Talk:Jordan Peterson/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Recent addition of quote about Elliot Page

Do we actually need to quote the tweet, even in part? Even without the name it is still misgendering Page. Per the final example in MOS:GENDERID, which ironically also involves Page, we could and I think should paraphrase it. Something like On June 29th, Peterson's Twitter account was suspended after misgendering and deadnaming transgender actor Elliot Page in a tweet which said that Page had his breasts removed by a criminal physician. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:58, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

With this edit, I hope to have clarified that the reason to include the quote was to specify the manner of the misgendering (which I suspect would not be clear to all of our readers, but which is pointed out with "sic."). I am certainly open to other perspectives on this, but I think our readership in general benefits from the reminder that this is what misgendering is - the same argument does not apply to the deadname, for reasons that I think are obvious. Newimpartial (talk) 16:17, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

That's silly - there are various reasons to truncate or modify a quote, but censorship is not one of them; see WP:CENSOR. And if he was blocked from Twitter for saying something, readers deserve to know exactly what he said. Korny O'Near (talk) 01:39, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Censorship would be removing all reference to the reason why Peterson is currently banned from Twitter. Respecting the dignity of the person that Peterson is deliberately being hurtful to is not censorship. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:43, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

This seems very RECENT. I would suggest removing the whole quote (just say "X happened because Y" or include the full sentence. Springee (talk) 02:11, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree with that. And yes, bowdlerizing Peterson's quote is indeed censorship - especially because he was trying to make a socio-political point, not trying to, say, smear a random celebrity. Korny O'Near (talk) 02:45, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Including the full sentence would mean including the actual deadname, directly counter to a widely-participated RfC that closed less than 18 months ago. I see no good reason to do that. Including only the misgemdering phrase, with sic. is aligned with all policies of which I am aware, and serves the use for our readers that I specified above.

By the way, Springee and Korny: the two of you are unlikely to engineer an exception to MOS:DEADNAME just because you find it inconvenient or even objectionable. Sorry, not sorry. Newimpartial (talk) 02:53, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that policy applies - it says, "If a living transgender or non-binary person was not notable under a former name..." But Elliot Page was obviously notable (actually, probably more notable) as Ellen Page, than they are under the new name. Korny O'Near (talk) 03:01, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

The relevant part of the guideline, which does apply to notable deadnames, is Paraphrase, elide, or use square brackets to replace portions of quotations to avoid deadnaming or misgendering, except in rare cases where exact wording cannot be avoided. This does not seem to be one of those rare cases. Newimpartial (talk) 03:08, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I missed that part - you got me there. Well, I think it's a dumb guideline, but it is indeed a guideline. In this case, though, it directly conflicts with WP:CENSOR, in that Peterson's use of the name "Ellen Page" and the pronoun "her" were directly aiming to make a point, and the precise reason (apparently) why he was banned. So perhaps Springee's suggestion to remove the entire quote is the only real solution. Korny O'Near (talk) 03:15, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Censorship done for a noble cause is still censorship. Quoting someone but not really quoting them seems wrong, and if we must resort to grammatical sleight-of-hand in order to half-assed quote someone we should instead just state the facts of the matter and leave it at that. Le Marteau (talk) 06:58, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't think "censorship" is generally a useful framework within which to discuss Wikipedia content. Instead, we should ask: does the reader benefit from knowing this information? If so, what's the best format to present it in? We generally avoid quotes where paraphrasing is possible; however, in this case, I believe there's important subtext to the tweet. It reads, in full: Remember when pride was a sin? And [Elliot Page] just had her breasts removed by a criminal physician. (I've replaced the deadname because we can agree that MOS:DEADNAME prohibits it.)

Here, I can only see pride as a deliberate pun, signalling Peterson's opposition to LGBT identity more widely. But to point this out without a source is original research. There is other subtext to the tweet, too, that is hard to convey through paraphrasing. So I think we should quote it verbatim, except with the substitution of the deadname like I've done above. We need to give a reason for the suspension; that reason is the full text of the tweet; and Independent/Indy100 decline to analyse it in enough depth for us to use that. — Bilorv (talk) 14:12, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm aware calling "censorship" censorship here is not a "useful framework" as it has pejorative connotations, and no one wants to consider themselves censorious. But it actually is... the community has carved out an exception to WP:CENSORED and that's fine. But although I support the community's decision in WP:DEADNAME, as I do all community decisions, I'll not be participating in the munging of Peterson's quote and will step aside and let those more suited to such work, proceed. Le Marteau (talk) 15:51, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't see that DEADNAME supports altering the quote. Altering the exact quote negates much of the original issue with the quote. If we say Twitter blocked him for deadnaming then we say "Elliot" instead of "Ellen" then the quote no longer deadnames Page. The example quote says if the changes are overly disruptive to the quote don't do it. If the quote needs to be altered to be on Wikipedia then we should simply remove the quote. Honestly, we should probably remove the whole thing since this seems like a NOTNEWS and RECENT issue. If the objective is to say he doesn't support altering common speech to placate revisionist language (or how ever his objections would be summarized) then include it. That he said something about Page that upset Twitter censors seems like a minor thing by itself. Looking into my last comment a bit I did find this Newsweek bit on it (I know Newsweek isn't blessed by RSP)

