Talk:Jordan Peterson/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

→

Let's do our best to reach consensus

Latest comment: 5 years ago16 comments6 people in discussion

I propose a compromise, which includes significant concessions on my part (and from others, if they agree). My proposal is to edit the current Climate change subsection to read as follows:

Peterson doubts the scientific consensus on climate change[108], explaining that he is "... very skeptical of the models that are used to predict climate change ...",[109] and "... you can't trust the data because too much ideology is involved."[110]

To reiterate, I am suggesting that the above sentence constitute the climate change subsection. That one sentence and nothing else. (For now.) - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 01:11, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

A second time: Please wait until the RfC has ended to suggest more changes. PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:09, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

I apologize PeterTheFourth. I should have explained why I believe it's appropriate and important to seek consensus now. At the time I wrote the above, I was thinking the reason was implied from the discussion in When should this survey end?, but upon reflection and review I see that my assumption was a stretch.

Rationale for seeking consensus now

I believe the following statements are accurate. (Of course, if you disagree, please say so.)

Since Snooganssnoogans published the Request for Comments (RfC) on 13 Aug 2018, several Wikipedians posted thoughtful, well-articulated, and referenced comments. Vigorous debate followed and continued for the first five days or so. Naturally it hasn't been all unicorns and rainbows, but the solicitation for comments certainly wasn't ignored, and the discussions did not devolve into indiscriminate slashing and burning.

While more commenters Support retaining the Climate change subsection as presently composed (and as presented in RfC: Climate science on 13 Aug 2018), a significant minority (about one-third) Oppose the subsection as currently written.

We have not reached a consensus. In fact, we have not tried to reach a consensus, so it's not surprising that we haven't reached one. ;o) That last sentence might sound like I am criticizing PeterTheFourth or the de facto policy/procedure he has (politely) encouraged us to follow, although that is not my intention.

My intention is to shine some light on RfC murkiness.

What's murky about RfC?

(i) On the one hand:

Requests for comment (RfC) is a process for requesting outside input concerning disputes, policies, guidelines or article content. RfCs are a way to attract more attention to a discussion .... It uses a system of centralized noticeboards and random, bot-delivered invitations to advertise discussions to uninvolved editors.

Thus, we use an RfC to solicit comments from uninvolved—yet interested— editors. (ii) On the other hand:

When an RfC is used to resolve a dispute, the resolution is determined the same way as for any other discussion: the participants in the discussion determine what they have agreed on and try to implement their agreement.

And, similarly:

An RfC should last until enough comment has been received that consensus is reached, or until it is apparent it won't be.

(Note: The three quotes above are all from WP:RFCEND).

So which is it?

Is an RfC designed to solicit comments from a wider population of experienced editors?
Or do we initiate an RfC to achieve #l and to hammer out an agreement between groups with (initially) divergent beliefs?

I have not read anything indicating that one of those is correct and the other incorrect. Perhaps the "take home" message is that clearly articulating the RfC's purpose at the outset will prevent squabbles and misunderstandings.

==> I humbly suggest that we adopt #2 (above), i.e., having received a good number of comments, we now see if we can agree on a compromise solution. - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 06:20, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

RfCs also alert editors who monitor RfCs and those involved with WP:WikiProjects. Jonpatterns (talk) 14:54, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Ah, thank you Jonpatterns. As an aside, I hesitated to involve myself in this discussion because I was not familiar with many of the Wikipedia terms, concepts, policies, and procedures for an RfC. Heck, I didn't even know what the letters R, f, and C represented. I finally encouraged myself to be bold; ignoring the gremlin in apartment B44-B45 whining in his best Eeyore imitation, "you'll fail, you always do"; and assured myself that I would learn a lot. And I have! Just ask me about Logobot's eccentricities for some really deep Wikipedian know-how. ;^) - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 16:22, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

WP:Consensus will help if you have any questions. I would recommend that if you have issues with the proposed text you should raise them sooner rather than later (the sooner, the more people will see your objections). We all have to decide how best to conduct ourselves and our arguments on Wikipedia, we all have to develop our own actions. I suspect you, and perhaps one other editor feels that the second half of the proposed text has some issues.

My personal viewpoint on your objection is that the second half is couched in terms of The Financial Time's viewpoint on Peterson's work in general (particularly page 169-172 of 12 rules). This ties in with his general opinion that ideology taints true-depictions of reality (even in the sciences). For me, his view (as reported by the FT) on biases in Environmentalism, is directly related to his views on Climate Change; in that he believes the argument of man-made climate change, is innately or inextricably linked to an anti-humanist position. This is something he talks about in 12 rules, and is something we're reporting the FT as having pointed out, commented on and asked him about. For me, as long as it is apparent from the text of that discussion was between the FT and JP, and is not be portrayed as Wikipedia's viewpoint/fact... then we're in the clear to include their reporting of JP's statements on environmentalism as being kinda depressing... and I think this does relate directly to his view of man-made climate change. That's just my two cents.

If you look at these direct quotes from Jordan Peterson in 12 rules, you can see his viewpoint is apparent:

"We do what we can to make the best of things, in our vulnerability and fragility, and the planet is harder on us than we are on it. We could cut ourselves some slack. Human beings are, after all, seriously remarkable creatures. We have no peers, and it’s not clear that we have any real limits. Things happen now that appeared humanly impossible even at the same time in the recent past when we began to wake up to our planet-sized responsibilities." - "No one in the modern world may without objection express the opinion that existence would be bettered by the absence of Jews, blacks, Muslims, or Englishmen. Why, then, is it virtuous to propose that the planet might be better off, if there were fewer people on it?" - "I have seen university students, particularly those in the humanities, suffer genuine declines in their mental health from being philosophically berated by such defenders of the planet for their existence as members of the human species."

I would recommend including 12 rules as a WP:PRIMARY source to back up the "genuine declines in their mental health" quote in the proposed text. That's the only change I'd make. --Jobrot (talk) 02:21, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Jobrot wrote: "WP:Consensus will help if you have any questions."

I read that twice during this discussion, but I'll review it again to make sure I understand the important principles & procedures.

Jobrot wrote: "We all have to decide how best to conduct ourselves and our arguments on Wikipedia, we all have to develop our own actions."

I do not understand that sentence. If it's important, would you elucidate?

Jobrot wrote: "I would recommend that if you have issues with the proposed text you should raise them sooner rather than later ...."

I did—all on this Talk page—on 16 Aug 2018 @ 00:23, 00:58, and 01:22; on 17 Aug 2018 @ 22:23; and on 19 Aug 2018 @ 18:38. Also, recall that when I first proposed compromise language ("proposed text"), I was asked, "Please wait until the RfC is over to suggest more changes." (bottom of this Talk page, posted on 19 Aug 2018 @ 01:23. (all dates & times are UTC)

Jobrot wrote: "... I suspect you, and perhaps one other editor feels that the second half of the proposed text has some issues."

