Talk:Jordan Peterson/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

Semi-protected edit request on 2 March 2021

The preview for Dr Peterson’s page should not include the term ‘far right’ as it is not consistent with his own description of his political views, nor is it consistent with the rest of the Wikipedia article. 194.193.207.88 (talk) 06:02, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles do not rely on self-descriptions by controversial figures, but rather on how independent, reliable sources describe those people. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:13, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but I think the OP may have meant something like 'when JP describes (expresses) his political views, the content is not far-right' rather than 'JP doesn't think he is far-right' as it may have been interpreted. Joshrav (talk) 09:25, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, in general a self-reference can not be enough to declare oneself they way one wants. This applies to both Peterson and unreliable sources. It is reasonable to consider a tenure university professor with decades of peer-reviewed scientific track record risking his face and reputation a more credible source than a faceless online-magazine like "Pacific Standard" taken as reference below, where an 1-click research reveals the overlying company: "The Social Justice Foundation" (self-reference). I strongly suggest to restrict the references, whether Peterson or publicist, to direct quotations or the well-established internationally known Press (BBC, NYT, ...) with a foundation-year way before the emergence of the huge amount of hard to differentiate mis- or disinformation, preferably the year 2000 or even sooner. Again, I would not consider the reference to the online-magazine "Pacific Standard" a reliable source in our age of mis- and disinformation. It takes 1-2 days, today to set-up such a online-magazines without known well-established publicists. Such references should not be cited here as they are just as controversial as a self-reference. Furthermore, the perception of Peterson among the press varied a great deal, both in reception and over time. It is thus central to keep the references up-to-date. An example which does represent what I consider a fair and up-to-date evaluation is from the NYT: The Jordan Peterson moment. I believe that this is a credible and up to date source to start from. There is not a single reference to 'far-right', 'alt-right', or 'right'. Instead the article points to Petersons cultural, humanistic, psychological, phylosophical world-view. The whole message is overall positive.

Should the page include the wording 'far-right': I have yet to find any evidence for the 'far-right' stigma which doesn't come from an obscure faceless magazine or some close-minded protestor shouting slogans and hiding within the masses. Is there any credible up-to-date reliable reference? I did not find any. The above left-tending NYT article says no. Let us turn the question around: What would Peterson have to say to not be smeared 'far-right'? The answer should not be an left/right ideological statement. This is precisely what he is saying!

I would not include it blundly with the intent to smear and silence, due to lack of any(!) credible referentiable evidence; instead I would include the following line of argumentation:

• Without doubt... the overwhelming majority of people who are familiar with his content knowns that his position is clearly not 'far-right/left' or 'right/left'. He dedicated decades of his life to studying what such type of thinking will lead to when the left/right-ideologists go too far. In a very vage sense or low resolution, one may understand his interpolation between chaos and order as an equilibrium between left'ish- and right'ish thinking (or psychologically inbetween the devouring mother and tyrannical father), even though this is vastly oversimplified.
• What Peterson is articulating is the cross-cultural mechanism which stabilised humanities societies from falling into right- or left totalitarian self-destructive pathological societies. When coming from a simple left/right world-view, left-pulling forces take his correction from going too far left as what a suppository 'right-puller' would do. In the left/right binary worldview the pull toward the central equilibrium is hard to distinguish from the pull of covert radical 'far-right' ideologist - unless you listen to him!
• But Peterson worldview is not binary Left/Right - it's a dichotomy dating back to the earliest known stable civilisations Sumer, see 'Tiamat' and 'Marduk' in "Maps of meaning". He also relates it to Nietzsches Apollonian/Dinosonian dichotomy- and affirmation of life. Peterson is trying to tell the protestors about this stable equilibrium each individual must find within himself, such that one does not fall prey to left- or right self-destructive identity politics. He doesn't even see them as 'enemies' as they see him - in fact he gently corrects people who formulate their questions to be more understanding.

Numerous universities have come forward over the years to allow a civil discussion to clarify Petersons position. However, mobs of protestors made it at first almost impossible to allow Peterson the chance to state his case. Consider for example the protest at Queens University, or the disaster at MacMaster. Innocent until proven guilty - rallying mobs to prevent Peterson to even state his case should be alarming to any free society. Not everyone is interested in engaging in a civil discussion. It is much easier to keep ones box-like thinking and simply smear a stigma on someone to scare people away or be associated.

