Talk:Jordan Peterson/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Recent unexplained reverts

Nobody has given any rationale for these unexplained reverts, which at a glance seem to more accurately summarize the relevant sources. Can anyone explain the reason for them? If not, I'll go ahead and reinstate them - possibly with additional sources to be safe, since while it accurately summarizes the existing sources, finding more isn't difficult. --Aquillion (talk) 03:41, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Hes not commonly described as right wing. but the main issue was that "right wing" was added in front of an already existing source that said something different --FMSky (talk) 11:52, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Since the original edit was challenged the editor making the change needs consensus. I don't see the change as an improvement. If you disagree please provide details explaining why. Springee (talk) 12:40, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

This smells like WP:SQS. Users reverting and objecting to seemingly fine edits with no explanation in their edit summary or even here (other than "not an improvement", which is clearly not an adequate explanation). You shouldn't be objecting to an edit that provides verifiable material without giving a valid reason. And before someone points to WP:ONUS, that's still not an excuse to revert a change to an article without adequately explaining why.

The addition of context that explains who has called Peterson right-wing and how frequently is a clear improvement to me.

We also have more sources describing him as right-wing than we do conservative, so I restored that part to the second sentence of the lede. ––FormalDude (talk) 01:14, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

First, the ONUS is on you to show that this change is DUE. You claim SQS but why is that more significant that what others might see as POV pushing? To establish the "often described as" you need to do something more than just show a source. Really this sort of throwing out labels as hard as possible and early as possible is poor writing style. For example, a google news search for "Jordan Peterson" returns 10k hits. However, if you add "right wing" or "conservative" to that search you get about 500 hits each. It seems like most sources don't fixate on either term. That seems to be a wikipedia phenomena. It also suggests that neither should be viewed as "often". I don't see your change as an improvement. The Guardian, while considered reliable, is not bias free and we need to be careful when it mixes writer's opinions with facts. Also, the only place the article calls Peterson himself "rightwing" is in the title. I think VOX was the only other source in that block that supported "right wing" Again, it's a source where we need to separate writer opinion from hard facts. Springee (talk) 01:44, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure you even read my comment, and this is too small a change to get drawn into a prolonged discussion about, so this will be my sole reply to you.

Nobody objecting said anything about POV concerns (nobody objecting gave any reason until your comment just now). Google search numbers are misleading for a plethora of reasons. I do agree that "often" isn't the best wording, fixed. Titles are part of the source, which I know you know because just five days ago you removed a reliable source from PragerU specifically because of its title–you can't do a 360 and say titles don't matter now. Three of the used sources support right-wing: Guardian, Vox, and Crossover99. Feel free to take any to WP:RSN. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:23, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Titles/headlines are not part of the source per RS wp:HEADLINES. You appear to be confusing my concern with the overall bias of an article including it's public headline with the use of headlines to verify content. In the PragerU example I don't think either of us were claiming the headline was used to support a specific claim in the PragerU article. Springee (talk) 02:41, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I'd suggest leaving "right wing" out. It's a questionable characterization that at best does not provide info and appears to need cherry picking of biased sources to come up with it. I said "at best" because he covers an immense range of areas that are not any "wing", doesn't touch the majority of "right wing" topics and so characterizing by politics is at best uninformative and more likely misleading/confusing. In some areas his views coincide with the conservative side of a US culture war topic which those "sources" of opposite views would fire a volley by doing the pejorative of calling someone who is primarily an intellectual / philosopher "right wing" Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:26, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

"Right-wing" is not a pejorative. It can be a polemic device when used by left-wingers, but it's not a pejorative by itself. And we're citing reliable sources anyway, not left-wingers. Not even "far-right" is a pejorative, its an objective description of a position on the political spectrum.

he covers an immense range of areas that are not any "wing" This is original research, almost exactly the opposite of what reliable sources say. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:38, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