How did you arrive at your "you and perhaps one other editor" calculation when nine (9) editors voiced opposition to the RfC? Do you know for a fact that the seven other 'Oppose' editors are in favor of including the second half of the current text?

For quick reference, the "second half" reads as follows:

He is highly critical of environmentalists, whose rhetoric he argues causes students to "suffer genuine declines in their mental health". Asked by The Financial Times if there is any evidence for that, Peterson responded, "No. There's no hard evidence ... the instruments that people used to assess depression in the 1950s aren’t the same as the instruments now" and it is "more a hypothesis".

- Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 03:14, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

I continue to strongly object to the second half. This sentence: "He is highly critical of environmentalists, whose rhetoric he argues causes students to 'suffer genuine declines in their mental health'", grossly mischaracterizes what Peterson actually said to the Financial Times reporter and what Peterson actually wrote in his 12 Rules book, as one can readily discern reading the 12 Rules quote you kindly posted (above). - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 03:32, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Harcerz87 cogently explained this mischaracterization on 15 Aug 2018 @ 17:39 and 23:27 (UTC). - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 03:43, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Harcerz87 got the page number wrong, and didn't provide the source text in question (which leans heavily to the view that climate change activists are anti-humanists in JPs viewpoint). We have both a WP:PRIMARY and a WP:SECONDARY source, and have couched the question as FT's question (not Wikipedias), it's not really an issue in terms of policy (it's been couched correctly as the FTs question). JP's quote "I have seen university students, particularly those in the humanities, suffer genuine declines in their mental health from being philosophically berated by such defenders of the planet for their existence as members of the human species." is from his own book (and is what the FT are commenting on) and thus not a mischaracterization (it's his own quote, with a secondary source commenting on it). There's no (policy based) reason to exclude this content. --Jobrot (talk) 03:40, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

We (Wikipedia) stitch together a quote out of context with an unfounded claim to create this fabrication: "He is highly critical of environmentalists, whose rhetoric he argues causes students to 'suffer genuine declines in their mental health'." - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 21:16, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

We (Wikipedia) stitch together a quote out of context with an unfounded claim to create this fabrication this is patently false. This conclusion is not stitched together by Wikipedia editors, rather, it is a verifiable conclusion made by a reliable secondary source which utilized primary sources from both an interview and his own book both of which it quotes to justify its conclusion. Even the "highly critical" part isn't an editorialization, if anything it's more neutral than the Financial Times which says "His book is scathing about environmentalists" (emphasis added). It juxtaposes the quotes same quotes we use to make its conclusion which we accurately summarize and report. Please read the sources before claiming something is original research or impermissible synthesis. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 21:31, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I have read the sources. We disagree. I proposed a compromise; no one has supported it; therefore my assumption is that the Climate science section will stay as is. I accept community consensus on Wikipedia, even if I disagree with the final outcome. - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 22:26, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

As an aside, I am personally disappointed with Peterson for not articulating a more comprehensive statement about climate change. Either that or he should say something like, "I would need to study the research on climate change in more depth before I could offer a well-informed opinion." - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 22:26, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree. The chapter name is "Self-Appointed Judges of the Human Race" and it is those 'judges' and their anti-human attitude that Peterson criticises, certainly not all environmentalists as the current wording asserts. Climate change is never mentioned so I don't follow where does the conclusion "climate change activists are anti-humanists in JPs viewpoint" comes from. More accurately, neither Maps of Meaning nor 12 Rules ever mention climate change/global warming.

The boys who shot up Columbine High School, whom we discussed earlier, had appointed themselves judges of the human race—like the TEDx professor, although much more extreme; like Chris, my doomed friend.[Peterson's nihilistic friend who judged his life not worth living so he killed himself] For Eric Harris, the more literate of the two killers, human beings were a failed and corrupt species. Once a presupposition such as that is accepted, its inner logic will inevitably manifest itself. If something is a plague, as David Attenborough has it, or a cancer, as the Club of Rome claimed, the person who eradicates it is a hero a veritable planetary saviour, in this case. A real messiah might follow through with his rigorous moral logic, and eliminate himself, as well. This is what mass murderers, driven by near-infinite resentment, typically do. Even their own Being does not justify the existence of humanity. In fact, they kill themselves precisely to demonstrate the purity of their commitment to annihilation. No one in the modern world may without objection express the opinion that existence would be bettered by the absence of Jews, blacks, Muslims, or Englishmen. Why, then, is it virtuous to propose that the planet might be better off, if there were fewer people on it? I can’t help but see a skeletal, grinning face, gleeful at the possibility of the apocalypse, hiding not so very far behind such statements. And why does it so often seem to be the very people standing so visibly against prejudice who so often appear to feel obligated to denounce humanity itself? I have seen university students, particularly those in the humanities, suffer genuine declines in their mental health from being philosophically berated by such defenders of the planet for their existence as members of the human species.

While promoting Boyan Slat's environmental work on Ocean Cleanup, Peterson said: "This is a man who is getting things sorted out. A stellar model for young people (and not just the young)." Peterson tells people to model their life on a young guy who dropped out of college in order to save oceans from man-made pollution - which is logically inconsistent with his current characterisation as "highly critical" of all environmentalists and accusing them of harming young people. It is logically inconsistent becouse as Markworthen said it was stitched together out of context. Peterson criticises proponents of anti-human rhetoric, whether they shield themselves with environmentalism or not. Especially true believers that don't just talk about Earth's need to have less humans, but actually do something about it - like Eric Hariss whom Peterson references directly. To make it about "all environmentalists" is a mischaracterization, especially as Peterson himself engaged in environmentalist activism and there is no sign he regrets it or changed his views. Harcerz87 (talk) 15:56, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

"climate change activists are anti-humanists in JPs viewpoint" - look things are getting a bit silly if we're going to pretend that climate change is entirely disconnected from 'environmentalism'. Some aspects (of climate change and environmentalism) will relate to each other, others won't. It's our job to figure out what Jordan Peterson is saying, and portray that as accurately as we can... I think we agree that Jordan Peterson is talking about people who hold the position that climate change is man-made (ie. people who are judging humanity as having created climate change). As you say the chapter title is "Self-Appointed Judges of the Human Race". He also mentions David Attenborough - who believes in man-made climate change, and JP states that: "I have seen university students, particularly those in the humanities, suffer genuine declines in their mental health from being philosophically berated by such defenders of the planet for their existence as members of the human species." - that's the context for Peterson's comments, and the FTs questions. Plus this is not some isolated source we're trying to wedge in, we have other sources for his doubts on the topic. It seems a reasonable representation of the source material.

This is a man who is getting things sorted out - Peterson's main message is to "sort yourself out", and to clean your room. Where as not only do we have direct quotes, secondary and primary sources, as well as context to show that Peterson's doubts about man-made climate change; I don't think you have similar in regards to his brief WP:PRIMARY, single-source comments on Boyan Slat as proof positive of an endorsement of the existence of climate change, or to paint Peterson as an Environmentalist. I think one case (where we're using JPs book to put the FTs question in more context) is not WP:OR where as the other case (Boyan Slat, for which there is no proposed text) would be WP:OR. It's all about quoting JP directly, couching the FTs question correctly, and (to a lesser extent) knowing his views from other reliably sourced material. The fact that he's calling specific climate change activists "Self-Appointed Judges of the Human Race" makes the FTs point (and the overall context) more apparent if anything.

