Talk:Jordan Peterson/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

2023 Jan- section for the Ontario College of Psychologists demands

I'm sure this issue will run for months -and is significant whether Peterson is ejected from his professional body - or if he overthrows their demands and the body is discredited in the affair, or something else. It's a serious Freedom of Speech affair - if it drags on through the courts it may need it's own page, at some future point.

So I added a new Section in the Article: titled "2023 January- Ontario College of Psychologists demands that Peterson submits to mandatory social-media communication retraining".

It's early days yet - the bigger names in the MSM have not picked it up yet, but as they do, feel free anyone to add them. I won't have much time myself to add content, for more than a couple of days. CanterburyUK (talk) 23:03, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

ScottishFinnishRadish - please will you revert your deletion of the new content I added.

Whilst you are right that "it's clearly not ready for prime time, with bare links, over quoting" - it is better to have a messy start that anyone can help clean up: (many hands make light work!): than no mention at all. Wiki encourages adding content over merely deleting, after all. CanterburyUK (talk) 23:06, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

The prose you had in place was more than half the length of the entire career section, and placed in its own section giving it significantly undue weight, which isn't great when dealing with a controversy in a WP:BLP. All of the prose is available in the article history and can be easily integrated into the article.

With how recently this occurred, and the lack of resolution I don't think it needs more than a sentence or two at this time, likely in the career section as that seems to be where it will have the most pertinence. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:19, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

OK ScottishFinnishRadish - please go ahead and do as you suggest.

Please do include the various sources I took the time to find - sources are always useful to wiki readers.

thanks

PS - there is no controversy here about what has happened -the professional body HAS taken action against Peterson. So this will always belong in the article - as evidenced by previous such times they complained about him, which have been in the page for some time.

PPS You've not written to disagree with me when I wrote: "I'm sure this issue will run for months -and is significant whether Peterson is ejected from his professional body - or if he overthrows their demands and the body is discredited in the affair, or something else. It's a serious Freedom of Speech affair - if it drags on through the courts it may need it's own page, at some future point."

thx CanterburyUK (talk) 00:08, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree with SFR, this is UNDUE and RECENTISM. We need more time to pass before its clear if this is notable in the grand scheme of Peterson's life. It definitely DOES NOT belong in the lead. I will add 1-2 sentences to the career section. Overall, I want to remind: Wikipedia follows, it does not lead. We are WP:NOTNEWS. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:21, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Given the quality of the sources covering this (Epoch Times, Toronto Sun, Daily Mail), it very likely is overall UNDUE. We need more neutral and RELIABLE sources to cover this. But nonetheless I've added two sentences to the career section. Time will tell if that content should remain or fade into history as most of these little controversies do. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:32, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

That looks better. We'll see what comes of it. Thanks for that. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:38, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for adding those Shibbolethink. Since that text gave no basis for why Peterson had petitioned the court (but had given reasons the College used to discipline him) -I added a link to Peterson's court filing document: and summarised it.CanterburyUK (talk) 13:28, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate what you're saying here, and agree we should summarize what Peterson is doing with the petition. But I would say summary of his argument is likely WP:UNDUE. We are not Peterson's website or advocate. We should only summarize what he did, not his arguments, because doing so would make this paragraph way too long. Just like how we don't summarize why the College took issue with his comments, or the specific comments themselves.

I will likely revert later today to just the fact that he is requesting the court quash the order, and of course anyone else is welcome to revert if they haven't gone over the 1 revert limit.

E.g.:

In January 2023, the College of Psychologists of Ontario ruled that Peterson should submit to mandatory social-media communication retraining or risk losing his license, due to comments he made on Twitter and The Joe Rogan Experience podcast. In response, Peterson filed for judicial review with the Ontario Divisional Court, requesting the College's decision be quashed.

Sources

Additionally, please be more cautious about punctuation and references. They should appear as above, with a period and then a <ref> tag immediately after, with no intervening space. There should also not be a period after the </ref> tag. Thanks — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:31, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I think this might be a good place to split the difference. Offering a bit more about the response is helpful but perhaps it can be shortened. Something like "requesting it be quashed as his comments were not made in context of treating patients" or something that is more true to the actual argument. We don't need to give much weight to his arguments but more than zero is helpful. Springee (talk) 16:10, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Springee.

You wrote: "Just like how we don't summarize why the College took issue with his comments". But the text DID do just that, it said: "due to comments he made on Twitter and The Joe Rogan Experience podcast".

So to give balance, it was necessary to say more than it did before: which was "In response, Peterson filed for judicial review with the Ontario Divisional Court".

I disagree with your suggested words - why say so little, when only a sentence is needed to help the reader understand? Leaving out the central facts of Peterson's petition is not helpful. Feel free to make the sentence shorter, but lets' not lose the meaning.

Would you prefer this: swapping out the part starting: "requesting the College's decision be quashed..." with:

-- "on the grounds that disciplining Peterson for his "public statements on political issues and public figures that are far removed from the practise of psychology" unduly infringes upon Canadian Charter rights". ? CanterburyUK (talk) 16:28, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

requesting it be quashed as his comments were not made in context of treating patients
I could get behind this. I think that is absolutely relevant and doesn't add too much bloat and become UNDUE. Good compromise in my opinion. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:27, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Continued

Hi Shibbolethink, You deleted my first attempt to put up anything at all about this issue, a few days ago. Now you have deleted in it's entirety the work I did today to research and put various notable sources that are responding in depth to the issue.

IMHO that content is useful to the reader. Peterson's twitter is full of this issue, so anyone coming to Wiki as a result will find it much easier to see a section about the very thing: and with an easy to scan list of early responses.

So I reverted your change.

I'm sure what's added can be improved - and will be over the coming weeks as more sources comment. How about we two improve it together? I didn't railroad your preferences to not remove the Olivia Wilde statement, nor your preference to not shortedn the Meat Diet content: so I'm only asking for the courtesy in return.

One way you could usefully help - sources that supported the college in detail: I didn't find any despite googling.

Perhaps you will have more success?CanterburyUK (talk) 21:53, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

We don't need to cite any opinion pieces and tweets, and please read WP:HEADLINE. This is a very recent event and it's unlikely to deserve it's own subsection. We'll see how it progresses, but it's better to start small and build it out if needed than to start with an opinion piece dump. It would be nice to know which sources interested editors feel are the most reliable, so we can model our summary on them. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:04, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Firefangledfeathers

So you deleted 100% of the sources I added? in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jordan_Peterson&oldid=1132366278

Would it not have been more helpful to the reader to have left sources that are useful to the reader?

• like Peterson's own detail response: in the text: ""Peterson explained his position in an article in the National Post: "I will risk my licence to escape social media re-education.
• like the reasoned opinions of senior Canadian Politician Pierre_Poilievre

I can't see on what grounds to object to those two. ? Maybe you think it one-sided to quote a politician from one side of the divide? In which case -do google and see if any from the other side have commented at length on this? I have not found any.