IMO in the this context (as detailed) it is. Also, OR refers to article content....if you apply that criteria to talk pages, then 99% of talk pages are "OR" so you should not assert/imply that being in the 99% makes it invalid. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:47, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm aware of how OR works, my point was that you will find no reliable sourcing verifying that claim of yours. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:57, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken we article cites Vox and The Guardian. Neither are unreliable but neither are bastions of objectivism either. The author of the Guardian article you added is, per his bio, "a music writer for the Guardian and Observer as well as magazines including Q, GQ and Mojo. He is the author of 33 Revolutions Per Minute: A History of Protest Songs (Faber)." But, per wp:HEADLINE we shouldn't assume he wrote the headline. He didn't use right wing in the article itself. Perhaps we should start with more objective information about Peterson then leave the characterizations to the end of the intro. Springee (talk) 02:48, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps we should, but that is a much larger undertaking, and I'm working with what we've got. Simply put, using just "conservative" was not representative of the sources that are being used to support it. Could we do better by overhauling the section with better sources? Probably. But until we get there, this is a good compromise. Objecting to the improvement because it's not the best possible improvement is a false dilemma. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:54, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

the addition of right-wing was reverted multiple times by different people and in this discussion more people are AGAINST including it. you should find a consensus first and not reinstate the disputed content over and over again. please self revert until a consensus is reached --FMSky (talk) 03:26, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

btw Vox doesnt even call him right wing, they just say he is popular among right wing audiences --FMSky (talk) 03:28, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Supporting it we have Fred Zepelin, Aquillion, and myself. Opposing we have you, Springee, and North. That's 3 to 3. ––FormalDude (talk) 03:40, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

All, please keep in mind this article has a 1RR limit. Please avoid incidentally crossing it. Springee (talk) 04:05, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes that means that there is no consensus for the suggested controversial change and as such should not be implemented --FMSky (talk) 13:34, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

"Bastions of objectivism" would probably not be reliable, given its right-wing leanings. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:36, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

• Just to be clear, the sole objection is sourcing? I think that objection is easily satisfied, but before I undertake a search for sources, can people specify what sort of sourcing they'd want to see before we say that he has been called right-wing? --Aquillion (talk) 21:10, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Its also undue in my opinion. he is widely known as a conservative figure so it should be presented as such in the lead (especially since the article doesnt even mention him being a right winger anywhere at all). the current "often described as conservative" is spot on --FMSky (talk) 21:20, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Due weight is decided based on the weight in the sources. Can you give me at least a rough ballpark description of what sort of coverage in WP:RSes would convince you that he's also widely-known as a right-wing figure? Your note that we don't cover his right-wing views in the body is true, but when they were added there you reverted that - can I take your shift to focusing on whether it's leadworthy to indicate that you accept that it ought to be covered in the body? Or that your removal of the text from the body was an accidental consequence of a broad revert to remove it from the lead? Either way, of course, expanding there is naturally the first step to take, in terms of resolving this dispute - I think the best approach would be to restore and perhaps elaborate on the bits in the body that you reverted, with additional sources; then we can see whether the amount we can support and source in the body justifies including it in the lead. --Aquillion (talk) 21:40, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I think putting this sort of "sources describe him as" later in the lead would be fine. It reads like an attempt to jam labels into the early part of the lead when we put "described as" in the first few sentences of a BLP. I do get that many people feel it's important to put such labels as early as possible into an article. The results are article that read like partisan, persuasion based journalism rather than impartial, encyclopedic writing. Springee (talk) 21:48, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Time for a review of terms, alt-right and far-right.