• Leaving the stigma 'far-right' on this page without articulating his position takes a side of people smearing a reputation, such that they do not need to allow free-speech. It is simpler to smear his name (burn his book/information) instead of having to confront the possibility that a tenure Ivy league Professor risking his name and reputation might know something they could need to prevent shifting into a pathological society. Peterson is not some average guy on reddit hiding his identity behind some fake profile and big mouth. Before the 'controversy' he already was an extremely successful tenure professor who taught at Harward Ivy league. It's a shame that mob of protestors refusing to engage themselves nor allow others a civil discussion and hiding behind flag of an ideology which lead to hundreds of millions of deaths in the past century (see MacMaster incident), should not be able to smear this page with 'far-right', when they have no clue what Peterson's position is.

As with other pages of prominent people Wikipedia should not allow people to smear the name of Peterson and passively picking the side of a shouting mob contributing to the inhuman treatment of J. B. Peterson. Wikipedia should not allow vague and lose references trying to sneak vicious formulations and 'far-right' stigma with a one-line reference to some obscure online-magazine self-referencing their own bias or some protestor not just unwilling but so deep within their ideological way of thinking that they became unable to consider the possibility that they might go too far by impeding free-speech and promoting compelled-speech.

• One tragic aspect of the situation is that Petersons message is very hard to articulate correctly this leaves few other possibilities than self-referencing to Peterson. His message has depth psychological aspects which must leave chaotic/creative room for interpretation at some places at other places the message must leave a tyrannically orderly "no" for any room for interpretation.

It takes time for people to understand and catch up. The New York Times did. And they did not call him controversial at all but "one of the most influential thinkers of our time", which is positive - it implies there is a valuable message. Wikipedia should not enable people to smear Ivy leave accredited tenure professors! Let's be reasonable the NYT is considered rather left democratic trending; It would never write this about a 'far-right controversial figure'. Derek1155 (talk) 19:53, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

No actual edit requested. Additionally, please get consensus for any changes before requesting an edit. Thanks.

ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:26, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

• a David Brooks op-ed from three years ago is irrelevant at this point - and thanks to the wide range of sources included, our article offers a fairer assessment. Acousmana (talk) 22:33, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

@Derek1155: I think you make some thoughtful, valid points about Jordan Peterson. However, the other editors are correct about how one should go about incorporating such a nuanced understanding into the article. I encourage you to "learn the system" here at Wikipedia and then apply your advanced knowledge to this and other articles. Or, just throw your hands up in disgust and rail against tyrannical Wikipedia editors. (See Rules 6, 7, & 9 in 12 Rules for Life.) Btw, I have "thrown up my hands in frustration" many times during my 12 years as an occasional Wikipedia editor, especially when I felt misunderstood and attacked. Hang tough! Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 14:53, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Worth noting also that an argument riddled with authority bias isn't going to get you very far here. Acousmana (talk) 15:33, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Quite right. Occasionally contentious newcomers transform themselves into great editors, which is my (perhaps rose-tinted) hope. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 16:25, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand Derek1155's concern with the current state of the article. The IP editor might have been concerned with the edit being reverted here [[1]]. I agree with the reversion and the editor who originally made the edit has since been blocked as a sock. I don't see where the current version of the article calls Peterson far/alt right. Springee (talk) 17:28, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory has an RFC

Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:08, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Jordan Peterson/Red Skull

Should this go in the article somewhere? 209.6.198.13 (talk) 10:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

References

I think it's best to wait a bit and see if this incident gains more than minor/fleeting coverage – it's probably less about Peterson himself and more about the comic book, and so far I don't think it's really something we'd look back on in 10 years and think is noteworthy unless there is more to be said about it. Possibly it could have a place in an article about the character or the comic book, though. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 10:48, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm thinking it's more about Peterson's reaction. That he assumed some pretty generic lines from a Nazi supervillain were lifted from him and flipped out over it. — Red XIV ^(talk) 23:29, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I would say no, if only because it seems like these kinds of cheap, one-off political shots are rarely mentioned here. The article on Newt Gingrich, for example, doesn't mention the character Nute Gunray from the Star Wars films, even though the connection between the two names is well-documented. Korny O'Near (talk) 00:18, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

It looks like this particular one will stay in the news cycle, in no small part due to how it seemingly hit a nerv with Peterson and his followers. I wouldn't write this one off just yet. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 10:40, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