You wrote: "but it's better to start small and build it out if needed than to start with an opinion piece dump".

Can you explain that? Why not give the reader helpful, collected sources of opinion - rather than nothing.

A request - in the spirit of friendly co-editing: please will you put back all the sources that you deleted: that you think, as of now, are useful to the reader.

many thanks. CanterburyUK (talk) 22:25, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Best practice on Wikipedia is restore reverted content only when it's clear that it has consensus. I'd prefer to summarize the facts and I don't see Wikipedia as a collection of opinion source headlines for readers to click on. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:36, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Firefangledfeather

My attempt was exactly to gain consensus when I invited you:

• "A request - in the spirit of friendly co-editing: please will you put back all the sources that you deleted: that you think, as of now, are useful to the reader."

It would help to demonstrate that we working towards consensus to each other if you could do that.

Or if it is the case that you believe 100% of the sources are NOT useful to the reader in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jordan_Peterson&oldid=1132366278 are in your view not useful to the reader -feel free to say that. CanterburyUK (talk) 22:55, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

I definitely see what you're doing here as an attempt to build consensus, and I'm grateful for it. I brought up what I did in response to your request/invitation. Even if I agreed that one of those sources were good, they've been reverted by multiple editors, and I won't restore them until I know we're in (at least rough) agreement. The most usable of them all, in my opinion, is actually Peterson's op-ed, though I'd prefer to cite it just for convenience while basing most of our summary on the reliable secondary sources, one of which is listed below, that mention the op-ed. I might have some draft language later (about a sentence, I'm thinking) The other tabloid news, tweets, and opinion pieces are not worth including. I'd love to see the Toronto Sun piece currently in the article replaced, and the scribd copy of the court filing removed. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 23:15, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers:

thanks for the full reply Firefangledfeathers.

"I definitely see what you're doing here as an attempt to build consensus, and I'm grateful for it."

• great to hear you think that way. We are all here to serve the readers of the page, and give them the best resources/ over we can.

One area you could help re sources - is to find sources that speak in detail in support of the College - I have been unable to find any so far.

"Even if I agreed that one of those sources were good, they've been reverted by multiple editors, and I won't restore them until I know we're in (at least rough) agreement."

As per your chat on my Talk page - we have established that of the 8 sources I posted today at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jordan_Peterson&oldid=1132437636 - only 2 have been reverted by 2 people:

• Wall Street Journal
• Peterson explained his position in an article in the National Post

If I read you right above - you support the latter article's inclusion?

And the Wall Street editorial - Wiki's reliable source list gives them green light!

Looking at the 6 new ones I added today:

• Jonathan_Haidt American social psychologist tweeted:
• Pierre_Poilievre leader of the Canadian Opposition, recorded a video
• Rex_Murphy seasoned Canadian broadcaster:
• Journalist Bari_Weiss's The Free Press article
• Conrad Black founder of the National_Post
• the Financial_Post's Howard Levitt.

They are of course Opinion pieces - we can preface the list with that handle - do you think that would be helpful?

For an issue of this nature: what else will there be over the coming weeks months except opinions? Eventually I guess there will be Hard Events: the court case, Peterson thrown out of the College, or ...

Can you think of any reason that Wiki readers on the page today (no matter which side of the Peterson fence they are) would not be interested to see a curated list of relevant opinion pieces, on both sides?

You wrote:

"I'd love to see the Toronto Sun piece currently in the article replaced"

• which Sun one? This one:
• "Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre defends..."

It seems to be that among Opinion pieces, a prominent person like him, whose video is reasoned and reasonable - is an ideal source? Surely to be kept?

You wrote:

"and the scribd copy of the court filing removed."

• I know nothing about Canadian legal documents / portals: are you perhaps suggesting that a URL link direct to the PDF at the court website could replace it?

Regards the other sources - could you give your views on each?

E.g. the Opinions of another professional Psychologist are very relevant IMHO ( Jonathan_Haidt)

And Rex_Murphy is such a seasoned, well known Canadian broadcaster, that his Views are of note (and of course those readers who are not fans of his will take his views with a pinch of salt as they always would: the fact that we show them in a Wiki page as his Opinions will not give them any undue weight at all!)

And for non-fans of Murphy, in any case Opinions of other well known Canadian broadcasters can be added as they appear over the coming days/weeks. CanterburyUK (talk) 00:46, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

CanterburyUK, you appear to be a pretty new user. And yet, you have elected for this, an extremely controversial and delicate article (with discretionary sanctions and BLP requirements) to be your only article to edit. And, then you have determined that every experienced user who gives you advice here is wrong, and that you are right. I would recommend that you read WP:1AM, and perhaps find a less controversial area of the wikipedia to edit before jumping headfirst into one with so many restrictions, requirements, and delicate histories. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:42, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Shibbolethink

Can you point to where I wrote 'you are wrong' or 'that is wrong' to another editor? ( To support why you feel that I: "determined that every experienced user who gives you advice here is wrong, and that you are right.")

I see only the asking of questions on content and what would be helpful to readers.

With yourself - I notice that sometimes you chose not to answer such content questions I put to you - questions with the intent to help clarify your perspective.

How about we cooperate more moving forward - to ensure a better dialogue in the future - would you be OK if we both agreed to answer any questions we put to each other (content questions of course)?

Look forward to hearing from you. CanterburyUK (talk) 23:03, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

How about you restrict yourself to making clear, actionable proposals, supported by reliable sources, and allow others to express their views without badgering them with endless questions? Girth Summit _(blether) 01:21, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

• I'd propose we move the mention of this controversy to join the earlier paragraph about the Ontario college, and replace the current content with something like:

  In 2023, the college ordered Peterson to undergo social media communication coaching, following concerns about his public comments. Peterson denied any wrongdoing and filed for judicial review.

  I think this text is better because it is
  • briefer (27 vs. 67 words), affording less weight to this recent controversy
  • less reliant on documents posted by Peterson for statements of fact
  • more grounded in reliable sources (less tabloids and primary documents)
  Thoughts? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:46, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

  That looks good to me, Firefangledfeathers. Girth Summit _(blether) 10:32, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

  No opinion on the move but I prefer the current article text over this proposed text. Springee (talk) 11:18, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

  Looks good to me. Succinct, verifiable, and neutral. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:44, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

References

Reliable sources

1. Dawson, Tyler (4 January 2023). "Psychologists' college silent on Jordan Peterson sanction". National Post. Retrieved 9 January 2023.
2. Dawson, Tyler (6 January 2023). "Read Jordan Peterson's tweets that prompted complaints to psychologists' college". National Post.
3. Dawson, Tyler (6 January 2023). "Jordan Peterson asks Ontario court to review disciplinary proceedings that violate free speech". National Post.
4. Rocca, Ryan (4 January 2023). "Jordan Peterson says Ontario psychologist licence may be suspended over public statements". Global News. Retrieved 10 January 2023.