[1]. It says Peterson was comparing how pride used to be seen as something like vanity or other character flaws but is now taken as a good thing. It also says Peterson used "she" since using "he" as the subject of a mastectomy would be medically odd/wrong. Anyway, right or wrong I think his explaination gives insight into his views on these subjects. However, I think it might be better to trim this all way down and just say Twitter blocked him for what Twitter says is "[Twitter claim here]". We should not be altering this quote as has been done since that removes the controversy in question. Springee (talk) 17:23, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

If the objective is to say he doesn't support altering common speech to placate revisionist language (or how ever his objections would be summarized) ... That he said something about Page that upset Twitter censors - Springee, you don't seem to be taking this incident as seriously as Twitter, or the RS, are taking it. Peterson's tweet isn't primarily about language - he is objecting to LGBTQ pride as "a sin", denying Page's trans identity, and objecting to Page's top surgery as something that should be criminalized. This is fairly extreme anti-trans hate speech, and your paraphrase as Peterson not supporting altering common speech to placate revisionist language and saying something about Page that upset Twitter censors suggest, at the very least, that you are tone deaf in this subject domain, and may point to deeper WP:CIR issues. Newimpartial (talk) 17:31, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Throwing out CIR insults is not a good way to persuade others that they should adhere to your perspective. My view that we should either include the still quote or, preferably, remove the quote and impartially state why Twitter blocked him, hasn't been moved by your comments. Springee (talk) 22:29, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, considering that the point of my reply was to draw attention to your tone deaf comment, rather than to persuade others that they should adhere to (my) perspective, that isn't really a result that perturbs me at all. Newimpartial (talk) 22:55, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th Without tweet, the section is almost meaningless with how vague it is. 2601:280:C981:21D0:8C5F:A62C:287B:70FB (talk) 19:34, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

There is a consensus that we should not have the quote. None of the other acceptable alternatives per Wikipedia's policy and guidelines; paraphrasing to avoid deadnaming Page, or using square brackets in the quote to avoid deadnaming and misgendering Page, were found to be acceptable. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:15, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

I think the best way forward is likely to leave the quote out. By including a quote by the article subject we're saying that it's one of the most important and noteworthy things that they've said, which this is not. We should just summarize the reliable sources, which will likely be "Peterson was named from Twitter for deadnaming Eliot Page." If we're worried that a reader doesn't know that deadnaming is, wikilink it. This will avoid deadnaming on our part, and avoid concerns about censorship. I also think using the quote as written by Peterson does not violate MOS:DEADNAME as I think this is a rare case where it cannot be avoided. Providing a quote that is noteworthy because it's offensive and hurtful and removing the offensive and hurtful part changes the meaning. Luckily, summarizing secondary sources is an easy solution. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:10, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't think Peterson was banned from Twitter for deadnaming Eliot Page will turn out to be a plausible summary of the situation. For one thing, the rationale for the ban concerned Twitter's rules against hateful conduct, which several elements of the tweet may have transgressed.

Newsweek summarized the situation this way:

Dr. Jordan Peterson has been suspended from Twitter for calling out the "criminal physician" who removed Ellen, now Elliot Page's breasts.

The controversial tweet was flagged as violating Twitter's rules against hateful conduct, and Peterson has reportedly indicated that he will "never" delete the tweet.

Then Newsweek quoted the tweet in full.

Pinknews said that Peterson was

suspended from Twitter temporarily after violating the site’s rules against hateful conduct with a tweet about Elliot Page, which now appears to have been deleted by the site.

The tweet in question, posted on 22 June, saw Peterson misgendered and deadnamed trans actor Elliot Page, saying: “Remember when pride was a sin? And [Elliot Page] just had [his] breasts removed by a criminal physician.”

gcn included less of the tweet and more about Twitter's policies:

Twitter subsequently took action against the Canadian as the post violated the platform’s rules against hateful conduct, saying: “You may not promote violence against, threaten, or harass other people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, or serious disease.”

The Independent opened with:

A Jordan Peterson tweet about the actor Elliot Page has reportedly been taken down for violating the social media platform’s rules against hateful conduct.

Later in the article, the tweet is quoted in full.

Interestingly, the Western Standard offered a slightly different rationale for the ban:

Twitter said Peterson was suspended for violating the platform’s rules against hateful conduct. Twitter’s rules state people cannot promote violence, threaten, or harass others based on their gender identity.

In any event, the reliable sources do not day that Peterson was "banned for deadnaming Elliot Page", so neither can Wikipedia. Newimpartial (talk) 23:24, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

That wasn't an actual proposal for prose. "Twitter suspended Peterson on $date for violations of their hateful conduct policy after he made post on the platform in which he misgendered and deadnamed actor Elliot Page." is probably a better summary, assuming there's better sources than Newsweek specifically calling it misgendering and deadnaming. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:03, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I think we can say "for violating the site's rules against hateful conduct", which is pretty much universally sourced. Gcn does say, as the article currently does, after he misgendered and deadnamed Elliot Page, but that "after" is ambiguous as to causal vs. temporal sequence, so it can't be used to imply causality. I think we should continue to mention the deadnaming and misgendering - on which all RS also agree - but we can't give that as the reason IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 00:11, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Rewording is fine. My main point is that including the text of the tweet is unnecessary, and not including it addresses both deadnaming and censorship concerns. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:28, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