It is difficult to read that comic and not think of Peterson. Peterson's enablers flipped out before he did, and many left wing commentators found the comparison to be apt. Maybe Peterson should ask himself why his lectures and philosophies sound so much like a nazi supervillain. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 10:38, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOTFORUM. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:08, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment surprisingly, this has now garnered significant coverage across multiple WP:RS, so based on the weight of this coverage, it would be permissible to mention it in the article. Would you like to propose text with sources? Acousmana 11:57, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
• Wait and see. RECENT is a big issue here. This seems to be a petty swipe at Peterson by a comic author on the other side of the culture divide. It has gained some traction with those who are discussing the intersection of pop-culture and the culture wars but in the long term it doesn't say much about Peterson himself or his beliefs. If anything it says more about the current set of writers at Marvel and the use of their comic as a political platform. Perhaps in a year we can see if this has a real impact on Peterson. Springee (talk) 12:29, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

notability, in terms of those involved (Marvel, Ta-Nehisi Coates, Peterson), suggests this merits mention. If it was some indie comic, and the incident was ignored by mainstream sources, undue, but based on the the amount of coverage this has gotten, across a wide range of sources, inclusion is reasonable - it's not for us to assess "impact" and that aspect has no bearing on whether or not the article should note the incident. Acousmana 14:26, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Has Marvel or Ta-Nehisi said this is Peterson? This really is the sort of petty cat fight stuff we should leave out of an encyclopedic article. It doesn't appear that Peterson is doing much about it other than a few twitter comments. Currently we can't say this has any lasting impact beyond any other criticism Peterson has received and it is for us to ask that question since it adds/remove to the WEIGHT we should give the material. Yes, some commentators are making an issue of it (for or against) but this is very likely to blow off when the next outrage item comes up. Per RECENT, and in the spirit of NOTIMELIMIT we can just wait and see. Springee (talk) 14:39, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Peterson has responded directly on the matter, sources are multiple, they are RS and the weight of coverage means mention is warranted, irrespective of any notions you may have about RECENT being an impediment to inclusion. Acousmana 14:47, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Again, RECENT. Just replying doesn't mean it has a lasting or significant impact. Springee (talk) 15:05, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

"Recentism is a phenomenon on Wikipedia where an article has an inflated or imbalanced focus on recent events," that is not what's happening here. A couple of lines about this is not indicative of recentism - a guideline designed to limit the production of articles burdened by excessive coverage of recent events. Put simply, RECENT is moot. We can move this to an RfC if people really feel there's an issue adding a short mention of this. Acousmana 15:45, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

OK, yes I'm oppose to adding this. Why should we give weight to a petty swipe by the author of the comic? Does this come even close to passing the 10YEAR test? We are in no hurry and can wait and see rather than adding it now. The article doesn't need to be filled with petty insults directed at Peterson vs actual reasoned criticism of his work/ideas etc. Springee (talk) 16:09, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

"doesn't need to be filled with petty insults", that isn't what anyone is proposing. "Does this come even close to passing the 10YEAR test?" easily, it suggests a number of things, none of which are applicable to adding two lines about a Peterson/Marvel spat. Acousmana 16:30, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Petty insults refers to the content of the comic, not a proposed discussion of it. I do not see how you can claim this passes the 10YEAR test when the whole topic is recent. Why do you think this won't be forgotten as soon as the news cycle moves on? Springee (talk) 16:56, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

already outlined above why recent/10y is moot. Acousmana 17:22, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

And I don't agree that you have. Springee (talk) 17:23, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

10YearTest: Will someone ten years from now be confused about how this article is written? In ten years will this addition still appear relevant? If I am devoting more time to it than other topics in the article, will it appear more relevant than what is already here?

I don't think that sentence or two mentioning this (in a ~5000 word article) would place undue weight on recent events, given the relatively extensive RS coverage that we have here. Srey Sros^talk 18:17, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

@Springee: The "comic book author" is actually Ta-Nehisi Coates, a well known and respected author and journalist. Not exactly some random person taking a jab at Peterson. That being said, I believe if this is going to be mentioned anywhere, is more appropriate to include a reference to it on the Red Skull article. Somebody more versed in comics, who knows where in the fictional character biography this current iteration of the red skull belongs, could also add a mention that he has been interpreted as a criticism of Jordan Peterson and the cult-like behavior of his followers. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 09:39, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

per above discussion, entirely appropriate to add mention of incident here also - additional detail/context re:Coates POV more appropriate at Red Skull page. Acousmana 10:48, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

• The subject of random unregistered users trying to smear the page with a 'far-right' suggestions have already been discussed in several talks above. See in particular the entry of Derek1155 in .