Anyone should feel free to add to the list. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:12, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

• Source 1 links to and briefly describes the OCP website, which announces the disciplinary measure and Peterson's legal response. One of the few shreds of content that isn't based on material released by Peterson. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 05:15, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
• Source 2 is nice because it's a major non-tabloid newspaper and a non-opinion piece. The downside is that it's responding to a document posted by Peterson, and it's careful to qualify that many of the basic details of the case are according to Peterson. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:12, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
• Source 3 is more focused on the Peterson's legal filing. It makes it clear that the part of the complaint that Peterson provided is just 56 of the 446 pages. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:36, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
• Props to SS9 for #4, which mentions more about what's on the college website. Nice to have something that's not from the Post. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:46, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

This is one of those topics that suffers from initial interest in both the media and Wikipedia but may amount to nothing in the end. Ideally we would wait until things like this are completely in the past before adding them to the article as it would avoid issues where we are basically speculating on what will/won't be true/significant in the end. There are times when it really would be best to just say "no sources newer than X years old" (I know, that isn't a practical solution and has it's own serious issues). As there is no hurry or time limit in which to add this content it really is better to take a wait and see if we aren't sure how to add it now. That said, what we have in the article right now seems OK though I do think it should be clear that "since his comments were not made in context of treating patients." is an argument made by Peterson/his lawyers not just a simple statement of fact. Springee (talk) 13:50, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Agreed with most of what you say here. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:53, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I think this version, originally by Firefangledfeathers nicely addresses the concerns raised by Springee with regards to the argument made by Peterson/his lawyers. Aside from potentially adding the dates of a hearing, should the review be granted, I don't believe there's much else to add to this pair of sentences until the review is disposed of either way. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:20, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Request for consensus on bite-sized text - Peterson's court Grounds

In a spirit of lubricating the wheels of editor discussion and making consensus reaching smoother: here is some text that I'm hopeful all editors will find in agreement with.

Specifically - The text taken directly from Peterson's Court document regards Grounds:

• "The Grounds for the Application are that the College seeks to discipline (Peterson) for making public statements on political issues and public figures that are far removed from the practise of psychology... which infringes on (Peterson's) free expression in contravention of his Charter Rights (Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms)"

CanterburyUK (talk) 01:03, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

What are you actually proposing here - that this text be copied verbatim into the article? Where? Why? Girth Summit _(blether) 01:18, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Good questions Girth:

"this text be copied verbatim into the article"

• Yes, as it's verbatim from the court filing

"where"

• after the mention of Peterson's court case

"Why?"

• so readers who read that he has gone to court - and think 'on what basis' can quickly get the answer.

CanterburyUK (talk) 19:53, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

WP:BLPPRIMARY would suggest that we should be basing our content on secondary sources. Simply presenting a chunk of text copied from a court document (a primary source) without any analysis is not particularly helpful to the user, and we cannot do the analysis ourselves. Girth Summit _(blether) 20:07, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

THanks Girth

you seem to be making the same point as Shibbolethink ("This is non-neutral text, it tells...").

So the same question applies:- Can you point to your source for arguing that quoting from documents filed in court are unsuitable for inclusion on wikipedia? CanterburyUK (talk) 20:54, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Girth Summit is correct, as a rule we don't use content from primary sources. Unlike a good research paper, Wikipedia basically insists that we need a secondary source to interpret the primary content for us. Please see WP:PRIMARY. While a primary source is a good additional reference (say if a RS says, "in court testimony Mr Smith said X" then it's useful to include a link to a court transcript. However, what we shouldn't do is read the transcript then quote sections we think are important. Springee (talk) 21:19, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Springee

you're right: "as a rule" we don't.

But in the particulars of this case: the question is: what will best serve the reader.

the page does already include a link to "useful to include a link to a court transcript" So the reader can check for themselves the full document.

Regards "we need a secondary source to interpret the primary content for us" - by definition here, by quoting verbatim we are not interpreting.

Tell me if I'm wrong: but I'm assuming that all editors here would agree with the aim to serve the page readers. So when they ask the obvious question, 'on what basis has he gone to court': they can quickly get the answer.

If we don't do that - IMHO we are intentionally with-holding value from the reader for no other benefit. CanterburyUK (talk) 21:46, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I think you should ask two questions. First, what secondary source says what we have and do we have a consensus for it? If we have a good source and consensus then the only other question is are editors opposed to linking to any filing in addition to the secondary source? I generally think it's fine/good to link to filings that are mentioned by a RS by only as a reference. Per Primary there are very few reasons we would ever directly cite information from a primary source (as opposed to providing it as an additional reference for the reader. Currently, I think what we have in the article is a good compromise. It provides the basics and a very high level summary of Peterson's reply. Contrary to what Sideswipe said, I do think it's OK to include a summary of Peterson's defense on the grounds that this is an accusation of wrong doing (what the college is doing in this case) should allow for a denial/self defense claims per this recent RfC [1] Springee (talk) 23:15, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

WP:BLPPRIMARY which Girth Summit already linked states plainly Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. That would include Peterson's filing with the court.

I also agree that your proposed text CanteburyUK is non-neutral, and heavily biased towards Peterson's perspective. The current version of the text In response, Peterson filed for judicial review with the Ontario Divisional Court to request the College's ruling be quashed, since his comments were not made in context of treating patients. is fairly neutral, and factual with regards to the scope of Peterson's request for judicial review. The citation in support of this sentence however should be changed from the court filing on Scribd to one or more of the National Post sources linked above by Firefangledfeathers.

Thinking about this content from an encyclopaedic perspective, the core content points are:

1. The College of Psychologists requested Peterson undertake coaching and training with regards to commentary on social media.
2. Peterson stated he will not undertake this coaching and has requested a judicial review of the proceedings that lead to point 1
3. The future outcome of this judicial review, whether or not it is accepted and whether or not it changes the proposal from the College
4. Any future actions taken in relation to the request by the College

As we don't try to guess the future around here, for now the only information that we need to consider including are the brief, factual descriptions of points 1 and 2. The inclusion of point 3 is dependent on sourcing in the aftermath of a successful or unsuccessful judicial review, and the inclusion of point 4 is dependent on sourcing in the aftermath of any other actions taken in relation to this issue. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:39, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Sideswipe9th

A question: why does your list of core points exclude a central thing: the Grounds that the litigee declared to the court?

If the grounds to the court were very long- then yes a summary is necessary. But when they are short: when not serve the reader by including them?

I also would like to understand your thinking behind: "heavily biased towards Peterson's perspective".

By adding text :" Peterson's submission to the court stated as grounds ..." - that is not biased - merely a statement of fact. the wiki reader is intelligent to see that it is of course from Peterson's perspective.

Wiki does that all the time - quoting what someone said and saying who!

Even in this page we do it: e.g. the quotation above by Shelley Carson, stating, "I remember students crying on the last day of class because they wouldn't get to hear him anymore".