We should be get careful about any summary as to why he was blocked. It would be best to cite the name of the Twitter policy vs just saying "hateful conduct" unless that is the policy name. If it is the name then it should be quoted. Springee (talk) 00:43, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

That's fine, as long as it's cited to a reliable, secondary source. Newimpartial (talk) 01:04, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Twitter do indeed call it their hateful conduct policy. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:41, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

In that case we should call it that in a way that is clear this is Twitter's name not our description. Given the recent edit back and fourth over the quote it should go. Springee (talk) 23:00, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

• Regarding whether to censor Peterson's quote, I think this case is an exception mentioned in MOS:DEADNAME (except in rare cases where exact wording cannot be avoided). We are specifically commenting on Peterson's use of she and the name Ellen in the tweet. We cannot refactor it to "[he]" and "[Elliot]" without losing all of the meaning we are trying to convey by quoting it. This is not at all like a case of refactoring a quote from 2010 to "[Elliot] Page is a great [actor]", which doesn't change the meaning of the quote, and is generally what MOS:DEADNAME is talking about. Endwise (talk) 11:22, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

  Just chiming into say that the current version, in which the quote is completely taken out, is probably okay too. It does have the added benefit of reducing the amount of text/emphasis we place on this saga. I do think it will leave readers wondering "okay, so what did he actually say", though. Endwise (talk) Endwise (talk) 15:35, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Responding to the question first asked. It would certainly help, if we had Peterson's tweet in full. Otherwise, how's one to know why Twitter blocked the guy. Something along the lines of "Peterson was banned from Twitter, because he tweeted something mean about somebody, etc...", isn't very revealing. GoodDay (talk) 03:26, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree. We need his tweet in full and unedited (and uncensored). Masterhatch (talk) 06:27, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

If I count myself among the editors favoring complete removal of the tweet, I believe we are now clearly in the majority. Newimpartial (talk) 12:20, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

To answer's GoodDay's question/point of "how's one to know why Twitter blocked the guy", there's two ways that can be done while being respectful to Page. By reading the sources we cite, or paraphrasing the sources we cite.

I cannot think of any good reason to include that quote as Peterson wrote it, when we can easily paraphrase it without losing meaning. Some may wrongly consider that censoring, and that is their prerogative, however censoring is not paraphrasing. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:28, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't really care if the tweet is in or out but being "respectful" to Page should have zero bearing on whether it is in or out. If the tweet is in, it is in exactly as Peterson wrote it. If it is out, then there should be no mention of it at all in the article. Paraphrasing the tweet is not an option; you can't have your cake and eat it too. Masterhatch (talk) 16:14, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Are you under the impression that we include primary sources at all times when we discuss incidents based on secondary source? That isn't what we do, nor is there any WP policy I've ever read mandating that as a recommended practice. Newimpartial (talk) 16:50, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Indeed Masterhatch, I noticed that a MOS is being used to 'censure' the tweet from this BLP. Perhaps that MOS needs revamping, if it's always going to be used in such a manner, concerning such topics. GoodDay (talk) 17:39, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

You're of course welcome to open a discussion on it at the appropriate talk page. But that's kinda off-topic for here. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:41, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, perhaps that time is nearing. GoodDay (talk) 17:48, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, I don't believe Peterson's suspension from Twitter is mentioned at Twitter. For that matter, I don't believe anything is mentioned about any criticism of Twitter's ban/suspension policies, there. But, that's a discussion for that article. GoodDay (talk) 18:34, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

The guy is also a conspiracy theorist

EVEN INFOWARS said so 2600:6C50:4000:27D0:C964:9163:D63E:D7D3 (talk) 04:13, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

https://www.infowars-dot-com/posts/jordan-peterson-threatened-by-ontario-authorities-over-political-tweets/ 2600:6C50:4000:27D0:C964:9163:D63E:D7D3 (talk) 04:13, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Not a reliable source EvergreenFir (talk) 05:09, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Seconded. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 05:31, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Oct edits to influence section

Valjean, I don't think the fact that a director claims modeled a movie character after Peterson is DUE for inclusion in his BLP. This[2] is effectively trivia. This is like a twitter spat that gets momentary mention in the gossip columns. This certainly qualifies as RECENT and NOTNEWS. The content has been challenged so please make a case for inclusion. Springee (talk) 17:41, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

At a recent Piers Morgan interview he said, if I remember correctly, that he watched the movie and that he does indeed consider himself some sort of example figure for the incels (which he described as disenfranchised young men). So I guess it makes this addition more than mere trivia. –Daveout(talk) 18:54, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree that it is trivial. Masterhatch (talk) 20:54, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Springee, trivia is stuff that's only mentioned in gossip rags or gets no traction anywhere in RS. This shows his influence is well-known, enough for him to be immortalized as a movie character, for this "spat" as you call it, to be mentioned in multiple RS, for him to consider it worth denying (and his vehement denial and use of "woke" is evidence that she's hitting close to home and partially right), and for him to break down in tears. His denial does admit that "he is “pretty damn pleased” that some of these young men have found “solace” in his work." He's appealing more and more to the fringe and is proud of it. Wow! Peterson takes this very seriously, so it's not trivia.