References

Wikipedia follows reliable sources not every social media trend.Sophie1221 (talk) 21:24, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Acknowledging Jordan Peterson's connection to the alt-right (at least an indirect one) is not a "social media trend". It's well documented. Nobody outside the alt right uses the antisemitic "Cultural Marxism" conspiracy theory, for starters. Also, I'm not sure what this has to do with the Red Skull. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 09:24, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2021

A sentence in the first paragraph under the subheading ‘Political views’ is misleading. This sentence is:

He has stated that he is commonly mistaken to be right-wing.[72]

The video in source [72] shows Jordan saying that his opponents mistakenly think he is a “right winger of some sort”.

Therefore a more accurate statement would be this:

He has stated that his opponents commonly mistake him to be a “right winger of some sort”. 2A01:388:5DC:110:FCCE:FBD8:69A8:F31D (talk) 20:00, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. The wording you propose has the same meaning. If you'd like to change this prose please get consensus. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:21, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2021

change to "Religious Views" to include

"Jordan Peterson has expressed favorable views of the Catholic Church, saying "I think that Catholicism … that’s as sane as people can get."

Source: https://www.catholicweekly.com.au/jordan-peterson-says-catholicism-is-most-sane/ Pazpkt (talk) 20:47, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Looks pretty WP:UNDUE to me. Just one piece of coverage of an interview. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:52, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Yikes. That sounds like something I wouldn't mind including. However, we would need a better source than a catholic website for that. Catholic Weekly is clearly trying to make an argument from authority to show that Peterson is supportive of their religion. We should probably see what Peterson's critics and noteworthy atheist thinkers and commentators have to say about Peterson's support of the catholic church. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 08:40, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

he has mentioned similar a number of times, in different sources, have a dig, there's an interview with Denis Prager where he repeats this "sane" statement, also some bishop in Canada he has sat down. Acousmana 17:50, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Bestseller in lead

Do we need to mention that his book was a bestseller in the lead? I have tried removing this but J.Turner99 (now blocked) and Volteer1 both reverted this. I am not denying that the book was a bestseller, but I don't think that is is appropriate for the lead as should not try to just highlight Peterson's achievements (even if he has many). Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:31, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

He's published 3 books, but one of them was very popular (12 Rules for Life). I think he's marginally notable for his other books, but very notable for that book in particular. As I stated in the edit summary, my reasoning was that saying this book is popular would be a strange thing to say in wikivoice, and saying that it's a bestseller is basically a more precise way of saying "it was popular" without the npov/wikivoice problem. Happy to hear other people's opinions on this, but I think just saying he's written books A, B and C would be insufficient when really the important and noteworthy thing is that he's written book B. --Volteer1 (talk) 15:50, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree that book was the most noteworthy, but more so due to the world tour rather than the number of sales. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:51, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

The world tour may indeed be noteworthy, but the book is certainly particularly noteworthy in its own right compared to his other books, and as far as I can see, its popularity is the reason why (e.g. being #1 on Amazon, etc). --Volteer1 (talk) 17:56, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

We can wait and see what others have to say. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:45, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

• "12 Rules" was a bestseller (#11 of all print books) in 2018. Thus, the adjective "bestseller" is not in dispute, is supported by reliable sources, and is relevant. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 03:41, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