Many WP:RS describe Peterson as alt-right and far-right, especially in the decade since he changed from being a non-notable pop psychologist to rise to fame primarily as an anti-lgbtq crusader. Per a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view I suggest a review of these sources to determine the dueness and weight of the descriptions and if they should be included in the article lead. 76.142.90.140 (talk) 14:50, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

No this is a foolish idea that's failed to reach a consensus multiple times, and for good reason. Also, your personal political POV oozes out of every edit that you make, and you are a sockpuppet who should have been banned already. Philomathes2357 (talk) 16:58, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:AGF please. 76.142.90.140 (talk) 17:34, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

hello User:Saikyoryu --FMSky (talk) 17:40, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Not me. Hello whoever you are. Do you have a comment on the topic? 76.142.90.140 (talk) 17:46, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Initials in name

I've noticed that his name is commonly written as "Jordan B. Peterson" rather than "Jordan Peterson". For example all his social media accounts and his website (as well as his Wikipedia account name) seems to refer to him like this (or shortened as "JBP"). In media & common usage it seems to be quite split, with some saying "Jordan Peterson" and others "Jordan B. Peterson", and some mixing the two in the same article. MOS:INITIALS appears to say that you should take both what the authors preference is and what is commonly used into account, so I'm not sure what it should be in this case. If anyone has any thoughts please reply. 212.116.83.55 (talk) 21:54, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

It could go either way, since media coverage is split, as you mention. But I think calling him "Jordan Peterson" is sufficient, unless another person named "Jordan Peterson" becomes notable enough that there's confusion over which Jordan Peterson is being discussed, in which case "Jordan B. Peterson" would be preferred. Pecopteris (talk) 00:16, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Bias and framing Peterson as a cultist

Statements included from a former Harvard student about Peterson having a “cult” like following and students crying are highly subjective and biased and inserted merely to bias the reader against him. There is no relevance for this article. That statement should be deleted. 109.198.0.3 (talk) 12:52, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Most editors bristle at the suggestion that an article they have worked on might contain bias. However, I think it's fair to assume that the majority of contributors to this article dislike Jordan Peterson, and this is apparent by subtly biased word choice. Instead of "his lectures are available on Youtube", it used to say "his lectures propagate through YouTube" - implying that his lectures are propaganda. Things like that. I plan on reading the article carefully one of these days and fixing some other things like this. I'll have to take another look at the passage you've highlighted. Overall, I will say that the article is pretty decent, and people have done their best to mask their disdain for the subject. Pecopteris (talk) 14:11, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree on the bias problem with the article. But IMO "cult like following" seldom implies a cult and IMO sort of says that it isn't. North8000 (talk) 12:28, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

It is a phrase I've seen used describe rock bands where it is presented as a good thing. I don't think that it is particularly ambiguous or non-neutral. The use of "propagate" does not imply a claim of propaganda. I don't object to either of these things being reworded to remove any possible misunderstandings but none of this justifies the claim made by the OP. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:36, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Richard D. Wolff material provided without secondary source

@Pecopteris and KronosAlight:, the primary source notice that was removed here [1] looks valid to me. While Wolff's views may be DUE, we need a secondary source, not something published by Wolff himself as the source for the claim. This is particurally important when the material from Wolff is self published/not provided by something like an independent news organization. This is especially true when dealing with BLP claims. See WP:SELFPUB and WP:INDEPENDENT. The tag should be restored and a 3rd party source found to establish weight or the content should be removed. Springee (talk) 03:12, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm pinging The History Wizard of Cambridge as the editor who added the content and GuardianH who added the tag. Springee (talk) 03:26, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I favor removing the material. There are so many reliable non-opinion sources that few opinion pieces are likely to be due. There are so many opinion pieces that have been published in reliable outlets that it's vanishingly unlikely that a self-published opinion would be due. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:26, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I also favor removing the material. It's of borderline notability, at best. And if it can only be included with an ugly source tag, we might as well remove it. Pecopteris (talk) 04:21, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm fine with this. I removed the tag because the actual content (written by someone else) was of the format 'person x said y about person z'. That doesn't need a secondary source to verify. If there's a broader question about whether it's noteworthy etc. then that's a different matter. KronosAlight (talk) 08:28, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Ontario Divisional Court 2023 decision

Article might refer to the judge writing the decision on Peterson's appeal of his professional regulator's sanctions of him was Paul Schabas whose wiki article cites his role in the Law Society of Ontario compelling social policy statements on diversity dictated by regulator. 198.103.145.50 (talk) 01:02, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

I have partially reverted your edit to the Paul Schabas article. The source you cited for this connection barely mentions Schabas and says nothing about the Law Society. Do not misrepresent sources and do not combine sources to imply something neither directly say. Grayfell (talk) 02:32, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Social media usage?

