of it.

However, that is not my principle line of argument as I also believe you misunderstand the meaning of the self-published source rules. This is to avoid individuals from interpreting themselves (e.g. A self-published website which says, for example, "I am the world's leading authority on dogs"). To disallow biographical sources on the grounds that they quote the actual person saying what has been quoted has no merit I can see. All you would achieve is cutting off the main source of biographical information. This is dog wagging the tail stuff. In your interpretation references to Winston Churchill's "We will fight them on the beaches" speech could not be sourced from his radio broadcasts directly, but would have to come from a secondary source. Such an approach has no utility. The outcome of your approach would (and presumably has been) simply be to deny wikipedia users the opportunity to get a full picture of Dr Peterson's biography.Keith Johnston (talk) 21:21, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the material is problematic, and isn't suitable for inclusion in the article in its current form. A summary of Peterson's academic work should be based on secondary sources, which will establish context and appropriate weight. Where the discussion supported by secondary sources warrants (e.g., in the Bill C-16 section), a quote from Peterson can be used to illustrate a point. Additionally, if new material has been challenged, the common practice is to establish consensus for the material before reintroducing it to the article.--Trystan (talk) 21:41, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia mainly summarizes secondary sources. We can use self-published, primary sources in some cases, but this isn't one of those cases. This content should be either removed completely, or at least heavily trimmed and summarized. Deciding which of his comments belong and which do not is subjective, and we don't expect Wikipedia editors alone to make those calls. Self published sources are not reliable, and as a clinical psychologist, his definitions of cultural appropriation, postmodernism, feminism, and white privilege are unconventional to the point of being potentially misleading. His expertise on sociological issues has not been well-established by reliable sources.

Even if you reject that point of view and accept his expertise, this still doesn't necessarily belong. If outside sources exist, supplementing independent sources with his own comments could be considered, but would still not be automatically acceptable. Without independent sources, briefly summarizing his opinions based only on his own work would only be acceptable if we had a very strong reason to suspect these were of primary importance. If they are not importance to the topics he discusses, than they should be helpful for understanding him, professionally. None of this is provided, and even if it were, outside sources would still be much, much better. Grayfell (talk) 00:39, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't think you can include this information when it is sourced only to his own lectures. It is already mentioned that he has a YouTube channel and uploads his lectures there anyway, so if someone is inclined they can go watch the content themselves--I don't believe it is the place of an encyclopedia to give summaries of lectures (unless it's a very notable lecture). Also, I think this article is already bloated by social views and not enough information, sourcing on his career. Hrodvarsson (talk) 06:19, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for these additions. I will take these comments in turn.

Trystan: Thanks for your comment. The summary based on secondary sources you suggest does not exist. One is therefore left with the option of directly quoting his views or not engaging with them at all. i believe the former has more utility in a biography. No doubt further biographical information will come to light in the future, but we are not there yet, and Wikipedia is an ongoing project, so the page can be updated at some future point if it does come to light. It is also arguable as to whether the additions are a reflection of his "academic work" or his new role as social commentator/philosopher/intellectual.

On reversions the advice is: When reverting, be specific about your reasons in the edit summary and use links if needed. Look at the article's history and its talk page to see if a discussion has begun. If not, you may begin one.

I reverted the discussion because this convention was ignored.

Grayfel Thanks for your comment. It is precisely to avoid accusations of creating original content that I did not summarise his views. As to whether they can be trimmed, I accept they can. I would welcome suggestions. Deciding which of which comments belong and which do not is related directly to the information being presented. If the information is relevant it should be included.

You state "Self published sources are not reliable". Please be specific. I am quoting his views directly. This is the most reliable source when quoting someone, rather than , for example, hearsay. What you think of his views is irrelevent, and potentially could give rise to accusations of not being neutral. Finally, stating his expertise on sociological issues has not been well-established by reliable sources cannot be justified. Dr Peterson is a clinical psychologist and professor of psychology at the University of Toronto.

