Talk:Jordan Peterson

« Debunked » ?

It’s said that the affirmation that Bill C16 might criminalized the misgendering had been « debunked » by legal experts and no one had been jailed nor fined on that basis. First, these « legal experts » are not named. Second, there is no source Third, debunked means that the initial information was fake. Dubious or controversial would be better since no proof is given nor can be about a risk. Last, a rapid googling gives st least one case of conviction against a company based in the arguments that correct gendering was a human right. Not only was the company ordered to put in place an « inclusion policy » but it was ordered to compensate CAD 30 000 to the plaintiff. Article from 2021. It seems that the four arguments are enough to at least rewrite the paragraph, or possibly suppress it. Diderot1 (talk) 09:20, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

This is being discussed in the section directly above, but I'll entertain anyway.

1. The lede is just a summary, the experts are mentioned in the body.
2. See WP:LEDECITE. It is extensively sourced in the body.
3. His claim is patently false, so "debunked" is perfectly accurate.
4. That conviction was not merely because the complainant was misgendered, it was because they were fired for asking to not be misgendered. I.e. the employer's response is what amounted to discrimination.

––FormalDude (talk) 05:04, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Per this CBC article I quoted in the section above, jail time is at least possible (thus not patently false) however, the expert clearly felt it would take extraordinary circumstances to get there. Springee (talk) 01:38, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Dr. Peterson, I think, overstated the degree of danger posed to free expression by C16, but his detractors, in turn, understated it. I do think that "debunked" is a strange word to use in a legal context, especially when, as Springee's source notes, it is not quite as black and white as that term denotes. What's a better way to phrase this to adequately capture the nuance? I think a good path forward would be to merely mention Peterson's position on C16 in the lede, and offer various opinions about his position in the body. Pecopteris (talk) 02:05, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

i am not convinced by the subtlety of "fired because they asked to being not misgendered". The fact is that not being misgendered is clearly stated as a human right by the judge, and that's the proof that private speech is being compelled. Second the company is forced to design a a specific policy that goes way beyond not firing people because they ask to not being misgendered. These facts contradict the opinion of so called experts. Their opinion if still pertinent must at least be listed as opinion and not as "debunking" the statements of Peterson. Unless disregarding the facts. Diderot1 (talk) 21:57, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Apparently a father in BC had to face a jail sentence for referring publicly to his transgender son as a girl using the birth name she was given. The legal path to send him to jail is rather tortuous: he is charged if breaking a ban, so one could argue it’s not directly because he misgendered, and second the charge is « family violence » meaning referring by birth name is considered as family violence, so here again one can argue it’s not misgendering by itself. Anyway that’s largely enough to relativise the so called debunk by legal experts.

the article Diderot1 (talk) 17:11, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't see how a contempt of court charge is directly related here EvergreenFir (talk) 17:48, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH. ––FormalDude (talk) 22:07, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

• That article doesn't mention Peterson or the bill in question, so using it here in relation to those things would be WP:SYNTH. And the reason it doesn't mention the bill is because it had nothing to do with it - the father got in trouble for violating a court order, which is specific to his situation and wouldn't affect anyone else not under that specific court order. --Aquillion (talk) 15:07, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

@Diderot1 please avoid misgendering people in your comments. Simonm223 (talk) 20:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Add External Link

Add an external link for liondiet.com for users to get additional context on the diet. The website is run by Mikhaila Peterson with more information on Jordan and Mikhaila's use of the diet. Lion diet is distinct from the carnivore diet, which it currently redirects to on Wikipedia. Eaglebearer9 (talk) 19:42, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: After reviewing WP:EL, I'm not sure this is an appropriate external link. It might be more appropriate to cite this website in the article in order to give a brief overview of what the lion diet is. Please either ping active editors on this page to establish consensus in favor of the change, or suggest a different edit to include a brief synopsis of the lion diet in the text of the article. —Of the universe (say hello) 13:01, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2024

Please add (he/him) pronouns before his name. Sebastiancook1974 (talk) 00:22, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Before his name? And also we don't list people's pronouns in the lead sentence. We just use the pronouns throughout. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:23, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Is Peterson not an academic

What is the wiki standard for labelling somebody as "an academic" or not? 2604:3D09:D78:1000:F6F4:8026:BB0B:458D (talk) 06:45, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

In the article we refer to him by more specific terms than "academic" because that is so broad as not to tell the readers much. We say "psychologist" and "professor", which are specific terms for academics. He was a professor at a recognised University. He published many papers in recognised academic publications. This makes him an academic. What he does now is nothing to do with academia (and that's the politest way to put it) but his status as an academic remains with him and we describe him accordingly. This is not a value judgement. We have described both better and worse people in similar language. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:56, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Does the Olivia Wilde section in Influence warrant inclusion?