In this case - the 'who said what' is from a formal court document. CanterburyUK (talk) 21:59, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Simple answer to your first question, because we do not know if Peterson actually has grounds for a judicial review. Peterson has filed for one, but it is entirely within the realm of possibility that the court will not find Peterson's filing convincing.

Conversely, when looking at this from a long term perspective, the initial grounds for a judicial review are largely meaningless. If the review is granted, then the encyclopaedic content will be whatever the final findings of the review are. If the review is not granted, then Peterson will either have to undertake the proposal from the College, or continue to refuse to engage with them and risk further action against himself. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:25, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Sideswipe9th -thanks for responding to me.

Your first point.

Are you not trying to predict the future by guessing 'what if the court reject it"?

We will (in the future) edit the page appropriately as the future reveals itself: but we don't second guess it today.

Regards your second point: the root question seems to be:

• yes, in the long term: much of what is in every Wiki page about living people or a fast changing area of Science or etc - will have been added one year and deleted later on.

After all:

• some things that seemed major, will become of little interest
• conversely - some things that seemed minor will reveal themselves in the passing of time to be major and will get more words

That has happened on this very page regards Peterson's Meat Diet - clearly in previous years editors felt that was a notable point. But now the page says less and less about it.

In fact last week, we even deleted a claim about it that had been on the page for a long time but on checking the sources was clearly untrue.

Many wiki pages (of the types I listed above) are therefore in a state of a steady flow of deletions and of additions.

So, to your 2nd point: in the same spirit as the first point: we do not try to second guess, but merely document today what is notable today.

IMHO an editors first question is always:

• what is most helpful to the reader - don't make them work hard!

So yes, you're right: in mentions of court cases - the text of the initial Grounds do indeed get deleted in favour of a quote from the Judge's closing summary in most every court case, once it is held!

But using the Reader First question: there are two choices to us today:

• hide from the user what the Grounds of the case are
• or don't hide.

I've not been very subtle, you'll have realised, in my advocating the latter throughout the talk page! Sorry if that is a little long-winded. And do let me know if I'm missing something obvious. CanterburyUK (talk) 22:56, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Are you not trying to predict the future by guessing 'what if the court reject it"? No more than you are in trying to predict that the court will accept it. The difference is that you're seeking to include content based on a prediction that the filing will be accepted.

hide from the user what the Grounds of the case are or don't hide Again you are presuming that Peterson's request for a judicial review has grounds. We don't know that. We know he, and I would hope his legal team, believe that he has grounds to bring a review, but we do not know if the court will find that convincing.

If the court finds Peterson's request convincing, then at that time we can write some content about the acceptance of the review, any interim orders that may arise from the review being granted, and the dates for any hearing. But until that happens, we only need to mention that which we already mention; that the College proposed Peterson undergo coaching in relation to comments he has made on social media, and that Peterson has sought a judicial review of proposal. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:40, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

The limited summary of Peterson's reply is reasonable in this case as it's a denial of implied wrongdoing which is something we should include, especially in the case of a BLP. Springee (talk) 23:45, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps I've missed something, but having read the request from the College, I'm not seeing any implication of wrongdoing on the part of Peterson, and it is pretty clear that it is not an allegation of professional misconduct (which is mentioned as a possible outcome if Peterson does not agree to the undertaking) nor is it a disciplinary action. This reading is also supported by at least one RS; Globalnews.ca. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:23, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

It seems clear the college felt Peterson was doing something they didn't like [2]. Springee (talk) 00:41, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Agreed that we can (and have already) included a limited denial to comply with BLP. But we probably should not include much more than that, or risk becoming a newspaper. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:29, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Sideswipe9th

"> Are you not trying to predict the future by guessing 'what if the court reject it"?

> No more than you are in trying to predict that the court will accept it.

Forgive me, but I don't see the 'prediction' you suggest is being made.

Just asking a logical thinking question. - not a Wiki rules question.

The proposal is a bald statement of a PAST event: - (therefore not a prediction of anything)

• "Peterson has petitioned the Court... states his Grounds as.."

If the court takes weeks / months to decide - the Wiki reader gets the benefit of the state of play as it is during that time. CanterburyUK (talk) 10:42, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

This is non-neutral text, it tells the story only from Peterson's perspective (and makes it sound as though it is objective fact). And thus is unsuitable for inclusion on wikipedia. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:29, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Shibbolethink

what else could it be but non-neutral? It is direct from the court document that Peterson filed?

Can you point to your source for arguing that quoting from documents filed in court is "unsuitable for inclusion on wikipedia"? CanterburyUK (talk) 19:56, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

It is direct from the court document that Peterson filed?
Court documents filed by one party are inherently biased in their favor, which is why they are not considered a reliable source. For one, they are WP:PRIMARY and content on wikipedia requires a secondary source. For another, they have no formal editorial review board, they are not peer-reviewed, they represent matters from only one perspective, etc. etc. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:51, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Shibbolethink

that is not answering the question - but is a statement of the general (non court documents) case.

The question to you above remains: "Can you point to your source for arguing that quoting from documents filed in court is "unsuitable for inclusion on wikipedia"? CanterburyUK (talk) 20:56, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

This page: Wikipedia:Reliable Sources. And Wikipedia:Verifiability which states that content on wikipedia should be cited to a reliable source. (AKA, the things on the first page) — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:58, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Shibbolethink - but that page makes no mention of the handling of court documents. CanterburyUK (talk) 21:08, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

But anyway - I'm sure we all are united in wanting the page to be as useful for readers as possible: they will appreciate having Peterson's Grounds available to read. CanterburyUK (talk) 21:04, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Only everyone so far has disagree with that. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:58, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

surely you're not saying that "everyone so far has disagreed" with "we all are united in wanting the page to be as useful for readers as possible CanterburyUK (talk) 22:01, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

No, just the part that everyone disagrees with, they will appreciate having Peterson's Grounds available to read. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:20, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

@CanterburyUK please read WP:1AM. Among all the editors here, you are the only one advocating for the inclusion of this text. Whereas, all these other editors with >100,000 edits on wikipedia, are advocating against it. What does that tell you about your position and its relationship to the wikipedia community? — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:31, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Has anyone here checked the practise across other Wiki pages with regards to court documents?

I have done it. It happens commonly that court documents are quoted verbatim in Wikipedia.

And so far - no one has pointed to a Wiki page that gves specific instruction to say court documents must not be quoted.

Does this boil down to just 1 question Do we give the reader the best experience on the page (no one has disagreed that posting the text would be the best user experience)

• OR

do we follow the generic Rule against Primary sources: even against the evidence of many other wiki pages quoting court documents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CanterburyUK (talk • contribs) 22:17, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

There are uncommon circumstances where court documents are used, and when they are it is because a consensus of editors believe that is the right call. That's the opposite of this situation. A group of editors with around 100,000 combined edits is telling you that this is not a situation where primary court documents are used. With that number of edits you can be certain that we have checked the practice in other articles and been through similar discussions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:27, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi ScottishFinnishRadish

Thank you for contributing that - that is a useful new piece of information:

Could you share a specific example -so we can all read and learn: you wrote:

• "There are uncommon circumstances where court documents are used, and when they are it is because a consensus of editors believe that is the right call."