Some of the other RS where this is mentioned:

• 'It's misunderstood': Jordan Peterson breaks down in tears over Olivia Wilde comments New Zealand Herald
• Did Olivia Wilde Just Make Jordan Peterson Cry? New York magazine
• Why Is Jordan Peterson Crying About Olivia Wilde's 'Don't Worry Darling' Vice
• Olivia Wilde Comments on Jordan Peterson: Who Is the Man She Made Cry? Newsweek
• Jordan Peterson breaks down in tears over Olivia Wilde's 'incel' slam Toronto Sun

This is typical "Influence" section stuff, which is nearly always opinions, so we attribute them. The current removals and attempts at removal appear to violate NPOV by removing content that is critical of Peterson, moving this closer to a hagiography, and we don't do that here. NPOV requires we include the good and the bad, the praise and the criticism. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:32, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

The problem is Peterson is covered by so many different sources. The fact that a few pop culture gossip articles want to talk about how a director claimed they modeled a character after him just isn't significant in the bit picture that we are supposed to be covering. It's like a petty fight that we are trying to claim is encyclopedic. Will anyone talk about this even a year from now much less expect it to pass a 10 year test? Is any of this coverage independent of the PR push associated with this just released movie? Given the release date of the movie this seems more like those behind the movie trying to create some noise/controversy to get people to note a movie (and director) they otherwise may have missed. Again, undue trivia. Springee (talk) 21:43, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. This is worth taking all the way to ANI if necessary, even though it would hurt his reputation even more. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:54, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

No, this shouldn't be here. Are you also really saying you think something going to AN/I would effect a BLP subject? Take a step, or ten, back I think. Arkon (talk) 00:04, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Are you meaning to imply that there are WP:BLP concerns about including this content? I haven't seen any raised so far. Newimpartial (talk) 14:29, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

You appear to be confused, in both your comment here, and in your previous edit summary when reverting. My revert was removal of content that had/has no consensus for inclusion. If you wish to replace/upgrade sources you can do so in a separate edit with my blessing. Arkon (talk) 20:46, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I haven't seen anyone argue that Variety, The Independent and the National Post are not good sources. Has anyone? They are certainly better sources in this context than Australian Business Review, which you re-inserted and to which I objected in my edit summary. Newimpartial (talk) 21:11, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

You still aren't addressing re-adding information that has -no- consensus for inclusion. Do what you will with sources, but at least respond to what is being said. Arkon (talk) 21:12, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

There wasn't consensus for the Helen Lewis material, either, but you reinserted that. Newimpartial (talk) 21:17, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Let's try one last time. An edit was made, I reverted it for the reasons given. I added nothing. Whatever else you are trying to make it about is in your own head only. Arkon (talk) 21:21, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

In this diff, you added (back) In 2021, Helen Lewis of Australian Financial Review argued that Peterson's "appeal is that he is every one of us who couldn't resist that pointless Facebook argument, who felt the sugar rush of the self-righteous Twitter dunk or who exulted in the defeat of an opposing political tribe." Check for yourself - no gaslighting plz. Newimpartial (talk) 21:25, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

You are right, there was an intermediate edit that got caught while reverting Valjean's edit. Feel free to do as you wish there. However, it would be helpful if you stayed on the point of this actual section, which the revert was meant to be. No one seems to be arguing against what you are talking about on that front, and this section isn't about that. Arkon (talk) 21:27, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

But my edit summary, to which you referred above when you said You appear to be confused, contrasted the poor sourcing of the material you added with the good sourcing of the material you removed. (I wasn't confused.) Newimpartial (talk) 21:32, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

FFS, I was trying to give you a graceful out. Fine, your revert was improper because you re-added material that had nothing to do with your edit summary (somehow the addition of 1k+ text that had already been reverted didn't warrant a mention). If you were so concerned about this sourcing situation, you could have, and should have done that separately. I hope that's clear enough. Arkon (talk) 21:41, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

As I said, I was comparing the sourcing of the material I was re-adding with the sourcing of the material I removed. That is literally what my edit summary says, and it is also what I just said above (q.v. contrasted the poor sourcing of the material you added with the good sourcing of the material you removed). That most certainly "mentions" the material I re-added. Please stop the gaslighting; it hurts. Newimpartial (talk) 21:52, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

OK, I don't see we have a consensus to include here. Absent any changes I will remove this content in a day or so. Springee (talk) 14:18, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Add my voice to the consensus. Nobody is going to remember these news stories in 10 years, much less this movie. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:31, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Nobody is going to remember the opinion of Helen Lewis of Australian Financial Review, so let's not put that back in, either. Newimpartial (talk) 18:43, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

That is actually a comment about Peterson rather than an attempt to use a manufactured controversy to promote your movie. Springee (talk) 18:58, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

It is not my movie, and I doubt very much it is Valjean's. The discussion here had been about WP:DUE and the 10 year principle, not about PROMO. Do you need any help dragging those goal posts around?