I asked you earlier (and apparently you didn't see fit to answer) what part of the proposed text (ie. not what people are saying on talk, but the actual proposed text) do you have a problem with? Can you quote which part of it you have a problem with? It's all sourced from WP:RS sources... so I'm still not getting it. Alternatively, write some suggested text for the inclusion of his comments on Boyan Slat. Although I don't personally see his praise of someone "sorting things out" as him pushing a belief in man-made Climate Change, maybe others will. --Jobrot (talk) 04:17, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

POV Template

Latest comment: 5 years ago47 comments13 people in discussion

Please revert Snooganssnoogans template because the issue is a content which is not included and it regards a section and not the whole article.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 14:36, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

It's a WP:NPOV issue because the content provided in the section is not balanced and the content misleads readers as to what Peterson's views on environmentalism are. The tag should definitely be changed from an "article" tag to a "section" tag though. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:48, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

It is balanced and does not mislead readers to what Peterson's views on environmentalism are because it doesn't mention any views, including some OR or SYNTH which would mislead the public.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 14:50, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

The section currently says that Peterson criticizes "political correctness" in "environmentalism" when he actually just doubts the scientific consensus on climate change, calls climate science fraudulent and says without evidence that environmentalists are harming students. It's akin to saying a flat-earther or creationist simply "opposes political correctness in academia" without noting that they just believe contrary to all mainstream scholarship that the Earth is flat and the Earth is 10,000 yrs old. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:00, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

So would you be fine with the tag being removed if the article said "Jordan Peterson is a skeptic of man made climate change. He has also criticized political correctness in Academia." - ie making them two discrete statements? --Jobrot (talk) 03:00, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

At the very least, the section would need to note that Peterson doubts the scientific consensus on climate, and has criticized climate science. That he criticizes "political correctness" in "environmentalism" is just WP:WEASEL and misleading. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:24, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

The template is more than justified since "political correctness" is already a POV term (and really a dog whistle), and should be in square quotes in the article. Drmies (talk) 20:31, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Strong disagree, buddy. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:25, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

PeterTheFourth, am I your buddy? I can't tell who you're disagreeing with. It can't be me, since my point is accurate, well-formulated, and both concise and complete, almost Pulitzer-quality. Drmies (talk) 01:09, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I am reasonably confident "buddy" refers to Miki Filigranksi, because it would make more sense and because this editor has previously referred to Miki Filigranski as "buddy". I think this is a good example of why using words such as buddy in this way on Wikipedia is not a good idea though, as it is usually pointless, confusing and can be seen as condescending. Hrodvarsson (talk) 01:40, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

@Drmies: My apologies, Hrodvarsson is correct. Miki is my buddy in this case - I tend to overly rely on indentation to reply, and should use the 'replyto' tags more often. Sorry again. PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:26, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Hmm I'm a bit miffed that none of you saw fit to chime in with my self-praise. Very sad. Take it easy Peter--it's all good, and I figured that was the case. Drmies (talk) 14:58, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Drmies Would it be better to re-word it along the lines of critiques of ideologies? --Kyohyi (talk) 17:06, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry Kyohyi--I'm not quite sure what you mean. Drmies (talk) 17:17, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

You're statement above, which I'm interpreting as being about the section header "Critiques of political correctness". Do you think something along the lines of "Critiques of Ideologies" would be more NPOV, and fit the content of the section. --Kyohyi (talk) 17:20, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Ah, yes--quotation marks help. Well, no--what seems important here is that he critiques what he calls "political correctness". Replacing that word with "ideologies" actually leads to the conclusion that political correctness is an ideology--it is not. For starters (but I think I used that phrase before), "political correctness" needs to be in quotation marks, both in the section heading, the section itself, and in the lead. Drmies (talk) 17:50, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I suggest "Positions" as the section header followed by "Peterson has criticized concepts such as 'political correctness', postmodernism, postmodern feminism, white privilege, cultural appropriation, and environmentalism." No reason to put all of these under the "PC" or "ideology" umbrella. –dlthewave ☎ 18:34, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I think "Positions" might be a little bit vague, but I think this is a good direction. --Kyohyi (talk) 18:38, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

The big problem is with the title of the section "Critiques of political correctness". The title should simply be "views" or "positions" wherein JP's critique of what he calls "political correctness" is one of many views. It is a NPOV violation in itself for us to put all of JP's views as falling under a critique of "political correctness" in Wiki voice. It would be like titling someone's "views" sub-section "Advocacy for freedom" or "Opposition to radicalism" when it's just the subject himself/herself who characterize their views that way. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:52, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

The article previously described Peterson as a cultural critic (there are sources for this label), so "Cultural criticism" could be an alternative section heading. Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:46, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, considering the lack of overall coverage in reliable sources regarding his views on environmentalism, maybe it would be better to remove that comment. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:57, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

- No point as political correctness is not a POV term nor a dog whistle nor should be written in square quotes.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 16:14, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

We have three sources talking about it, that's more than enough. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:18, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

This argument of "we have three sources" overlooks just how little those sources actually talk about it. One paragraph and two sentences in passing are not enough. --Kyohyi (talk) 12:59, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Why not? If the sources are reliable and Wikipedia doesn't report what's not there (ie going beyond the sources into WP:OR) then using 3 independent sources is perfectly valid. --Jobrot (talk) 02:53, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

We may be arguing past each other, but I'm going to respond to the argument I think you're making, though I'm not 100% sure that's what you're arguing. Because WP: UNDUE, just because we have reliable sources on certain content doesn't mean including that content is justified. The content we have should be proportional to the overall body of what's published in reliable sources on the subject. The argument we have 3 reliable sources doesn't take into consideration how much, or in this instance how little those three sources actually published on the topic, and is a run-around of actually comparing that content to the overall body of coverage. --Kyohyi (talk) 13:26, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

The first three sources [1] [2] [3] are uncritical opinion pieces or interviews which share Peterson's point of view, for example "So how would you recommend fighting back against the PC game?" is one of the Daily Wire interview questions. We can use these as sources for Peterson's opinions but we shouldn't be characterizing environmentalism and other concepts as "political correctness" in Wiki voice. "Critique" is also inappropriate as it implies a neutral point of view. –dlthewave ☎ 16:30, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Less reliable and/or WP:PRIMARY sources can be used on talk pages to back up the more reliable and WP:SECONDARY sources appearing in article space. To that end, here's a smattering of sources which probably couldn't be used as reliable in article space, but are reliable (or WP:PRIMARY) enough to discuss as reflecting Peterson's viewpoint within the bounds of this talk page (to reiterate, I'm not saying these are valid for article space, just for discussion here):