There could probably be more coverage of his social media usage that led the psychological association to reprimand him. There is plenty of coverage of his antics, such as tweeting that fetish pornography was in fact a CCP govt initiative: https://www.vice.com/en/article/ak3wpz/jordan-peterson-chinese-dick-sucking-factory Zenomonoz (talk) 05:07, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Roles mentioned in lead sentence

There has been disagreement about what roles to mention in the lead sentence. Please note the guideline MOS:ROLEBIO, where it states, "The lead sentence should describe the person as they are commonly described by reliable sources." The current lead sentence is sourced. If anyone wishes to change the lead sentence please provide other sources that support such an edit.

Also, note that the guideline also states: "In general, a position, activity, or role should not be included in the lead paragraph if: a) the role is not otherwise discussed in the lead (per MOS:LEAD, don't tease the reader), b) the role is not significantly covered in the body of the article, or, c) the role is auxiliary to a main profession of the person (e.g. do not add "textbook writer", if the person is an academic)." LK (talk) 12:20, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

You should scan through the archives. As best as I can remember, we had agreement within the past year that author is fine and doesn't need a source, since it's so incontrovertible and supported by the body. "Media commentator" turns out to have been controversial, so we added sources. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:39, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the article body clearly supports this. We even have articles about his books so his roll as an author is not in dispute. The impact and discussions of his books is clearly part of his notability so it would seem odd to avoid calling him an author. Springee (talk) 13:19, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Jordan Peterson/Archive 20 has the discussions I'm thinking about, though they're a bit scattered across multiple sections (a sign of the times). Sources commonly front "author" when introducing Peterson. I scanned through the first few citations and found NYT and Vox. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:50, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

LK, please restore "author" to the lead. Your BOLD edit had been disputed so we should respect the previous consensus lead in the mean time. Springee (talk) 13:24, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Peterson is a distinguished author, indeed. He spent 10 years writing his erudite work Maps of Meaning (1999) and then he firmly established his role as an author with the success of his original and voluminous 24 rules. This characterization should not be controversial at all. Like the others said: please revert to status quo. Trakking (talk) 13:49, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Remove the anti-Peterson bias and propaganda

Legal experts don't "debunk" things. Furthermore, engaging in the appeal to authority fallacy like this, without even so much as a citation I might add, is beneath us, or it should be. It certainly used to be.

"Furthermore, the idea that the bill criminalized speech that does not use a person's preferred pronouns has been debunked by legal experts and no Canadian has been jailed or fined for misgendering after C-16 became law in June 2017." ErikEdits (talk) 08:30, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

There are six citations for this content in the body. ––FormalDude (talk) 09:26, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

The claim has been unambiguously debunked. The only question here is whether we should use the word "debunked" in the lede. I guess we could replace it with something like "widely rejected" or "dismissed as baseless" but is that any better? They mean the pretty much the same thing as "debunked" after all. It is not Wikipedia's doing that Peterson made himself look foolish when he invented Imaginary Canadian Pronoun Jail. We can only tell it as it is. We are not doing anything to gloat over it. There is no bias here. DanielRigal (talk) 11:38, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

While his opposition to the bill is due for the lead, legal scrutiny of claims like being jailed should be left to the article body. Ideally such an analysis should provide some opinion as to the actual range of penalties etc. Springee (talk) 17:55, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, the opinions of other people about C-16 are undue for the lead, but fine for the body. Pecopteris (talk) 19:21, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