  Nobody is disputing that it was a bestseller, or at least not me. All I am saying is that he is not notable for the bestselling status, but more the tour. The number 1 on that list does not mention the book at all in the lead; the number 2 does not even have a Wikipedia article; and number 3 does mention the bestselling status despite them being primarily an author. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:56, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I've had a look at more sources describing Peterson and his book generally, and it does seem the fact that it's a bestseller (or just popular, at least) is what people find important to mention when talking about his book. Just grabbing some articles we're currently using as sources: Eighteen years later, the author of “Maps of Meaning,” Jordan B. Peterson, has produced a sequel, of sorts. It’s called “12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos,” and it has become an international blockbuster. [2], or The confrontation has worked wonders for Peterson. His new book 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos has become a runaway bestseller [3], or His most recent book, “12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos,” was a number one national and international bestseller and is a great example of his intellectual prowess. [4], etc. Are there other sources that find the tour the important thing to mention? ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 19:27, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Emir of Wikipedia In this case, "bestseller" seems appropriate for the lead section, because, in a word, it summarizes the extraordinary sales (5 million copies to date) the book has achieved, which is reflected in the media coverage ("popular", "bestseller", "runaway bestseller"). I did some looking: it's hard to find publishing statistics, but a survey of online articles discussing overall book sales, and sales in non-fiction and self-help categories, seems to indicate that 5 million is extremely unusual, putting 12 Rules.. perhaps in the 0.005% (my conservative rough estimate) of all books ever published, ranked by copies sold. This is far from the case for many books called bestsellers in the moment. It's also been out for only three years, a short period compared to popular non-fiction books that have accumulated sales over years and decades, and sales seem to be continuing (on today's Amazon.com Top 20 chart for all non-fiction, it's at #5 Most Read/#13 Most Sold) -- this suggests that 12 Rules' popularity will continue for some time. The sales total should be mentioned in the body of the article, which gives context to the loosely defined term, "bestseller". --Tsavage (talk) 22:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes! What Tsavage wrote is spot on. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 04:06, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Reception section needed?

Maybe we should mention things like this: "Peterson was, depending on whom you believed, either a stern but kindly shepherd to a generation of lost young men, or a reactionary loudmouth whose ideas fueled the alt-right and a backlash to feminism. He was revered as a guru, condemned as a dangerous charlatan, adored and reviled by millions."[5] Kolya Butternut (talk) 12:41, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

I think we need to be careful about including a large number of direct quotes. It's better to summarize rather than decide which quotes we like best. Springee (talk) 12:59, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree. Kolya Butternut (talk) 13:01, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

A main section titled "Reception" should require consensus for inclusion, which includes a reasonable discussion of scope and framing, perhaps presented in an introductory paragraph. The problem with "Reception" in a BLP is that it applies to the entirety of the subject's noteworthy work. In Peterson's case, there are a number of noteworthy areas:

• scientist (one of the most cited research psychologists)
• professor (some 25 years of university lectures to 2018, which are available online)
• clinical psychologist (an active practice to 2018)
• author (Maps of Meaning, 12 Rules, Beyond Order)
• public intellectual (speaking tours, public comments)
• political activist (specifically, opposition to Bill C-16 -- noteworthy largely because of the extensive media coverage)
• entrepreneur (developing and marketing psychological tools for corporations and the public)

Given Peterson's current notability, all of these areas are biographically significant, and can't be collapsed into one Peterson entity for the purposes of critical assessment. Most of the public assessment of Peterson is in relation to "author" and "public intellectual" (much of the time the two seem to be related), and to the distinct "political activist" (although the C-16 protest is at times portrayed as an anti-transgender act, it is factually a separate topic). If a "Reception" section seems necessary in this case, how is balance established between the different areas of endeavor? For example, from the facts, accomplishments as a scientist would seem to merit similar weight as those of author/public intellectual. --Tsavage (talk) 14:57, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Appropriate balance in a "Reception" section would he determined by the BALANCE of coverage in the highest-quality RS available. What we must not do is to exclude criticism of the article's subject, or to reframe it based on OR and POV - q.v. although the C-16 protest is at times portrayed as an anti-transgender act, it is factually a separate topic: we'd need actual independent RS for that even to include that perspective in the article, much less to frame the article on that interpretation. Newimpartial (talk) 15:26, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

@Newimpartial - If you disagree that Peterson acts in multiple noteworthy domains, please explain. My point about C-16 is that it undeniably illustrates Peterson in the distinct role of "political activist": he spoke publicly, he testified before government, he defied his employer, he said he'd go to jail rather than comply.

My suggestion is that, at least in a BLP, a person can't be treated like a book or a movie -- thumbs up or down to the whole thing. We can't lump together assessments of the person's various actions, when they've acted in multiple distinct domains.