You yourself had said The problem is Peterson is covered by so many different sources. The fact that a few pop culture gossip articles want to talk about how a director claimed they modeled a character after him just isn't significant in the bit picture (sic.) that we are supposed to be covering. It's like a petty fight that we are trying to claim is encyclopedic. So why do you think a random comment clipped from Australian Financial Review would merit inclusion? The sourcing is not nearly as good as the film discussion. Newimpartial (talk) 19:17, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Again, it's a comment about Peterson. The other is a comment that references Peterson but isn't about him. If we want to include how others obliquely reference him then we need a source for that. Springee (talk) 19:21, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

You don't think Peterson rejected the characterization, calling it "the latest bit of propaganda disseminated by the woke, self-righteous bores and bullies who now dominate Hollywood" is at least as encyclopaedic an inclusion about Peterson as, Peterson's "appeal is that he is every one of us who couldn't resist that pointless Facebook argument, who felt the sugar rush of the self-righteous Twitter dunk or who exulted in the defeat of an opposing political tribe"??? Newimpartial (talk) 19:27, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

No, I don't. Springee (talk) 19:50, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

• He also appears to have inspired Ta-Nehisi Coates's Red Skull in the Captain America comic books, or at least Peterson thought so.[3][4][5] This is sort of silly trivia though, so I'm not entirely convinced we should mention it. It's strange to read trivial stuff about inspiration for fiction characters next to content like Peterson "is now one of the most influential—and polarizing—public intellectuals in the English-speaking world". Endwise (talk) 04:29, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Discussed in archived threads JordanPeterson/RedSkull (April 2021] Depiction as Red Skull (October 2021). Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:27, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Maybe this is precisely what influential means, in the context of Peterson. Personally, I prefer all the memes that came out of the Peterson/Zizek debacle. Newimpartial (talk) 13:33, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

When I imagine "Peterson's influence", the things that come to my mind are more like his influence on the public's understanding of psychology, his influence on young men as a kind of self-help guru, or his influence as a warrior on the conservative side of the culture wars. Which to this article's credit it seems to mention. That he was inspiration for the personality of a movie (or comic book) character is I guess tangible evidence that he is culturally relevant, but trying to demonstrate he is culturally relevant through movie trivia just reads as irrelevant and silly. For an over-the-top example just to explain the feeling I get reading it, it feels like if I was to read a few paragraphs about the genuine influence/legacy of Kurt Cobain or Nirvana, and then have it finish with "Also one time they were parodied in The Simpsons, which Cobain said was 'dumb'". That's a bit more over-the-top than this, but it's the same feeling I get. Endwise (talk) 21:02, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Very well said. Masterhatch (talk) 21:43, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

I have to disagree with this - I think the references to him in Don't Worry Darling and, yes, Captain America are notable and should be included. For a pop icon like Kurt Cobain, minor references like this might be undue, but for a public intellectual like Peterson, they are exceedingly rare and underscore his celebrity and influence. (What other public intellectual from the last, say, 20 years has had fictional characters modelled on them?) I think an "In popular culture" section makes sense to have, just as exists for Marshall McLuhan and maybe others. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:33, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Well said. I agree entirely with Korny about this. Newimpartial (talk) 17:32, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't agree but if we had sources that said this was evidence of Peterson's wider impact or influence etc I would be more inclined to agree. Instead these additions come off as "look, this person insulted Peterson". The validity of those insults or their significance isn't included. So, I'm not opposed in general to including mention of these things but focusing on the inflammatory statements but not the validity of the comment is wrong. Springee (talk) 18:02, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

What do you mean by focusing on the inflammatory statements but not the validity of the comment? Newimpartial (talk) 18:34, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Totally agree with Korny, having a movie character modeled after you is not a small accomplishment and it's a sign of influence. And it's well sourced enough. The only opposition with a real and, imo, valid rationale is Endwise's. All the other ones are variations of "bc I don't like it..." or "the future will forget 🧙‍♂️🪄🔮..." These type of arguments should not have much weight in the consensus building process. ____{(it's just my opinion and I definitely dont want to diminish or disconsider anyone's contribution, if you felt like that, it wasn't my intention)} –Daveout(talk) 00:25, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely agree with @Valjean, @Newimpartial, and @Korny O'Near here. Removing this content is a bad idea, and goes against WP:NPOV. Peterson has been mentioned in multiple independent reliable sources as a model for this character in this movie, and it deserves a mention here. The fact that Peterson does not like it, or that other characters are modeled after him or whatever, has no bearing here. What matters is that independent RSes mention it, and therefore so should we.

Longevity arguments are misplaced here, as wikipedia's work is never done. if this truly fades into obscurity in 2 or even 10 years, then you can come back and remove the content in 2 or even 10 years, and I will even agree with you at that juncture. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:51, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Peterson's views on climate change research in the lead

DCcantabrian, please review ONUS and BRD. The material you added is UNDUE in the article lead. It's debatable if Peterson's views on global warming policy belongs in the article body as his views on the subject aren't considered notable in terms of the GW public discussion or in terms of things Peterson discusses or is notable for. If you look at the length of this article there is a subsection on climate change. Your new content might be due there. It is not due in the lead and it was rightly removed as as UNDUE. Please self revert. If you feel the content is due then add it to the appropriate subsection. Springee (talk) 22:29, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

I moved the recent content to the "Climate change" section. I agree that it's obviously undue for the article's lead and I also trimmed it substantially because some was redundant (e.g. Peterson's criticisms) or unverifiable (e.g. the "psychogenic" quote). Antiok 1pie (talk) 23:40, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Other content of this page seems fit to delete - Olivia Wilde's claims

After Shibbolet wrote above: "But again, we are not Peterson's website, advocate, editorial, or opinion page. We should only give what is necessary for encyclopedic summary here. Doing otherwise would bloat the page."