It seems undue coverage to give a bunch of words mentioned by Wilde when promoting her new film (an endaevour where controversy is often stoked in the interests of PR for a new film) : as no other reliable sources have talked about her statement in the last 18 months.Peckedagain (talk) 00:23, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE

This article needs a some serious rewriting to appropriately contextualize a lot of the things said about Dr. Peterson here. To put it lightly: "he is the very model of a fringey academical". Allan Nonymous (talk) 17:13, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Want to pick an example? North8000 (talk) 18:15, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

The article seems to paint him as largely within the academic and political mainstream, which he clearly is not see [1] or [2]. He is to put it lightly, closer to Andrew Tate, than he is to your typical psychologist. Allan Nonymous (talk) 18:36, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Peterson's academic credentials speak for themselves. He is a highly cited scholar, he has written an erudite intellectual work [Maps of Meaning], and he has worked at several reputable universities such as Harvard. Trakking (talk) 20:28, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

By the way—Peterson and Tate despise each other. Tate has made fun of Peterson several times, while Peterson has been harshly critical of Tate. Trakking (talk) 20:32, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Both are traditionally considered cannonical figures of the manosphere, something that this article's lede, again, curiously omits. Allan Nonymous (talk) 20:39, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

There are no authoritative sources that identify Peterson as an exponent of the manosphere movements. Peterson has called MGTOW "weasels" and pick-up artists "psychopaths". Trakking (talk) 20:59, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

That's, frankly, quibbling over terminology. It's pretty clear he's on the same axis as they are, even if he doesn't agree with specific subgroups, you could say he's a "fellow traveler" (to reflect his sort of thinking back at him). Allan Nonymous (talk) 21:15, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I think this does a better job of explaining the issues I ever will: [3] Allan Nonymous (talk) 21:13, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I am laughing out loud at anyone calling that trite bit of vacant obscurantism Maps of Meaning erudite. He's no longer teaching and no longer practicing as a therapist because he's so thoroughly WP:PROFRINGE. Simonm223 (talk) 00:36, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

I suspect one can find some good stuff by searching for his name and "woke". That's something he's allergic to, and he's also in trouble. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:26, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I think that he sets his own course on various views/positions. And through the lens of US/Canadian culture wars, that lens puts him generally on one side of those culture wars and for folks on the other side wars deprecating him becomes the main goal. IMO this article should just try to be informative on straightforwards facts regarding him. North8000 (talk) 23:24, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree with North8000 here. Given the culture war associations here it's hard to say if the disagreements are based on true academic issues vs associations with politics. The article covers this but we shouldn't pick sides in tone. Springee (talk) 00:06, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

The side we pick is the side of reliable sources, same as always. Politics can of course be a true academic issue, but Peterson himself has never been an expert on politics, so his own views should not be presented as credible. This is WP:FRINGE at its most basic. Grayfell (talk) 02:28, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

We should document the fact he is controversial and is criticized. We don't write hagiographies here. As the link I posted above shows, his profession itself is at odds with him. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:39, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

The article does include controversies and criticism. We just need to be careful that we are impartial in how it is presented. I'm not sure his "profession" is at odds with him vs the governing body is at odds with things he has said outside of his practice. Springee (talk) 03:04, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Are we presenting his views on politics as credible? His views on topics that are related to his academic background do cross over into areas of politics but so long as they are in areas where he has academic standing we need to be careful about presuming FRINGE etc. Springee (talk) 03:01, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

That ship sailed when he got barred from practicing therapy and stopped teaching classes. So, no, we don't have to be that careful here. He is obviously FRINGE.Simonm223 (talk) 03:04, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Not really. As I recall he was banned because he refused to submit to things that were not related to his treatment of his own patients. It seemed like a very political action vs one of malpractice. Springee (talk) 03:06, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

He was barred for potentially bringing his profession into disrepute. That is an example of fringe behavior. Simonm223 (talk) 03:11, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Let's assume he did something like stealing from a patient. Would you call that "fringe"? I mean stealing from a patient would certainly be a reason to bar someone but it doesn't mean their work was otherwise fringe. You have taken the reason he was barred, which appears to be that he said things the college did like, outside of his actual practice, the then leapt to the conclusion that his work in practice, when he was dealing with real patients, was fringe. That is a leap too far. Springee (talk) 03:20, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Granted, this thread is labeled "fringe", but there are other practices and views of his that are controversial, unprofessional, bring disrepute to his profession, and are a danger to the public. Those things should also be documented, even if they are not labeled "fringe". We don't even have to label them, just describe them the way mainstream sources describe them.

The College of Psychologists of Ontario, has as its mandate “to protect the public interest by monitoring and regulating the practice of psychology”.[4] Peterson's public statements, which he admits are deliberately offensive, have gotten him in trouble. He said transgenderism was a “social contagion”, and that is a primitive view at odds with the profession of psychology, and he is thus subject to the discipline of the College of Psychologists of Ontario.

Whether one calls that fringe or not, it's unprofessional, primitive, unenlightened (IOW not "woke"), and very damaging to patients and the public. "The CPO told Peterson that they felt his comments “may cause harm” and had a significant “impact risk.”[5] The CPO is a major RS on the matter.