You state If outside sources exist, supplementing independent sources with his own comments could be considered, but would still not be automatically acceptable. As stated, outside sources covering these issues do not yet exist. Dr Peterson has only recently become well-known. We can therefore expect a cycle of 1) hearing his views 2) Critiques of his views 3) Responses to those critiques 4) Synthesis 5) History. However, that process can take decades. We must therefore start somewhere, and that somewhere is with his actual views. Keith Johnston (talk) 07:17, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Hrodvarsson Thanks for your comment. You state: I don't think you can include this information when it is sourced only to his own lectures. I am quoting him directly, so this is the best source rather than alternatives such as hearsay. As this is a biographical page of an individual who is now a social commentator/philosopher/cultural critic known for his world-view I believe it is justified to include his most significant views on the world. As to whether you can find his views elsewhere you can make such an argument about any author.Keith Johnston (talk) 07:17, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Your interpretation of Wikipedia's guidelines doesn't match mine, nor several other experienced editors. Yes, we could all be wrong, but please consider the alternative. It's clear that consensus has not been met for inclusion, and the content could be removed on that basis. A better way to solve this is by finding outside sources. If they truly don't exist, we're done. Wikipedia isn't the place to share Peterson's views simply because he has expressed them. We don't publish them and then wait for sources to catch-up. Saying content is 'relevant' needs context, otherwise it's arbitrary and subjective. We need reliable, independent sources to determine if something is relevant or not. I don't think this will take decades if he truly is notable and his opinions are significant, but if it takes decades, we'll just have to wait. That's how encyclopedia's work. We are not the bleeding edge of social commentary, instead we reflect reliable sources after they have been published.

He is reliable for information about himself. In practice this means that some routine non-controversial information (birth-dates, etc.) is so basic and necessary for any good biography that primary sources are acceptable. Secondary sources are still better, though. This absolutely doesn't qualify as routine. That he has opinions is obvious. An editor-selected listing of the content of some of his opinions would necessarily be non-neutral. Do you understand the difference? Grayfell (talk) 21:49, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

It's not that Peterson is unreliable for statements about himself or his own views, but a matter of whether summaries of his views should be included in an encyclopedia if they are only sourced to primary sources. He has made hundreds of lectures, and it is not the place of an encyclopedia to include information on them unless they are independently notable (i.e. there exists non-primary sources about them; e.g. Heidegger's "Der Ister" lecture course is independently notable). I think some of his quotes could be included in the Jordan Peterson "Wikiquote" page though, but I am not sure. Hrodvarsson (talk) 07:10, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Grayfell, Hrodvarsson thank you. I am in the process of identifying further sources to establish independent notability (Hrodvarsson's point, well made) and will revise the article over the next 48 hours. I maintain that the single most reliable source for quotes from an individual is what they say (or write for that matter) and that such sources are relevant on biographical pages. Whether the medium for that source is Youtube or a scrap of fag paper is irrelevant, so long as it can be verified.Keith Johnston (talk) 08:19, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

In a recent edit, merged separate sections "white privilege", "postmodern feminism", and "cultural appropriation" into "postmodernism and identity politics". The first was partly replaced by a similar quote from a secondary source and left one YouTube quote (think it's not an issue), the second was removed because it was his personal psychological opinion, third was replaced by a quote from a secondary source, and removed the template. Now the whole section is less redundant and off-topic and more focused on the political correctness, postmodernism, and Marxism which are his main topics of criticism from viewpoint of his research in work "Maps of Meaning". Think the article should be primarily focused on his work (for e.g. he announced a website to counter postmodernism and Marxism in courses content), and less on many personal opinions which can be instead quoted at Wikiquote.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 20:31, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Bias

This page is far too uncritical. It includes no criticism of JP, like how his view of "postmodernism" is based around misunderstanding its definition, or how many of his claims around genders/sexes doesn't represent consensus and is often outright incorrect. IMO these are very relevant to the page, and at this stage, this page reads like if it was written by a fan of his. "Neo-marxist postmodernism" is an example of complete nonsense jargon only JP or his fans would use (for one, marxism and postmodernism aren't even compatible, let alone such an outrageously stupid conspiracy theory). 2.108.109.144 (talk) 13:14, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

As it stands now, these are all opinions of yours. Opinions in and of themselves are irrelevant to us. If you have sources, we'd be happy to consider your request. JDiala (talk) 07:20, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