CanterburyUK (talk) 23:01, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I gave the example before if I recall right: instead of the high number of reverts - it would be more consensual to leave in the 10 or 20 or 40% of some new content that you agree with: delete the rest and start a chat in Talk about why you deleted what you did.

Per WP:BURDEN, the onus is on the editor who wants to introduce new information (you) to convince everyone else why it should be included. This is a fundamental way that wikipedia works. So far, some of your edits have been included in small proportions, exactly as you have said. But they have not looked exactly as you introduced them, mainly owing to parts of your edits that do not comply with the rules. If dealing with that back-and-forth and convincing others is not for you, then wikipedia might not be the best place to spend your time. On the other hand, if you would like to be a collaborative editor who works on compromises and accepts that others around here are trying to improve the wikipedia, then this is a great place for you.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:22, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Our content policies and guidelines exist to give the reader the best experience - well, that and to protect the project from legal liabilities, and to give us all something to while away the winter nights by arguing about incessantly. But mostly, their purpose is to serve the reader by guiding us in writing the best encyclopedic content that we can. I see no compelling reason why we should abandon our normal practices in this instance. Girth Summit _(blether) 23:01, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Girth

I do see that perspective. Rules can be very useful, and a short hand to mutual understanding.

Yet we all know that in the real world, 'the law is an ass': the guilty sometimes get off on a technicality.

In the ethics space: we all instinctively know that the law could be replaced in it's entirety with Do unto others, what you'd have them do unto you.

But no society does away with its rules and laws for that.

But as citizens, we know that the 'moral code' or goals that the rules are supposed to serve are NOT the same as the rules. There is constant debate to change the rules.

As a personal observation (you might well disagree -I'd be interested to hear either way) - it seems to me that we spend less time in this talk page focusing about 'what content would best server the reader, in this specific situation': and more quoting Wiki rules to each other!

Or, as you wrote: there is alot of: "arguing about incessantly"!

Given that some editors of this page have said it is a about a 'controversial' subject matter: it kind of saddens me not to have found a larger number of editors: and a more warm-hearted approach to each other.

I gave the example before if I recall right: instead of the high number of reverts - it would be more consensual to leave in the 10 or 20 or 40% of some new content that you agree with: delete the rest and start a chat in Talk about why you deleted what you did.

I'm not claiming that everything I have done here has been done with perfect consensual tone: not at all.

Phew - apologies, that was a quick reply that went on a little. CanterburyUK (talk) 23:15, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

This discussion is the way it is because of you. We're not blindly quoting rules at you. We told you that we disagreed, you asked why so we told you - quoting policies when we did so. You could have just accepted that we disagreed and left it at that. Next time you make a proposal and multiple experienced editors disagree with you, and nobody agrees, you might just say 'ok', and we won't have all these protracted discussions. Girth Summit _(blether) 23:27, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Can anyone find a Source that supports the College of Psychologists of Ontario - in their case against Peterson?

I am still googling, but unable to find one.CanterburyUK (talk) 10:50, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

The Protest Rally outside the College of Psychologists - does it merit attention in the page?

There's been 2 Reverts regards the Rally - so lets talk about it here.

Two editors (one was me) added and edited the mention of the Protest Rally on Jan 11.

One editor deleted it. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jordan_Peterson&oldid=1133182687

So I reverted it - commenting "so 2 (editors) in favour of it"

Now {[Reply to|Sideswipe9th}} Sideswipe9th has deleted that reversion, commenting:

• "Per WP:ONUS, the sentence on the protest seems to be undue, as does giving the rest of the content a stand alone paragraph. The last edit also reintroduced non-neutral text. There is a consensus on the talk page to reduce and move the content as Firefangledfeathers had done."

Taking those points (no special order): A) "There is a consensus on the talk page to reduce and move the content as Firefangledfeathers had done."

• Not true - FFF referred to months-old discussion on the talk page - ie before the Rally happened. So FFF cannot have been referring to consensus about text on the Rally.

B) "the sentence on the protest seems to be undue"

• Sideswipe9th - could you expand on your thinking?

C) "The last edit also reintroduced non-neutral text."

• Sideswipe9th - which exact words where in your view non-neutral?
• do you think the factual content behind those words can be rephrased to make it neutral? Or it's impossible?

CanterburyUK (talk) 23:48, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

the sentence on the protest seems to be undue There's a reason why I wikilinked the word undue, as it quite clearly states my objections to the sentence on the protest. I suspect, given the similar language, that Firefangledfeathers has the same objections. It's also quite clearly afoul of WP:NOTNEWS. Per WP:ONUS you need to seek a consensus for it to be included, and to do that you'd need to demonstrate that the protest is more than a storm in a teacup.

which exact words where in your view non-neutral? The sentence as a whole was non-neutral. I think the factual content is already covered in sufficient depth in the shortened version of the sentence. Any more info than that risks it becoming undue by giving too much prominence to an event that in the long term may be meaningless. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:04, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Sideswipe9th:

Thanks for the link to Undue - it's a big page - what parts specifically are you referring to? CanterburyUK (talk) 01:48, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Unless you have anchors disabled in your browser somehow, the link should have taken you to a section titled "Due and undue weight", consisting of 4 paragraphs and a short list. I am referring to that entire subsection. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:00, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

• The sourcing is terrible. The Toronto Sun is a tabloid, and that's the best source - the others are a primary document and what looks like an activist's website with no reputation, plus an opinion piece that is also from the Toronto Sun. That's not really enough to support the idea that this is WP:DUE. --Aquillion (talk) 01:45, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

  The Toronto Sun is a tabloid, and that's the best source
  100% this is a major issue with including this content. It needs to have a demonstrated landscape of sourcing which shows it deserves a mention on the page, on the level with the large amount of sourcing we have for other content on the page. That is the nature of DUE and especially WP:RSUW. I'm not actually saying it doesn't have that sourcing, but I haven't personally seen it. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:28, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

  RSN discussions seem to be on the fence about the TS. I would be inclined to allow this content because, if several hundred people did protest that would be in my view a notable, public response. It also isn't a claim where I would be concerned about factual accuracy. That said, I would suggest anyone who wants to add the content should take the claim and the source to RSN just in case. Springee (talk) 21:56, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Inclusion of health history of family members

I would like to request the deletion of two paragraphs in the "Personal life" section, specifically:

Mikhaila had suffered from juvenile rheumatoid arthritis, which required a hip and ankle replacement when she was 17-years-old. She also suffered from chronic fatigue and depression. Mikhaila adopted a diet that she calls "the lion diet", consisting of beef, lamb, salt, and water, which she claims helped reduce the negative impact of her multiple disorders.

In 2019, Tammy was diagnosed with a rare type of kidney cancer. After two surgeries, she survived the cancer.