A rebuke from a defender of Peterson [4],
A summary of Peterson's views, including the claim that he "doesn't trust" climate models [5]
Peterson's WP:PRIMARY twitter account, sharing a PragerU video and other climate denial material [6], [7], [8]
Peterson's WP:PRIMARY facebook page, sharing a climate change denial article [9]

I think this is enough material (when combined with reliable sources in article space) to warrant Wikipedia's very brief and editorially conservative mention. Because what appears in article space is currently very limited - and because there seems to be numerous sources available for discussion and investigation on talk, I don't think Jordan Peterson's suspicion of "man made climate change" is really in doubt, is it? It seems to be his genuine viewpoint, one of doubt, denial, criticism or skepticism. The current page is very conservative in its mention of this (his) viewpoint on environmentalism. I'm not sure why it's tagged as disputed. --Jobrot (talk) 02:53, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I have no issue including Jordan Peterson's self published material if we appropriately weight it to his self-published material. --Kyohyi (talk) 13:26, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Strong doubt as on his Twitter is written "NOTE: RTs/follows are not to be read unfailingly as endorsements. I sometimes post material with which I do not agree", and Wikipedia editors deciding which tweet is or not an endorsement and agreement as his POV is WP:OR.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 16:11, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

The editor Miki Filigranski is now edit-warring to remove the NPOV tag, even though substantive reasons have been presented for the tag and multiple editors have argued that there are NPOV with the section. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:20, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Template must be removed because the editor @Snooganssnoogans: who placed it did not "explain on the article's talk page why you are adding this tag, identifying specific issues that are actionable within Wikipedia's content policies" and "It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given" per Template:POV. This discussion is mostly a continuation of discussion "Climate change" above which didn't reach any support and consensus for inclusion, and not a separate issue with the section's neutrality. Having two discussions about it won't change anything. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 16:21, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

What a bizarre comment. There is no need for consensus to include a tag. If there were a consensus on the disputed text, the text would be fixed, obviating the need for the tag. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:27, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Reviewing the comments above, it looks pretty clear that there is a consensus that the tag is warranted. Either the text needs to change, or the tag needs to stay.Girth Summit (talk) 16:30, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

If the text needs to change than we already have a discussion above which didn't bring any consensual support for the inclusion/change, the tag is not needed.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 16:34, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Miki Filigranski - I see any ongoing discussion where multiple different editors are raising a variety of policy-based concerns about the neutrality of this section, and I don't think all of those issues have been addressed. POV tags aren't meant to be a permanent fixture, but it's clear here that the tag is warranted as long as the discussion about this issue is ongoing. Nblund^talk 16:40, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Edit Just to be clear - the POV tag exists because there is an ongoing discussion. If there were a consensus, we would simply edit the article to make the appropriate changes and then a POV tag would be unnecessary. Nblund^talk 16:44, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Quick check through the comments above:

Snoogangsnoogans thinks the tag is warranted
Drmies thinks the tag is warranted
Peterthefourth thinks the tag is warranted (if I interpret his comment about disagreeing with you correctly)

There's then some discussion about how the text should be changed, with no one suggesting the tag should be removed before the text is agreed upon. You have arbitrarily removed the tag, without the text being changed. I agree with the others - the tag needs to be put back on until consensus can be reached for the text. It would be a nice gesture if you would put it back on yourself without making others revert you.Girth Summit (talk) 16:51, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

yes the section is a bunch of cherry-picked primary sources, instead of summarizing what secondary sources say. Over-reliance on primary sources is a hallmark of POV/fancruft writing. Jytdog (talk) 10:28, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Recent edit

A recent addition to this section was quickly removed and challenged as "All of this information was entirely unfounded, the sources referenced in its support did not mention anything claimed in the text and any use of quotations was taken entirely out of context and manipulated to suggest something opposite to what was spoken." Looking through the sources, each statement is well-supported and the quotes refer directly to Peterson's position on climate change. What exactly is the objection to this content? –dlthewave ☎ 12:26, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

The edit summary[[10] is just straight-up false. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:49, 10 August 2018 (UTC)\

I've added the information back as the justification for removal was blantatly false. Zubin12 (talk) 01:04, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

It has again been removed, on the grounds that a single sentence does not deserve its own section. This is a strange reason for removal; a better alternative would be to either expand the section or merge it with another instead of deleting content. –dlthewave ☎ 02:41, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Section title change

Where was any consensus and proper discussion to change the section title from "Critiques of political correctness" to simple "Views"? There was a prolonged WP:SILENCE consensus until now, and now suddenly is forcefully pushed inclusion of some minor POV layout change without discussing it.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 17:49, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

There's an ongoing discussion near the top of this section and it looks like Snoogansnoogans has gone ahead and made a WP:BOLD edit. This article isn't under any special restrictions, so editors are not required to discuss or gain consensus before making changes. Feel free to join the discussion if you have any concerns about the content. –dlthewave ☎ 18:28, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

The title change is an improvement, since "political correctness" is a loaded term. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 20:35, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Is a loaded term according to whom? It's a legit term which has its own Wikipedia article. Both postmodernism and identity politics are directly related to the term, as well as Bill-C16. The change of the title is only because some editors want to include a section "Climate change" on which the dispute is on-going, there's no obvious finish of the discussion nor there's any consensus as they claim i.e. ignore. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 19:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Feminize men

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

FreedomGonzo, regarding - [11] - the version you're reverting to states the "the push to "feminize" men" as a fact in wikivoice. I hope you don't mean to claim that it is a fact or that reliable sources support that men are being feminized. There needs to be a qualifier, or the sentence needs to be someway reworded to not state that "push" as fact (even changing "the" to "a" might help with that) Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:52, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with edit only on basis of trying to sneak it in as simply fixing grammar. It can be done boldly with premise you state now. Also instead of "supposed", I propose using Peterson's voice, since we're dealing with his claim here, something like "which he sees as" or "which he claims to be", but since English is not my first language I am really not sure about best formulation. FreedomGonzo (talk) 19:56, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Okay, it might not be the best idea to revert a sensible edit because of problems with an edit summary. But "what Peterson says" or "argues" seems preferable to either "supposed" or to "claim" See: MOS:ACCUSED and WP:SAID Nblund^talk 21:09, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos in the intro

Latest comment: 5 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

I understand that Peterson, is controversial, and there is emotional editing on this page.

Now my problem is with the intro. When talking about 12 Rules for Life it is his breakthrough book and a bestseller. While his previous book is important to many it is neither a breakthrough book or a bestseller, and it gets a thorough explanation.

On July 30th, I copied content from 12 Rules for Life and a note to see that page's history for attribution. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jordan_Peterson&diff=852669873&oldid=852430172

The edit was reverted on basis of WP:PROMOTION, reading this never mentions that stating that a book is a bestseller is a 'no no'. Did I skip the line or read it too fast I don't see it. Shall we go to others page and take out all references to their best selling projects.

Explaining the content of the book is not promotion.