I scanned the page, and immediately this paragraph looks like bloat, by that definition: "According to Olivia Wilde, the sinister character Frank in her 2022 movie Don't Worry Darling was inspired by Peterson, whom she described as "a pseudo-intellectual hero to the incel community"

Olivia Wilde is not a useful RS on psychology or public affairs - merely an actrress and director. She has made ridicouluous claims that Peterson is insane; according to the sources given.

Can anyone find a good reason to include her nonsense? Looks like Undue coverage of a fringe view to me.CanterburyUK (talk) 16:54, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

It makes me think this page has not been well curated - one of the sources for the the Wilde text is Interview Magazine! Really? Celebrity tittle tattle magazines? CanterburyUK (talk) 17:02, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

You're not asking the right questions. The assertion, that she based a character in a film on him, is uncontroversial in and of itself. The question is whether this information is significant enough to include in the article about him, or just a bit of trivia that should be left out. If it were a minor film by an little-known director, it would almost certainly be undue, but this was a pretty famous film, and the fact that Peterson himself saw fit to comment on the film would probably tend to add to the significance. I'd be inclined to leave that in. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:13, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Also, the article does not even quote the "insane" remark. If it did, your reasoning would be appropriate. (He has spread several crazy and hateful anti-science ideas, but that does indeed not make him insane. Otherwise, half the United States would belong in a padded room.) --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:32, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Hob Gadling.

You are right -the article does not quote it. But the fact that Wilde said it publicly is the issue - it undermines her credibility. CanterburyUK (talk) 17:36, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

By that reasoning, we cannot quote Peterson either. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:46, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

how do you reach that conclusion? CanterburyUK (talk) 17:49, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Because he undermines his own credibility all the time, starting with his climate change denial, via his Jungianism (see The Jung Cult) to other misrepresentations of science including evolution. This only scratches the surface. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:54, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

But why is it relevant if he undermines his own credibility? . This page is about him - what he does and says. Credible or not. CanterburyUK (talk) 18:00, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

We don't determine whether or not a person is "credible" to determine whether or not to include something. Only whether or not it is due inclusion. We determine credibility based on whether our sources trust or reference or quote someone as credible or notable. Not our own gut feelings about what they said. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:29, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Girth Summit -

a) what makes you think 'this was a pretty famous film'?

b) and why do you think it should be left in - when nothing in the film trailer, content or etc has any bearing on Peterson. She simply choose to drop his name in promoting the film. In venues like Celebrity Magazine! CanterburyUK (talk) 17:39, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

a) Several factors. First of all, it's notable, as is she. Also, I've seen it, which is pretty unusual these days! More significantly, the reason I saw it was because I heard reviews of it on culture shows on BBC Radio 4 (major national radio station here in the UK), and read reviews in major newspapers. In other words: it's pretty famous.

b) That's a judgment call. It seems relevant to me, as a piece of high-profile social commentary. In general terms, if sources assert that a character in a major film was based on a real life person, I would consider that the be a relevant piece of information to be included in our articles about the film, and about the person. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:46, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Girth

"if sources assert that a character in a major film was based on a real life person".

But this source says the character is based on an insane person. Clearly Peterson is not insane. So whatever her character is based on- it is not the Peterson in the real world.. It is the fiction in her own head: which is fundamentally out of kilter, as proven by the fact the fictional Peterson in her head is insane. CanterburyUK (talk) 17:52, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Replied more fully below, but for the record, I am not persuaded by this argument. Girth Summit _(blether) 18:45, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I would characterize this argument as fundamentally WP:WIKILAWYERING. DUE and RSUW take precedence, and recommend inclusion, but a pared down inclusion as discussed. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:25, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

This was discussed above. I think it's UNDUE and should be removed. I don't think we had quite reached consensus level above and it is recent enough that, in my view, it can be removed as never really establishing consensus to include. This certainly is something I don't think will have any real staying power. In my opinion this was something Wilde said to drum up some controversy as a way to get people talking about her just released movie. But that is my opinion. Springee (talk) 17:28, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

In my opinion this was something Wilde said to drum up some controversy as a way to get people talking about her just released movie. But that is my opinion
I agree, that's why we should definitely remove the part that says "whom she described as..." but I would actually leave the rest as pretty DUE and covered in multiple RSes. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:32, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Shibbolethink

I find myself agreeing with Springee and not you.

It was your own words advocating to avoid bloat above - and yet weirdly here you seem reluctant to let go of something very transitory.

Which contradicts your stand on Petersons new court case and College disciplinary events. You reverted entirely my opening addition of that - a choice you had instead was to have edited it down to something you prefer.

Do you not feel that is doulble standards? CanterburyUK (talk) 17:44, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

It was your own words advocating to avoid bloat above - and yet weirdly here you seem reluctant to let go of something very transitory... Do you not feel that is doulble standards?

I think you may be confused about my position. In both cases, I'm advocating to include a trimmed down version of the content. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:02, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Shibboleth

Not at all, you're showing 2 contradictory behaviours.

A) you're advocating leaving something in that doesn't seem to meet your requirement to be "what is necessary for encyclopedic summary here. Doing otherwise would bloat the page".

Whereas :

B) on the Ontario Psychologist issue and court case you initially deleted the whole theme - and wrote: "Time will tell if that content should remain or fade into history as most of these little controversies do."