Although WP:BLP and WP:BIOFAMILY don't explicitly discuss how much of a notable subject's family is "fair game" for inclusion, I think a few inferences of the spirit of both of these, plus that of WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE, indicate that extreme care must be taken when discussing otherwise non-notable family members, such as children and spouses. The issue I have with these two paragraphs are:

• Per WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE, there is no discussion or indication on how his family's health issues are relevant to Peterson himself.
• Both paragraphs rely on a single source [3], which was actually talking about transsexual children.
• Per WP:BLP, care must be taken when discussing living persons, and WP:COMMONSENSE tells me that this is particularly true when it comes to health issues of non-notable persons.

73.239.149.166 (talk) 10:53, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done. Sorry, but no. This is notable as it includes mention of one of Peterson's most discussed talking points, his crazy meat diets. It's also mentioned in independent reliable sources secondary to the subject. It does not matter what the title of the article is about, it devotes several paragraphs to the subject of Mikhaila and is therefore pretty good depth coverage of this suitable for this mention. The fact that WP:BLP and WP:BIOFAMILY do not discuss how much it's fair game to include details about the family should actually clue you in to how misguided your proposal here is. On wikipedia, if reliable sources cover it, so do we.

Reliable sources talk about his child in relation to her diet and disease, and so shall we. That's the essence of WP:DUE and WP:RSUW. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:59, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Reliable sources talk about his child in relation to her diet and disease, and so shall we... huh? This is an article about Jordan Peterson, not Mikhaila Peterson. I don't see why we should include detailed information about the personal life of people's children on the articles of their parents. What does Mikhaila's arthritis have to do with Jordan Peterson's personal life? Endwise (talk) 16:47, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

It is described in relationship to Peterson (and in the context of him) in the sources, and so we include it here. That's how WP:RSUW works. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:22, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to reopen this as there does not seem to be consensus here. Further, I think there is a mischaracterization of both WP:DUE and WP:RSUW in the original response. Both of those policies are talking about presenting an WP:NPOV when discussing opposing viewpoints. That really isn't the issue here. This is a WP:BLP issue, not an WP:NPOV issue. The idea that just because something appears in a single WP:RS (not multiple), it belongs in the article is laughable. (Also, saying "It does not matter what the title of the article is about" is also laughable and frankly disqualifying as a response.) In fact, WP:BLP is quite explicit about this. See the entire section WP:BLP#Presumption in favor of privacy and, again, WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE. The health issues of his spouse and daughter are not relevant to the subject, or at the very least it is not expressed how they are relevant to the subject. Given that this discusses the health, and specifically the mental health, of a non-notable third party, WP:BLP takes supremacy. 73.239.149.166 (talk) 20:50, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

I've marked it closed again, as edit requests should only be used when there is consensus for the edit. You should place a brief, neutrally worded notice at WP:BLPN linking to this discussion of you'd like more eyes on it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:12, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

saying "It does not matter what the title of the article is about" is also laughable - see WP:HEADLINE — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:25, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

The idea that just because something appears in a single WP:RS (not multiple), it belongs in the article is laughable. Actually multiple. See: [4] [5] [6] [7]

Peterson and his daughter kind of lost the fight on their privacy about this particular thing when they began promoting their meat diet together in multiple public venues, leading it to be covered in multiple reliable sources. I actually agree the section could use some trimming, but it does need to be mentioned given how prevalent it is across Peterson-related sources. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:30, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Removed edit request until consensus is reached, per ScottishFinnishRadish. Your sources are not cited in the article itself and doesn't really address the WP:BLP issues presented, such as the mentions of mental health struggles. Further, the mention of his wife's cancer remains completely unaddressed. Let's keep the discussion going until there is consensus. (Update: As an aside, I misunderstood your mention of the 'title of the article' meaning the Wikipedia article, not the source. Apologies for the confusion.) 73.239.149.166 (talk) 22:58, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

You are now, in my estimation, edit warring. Please stop. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:00, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Uh. No. That's not what's happening here. 73.239.149.166 (talk) 23:03, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

I went ahead and added some of the sources indicated above, as well as the mainstream consensus on meat-based diets. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:09, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

I think that's a step in the right direction. Personally, I would move the mention of this diet closer to where it is relevant in the "Heath Issues" subsection and perhaps trim off the details that are not directly relevant to this diet, such as the mental health issues. Further, I would remove mentions of his spouse's cancer until relevance to the subject can be established. 73.239.149.166 (talk) 23:15, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Looks like the mentions to mental health were removed. Excellent. I think the only thing left is the cancer. Thoughts? 73.239.149.166 (talk) 23:27, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

• The article still makes zero reference to how this is at all relevant to Jordan Peterson's personal life. The material in the personal life section should either discuss Jordan Peterson's personal life, or be removed. Endwise (talk) 05:29, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

  In fairness, Shibbolethink made a valid point about his daughter's development and promotion of her fad diet which was then further promoted by Peterson himself. I would have restructured it so that it was perhaps its own subsection and bring the direct relevance into the same section, but I'm not hard up over it. The stuff about her fatigue and mental illness were removed, so that's fine. I still have concerns about his wife's cancer though, which no one seems to be addressing. 73.239.149.166 (talk) 13:12, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

  Okay how is it now? I integrated all the health stuff including her diet, her JRA, his wife's cancer, etc. into the section below which was in extreme detail about Peterson's benzo stuff. I also removed a lot of excessive detail from tabloids. I think it's still too much detail but it's a work in progress. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:35, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

  I think that looks pretty good. Certainly addressed my main concerns. Thanks for your help. 73.239.149.166 (talk) 15:51, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

  happy to help and bring it closer to NPOV, Cheers — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:05, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Distinct 'Family' section and diff tool

the way the page had been edited meant that it undermined the normal Wiki 'compare versions' feature. Big chunks of content were unchanged: but that tool showed them as changed.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jordan_Peterson&diff=1132593102&oldid=1132469235

So I made the changes again, but in a manner that avoids that problem (or tries too)

It was tricky to ensure that every change I included - The only changes that I knowingly left out were: Shibbelothink had changed

• Several months after treatment in Russia

to

• Several months after landing in Russia

because - IMHO 'treatment' is more useful to the reader than 'landing'

and:

• on an episode of his daughter's podcast recorded in Belgrade, at which

to

• on an episode of his daughter's podcast, at which

because: IMHO no need to remove the detail that he was in Belgrade from that podcast. CanterburyUK (talk) 20:17, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

wiki is harder than I thought - it seems that one content block is still shown in 'compare versions' as changed: although it is unchanged.... annoying. But better than the 3 or 4 before. CanterburyUK (talk) 20:18, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

phew - I wonder if there was a better way to acheive that goal....

You can see now comparing the block around the changes Shibbo (and my redoes) that there is far less problem with 'compare versions'

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jordan_Peterson&diff=1132637600&oldid=1132469235

But I couldn't prevent wiki from handling badly the para starting:

• "He began to receive widespread attention as a public intellectual..."