I also added that it was a bestseller, which it is, with a random citation mentioning where it charted at one point in time.

It is a fact, so deleting my stuff is not the way to go, but improving is. When I created the page for 12 Rules for Life I copied content from here and an editor named Miki Filigranski showed up and worked hard to make a very decent article. If you have a problem with copied and attributed content turn it into your prose. If you have a problem with terminology find a synonym that doesn't offend you. Finally if you have problem with the citation I used find one that is more suited for the fact.

The editor who reverted this knew the book is a best seller since he is very active here, but I presume he is an anti Peterson fan he didn't bother to do any of the above. That is my criticism of of his edit. If you do not like Peterson there is plenty of literature bashing him out there and you can knock yourself out.Filmman3000 (talk) 17:02, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Huh? What does "bestseller" even mean? If you're on some list that lists books that were sold, are you a bestseller? This is a philosopher's article--it behooves you to be precise. Drmies (talk) 19:57, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Best Seller lists are kind of arbitrary in the first place, and when I read someone say "the book was a best seller" without stating the list or the time period, I generally assume it's because the book failed to make a prestigious list and the publicist is ashamed of that fact. In other words: the bit of Wikipuffery makes the book look worse, not better. Nblund^talk 01:59, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I can see some of your points and here is what I have to say.

What is a bestseller? Google maybe LOL? https://www.dictionary.com/browse/bestseller

Wikipedia LOL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bestseller

Now unlike the music industry, where an album can be gold, platinum or diamond. There isn't a clear rating system in the book industry. If one came up with that point I'd agree, and would think over, but we are talking a very successful book.

It is a notorious book, even if one thinks the sales number are exaggerated.

My question is how do you guys frame it from here?

I have to refute Nblund on the statement 'I generally assume it's because the book failed to make a prestigious list and the publicist is ashamed of that fact' on the Penguin Random House it is listed in capital letters as a #1 NATIONAL BESTSELLER and #1 INTERNATIONAL BESTSELLER.

https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/258237/12-rules-for-life-by-jordan-b-peterson--foreword-by-norman-doige-md-illustrated-by-ethan-van-sciver/9780345816023/

My second question is would you guys frame it differently from here?

My third question is what about the mini synopsis?

Fourth is my commentary on bestsellers and the definition of the word. Honestly, yes you are a bestseller when you reach bestselling lists. It is like a charting record and mean that several thousand copies have gone, sold substantially compared to others at a moment in time, and usually a second edition is printed.

Hence it means simply that and it got there on it's merits not by pretending on Wikipedia, especially with you guys around LOL. So Wikipuffery doesn't have weight. I happen to disagree with an element of this essay 'Talia Xshosa (born 1960) is a renowned, critically-acclaimed Nigerian novelist' is totally fine I don't see the puffery. It doesn't englobes clearly the scope of her success but isn't hyperbolic. I don't think Peterson is showing off his wiki page, because of Wikilambasting.

I think it is a 'super best seller' you don't. That's fine. Based on my perception of things and what Penguin Random House and other have said, I am honestly simplifying it. Lets take a star article of The Notorious B.I.G..

You and I are arguing on the mention of bestseller intro but look at the third paragraph of the intro: His double-disc album, Life After Death, which was released sixteen days later, rose to number one on the U.S. album charts, and was certified Diamond in 2000 by the Recording Industry Association of America, one of the few hip hop albums to receive this certification. It is also one of the best-selling albums in the United States.

Compared to: His double-disc album, Life After Death, which was released sixteen days later, it became a best sellers.

It is not inaccurate but it doesn't elaborate on the proportion. Based on my perception of things I am not being hyperbolic.

Philosophers do publish books and some of them become bestseller, also activists, actors, cooks, politicians, murderers, travelers... Look Noam Chomsky has bestsellers: http://projects.latimes.com/bestsellers/authors/noam-chomsky/

I think it would be relevant to be mention it in his intro because it a fruitful endeavor.

Loads of people I do not like have best sellers, many far right and left figures. This Includes Peterson' detractors, they have best selling books. I have no problem with their work being mentioned as best seller, the type of success it had or maybe failure, so we know their cultural impact.

Why is it important to mention a best seller or frame its success? It emphasize on how influential the person is, whether you like him or not. In case you don't like him well you under promote him and you win.

I see people reading that book on the bus all the time. I haven't seen this since Harry Potter and The DaVinci Code. Now this last sentence is anecdotal of course.

A bestseller is simply a word, when accurate why it can't be used? I also think the Peterson detractors have shot themselves in the foot because they now have an editor who thinks the is not a small bestseller but a mega hit worth mentioning in intro.Filmman3000 (talk) 16:48, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't really think you understood my point about describing something as a generic "best-seller" vs. describing it as a "New York Times best seller". Regardless: the article currently mentions that the book made national best seller lists, so I'm not entirely sure what the complaint is - are you saying we should be less precise in our language? Regarding the intro: Noam Chomsky's intro doesn't mention that he has had a best-seller, neither does Dan Brown's, or even Stephen King. JK Rowling's intro mentions that the Harry Potter books are the best-selling book series in history - but that's more specific and it is also more significant than making a best seller list. Nblund^talk 19:46, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I did understand that. Furthermore none of these pages have the good article click, hence it is debatable if the mention of best-selling work is worthy for Chomsky in his intro.

And it is not my fault if you gave me an example wasn't true the publisher is happy with the book so far.

It is a notorious book the other isn't how do you frame it?

Peterson is fairly young so as time passes and his work grows it becomes less important. So if you despise his book it will eventually shrink, in the intro. And god forbids if you were to hate his later work even more, you'd be glad it is here.

If Peterson' page would grow to be star article at his end of his life it would look like the one of Bernard Williams, William S. Sadler, Hilary Putnam, and Eric A. Havelock, who are the only four that have the star badge. According to my quick google search none of them wrote a bestselling book. Sadler wrote a notorious book and the subject is explained clearly. And in all four they point what are their important essays are about and impact. Also none of them are alive. So we are dealing with a man who is alive and philosopher with a bestselling book. There is no precedent we can look at in star article.

If turn to star article novelists, JK Rowling's intro mentions her monumental success I am not sure Peterson is on the level. In most case what the book is about and impact in mentioned. Using terms like 'widely read', 'the great success', and so forth.

Now forget that it is bestseller. And again, like Sadler book', 12 Rules is an important breakthrough book by the philosopher in question how do you frame the subject matter and impact in intro?Filmman3000 (talk) 20:44, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

As I said at Talk:12 Rules for Life, best seller lists are a minefield of publishing industry nonsense, especially Amazon's lists. This should only be presented cautiously with context provided by reliable, independent sources. This would mean the specific list, and the specific time-frame. Less reputable lists, such as Amazon's, would need some sourced demonstration of why the list was significant to this topic.

We are not here to predict the future. His legacy remains to be seen, as with every living person.