We cannot include his rubbish claim in the lede without mentioning that it is widely rejected. Doing so would make it appear more accepted than it actually is. Statements about the truth of a theory must be based upon independent reliable sources, and in this case the reliable sources dismiss his claim as baseless. ––FormalDude (talk) 04:49, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

If it was "X person became famous for arguing that climate change is a hoax" without mentioning the scientific consensus on climate change except in the body which most readers don't get to would also be misleading. (t · c) buidhe 14:24, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

FD, I agree, if the lead says he claimed c-16 could result in jail time, yes we should debunk it. However, we don't have to say "Peterson said C-16 may result in jail time". Instead we can say "he opposes C-16". He isn't notable for overstating the legal consequences of the law. He is notable for opposing it based on what he views to be compelled speech. That he over stated the possible legal consequences is a detail for the body. It's anyone opposed to removing the claim about jail time from the lead?Springee (talk) 14:53, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

@Springee: The lede says Peterson claimed that the bill could make it a crime to fail to use certain genderless pronouns. As long as this is in there, I think we must include the idea that the bill criminalized speech that does not use a person's preferred pronouns has been debunked by legal experts (or something similar, I'm open to better wording). ––FormalDude (talk) 20:01, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

That's fair. When searching for when the disputed debunk was added I didn't catch that there was a slightly earlier lead change here on 9 Sept [2]. That change moved from "compelled speech" to crime. I'll change my roll back proposal to the lead prior to that change (or earlier if there it's a preference) Springee (talk) 21:32, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

This discussion relates to a recent change to the lead (16 Sept [3]) where the claim about jail etc was added to the lead. Absent a consensus to keep this change I think rolling back to the 11 Sept version (the edit prior to the change and seems to be a stable version) addresses this issue. Springee (talk) 16:43, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Noting that on 9 Sept the lead was changed to say "crime" vs "compelled speech" [4] thus I would suggest rolling the lead back at least this far. It appears that text was stable between at least January and 4 Sept.Springee (talk) 21:34, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

I would still oppose rolling this back entirely. In the body, his claim that the bill falls under compelled speech is only mentioned in one sentence and only supported by one source. His claim that it criminalizes misgendering has a full paragraph and is supported by at least eight sources. So it seems to me that the latter is more worthy of inclusion in the lede. ––FormalDude (talk) 21:56, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Putting the debunk in the lead puts undue weight on that particular aspect. The compelled part is sufficient without going into the details. I will note that the CBC notes that critics are concerned about the criminal penalties here [5] even if it isn't as simple as "use wrong pronoun = crime". Also, we are talking about rolling back to the long term stable version of the lead so we need consensus for the change. Springee (talk) 23:06, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

I was the September 9th editor.

My initial aim was to remedy the strange flow breakage caused by the comma in

… would make the use of certain pronouns, "compelled speech", …

I thought the best way to fix that was to recast the sentence, but I did not do that without actually reviewing Peterson's video first. I discovered that Peterson didn't use the phrase "compelled speech" at all. So why the quotation marks? I made a good-faith effort to describe what he did say, while keeping it clear that this was about what Peterson claimed, not about a generally accepted fact. Somebody else might be able to do better, but it hurts to see the awkward comma and the misleading quotation marks come back. JerryOBrien (talk) 10:27, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I note that the comma I wanted out is gone in the current revision. That's a relief. JerryOBrien (talk) 10:29, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Above I posted a link to a CBC article on C-16. [6] The article provides Brenda Cossman, law professor at the University of Toronto, as a subject matter expert. Her view, quoted below, does support the claim that jail could result from refusing to use a preferred pronoun even though it makes it clear the path isn't straightforward and inadvertent or mistaken use would not violate the law. However, this would dispute the statement that the possibility for jail has been debunked.