CanterburyUK (talk) 20:44, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

@Girth Summit:

thanks Garth for cleaning the grammar! CanterburyUK (talk) 21:24, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

it does not matter how the history shows it, this is not a good reason to revert changes. You yourself were able to figure out what the changes were, as would anyone else viewing the page. Not only is this a waste of time, it's creating "empty edits". Edits which do not contribute to actually improving the text of the page and artificially inflate one's editing count. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:53, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Shibbolethink

It would be nice if we two could be a little more gracious in our communication.

For example here, you might have started your comment with:

• "I agree with you that the 'compare versions' feature is useful to editors. it is true that my own edit broke the feature - my fault entirely. However, given that fact, you may also want to bear in mind that reverting changes to clear up the feature does have some downsides: such as ..."

CanterburyUK (talk) 21:37, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Their edit did not "break the feature." ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:10, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi ScottishFinnishRadish - You would prefer a different choice of words?

OK, how about:

• "making the edit in the way it was done - meant that the feature was unable to do a good job of showing the diff in their edit. Instead the feature showed thousands of words as different: when in fact they were not different. Wiki has pages giving advice on editing and specifically on helping the Compare Functions feature to be effective" [User:CanterburyUK|CanterburyUK]] (talk) 22:22, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

  Wiki has pages giving advice on editing and specifically on helping the Compare Functions feature to be effective
  As far as I know, there is no policy or guideline saying that edits should be made in a specific way as you describe. I would love to see it if so, and especially be made aware if any of my edits violate any such guideline. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:49, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

This page under-informs readers - and inaccurately represents Peterson - he is the most read Canadian Author

The page starts with:

• Jordan Bernt Peterson (born 12 June 1962) is a Canadian media personality, retired clinical psychologist,[5] and author.[6]

Specifically - describing Peterson as merely 'an author'.

In reality he is much more: as the sources here show:

• a Best Selling author and
• world’s most-read Canadian author.

That is not nothing (to use one of his own phrases).

And in fact, the source has speculated:

• Could Jordan Peterson become the best-selling Canadian author of all time?

So the page can be easily criticised regards status as an 'encyclopeadic' page right now (IMHO.) CanterburyUK (talk) 23:27, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

To rewrite the first sentence as Jordan Bernt Peterson (born 12 June 1962) is a Canadian media personality, retired clinical psychologist,[5] and world's most-read Canadian author.[6] would be a textbook example of puffery.

Additionally citation 6 is approaching 5 years old, and a quick Google search of "most-read Canadian author" is full of low quality sources which overwhelmingly label Margaret Atwood as the most-read Canadian author. If there are any more recent high quality sources, I'm unable to find them through the sheer volume of lower quality ones. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:38, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Sideswipe9th @Sideswipe9th: You didn't object to the use of 'Best Selling', then.

Regards Puffery: the wiki guidance says:

• "Words such as these are often used without attribution to promote the subject of an article, while neither imparting nor plainly summarizing verifiable information."

which does not apply in this case - as the page DOES impart 'verifiable information' - the 5 year old source verifies it. That source exists in this page, ergo no editor has objected to it being low quality source'

But maybe you would propose selecting some other phrase from that source than: "world's most-read Canadian author" ? CanterburyUK (talk) 00:01, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

The term "best selling" is puffery, and covered under the MOS entry I've linked to.

But maybe you would propose selecting some other phrase from that source than: "world's most-read Canadian author"? I will not. I do not see any reason why we should call Peterson anything other than an author. Compare your proposal to the leads for William Shakespeare and Agatha Christie, the top selling male and female authors of all time, and note that both of those articles state plainly that they are a an English playwright and an English writer respectively.

the 5 year old source verifies it Incorrect. It verifies that, at the time of publishing (7 March 2018) that 12 Rules for Life was Amazon's most read (and most sold) nonfiction book, however by the end of that year there were four non-fiction books which sold more copies on Amazon than 12 Rules. Even if we were having this discussion in late 2018/early 2019, the National Post piece was already out of date. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:16, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Sideswipe9th @Sideswipe9th:

Thanks for replying.

You can find 2 best selling authors where wiki does not use that phrase

Likewise I can find that DO: Dainelle Steele, Linda de Suza.

Or pages that say:

• XYZ has also been an actor, a basketball coach, a best-selling author,

In any case -the two you mentioned are so extremely well known!

Whereas with Peterson - I would guess that a much higher % of Wiki readers have not heard of him at all.

So it would IMHO be helpful to those readers to see his level of success first thing, at the top of the page.

After all -the word 'author' is very meaningless without additional clarification: it ranges from

• self=published on Amazon, not on paper: sold less than 10 copies
• through to the remarkably successful (not dwarfed by JK Rowling / Shakespeare): Peterson.

Would you be agreeable to taking a page out of the Wiki book for sports people - who mention the details of the success up front, eg

• "Jack Alexander Draper is a British professional tennis player. He has been ranked as high as world No. 40 ..."

OR

• Frederick Beasley Alexander ... was an American tennis player in the early 20th century. He won the singles..."

Eg, the page would say:

• "Jordan Bernt Peterson born ... and author, including a 2018 best seller."

CanterburyUK (talk) 01:26, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

No, it's still puffery. The core problem is that he's not famous for how well his books sold, so it's not central to his notability - the sales are downstream from (and the result of) his notability rather than being something significant enough about him to put in the first sentence. --Aquillion (talk) 01:36, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Would you be agreeable to taking a page out of the Wiki book for sports people I've already stated I see no reason to call Peterson anything other than an author. To do otherwise would be to engage in puffery, to which I've already linked the guidance against. Peterson isn't notable for being a "best selling author", his notability seems to largely stem from his commentary on social media surrounding political correctness, postmodernism, identity politics, and gender. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:41, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Stephen Edwin King (born September 21, 1947) is an American author of horror, supernatural fiction, suspense, crime, science-fiction, and fantasy novels. Maine is almost in Canada, and he's sold a few more books than Peterson, and it's still just "author." ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:44, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: King is not quite comparable - Peterson is notable because he has had success in two fields: Professor of Psychology AND a best selling author- that double-success makes him note-worthy: and therefore worth having near the top of the article, (I would argue). CanterburyUK (talk) 00:14, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

And King is notable only for being a bestselling author, yet they're still referred to as an author. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:22, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

It's not a very convincing argument that "other stuff exists" on wiki. e.g. 'other authors have "best-selling" in their first sentence'. Since Wiki, as a project, is always in progress, there will always be places where it doesn't live up to the expected standard. This should not be taken as a reason to make it worse. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:30, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

This page under-informs readers - and inaccurately represents Peterson - he is a Professor

The word "professor" is missing from the initial summary sentence:

• "Peterson is a Canadian media personality, retired clinical psychologist, and author."