We absolutely should not describe the book as factually an "important breakthrough", and we should only even consider describing it that way with careful attribution as the opinion of a recognized, independent expert. Peterson's status as a philosopher is debatable. Peterson has made grandiose claims that politics, history, and everything else he discusses is really psychology deep down, but this is not something that an encyclopedia can possible accept at face value. Our goal here is to cover discrete topics, after all.

From what I have read, recognized philosophers tend to see Peterson as a self-help figure, not a formulator of new philosophical ideas. His status as a philosopher is therefore debatable, putting it mildly.[12][13][14][15] With that in mind, why does the specific best seller lists he has topped matter to his encyclopedic significance? No everything which is true belongs in the article, espcially not the lede, and we are not here to help him sell his book, nor to make those who read it feel better about their actions. Grayfell (talk) 22:40, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I didn't bring up Peterson as a philosopher until Drmies did. I assumed that's how he was categorized here, and I agree with the self help description as well.

I really don't mind if the word self help are articulated in phrase describing '12 Rules'. It's technically a self help book that interject philosophy to make what in Peterson's opinion rules to get a good life. That is a very basic description of it.

The book is successful, talked about, controversial, and critically acclaimed. Otherwise refute the numbers in current article of '12 Rules'. The book sold 700,000 copies in the US.

Now regardless that it is bestseller or not. How do you frame the subject matter of the book intro, with preferably current impact? Filmman3000 (talk) 23:32, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Gnawing anxiety and etc

Latest comment: 5 years ago36 comments9 people in discussion

Discussing [16], HappyWaldo could you explain your revert? Ping Snooganssnoogans; Miki Filigranski, it is an opinion, but it is clearly stated as such, and so I don't see the problem. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:44, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

An attributed NYT description of JP's views on gender

The following sentence is perfectly fine:

According to The New York Times, most of Peterson's ideas "stem from a gnawing anxiety around gender."

It's a RS describing the importance of gender in JP's public rhetoric, and the claim is attributed (i.e. not said in Wiki voice). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:45, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

"Gnawing anxiety" is another way of saying "paranoid". In my opinion, Nellie Bowles' line is carefully calibrated to damage his reputation, and I would argue that certain Wikipedia editors carefully chose it as the section's opener to undermine everything that follows, ie Peterson's actual views, which is what the section is actually about. But apparently it's not enough to present his views and allow the reader to draw their own conclusions. Bowles' feature on Peterson is a blatant hit piece, and I am one of several editors who has attempted to remove the line. In order to highlight how absurd this situation is, I amped the absurdity even further by adding two citations referring to Bowles' feature as a "hit piece". One of these is from The Federalist. User Drmies reverted me, saying "it's just one dude from a conservative website that's five years old and intends to sway rather than inform". The site is conservative. And? Only liberal sites are RS? Does this not only confirm the view that Wikipedia has a liberal bias? "It's just a dude". And Nellie was basically a nobody until she wrote the hit piece. It will remain her career high, I guarantee it. And lastly, Wikipedia is going out of its way to "sway rather than inform" by giving precedence to Bowles' claim. - HappyWaldo (talk) 14:19, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

The Federalist and the Daily Wire are not RS. Whether the author of the NY Times article is a somebody or not is irrelevant. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:23, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I know the NYT is a monolith of eternal and perfect reliability, but is it possible one of its world renowned journalists could go rogue and write some bullshit? - HappyWaldo (talk) 14:43, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I've redacted your accusations on Nellie Bowles per BLP. Do you have any reason for removal other than aspersions on the motivations of other editors, or your own opinion that it is a hit piece? Certainly other opinions on this issue can be included, but as an an analysis in The New York Times, it merits inclusion, whether you personally like it or not. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:26, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

HappyWaldo, that's real cute--but the fact remains that The Federalist is just a website and the NYT is one of the most respected papers in the world. (If the website had been liberal I'd have said the same thing.) Snoogans is incorrect, by the way--if the author of a NYT article is somebody, it's even more relevant. But note that this is not an opinion piece: it's journalism. So, the phrasing is perfectly in keeping with Wikipedia's guidelines, the source is relevant and important, and there is no reason other than one's love for Jordan Peterson's reputation to exclude it. Drmies (talk) 20:47, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

@Drmies: No, it is neither relevant, important nor according to Wikipedia's guideline. The sentence is journalist's opinion so it would be deceiving to be attributed to NYT, it was an interview hence making it a primary source, the (minor) opinion has issues with UNDUE, as well as BLP because criticism and praise should rely on secondary sources. There is no encyclopedic value from the sentence as it is basically a biased subjective perception and opinion about something by one journalist.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 22:01, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Miki Filigranski, I think you win a prize for this: "sentence is journalist's opinion so it would be deceiving to be attributed to NYT". It's prima facie such a ridiculous statement that it's hard to figure out where to start, but you are certainly proving that you don't understand any of this "journalism" thing. You do realize that the journalist is employed by the NYT, right? That, thus, ascribing it to the paper is perfectly justified? And that journalism does not consist of "giving opinions"? Seriously--WP:CIR is relevant here. If one doesn't understand what journalism is and what WP:RS means, and that there is a difference between someone spouting opinions on a website and a newspaper publishing articles, then one shouldn't be editing Wikipedia, and one certainly shouldn't be editing BLPs in contentious areas. Drmies (talk) 14:50, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

+1 to that Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:56, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

But it is an opinion that "most" of Peteron's ideas stem from gnawing anxiety around gender. There's no data to back this up, and Bowles' frequent use of loaded language clearly fails any journalistic NPOV standards. It ultimately tells us more about the writer's biases than Peterson's ideas. I'm sure some rabid atheists come away from Peterson's material concluding that most of his ideas stem from his attachment to Christianity. That's just the filter that clouds their perception. - HappyWaldo (talk) 15:26, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

HappyWaldo, it is not your job to comment on what does or does not fail journalistic NPOV standards. You may not know this, but newspapers (and other publishers) have what is called an "editorial board". Wikipedia has an article on it, Editorial board. It is their job to provide guidance on neutrality and what not, and they must be doing a pretty good job at it since the NYT is deemed a reliable source by Wikipedia's standards and you, I'm afraid, are not, despite your efforts to sound all authoritative with your "clearly fails" and "clouds their perception". So all this is just hogwash, just an attempt to keep something out of an article that you just don't like. Now, you are welcome to take this to WP:RSN, where you can argue that this particular article is, in your considered judgment, not worth citing from though the publication itself is a reliable source. Good luck. Drmies (talk) 15:39, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't like where it's placed (the very beginning of the section). It bothers me that Wikipedia, an encyclopedia, would use a quote like this as a kind of propagandistic preface. It's a subsection on Peterson's views that opens with a highly critical view on his views. Sorry, it's propagandistic. Maybe on a site with a demographic progressive majority, the biases are reinforced so often that it seems normal to you. - HappyWaldo (talk) 22:09, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