"marxism and postmodernism aren't even compatible" - their compatibility and relation are well elaborated by Stephen Hicks in Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault (2004), among many others.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 10:17, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

J. Peterson's children

@Hrodvarsson:, would like to understand your edit and summary which you argued with WP:BLPNAME. You wrote that "Children's name are not to be included unless they are independently notable", while in the principle is written "names of family members who are not also notable public figures must be removed from an article if they are not properly sourced", yet the names were properly sourced (and am aware of other reliable sources which can support the names). The only statement with which you could argue your edit is "The names of any immediate, ex, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject", something, I suppose, there is no consensus or mutual agreement. Currently, I am doubtful about the proper argumentation their names should be kept as discrete. Any thoughts? --Miki Filigranski (talk) 23:48, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

"The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons" is what I was citing. I do not see what the names of Peterson's children add to the understanding of the subject. Hrodvarsson (talk) 14:45, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Alright, there can be made a reasonable argument to keep their name as private.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 22:47, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

J. Peterson's work

@Hrodvarsson:, would like to spark a discussion and initiative with your edit in which you removed a sentence with a summary in which argued it was seeming "extraneous", with which partly agree. However, it was added in connection to the previous sentence mention of "religion" and how it can help to develop a "universal system of morality". The main reasoning behind the addition was, I think, the need for further expansion and elaboration about his book Maps of Meaning, arguably his lifetime work about which his lectures are based upon, because:

1) the article needs to be focused on subject's achievements and work

2) there's no independent article about the book, which raises the question whether it is enough notable for a stand-alone article, and as such the section itself should be expanded with a more detailed information, reviews & criticism.

A fast search found that the source was quoted by many psychologists in topics regarding psychology, religion, politics, perhaps most notable, with specific commentary about the work, which can be quoted and cited are:

1) The Psychology of Religion: An Empirical Approach by Ralph W. Hood, Peter C. Hill, Bernard Spilk, in which on pg. 236-237 the work is cited about the "balance between tradition and transformation ... of any religion", "five-factor model", which they conclude was "masterfully explored by Peterson (1999) as the personality basis for what he terms the architecture of belief".

2) The Destructive Power of Religion: Models and cases of violence in religion by J. Harold Ellens, pg. 346

3) Exploring Positive Psychology: The Science of Happiness and Well-Being by Erik M. Gregory and Pamela B. Rutledge, pg. 154

4) Beyond Empiricism: Institutions and Intentions in the Study of Crime by Joan McCord, pg. 178

I will accordingly cite these four sources in the "lead" and "Maps of Meaning" section. If you find any other useful source to be cited, link it here or make an appropriate edit.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 01:37, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

The material was strangely worded (is it a paraphrase? If so, it should be attributed to Peterson, "in Peterson's view", "in the book Peterson argues", etc.) and seemed tangential.

Regarding 2, I would suggest that you create an article for Maps of Meaning. I do not know if it meets WP:NBOOK, but if it has been quoted by many academics it probably does. The non-existence of the Maps of Meaning article does not mean that any and all sources you can find should be included on the author's page; articles for authors with long lists of publications would be unreadable. The opening of articles is definitely not the place for descriptions of works (see MOS:LEAD), so I will remove the description of the book in the opening. Hrodvarsson (talk) 06:31, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

@Hrodvarsson: I only cited these few sources and did not mean anyhow that should be many more as much as possible. I disagree with your will ([3]) to remove the description of the work or his professional specialization which is basically exactly the opposite of what is stated in LEAD, and can be found in other biographies.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 06:44, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

The opening should be a summation of the body, with some exceptions. The areas of study need to be in the body before they are in the opening, especially if you are going to expand the sentence about the areas of study. The description of Maps of Meaning may be okay for the opening of that article, but not the article of the author, it is far too intricate and long. Hrodvarsson (talk) 06:51, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Then the areas of his study will be cited in the body as well. The short description of the book, on which is based most of his lectures, as well a whole section is nor intricate nor long.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 06:52, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Then you should have added that content to the body instead of reverting. I cited MOS:LEAD beforehand. That description is long, even by numerical comparison this can be seen. His lectures are also not reliable sources, so cannot be used in determining how much weight should be given to certain topics. Hrodvarsson (talk) 07:10, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

You were only partly right about LEAD, while there's a dispute about the description. His lectures are a reliable evidence and it's more than obvious where's the weight. Done. It will be edited further (for e.g. psychology of creativity, politics etc.), actually, your opinion was a good thing because I would have forgotten. Many of his academic papers were about the topic of politics, or art and creativity.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 07:16, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

The lectures are not reliable sources. You can cite them on Wikiquote as evidence that Peterson said certain things, but they would need to be quoted by reliable, secondary sources in order to know how much weight they should receive on Wikipedia.