In this case, is "Reception" the appropriate title? Should the main section be: "Reception as a public intellectual"? Or should we have sub-sections for at least the most prominent areas: Reception -> Scientific research; Reception -> Author & public intellectual; and so on? Exactly what I'm saying is, care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral. We don't want to create the impression that what is under a general "Reception" heading necessarily represents all noteworthy aspects of Peterson, unless it does. --Tsavage (talk) 18:13, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Tsavage, Lack of consensus is not a reason for reversion. I'm fine with subsections if the section develops that far, but unless you have a specific complaint with what I added, please restore the text. Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:26, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Kolya Butternut The objection is explained above, let me know what's not clear. Perhaps you could explain why this article needs a Reception section, why shouldn't commentary be associated directly with the various topics being commented on? For example, Peterson being assessed as famous, controversial, a leading public intellectual, polarizing, or whatever else, because of his books and comments, is part of his Career. 12 Rules for Life has an extensive Reception section that can be summarized and placed here in the 12 Rules section. And so forth. To separate out and highlight critical commentary, positive or negative, for no particular reason, doesn't seem even-handed or neutral in a BLP (the article is about a person, not a movie). --Tsavage (talk) 22:11, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps we can add commentary on his books in each section about his books as you suggested, but I added back the section with the title "Public image" for how he is seen as a public figure. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:13, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I see that Noam Chomsky for example has a "Reception and influence" section, probably because he's more influential for his body of work and public statements than for his individual books. Other famous authors and intellectuals have similar sections, but I've changed the new section again to "Influence". [6] Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:18, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I think a "Reception", or "Influence and reception" section, is a good idea, and as noted, it's pretty standard in articles about public intellectuals: besides Chomsky, there are such sections in articles about Jacques Lacan, Herbert Marcuse, Jacques Derrida, even Carl Sagan (and many of these, it should be noted, are just called "Criticism"). As for ensuring balance: that's up to good-faith editors. Korny O'Near (talk) 01:53, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Kolya Butternut, I think it was a bit premature to restore the text. I think it's a good sentence and source as it nicely summarizes Jordan's public image. However, I don't think it is an appropriate stand alone section. It would be a good intro to a complete section on the public reaction to Peterson. Springee (talk) 02:18, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Korny O'Near I don't think that simply because other BLPs have such sections is sufficient reason for this one to have one, too. The examples you picked (Carl Sagan, Chomsky, Derrida, Lacan, Marcuse) have long-established bodies of work, with critics from within their fields. A Reception-type section for Peterson at this point is largely about media commentary generated by a single book (and related events), his first book for the general public, published three years ago. There has been a ton of press and controversy around Peterson over the last four years or so (including his C-16 protest), and sudden huge popularity -- that seems noteworthy on its own, but how to cover it? "Reception" and "Influence" seem way too skewed in favor of recent events and recent media coverage. Maybe a "Public intellectual" section... (Personally, I'd opt for covering all of that in "Career", until there are secondary sources analyzing his popularity and the media frenzy, such that we can paraphrase instead of relying on lists of media quotes to construct impressions.) --Tsavage (talk) 05:12, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Opinion pieces are fine for a reception section about a public intellectual self-help author. Besides, these opinion pieces are referring back to another opinion piece: "Peterson elicits nearly every opinion except indifference. 'The most influential public intellectual in the Western world right now,' wrote David Brooks in the New York Times, calling him 'a young William F. Buckley.' Critics, and there are plenty, raise serious doubts." [7] Kolya Butternut (talk) 09:30, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Short review of Beyond Order and debate between Peterson and Michael Shermer

[[8]] by Jason Colavito. Doug Weller talk 15:50, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Doug Weller, I think I would rather stick knitting needles in my ears than listen to either of those two. Both together? Ugh. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:01, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

@JzG:I think the main takeaway, at least for me, is Peterson's ignorance about ancient mythology. He's critical of Shermer also. Doug Weller talk 16:06, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOTFORUM. Korny O'Near (talk) 13:34, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

@Korny: please see Teaching grandmother to suck eggs. Guy's comment was trivial perhaps, but not something that you should be worried about. Mine are directly about the article. Doug Weller talk 14:27, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Directly about this Wikipedia article? I don't think they are. Unless you think that blog post should be cited here, which seems doubtful. Korny O'Near (talk) 20:16, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Colavito has published in academic presses, we can use him. Doug Weller talk 10:22, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Please see WP:SELFPUBLISH - "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." Korny O'Near (talk) 13:33, 13 May 2021 (UTC)