You should learn how to discuss because attacking other editors won't bring you anywhere. Nobody is saying that the source is not worth citing, yet about the obvious bias of it and being a primary source, making various issues per BLP. Your commenting on editorial board job, basically defending the NYT with an obvious personal bias, is also worthless because we don't know how much the board influenced and edited the source.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 19:01, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

With every edit you proclaim your ignorance louder. The bias is not obvious, the source isn't "primary" (you don't understand that either?), and "how the board influenced and edited the source" is a bunch of bullshit worthy of QAnon. Drmies (talk) 19:46, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

@Drmies: When we have a known journalist then we shouldn't attribute the journalist's words and opinion to the newspaper, that should be done when the newspaper articles are signed by unnamed editorial boards or other. You understand this is a primary source and journalist's opinion about his "gnawing anxiety" is basically a criticism i.e. critical viewpoint, and for such things, we shouldn't be using primary sources? Once again, you're not commenting on content per WP:GOODFAITH.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 18:56, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Good faith? This is about your competence. Drmies (talk) 19:46, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Per as HappyWalso described. It is far from being not only neutral but good faith statement. Also, why her opinion should be cited in this article, and specifically this section? Where's the weight for that? Jordan Peterson criticized the NYT article and author in his blog post On the New York Times and “Enforced Monogamy”. The sentence is not fine at all.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 14:29, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

So Jordan Peterson doesn't like the article. Are you saying we should base this article on only sources that Jordan Peterson likes? Are you saying that an article in the New York Times with a statement directly pertinent to the section at hand has no weight to be included here? On what basis? Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:34, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

He is not the only person who doesn't like, at least some parts, of the article because of the obvious media propaganda narrative. If we as editors cannot see through this, being part of the culture war, then we cannot neutrally edit Wikipedia at all. I advise you to comment on content. I did not say anything you are accusing me off. On the basis of BLP, NPOV.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 14:39, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

In addition, it seems like that some editors forget that this is an encyclopedia and biased statements like these which basically don't give any value to the topic, besides subjective and controversial ideological perspective, are not encyclopedic material. We are not writing some blog or website profile, yet an encyclopedic article.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 14:52, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not buying a removal based on wanting to avoid Wikipedia as seen as having a 'liberal bias'. We don't write articles for positive news coverage of the site. PeterTheFourth (talk) 14:33, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

You may think this approach will only alienate wacky creationist Conservapedia types, but it's also pushing away centrists like myself who aren't all that political, but recognise bias when they see it. - HappyWaldo (talk) 14:57, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Dude I'm totally a centrist too, which is why you can trust me when I say we need to get rid of this dang liberal bias. PeterTheFourth (talk) 14:59, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Great, I'll remove the line and wait for a consensus to be reached. - HappyWaldo (talk) 15:02, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

This is BLP and NPOV issue, if you cannot understand that then don't edit Wikipedia. We cannot attribute Bowles words to NYT either.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 14:36, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Says the person who thinks that the NYT doesn't publish journalism. I mean, seriously. Drmies (talk) 14:50, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm puzzled by the complaint here. It makes sense to offer a general characterization of his views on gender, and even relatively positive works (like this piece from Cathy Young) say that a central theme of his work is a "crisis" of masculinity, and that he provides guidance in the "bewildering" environment of contemporary gender politics - calling this "anxiety around gender" seems like a perfectly reasonable characterization. I'm not sure how you editors are reading a negative connotation in to that phrase. Are there sources that dispute the notion that his work deals with gender-related anxiety? Nblund^talk 15:58, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

You missed the loaded word 'gnawing'. Given Bowles' highly critical take on Peterson, she is implying here that his supposed anxieties around gender border on paranoia at best, or are flat out wrong at worst. It's fine to include criticism of Peterson's ideas as attributed POVs, but insane to turn one of these into a kind of epigraph that announces to the reader that Wikipedia has an official position, and it just so happens to be on the left. - HappyWaldo (talk) 21:51, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

HappyWaldo: I think you're mistaken about the definition of the term "gnawing". It means "persistently distressing". It doesn't mean "paranoid" and it certainly doesn't mean that the feelings are wrong. This recent report from Bloomberg discusses the "gnawing anxiety" some workers feel about the state of the economy and their own job prospects. The article isn't suggesting that the fear is paranoid or wrong - the author clearly agrees that the US still hasn't fully recovered from the 2008 recession and some of those economic fears are well-founded. If that is your primary concern, then it is misplaced. Nblund^talk 00:00, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I know the definition of gnawing. The example you presented uses the term in a completely benign manner. Bowles is claiming that a "gnawing anxiety" about gender specifically gives rise to the majority of Peterson's thinking. Given that gender is such a polarising topic (as opposed to something like an economic crisis, which everyone can agree is bad), Bowles' line only serves to denigrate Peterson. You can't escape the fact that Bowles positions herself as an ideological opponent of Peterson. She has an axe to grind, and by giving precedence to her claims, you're forcing an encyclopedia to adopt ideological positions. - HappyWaldo (talk) 00:47, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I presented an instance of a benign usage of the term because you claimed the term itself had a negative connotation - it typically doesn't. Are you arguing that the definition changes depending on the speaker? Or that even value-neutral statements by someone with a viewpoint are suddenly biased? Because neither of those are objections that have any basis in Wikipedia policy. Whether or not gender is a valid thing to get worked up over is a matter of opinion, but, as I pointed out above, even Peterson's defenders say that he expresses fear and anxiety about contemporary gender politics. Obviously his views are controversial, but that's not a reason to obfuscate them. How would you describe the stuff about a crisis of masculinity if not as an "anxiety"? Nblund^talk 01:19, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

@Drmies: once again you are not assuming WP:GOODFAITH. I did not say anywhere that NYT doesn't publish journalism, that's a blatant lie worth reporting.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 18:43, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Please do. And maybe you can stop with the GOODFAITH stuff: I don't doubt your good faith, I doubt your competence, and I'm not the only one. So please, either report me, or stop dropping false arguments that you claim are based in policy but merely display either ignorance or partisanship. Drmies (talk) 19:59, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

The journalist is Nellie Bowles. I've corrected instances where her last name was misspelled. –dlthewave ☎ 12:34, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree with Miki Filigranski and HappyWaldo. - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 15:21, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Shouldn't he be categorized under "Canadian anti-communists?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.78.64.53 (talk) 04:03, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

date of birth

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

after his name it should say: (June 12, 1962), but i cannot add it since the page is semi-protected — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cambrik (talk • contribs) 15:34, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Peterson's date of birth is already present in the article, including in the first paragraph of the lead. General Ization ^Talk 04:07, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

24 September

Latest comment: 5 years ago29 comments4 people in discussion

@PeterTheFourth: part of the content is out of scope for the section "Academia and political correctness" and article hence was properly moved to the related section in the article ("Bill C-16"), while other to 12 Rules for Life. It is more than obvious and described the edit as such in the edit summary, so your claim to be "unexplained" is a little weird. Explain your revert.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 21:44, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