I was right in citing WP:BRD; you made the bold edit by adding the intricate detail to the opening that was not supported in the body, contra MOS:LEAD. Some of your other additions are questionable (for example, citing IMDB). But I appreciate that you are expending time and effort to attempt to improve the article, especially adding to the career and works section which were comparatively underdeveloped. If you look through the history of the article, you will see I had added much of what was previously there. Hrodvarsson (talk) 07:36, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, I am well aware that only a few editors worked on the article or were in discussion, and I appreciate your consideration, whether we agree or not, actually it did constructively correct my edits. The IMDB was cited because it is arguably reliable with a list of episodes, as a temporary solution to the template until better sources are found. Regarding your opinion about the creation of an article about the book, I am currently not able to do it, above all because of that I am not informed enough about the notability for a book, its article style, and while searching about the book seemingly there was a lack of information, review, or criticism to make a good article (although it was cited 248 times). However, such case is understandable because it is not a mainstream book and its notability also includes WP:TEXTBOOKS criteria, some of which it does meet. Think that, for now, its current section is good enough, and should be taken into consideration WP:PAGEDECIDE and WP:WHYN.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 08:05, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I still do not think the current level of detail should be in the opening but it is not worth getting into a kerfuffle over as you have added information and sources and are working to improve the article. Creating the Maps of Meaning article is worth a try. The worst that can happen is that it is deleted but as it currently does not exist there is little net loss. Hrodvarsson (talk) 15:02, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

My issue with your consideration about the level of detail is that do not understand on what LEAD principle is it based to consider its legitimacy as well as a guideline for future editing, and in the fact that WP:GA article like of Steven Pinker does have such description for several books. I hope our editing goes toward good article nomination, in a reasonable amount of time, and anything which can be improved meet editorial standards. As for Maps of Meaning article, since I will have some free time in near future will try to schedule a sandbox draft.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 23:02, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the previous discussion about the lectures and whether Maps of Meaning is used in lectures considering that his videos are of dubious reliability, Psychology Students' Association in ASSU Anti-Calendar are mentioned two lectures "Personality and Its Transformations" (pg. 189) and "Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief" (pg. 193)--Miki Filigranski (talk) 23:13, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Wilfrid Laurier University

@RA0808: regarding your edit, would it be relevant to also cite editorial articles like [4] and [5] as seemingly it can not be interpreted as only individual journalists/columnists opinion?--Miki Filigranski (talk) 22:44, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

@Miki Filigranski: That's a good point! What would be a good way to phrase it, though? Perhaps mention the specific editorial boards like "It was also condemned by the editorial boards of The Globe and Mail and the newspapers of Postmedia Network". It gets a bit confusing though since the Postmedia newspapers all have centralized editorials, i.e. the same editorial runs in all (or at least most) of the dailies they own. RA0808 ^talk_contribs 23:58, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

@RA0808: at the time of my add did not know about these articles and the general statement "media...criticism" could have been better phrased as you did according to the cited sources. Seemingly it is notable that editorial board of arguably the top national daily newspaper The Globe and Mail made such a statement, in addition to other(s). Perhaps it can be phrased in fewer details, something like "The case received media coverage and was criticized by several national newspaper editorial boards[cite eb articles] and columnists as an example of the suppression of free speech on campuses.[cite col articles]". However, would the word "national" imply Canadian, rather than provincial distribution, considering that Toronto Sun is not nationally distributed, if I understood well?--Miki Filigranski (talk) 00:21, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

@Miki Filigranski: Perhaps "editorial boards of major newspapers"? Since the important thing about the criticism is that they were major newspapers with wide national or regional distribution. RA0808 ^talk_contribs 01:08, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