Question: If people were asked which of these two is a "little controversy" that deserved to "fade into history" which way do you think people would respond? CanterburyUK (talk) 18:33, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Not at all, you're showing 2 contradictory behaviours.
Please refrain from telling me what I think or feel, thanks.

The last thing I'll say, is that we or people don't determine what is DUE. Whether or not they are covered in multiple high-quality sources is the way we determine this.

Overall, I don't find this line of inquiry particularly beneficial or productive, and thus will no longer respond. Please do not ping me. Have a great day. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:26, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Shibbolethink

"Please refrain from telling me what I think or feel, thanks."

I have not done that - my very words that you quoted are explicitly about your behaviours not you thoughts/feelings:

"Not at all, you're showing 2 contradictory behaviours."

It's a shame that you say you wont respond - as there are questions put to you that remain unanswered.

Its a shame you asked me not to ping you - we could have continued on personal talk pages to try to reduce the heat here. CanterburyUK (talk) 10:00, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Poking holes in individual sources is not productive, it's more important to balance different sources against each other and figure out what the consensus of our available reliable sources is. We also need to determine which sources are reliable for this content.

The bar for "reliability" is different depending on what we're talking about: a mention of Peterson as related to a character in a famous movie, not that high of a bar. The efficacy of his meat-only diet? Very high bar. That is the essence of WP:BESTSOURCES, WP:RSUW, WP:MEDRS, and WP:FALSEBALANCE. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:30, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

According to Olivia Wilde, the sinister character Frank in her 2022 movie Don't Worry Darling was inspired by Peterson, whom she described as "a pseudo-intellectual hero to the incel community

I agree with Girth Summit, this is absolutely WP:DUE.

I think maybe we could/should remove "whom she described as..." that whole clause, as UNDUE. But otherwise I would leave as-is. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:28, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I tend to agree - trim the description, but leave the fact that the character was inspired by him in. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:40, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

If that were the road ahead -then the sentence should start with: "Olivia Wilde, who has said that Peterson is insane, says she modelled a character.... on her view of Peterson..." CanterburyUK (talk) 17:55, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

uhhhh, what do you mean? Both GS and I were saying that we don't need Olivia's opinion of Peterson in here. Just the fact that the character is inspired by him. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:01, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

That would be a very strange way to start a sentence. A simple, factual statement that she has said that the character is based on Peterson, with links to Wilde's article and that of the film, is sufficient. If we don't like the source currently being used, there are plenty more of them - I just did a quick Google News search, and came up with The Independent, The Insider, Vice, Variety, The Washington Post, Newsweek, The Guardian, Esquire, Spiked, The Spectator, Sydney Morning Herald... take your pick, the comments were widely reported in RSes. Girth Summit _(blether) 18:06, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

And that wide reporting is the essence of WP:DUE and WP:RSUW. Perhaps the fundamental difference between this situation and the one above about Peterson's professional org is that the controversy about Peterson's comments etc. is not widely covered in high quality RSes. Whereas Peterson inspiring this character absolutely has been widely reported. Wikipedia follows, it does not lead. it reflects the most DUE content which is reported most widely and relevant/DUE to the subject. Our high quality sources determine what is relevant and DUE inclusion. We do not. And we do not rely on low quality sources which are not considered "reliable" by wikipedia's standards. We have a very specific set of criteria for determining what is an RS. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:28, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Bringing this to a conclusion- and summarising the thread

I had kicked this off, quoting Shibbolethink about this page:

• "But again, we are not Peterson's website, advocate, editorial, or opinion page. We should only give what is necessary for encyclopedic summary here. Doing otherwise would bloat the page."

I had hoped we could reduce bloat on the page regards this film.

Springee's view was close to mine: "This certainly is something I don't think will have any real staying power. In my opinion this was something Wilde said to drum up some controversy as a way to get people talking about her just released movie."

Editor Girth Summit: had advocated the film is notable.

In the 6 months since the film, there is no source that has discussed the implication that a character may be based on Peterson. Wilde's stated view of Peterson is that he is 'insane'. (which clearly he isn't).

Shibbolethink argued that it remains encyclopedic and should stay. As it is undeniably a fact that Wilde made that claim.

So I'll not argue further that it should be removed. Instead - I'll merely extend the quotation of Wilde to the earlier part of the sentence where she describes Peterson as insane. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CanterburyUK (talk • contribs) 11:50, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Is that what you read to be the consensus of the above discussion? Two of us have suggested removing the description altogether. You're being bizarrely literalist about the word 'insane' here. She's not a psychiatrist making a diagnosis, she's using the word informally in the same way you might say that someone is a crack or a crackpot. It just means that she thinks he says crazy stuff. Girth Summit _(blether) 12:04, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Girth

She said it at the start of the same sentence that has been quoted here for some time. Do you have any reasons for wiki editors to decide unilaterally that only the 2nd part of her sentence is worth quoting? CanterburyUK (talk) 14:07, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

It's not unilateral - we are here discussing the best way forward. Your decision to expand the quote was unilateral. Anyway... She is an authority on that film and its characters, so her assertion that a character is based on Peterson is relevant, and its inclusion here DUE for the reasons already outlined. She is not, however, an authority on Peterson himself, so quoting her opinion on him is arguably undue, particularly since it's quite an insulting opinion. It's a judgment call, one could say that her comments are relevant context, and they were certainly widely reported, but my view is that we would be better off without the quote in the article. Girth Summit _(blether) 15:00, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Girth - instead of letting the source's sentence speak for itself: wiki editors have unilaterally decided to exclude some of the sentence (it happened months back).