And missing from the entire opening summary block. Bizarrely: in the 2nd paragraph it says :

• "permanently join the faculty of psychology "

when it would have used fewer words and been more helpful to the reader to have said:

• "became Professor of psychology "

Given that has been the centre of his career - IMHO it is hard to imagine how it can have happened that current and past editors over the past years have allowed the page to be so unhelpful to the reader. So un-encylopedic. How has the Wiki process broken down so badly ? CanterburyUK (talk) 19:15, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

You realise that it would take fewer characters to say 'I propose that we change sentence X to say Y', without all the grandstanding? Anyway, professor is a title, not a job. My partner is a professor. If you asked her what her job was, she'd say 'historian', or maybe 'historian and author'. Or maybe, on a bad day 'middle-ranking university administrator who occasionally gets the chance to do some research. Girth Summit _(blether) 19:29, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

@Girth Summit:

If 'fewer characters' is important to you - why 41 words on your partner's views? CanterburyUK (talk) 23:39, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm injecting a bit of levity. This talk page is full of verbose, grandiose and sometimes rather snide statements from you about what is wrong with this article, very few of which anyone seems to agree with you on. If you just made proposals, without all the 'this is sooo unencyclopedic' nonsense, you'd probably stand a better chance of persuading people. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:08, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

One is helpful in demonstrating the point with multiple perspectives, the other is repeating the same point multiple times without adding much in the way of convincing anyone. It generally does not help convince anyone of your position if you tell them repeatedly how bad of a job they're doing. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:08, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

For context, the word professor is missing from the lead sentences of Albert Einstein, Michel Foucault and Richard Dawkins. I don't think we are picking on Peterson here. Girth Summit _(blether) 19:41, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

But plenty of other examples where it IS present in the first para. CanterburyUK (talk) 23:59, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: Anyway - it looks like @Shibbelothink: would disagree with you, they wrote:

• "It's not a very convincing argument that "other stuff exists" on wiki. e.g. 'other authors have "best-selling" in their first sentence'. Since Wiki, as a project, is always in progress, there will always be places where it doesn't live up to the expected standard. This should not be taken as a reason to make it worse::CanterburyUK (talk) 00:16, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

  Please don't quote me, especially when you ping me incorrectly so I can't see it and correct you on the incorrect usage. The point of this argument is actually the opposite of how you have used it. It counts against your statement that other articles use "professor" in the first sentence, not in favor of it.

  Something happening in other articles is not a good argument for why it should happen here, when that thing is not supported by policy. The wikipedia is not done. You're reversing the style of my argument, and misquoting it. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:10, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

  @Shibbolethink: maybe I'm being slow - but I don't follow your logic.

  Regards: "The point of this argument is actually the opposite of how you have used it".

  The way the logic flows (IMH) - in essence:

  • Garth had said <paraphrasing> "other pages follow practice X, so this page should too"
  • and your earlier sentence that I quoted said <paraphrasing>: "just because practise X can be found on other pages does not make it correct".

  Ergo - your statement DOES mean that Gareth's comparison was not valid. CanterburyUK (talk) 23:29, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

  This back and forth is tiresome, and I hesitate to add to it, but just for the sake of completeness: the reason why I brought up our articles on those other eminent scholars wasn't to randomly point to other articles and say 'look, it's like this over there'. I was refuting what I took to be the central part of your argument. Your post above complains that we have missed out the word 'professor' from the lead sentence, and goes on to complain about how this was an outrageous oversight on our part, and a failure of 'the Wiki process'. You appeared to be under the impression that the omission of the word professor from the lead sentence was some sort of slight against the subject; my point is that this is how we always write about scholars, and I picked three high-profile examples to make the point. I chose the three I did because of their eminence, but the fact that two of those articles have been assessed as GA is also pertinent: that means that they have been reviewed several times, by people who are conversant with our WP:MOS, and found to be well-written. Wikipedia has millions of bad articles, which is why WP:OTHERSTUFF is often a bad argument; however, if you are pointing towards GAs and FAs, it's often a rather good argument, if you are using it to demonstrate that a particular content choice has wide acceptance. Girth Summit _(blether) 00:59, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

  Girth said: I don't think we are picking on Peterson here. That was the reason they referenced other pages. It's a very different point. Wikipedia is not governed by mathematical logic. Sometimes X is true but the contrapositive of x is not also true. Girth was not saying "other pages do X, so we should also do X." Girth was saying "we are not specifically singling out Peterson to not say he's a professor". And they are right in that. It's a slightly different argument than OTHERSTUFF. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:03, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I made the change to the 2nd paragraph and a corresponding change in the body. As far as I know that part is uncontroversial. I don't have an opinion on the first sentence. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:01, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I would strongly oppose a change to the first sentence on these grounds. Nowhere do we do that. If someone is a nuclear physicist, or an evolutionary biologist, or a medieval historian, that is what they are for our lead sentence - not a professor. Quite apart from the fact that the word is ambiguous (professor of what?), it also has different meanings in different places, so does not necessarily aid the rader's understanding. Long-standing (and common sense) practice is to mention the field academics are active in in our lead sentence, not the academic rank they attained. The lead sentence is supposed to define the subject, a d outline why they are notable:an academic who has attained the rank of professor is probably already notable for their work, I struggle to imagine a circumstance in which they might be notable for being a professor. Girth Summit _(blether) 20:59, 14 January 2023 (UTC)ng.

@Girth Summit: Stating "Nowhere do we do that" is risky in logical exchanges - as only 1 example is needed, across the whole of the arena, for that statement to be dis-proven.

" the word is ambiguous (professor of what?),"

• that issue was ALREADY covered in the very words you responded to.

"it also has different meanings in different places, so does not necessarily aid the reader's understanding"

• Wikipedia seems to disagree with you - it states clearly: "Professor is an academic rank at universities ... are usually experts in their field and teachers of the highest rank."

CanterburyUK (talk) 00:07, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Did you read as far as the second paragraph of the lead at Professor? And no, it's not risky to make a statement that might be technically wrong in a few badly written articles. If you want to spend the time finding examples of subjects who are described as professors in the lead sentence, I'll be happy to go around fixing them I guess. Girth Summit _(blether) 09:40, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

If you want to spend the time finding examples of subjects who are described as professors in the lead sentence, I'll be happy to go around fixing them I guess
This is the most salient part of why OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a bad argument. It just encourages us to go fix those other mistakes. Not to see them and go "oh wow, I was wrong about the base argument this whole time." if the basis argument is wrong, showing it exists elsewhere does not help. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:13, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Right. Most specifically, these people are professors of something. They are not just "professors." — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:11, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: thanks -that was quick. CanterburyUK (talk) 23:46, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't put professor in the first sentence. That he is a prof emeritus at U of college should be in the opening paragraph but things get awkward when too many descriptors are sequentially packed into the opening sentence. Springee (talk) 03:39, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps the most salient point of this is that he is a professor emeritus - an honorary title with little impact on his current activities. He does not teach any courses, he does not conduct any current university research, and he does not have any administrative duties at any university. So to put it in the first sentence would be improper and elevate a former position to UNDUE prominence. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:19, 15 January 2023 (UTC)