@RA0808: alright, it could work. Do the edit as intended, then we will see if there's something to correct or not.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 10:13, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Distortion of scientific literature

I've found a significant distortion in the "Critiques of Political Correctness" section, in the following line:

According to his study—conducted with one of his students, Christine Brophy—of the relationship between political belief and personality, political correctness exists in two types: PC-Egalitarianism and PC-Authoritarianism, which is a manifestation of "offense sensitivity".[38] The first type is represented by a group of classical liberals, while the latter by the group known as "social justice warriors"[7] who "weaponize compassion".[2] The study also found an overlap between PC-authoritarians and right-wing authoritarians.[38]

If you actually read the scientific study conducted with Brophy, the methodology used to label subjects as PC-Egalitarians and PC-Authoritarians involved primarily judging whether the subject believed in a societal basis for group differences, as opposed to a biological basis for group differences, and whether or not the subject thought disadvantaged groups should be propped up by policies:

PC-Egalitarians tended to attribute a cultural basis for group differences, believed that differences in group power springs from societal injustices, and tended to support policies to prop up historically disadvantages groups. Therefore, the emotional response of this group to discriminating language appears to stem from an underlying motivation to achieve diversity through increased equality, and any deviation from equality is assumed to be caused by culture. Their beliefs lead to advocating for a more democratic governance.

In contrast, PC-Authoritarians tended to attribute a biological basis for group differences, supported censorship of material that offends, and supported policies of harsher punitive justice for transgressors. Therefore, this dimension of PC seems to reflect more of an indiscriminate or general sensitivity to offense, and seems to stem from an underlying motivation to achieve security and stability for those in distress. Their beliefs lead to advocating for a more autocratic governance to achieve uniformity.

The wiki article identifies the "PC-Authoritarian" group with those known as "social justice warriors". However, based on the above description, it would appear to be the opposite. Far-left activists do not view group differences as biological, but rather the result of societal injustices which need to be corrected through policy. In other words, those identified as "social justice warriors" match the definition of "PC-Egalitarians" as defined in Peterson's study, not "PC-Authoritarian". The latter more correctly matches to far-right authoritarians; this is indicated in the next sentence, however misphrased to create the impression that "social justice warriors" are analagous to far-right authoritarians.

In all, this article needs a more objective summary of Peterson's actual academic work and scientific publications. His role as a media personality should also be discussed, but content from non-scientific media should not be used to qualify the findings of his studies in contradictory ways, or vice-versa.

128.151.150.2 (talk) 22:12, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

The WP:OR assertation is based on one article, while ignored that in this is clearly stated "Peterson and Brophy concluded that political correctness exists in two forms, which they call PC-Egalitarianism and PC-Authoritarianism. Simply put, PC-Egalitarians are classic liberals who advocate for more democratic governance and equality. PC-Authoritarians are, according to Brophy, “the ones now relabelled as social justice warriors.”", in addition, it is confirmed in their joint interview.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 22:27, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

The first article most directly outlines the methodology of the study in question. The second article and the interview appear to be media outlets in which Peterson and Brophy describe their study, but not conduct additional research. It is possible that Peterson and Brophy themselves portrayed their study disingenuously to the media. It is for this reason that I suggested separating Peterson's scientific work from his media personality in order to present a more scientific and objective view of his findings. For instance, I would explicitly include the study's criteria for "PC-Egalitarianism" and "PC-Authoritarianism" in the section describing the study, and refer to the opinions presented in the torontolife article and the interview in a seperate block. 128.151.114.232 (talk) 06:00, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I will try to make a short summary of the study's criteria, but it is not up to us to judge whether something was "disingenuously" portrayed by the scientists themselves, hence I do not support such separation.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 17:54, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Social & Political Philosophy Template

There is no reason to include this template on Peterson's page. Peterson has never studied philosophy nor taught philosophy professionally, as the educational summary on this page indicates. There are also no clear independent sources describing him as a philosopher for any other reason. It is unclear where the suggestion he is a philosopher comes from, as his professional field is psychology.