If someone refused to use a preferred pronoun — and it was determined to constitute discrimination or harassment — could that potentially result in jail time?

It is possible, Brown says, through a process that would start with a complaint and progress to a proceeding before a human rights tribunal. If the tribunal rules that harassment or discrimination took place, there would typically be an order for monetary and non-monetary remedies. A non-monetary remedy may include sensitivity training, issuing an apology, or even a publication ban, he says.

If the person refused to comply with the tribunal's order, this would result in a contempt proceeding being sent to the Divisional or Federal Court, Brown says. The court could then potentially send a person to jail “until they purge the contempt,” he says.

“It could happen,” Brown says. “Is it likely to happen? I don’t think so. But, my opinion on whether or not that's likely has a lot to do with the particular case that you're looking at.”

“The path to prison is not straightforward. It’s not easy. But, it’s there. It’s been used before in breach of tribunal orders.”

Springee (talk) 01:36, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Civil law is separate from criminal law in Canada. As this source says, it is possible to be jailed for contempt of court, but that is a separate offense. (t · c) buidhe 05:14, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Regardless, RS provides an expert opinion that jail is possible even if unlikely. As Precopteris said, Peterson is over playing the risk but those who say the risk is zero also appear to be under playing it. This simply further justifies trolling back to the long term stable version of the lead. Springee (talk) 10:44, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Absent a clear consensus for the September changes to the lead I will roll it back to the long term stable version (I think that was the version on 4 Sept). Springee (talk) 14:13, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Just by a quick nose count I read a consensus to mention the issues with his position in some form; I definitely don't think you can justify a total rollback based on the current discussion. --Aquillion (talk) 18:39, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't think we have reached a consensus for the change and we have a RS that contradicts the debunk claim. Springee (talk) 18:45, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

• That is clearly WP:SYNTH; the source doesn't even mention Peterson. If we have sources saying that his position is debunked, and every source covering him says that it has been debunked, then we need to say the same thing or words to that effect. --Aquillion (talk) 18:39, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

  You are correct that it would be SYNTH to put the CBC article in the blp to say Peterson was correct. However, using RS in the talk page to show that an article claim is questionable and this should be removed from the article is not a SYNTH issue. In fact it is specifically allowed by WP:OR. Springee (talk) 18:49, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

  I looked at the sources for the C-16 section. The CBC article is already included. Furthermore that means the claim of debunked in the lead is not supported by the article body. Beyond that the compelled speech description is better aligned with the article body. Several of the sources fail to mention Peterson, not just the CBC article.Springee (talk) 19:05, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

New controversy

You should add misrepresentation of negative reviews in book blurb to the list of controversies surrounding Jordan Peterson. One may say that this is his publisher's wrongdoing, but somehow the scandal is very tale-telling about how interest in basicly irrelevant pseudo intellectuals posing as conservative gurus is generated. See https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/sep/01/society-of-authors-calls-use-of-bad-reviews-for-book-blurbs-morally-questionable --2003:E5:170A:6ED0:281D:1533:2DD:1048 (talk) 08:38, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Haha. The Guardian is a trashy magazine. They have zero authority behind their words. :) Trakking (talk) 10:14, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

The Guardian is agreed to be generally reliable per WP:RS/P. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED, so criticism can be included. We generally attribute it to the source, e.g. "Ella Creamer said X". Zenomonoz (talk) 22:43, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

In most cases it would be the publishers who choose the quotes, not the authors. Maybe Peterson is an exception but we have no proof of that. If anything, a guideline to stop this sort of thing happening would protect authors from overenthusiastic publishers putting things on their dust jackets that make them look stupid. (Those so inclined may mentally insert their own joke about Peterson's multi-coloured jacket here.) Anyway, this is not really about Peterson, who has quite enough controversies of his own. I think it should be mentioned in the article about the book but it doesn't need to be included here. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:45, 1 September 2023 (UTC)