I undid PeterTheFourth's edit before seeing this; it seemed to be a mistake as you did indeed use an edit summary. As for the appropriate section, the text doesn't mention any relevance to Bill C-16, and I think "Academia and political correctness" is a sufficient heading to put this under, though perhaps we can do better. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 21:57, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

@Bilorv: that paragraph has nothing to do with the section, while everything with "Bill C-16" section as there's the paragraph about Wilfrid Laurier University's controversy. There we included the content, per previous discussions, about the case and should be even now.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 21:59, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Ah yes, my mistake. I see another editor has corrected the mistake. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 22:49, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I withdraw my concerns of undue weight following Snooganssnoogans's addition of sources, though perhaps the book article should go into more detail. Snooganssnoogans has left the section under "Academia and political correctness" and I would move it, but I'm not sure whether this would count as a second revert by me and violate the rather cumbersome 1RR that has been placed on this page. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 23:01, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Should we perhaps create a sub-section entitled "Lawsuits against critics" containing this one paragraph? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:23, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of one paragraph sections but the article has some of them already anyway. However, the Wilfrid Laurier University incident is probably best placed alongside the Bill C-16 context, whilst the other lawsuits seem fine where they are. It's worth also saying that the WLU lawsuit is the only actual lawsuit that has been filed, and the rest are just threats. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 23:33, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

His lawsuits and lawsuit threats could have a section on their own, but it seems like they could also belong in the 'academia and political correctness' section, as they relate to his supposed free-speech advocacy and how he deals with fellow academics. I've added two additional sources (Inside Higher Ed, Newshub), which substantiate that the content is WP:DUE. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:58, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

No. There shouldn't be a separate section nor the current placement is suitable because are out of section's context. Open defamation has nothing to do with free-speech advocacy, and his "free-speech" section is "Bill C-16". His lawsuit is a notable event for a mention (also because it is directly related to the LAU controversy), but lawsuit threats are trivial (WP:BALASP) and lack WP:Scope. The first threat was already included in the book's article.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 08:57, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Also, the sentence "Critics have argued that Peterson's lawsuit threats are hypocritical given his criticisms of political correctness and free speech advocacy" miss the point about defamation issue, as well, which critics, how many critics, how much is this critical opinion significant i.e. prevalent in RS per WP:DUE for inclusion? It also has an issue with WP:RECENT.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 09:03, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

It seems to me that you're engaging in WP:OWN behavior on this article. What you personally feel about those lawsuit threats, the merits to the lawsuits and what counts as free speech is irrelevant. That multiple RS cover the lawsuit threats substantiate that they are WP:DUE, and the fact that the RS tie those lawsuit threats to his free speech advocacy makes that connection WP:DUE as well, if attributed. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:17, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I advise you to have WP:GOODFAITH and don't throw such accusations. My personal feeling have nothing to do with anything. Don't twist my commentary. Was it really extensively reported by mainstream media, or are just you giving it that weight? Why are you pushing to have all these threats in one and separate section?--Miki Filigranski (talk) 19:41, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Three RS have been cited, substantiating that this is WP:DUE. The standard for WP:DUE is not frontpage coverage on all the newspapers if that's what you're asking for. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:44, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

For the question of placement, I'm not particularly bothered, but the lawsuit threats are non-trivial due to the coverage they generated (see also [17][18][19]). I agree that our own views on these events are not relevant; it's not our place to tell critics that their arguments are wrong. Certainly the text needs to be copyedited, but that's not a reason for removal. I'd appreciate it if both of you used a less confrontational tone. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 19:48, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't describe all these sources as mainstream and don't know if all of them are considered RS as many are avoided for a citation on Wiki, but if are, then we settled the issue of coverage. The remaining issue is should we SYNTH all these threats together or not? I don't agree with that each of them has a separate event to which is related, one with the university and should be cited there, one with the book and should be in its article, and another with an event (?) which isn't even mentioned in the article and hence should be where exactly? When such claims are put forward I often witnessed that editors forget about WP:BLPSTYLE#Balance.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 19:57, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

It's the sources that bring up the lawsuits and lawsuit threats in the same context. It's not WP:SYNTH. All the sources bring this up in the broader context of academia and JP's free speech advocacy, and thus it should all be in one paragraph in the 'academi and political correctness' section. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:01, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Where they bring it up in the same context (please quote)? Sorry, but that's not the scope of the section "Academia and political correctness", even broader "Views", at all.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 20:05, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

A critic perceiving Peterson's rhetoric to be "misogynistic" and part of "incel" culture certainly is view-related, but do you have a better suggestion for placement? I should say that I grabbed some sources quickly without really looking at them, and I'm not familiar with the websites they come from. Looking a bit closer, the Daily Caller probably isn't a reliable source for BLPs, but the others look okay. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 20:11, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

@Miki Filigranski: You're right, it would probably be a better summary if I had said unjustified instead of unexplained. You did have an explanation, it was just completely insufficient. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:40, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

That's not an explanation; it's an assertion. What did you feel was insufficient and what are your policy-based arguments for what should be done relating to this topic? — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 21:49, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

@Bilorv: I do not believe that removing sources & content from the article explained as 'moved to correct section, moved other sentence to book's article' is at all sufficient. The content is well sourced, directly about the conduct of the person the article is about, and directly concerns the section 'Academia and political correctness', being about his lawsuits against university for their speech he disagrees with. I apologise if I've seemed flippant in any way, but dealing with what appears to be intentionally misleading behaviour is frustrating. PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:56, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

It wasn't misleading at all – the edit summary describes precisely what the edit did. Anyway, I wasn't even the person who made that edit. You didn't answer the rest of my question: what do you think should be done relating to this topic? Do you think the content should all be included, why, and under what section(s)? — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 11:33, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I... wasn't saying that you were the person who made the edit. I hope you don't think I would think that poorly of you. You seem fine! PeterTheFourth (talk) 12:15, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, that's not what I meant. I meant that there's no point in two people arguing over an edit that neither of them made. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 12:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I believe the content should be included - it's covered in a number of reliable sources. It relates to the actions of the subject of the article, so should be covered in this article. It fits far better under the header 'Academia and Free Speech' than it does under 'Bill C-16'. Does that answer your question? PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:39, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it does. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 10:47, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Bilorv Hey, I'm not sure I understand your position here after coming back to it. It seems pretty clear where I and Snooganssnoogans stands, as well as Miki Filigranski - do you agree/disagree with the edit Miki Filigranski has made after reading the arguments here? PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:44, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Whether I agree with the edit is not of any significance. I certainly didn't agree with your edit, which had a factually incorrect edit summary and no other reasoning. A more productive question is what I think should be done about the article: I think the lawsuit content should be mentioned in this article per the sources demonstrated in this discussion, and I'm fine with content being placed under the "Academia and political correctness" section and/or (for the relevant lawsuit) "Bill C-16". (I'd also prefer inclusion under a new single-paragraph section to the content not being included.) — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 11:04, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for answering the question bud. PeterTheFourth (talk) 11:10, 5 October 2018 (UTC)