The bar for inclusion under this template is also relatively high. Almost all of those included are historical or contemporary leaders in the field of social and political philosophy. There are many prominent contemporary social philosophers not listed in the template because it is not yet know if their influence or importance will endure. If Peterson were to be included one would have to include hundreds of equally prominent academics who more closely work within social and political philosophy. 2607:FEA8:620:4F2:60DD:A756:928D:889A (talk) 01:39, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I have removed both templates, as neither met WP:BIDIRECTIONAL. Consensus for inclusion in the psychology template would have to be established first, presumably at Template talk:Psychology. As already mentioned, the philosophy one seems like a non-starter. Grayfell (talk)

12 Rules for Life

@Hrodvarsson: two additional reviews ([6], [7]) from the same author. Also, I edited one quote because it was too long (even too subjective, perhaps misleading, with comparison to Helena Blavatsky), think it's enough to give one sentence each reference to keep it concise.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 08:36, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

@Miki Filigranski: it doesn't seem to be structured as a review, but there are other reviews that could be added. I just added a few that were some of the first to come up when I searched. Hrodvarsson (talk) 01:57, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

YouTube Channel

Should he have a page for his channel or a section dedicated to it? It has a significant number of subscriber on that basis alone it is worth talking about.Filmman3000 (talk) 00:03, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

No, the subject is still him, the channel is not a separate persona.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 01:18, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I see the point. However a subsection dedicated to it is eventually essential to talk about his breakthrough and just general numbers that goes with it. The infobox, with YouTube information, like the one you see on Carl Benjamin's page is in my opinion desired here.Filmman3000 (talk) 22:59, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with this element of his intro

Peterson grew up in Fairview, Alberta. He earned a B.A. degree in political science in 1982 and a degree in psychology in 1984, both from the University of Alberta, and his Ph.D. in clinical psychology from McGill University in 1991. He remained at McGill as a post-doctoral fellow for two years before moving to Massachusetts, where he worked as an assistant and an associate professor in the psychology department at Harvard University. In 1998, he moved to the University of Toronto as a full professor.

In my opinion, it has no place in his intro. It does have A LOT of value in his childhood, education, and career sections. I've always viewed, the intro section has a brief summary of why one is notable, not how he got there. I've always look at Martin Scorsese and Steven Spilberg as my basis to make or work on a person's article, I've never in the case of these two where they grew up and studied to get where they are. Only their accomplishment. I am looking at contemporary thinkers such as the Sam Harris, or Richard Dawkins bio one of his contemporary.

It's mostly what they and do and why they are notable, according to what I've seen from other's bio. Not where they are born and how they got there. Feel free to debate, refute, or agree.

I got a bit in a delete/revert battle about this, the right way is to talk about it.Filmman3000 (talk) 22:50, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with how Dawkin's and Harris's bios are handled. They are scientists and coverage of their pedigree should absolutely be in the lead section. And if we are looking for precedent, I prefer the way Neil_deGrasse_Tysons bio is handled... all the schools for which he recieved diplomas are present in the lead.

You make a good point, though, in that many bios on Wikipedia are framed, as you say, with a basis on "why one is notable, not how he got there". However, you are working from a definition of "notable" that I do not apply to the situation. The first definition of "notable" when I look it up means, "worthy of attention or notice". That, to me, does not necessarily mean "popularity". Peterson is notable for being an academic and a scholar, not a YouTuber who appeals to young men who need to clean their room. Furthermore, Peterson had a Wikipedia article, and was notable enough to have one, before he first posted to YouTube. I support retaining the styling of his bio as one of a scientist and academic first. There is certainly a place in his article for covering his influence on popular culture, but framing his entire bio in that light is inappropriate. Marteau (talk) 00:41, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I stand corrected, from now on I will refrain of doing so when it comes to academics. You are right. The first bit is useless though, in my opinion it should go as: Peterson earned a B.A. degree in political science in 1982 and a degree in psychology in 1984, both from the University of Alberta, and his Ph.D. in clinical psychology from McGill University in 1991. He remained at McGill as a post-doctoral fellow for two years before moving to Massachusetts, where he worked as an assistant and an associate professor in the psychology department at Harvard University. In 1998, he moved to the University of Toronto as a full professor.Filmman3000 (talk) 02:24, 4 March 2018 (UTC)