The sentence is in the page because it contains Wilde's views of Peterson: have you any reasons to exclude her views of Peterson that just appen to be at the start of her sentence? CanterburyUK (talk) 15:13, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

I literally just told you why I think the whole quote should be removed. Girth Summit _(blether) 15:22, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Sure.

I hoped all along (as I said above) to remove the whole thing about Wilde - as had Springee. But didn't get consensus on that.

But to leave it in, yet have no quotation from Wilde .. well, IMHO that is not very helpful to the reader: they are left dangling, wondering what is the connection she is making from Peterson to the film.

So a question - would you be willing now to delete the whole reference?

In the 6 months since the film, no one has commented online about the connection with Peterson: so quoting Shibbeolith, it sounds like it could usefully "fade into history as most of these little controversies do". CanterburyUK (talk) 15:46, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

We use our sources to determine what is DUE, not our feelings. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:48, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

I think I've already set out what I think we should do. My first choice would be to have a straightforward assertion to the effect that she has said the character was inspired by Peterson, without a direct quote. My second choice is the status quo - include the assertion, and the quote. This is less than ideal because her description of Peterson is quite insulting, and since she is not a particular authority on him her opinion is undue, but you are right that it does provide some context so it's not completely out of place. Leaving it out altogether is not a valid option, in my view - it was very widely reported by RSes. Girth Summit _(blether) 16:46, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes I would agree with GS on this. Include without quote > Include with quote >>>>> Not include.

Notice how neither GS nor I are advocating really to exclude any of the passages in discussion on this page (Meat diet, Toronto Psychologists, or Olivia Wilde).

Only to include them in an appropriate length and context. Only to remove the parts which do not comply with policy. E.g. Wilde's quote is likely UNDUE given she is not an expert on this topic. She is only an "expert" insofar as she is the #1 person who knows her movie and who inspired its characters. But she is not an expert on Peterson's mental state. No RSes recognize her as an expert on Peterson's mental state. And thus we should not quote her on Peterson's mental state.

That is the essence of WP:RSOPINION/WP:RSEDITORIAL. See also: When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:16, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Girth

Thanks for clarifying - but you didn't respond to my comment about the downsides to the reader of that preference:

• "But to leave it in, yet have no quotation from Wilde .. well, IMHO that is not very helpful to the reader: they are left dangling, wondering what is the connection she is making from Peterson to the film."

CanterburyUK (talk) 22:48, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't need to respond to every single thing you say, just as you do not need to respond to every point that other people make. It should be clear to you that I think this concern is secondary to other considerations. Girth Summit _(blether) 01:03, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Invitation to all editors - to share views on approaches to Bloat in this page

A small number of editors chatted above about bloat regards the Meat_diet and the Olivia Wilde statement. I kicked those threads off, following the lead of Shibbolethink who wrote, regards the College of Psychologists thing:

• "we are not Peterson's website, advocate, editorial, or opinion page. We should only give what is necessary for encyclopedic summary here. Doing otherwise would bloat the page"

But the consensus on those achieved little bloat reduction.

So question to us all - do we think the page is bloat heavy - or it's actually fine, and has space for more content.CanterburyUK (talk) 14:49, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Each situation is different, each piece of content must be evaluated individually. Please stop repeatedly posting these long messages which say the same thing in different places on this page. To do so is to run the risk of WP:BLUDGEONing the discussion. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:48, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Shibbolethink

You've not taken the chance to give your view on this page overall, do you think: " the page is bloat heavy - or it's actually fine and has space for more content".

Just give your overall, gut feeling about the whole Peterson page? CanterburyUK (talk) 22:51, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

As I said, it's a case-by-case basis. I think some parts of the page are too long and others probably need expansion. That is true of most pages on wikipedia. As to the overall page length, no, it does not violate WP:TOOLONG. It is helpfully divided into sections, does not include (currently) any wildly UNDUE information, and has far less than 10,000 words. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:31, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Shibbolethink

thanks, it's helpful to hear your view. CanterburyUK (talk) 23:32, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2023

This quote about Jordan Peterson is taken out of context and modified so it is not conveying its original intent and I request it is either full quoted or removed as a opinion piece. The sited quote is also behind a subscription wall discouraging people from selling the original article

psychologist Shelley Carson, former PhD student and now-professor at Harvard, recalled that Peterson's lectures had "something akin to a cult following", stating, "I remember students crying on the last day of class because they wouldn't get to hear him anymore." 2001:1970:4AE6:CA00:FC10:A56B:F943:CA6D (talk) 05:53, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: the full quote from the source is

A graduate student from back then, Shelley Carson, who now teaches at Harvard and writes about creativity, recalled that Peterson had "something akin to a cult following" in his Harvard days. "Taking a course from him was like taking psychedelic drugs without the drugs," Carson says. "I remember students crying on the last day of class because they wouldn’t get to hear him anymore."

I don't think we're taking that out of context, and I don't think quoting the unused bit about drugs is necessary. If it would help you (or anyone else) to have a copy of the Chronicle article, I can email a pdf version, but you'll need to register an account first. Paywalled sources are usable per WP:PAYWALL. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 06:02, 13 January 2023 (UTC)