I should add one fact related to fringiness. When one tries to find RS content on his views, one discovers he's a darling of fringe and unreliable sources, so that throws a wrench in documenting some of this stuff. That's also a red flag that says a lot about him. Per sourcing, he is fringe. Period. (Not policy, just my opinion.) We may have to depend on the few mainstream sources that mention him. We can also use a few of his own statements on Twitter and other social media (per ABOUTSELF) to document his views. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:56, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree with North8000 and Springee.

Peterson is not fringe; he is anti-postmodern, anti-Marxist, and pro-Christian. "Postmodernism" did not even exist until a few decades ago, and today it still barely exists outside of the Western world, making it a very fringe ideology. As for Marxism, it is another fringe ideology, especially in the Western world, where no parties have dared openly to identify as Marxist for many decades. Meanwhile, Christianity is the exact opposite of fringe, as it is the most global ideological phenomenon with billions of adherents all over the planet. Conclusion: Peterson is non-fringe, indeed he is explicitly anti-fringe and quite mainstream from a global and historical perspective. Trakking (talk) 07:34, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm gonna hard disagree with you on "no parties have dared openly to identify as Marxist for many decades". There are loads of marxist parties in the west, some electorally successful, such as the Communist Party of Spain (currently in government), and the Progressive Party of Working People (part of the government in 2013). OTOH "Cultural Marxism", something Jordan Peterson defends [6], is a conspiracy theory. Allan Nonymous (talk) 21:14, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I think that this conversation is about whether or not he is real-world fringe. IMO he is not. And wp:fringe is a different set of guidance which is clearly not applicable here. This is an article about a person, not about theories. North8000 (talk) 13:11, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Peterson may be controversial, but he's not fringe, at least not in the mainstream media these days. In the assessment of this profile in the Washington Post Andrew Tate makes "Jordan Peterson look like a cuddly old uncle.” So, some secondary sources see the figure as almost mainstream. In an assessment made by The New Yorker Peterson is "the Internet’s most revered—and reviled—intellectual". And I think that's how mainstream news platforms regard Peterson now.

MatthewDalhousie (talk) 05:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Addition of Ontario court ruling to lead

Grayfell, per ONUS you need to justify the restoration of material added to the article just today before restoring it as you did here [7]. The "controversial" term earlier in the lead is subjective and judgmental thus it was removed. As it was recently added it would need consensus to stay (@Allan Nonymous: who added it). As for the last sentence, it simply is UNDUE for the lead. Single sentence paragraphs are almost never part of a well written lead. Additionally, given the length/scope of the article, it's not clear why that fact is DUE for the lead vs as part of the body. Springee (talk) 02:58, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

It is definitely due. Simonm223 (talk) 03:04, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Based on what? It's a single, stand alone sentence without context. Springee (talk) 03:06, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Based on it being incredibly relevant to his current career trajectory. Simonm223 (talk) 03:12, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

That means you are forward projecting. Regardless, this is a BLP so we shouldn't make the lead out in a way that tries to highlight negative things, especially recent things who's long term impacts are not clear. Additionally, making it a stand alone paragraph gives it undue weight. Springee (talk) 03:22, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

It is significantly harder at this point to find a reliable, independent source which doesn't mention his fringe political views. Any source which blandly describes him as an academic without any context would be automatically suspect. Calling an accurate summary of sources undue is both wrong and also wikilawering. Do not ping me again, ever. Likewise, do not post on my talk page unless required by policy. Grayfell (talk) 06:15, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, it was very awkward by that user to throw in the word "controversial" in the lede. However, I tried to fix it by rewriting the clause as "his cultural and political views on controversial issues." Everyone has their own views, and these are not "controversial" in themselves, but there are definitely controversial issues. Even if one googles the phrase "controversial views," the search engine generates instances with the phrase "controversial issues." My edit was reverted because I reverted two edits at once, but you, Springee, are free to redo it, if you will. Trakking (talk) 07:44, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Trakking, I think your take makes sense. He has views on controversial topics. Do you have a thought on the single sentence paragraph that Grayfell restored. While they did try to justify restoring the word controversial, they said nothing about the final sentence. I think that is the bigger issue of the two changes. Springee (talk) 11:14, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I think you were correct in reverting that other edit for, as you have pointed out, a number of reasons: 1) it is too short to constitute an entire paragraph, 2) it is too irrelevant to merit inclusion in the lede, 3) it is too WP:RECENT to have any historical significance, and 4) it is too contentious to be added without consensus etc. Trakking (talk) 13:23, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not deep in on this enough to weigh in on the particulars, but we need to be providing information, not value-laden characterizations. North8000 (talk) 13:40, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

His defenders are the ones who are assigning specific value to him being barred from practice by claiming a political motivation for it. Simonm223 (talk) 13:46, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Include the word: Adding "controversial" isn't a value-laden characterization. It's a factual description of his views on cultural and political issues, as described exactly by a number of reliable secondary sources. Grayfell is correct here, and the reasoning offered on this talk page to remove the word is not based in policy, but in a desire to defend Peterson from any possible negatively-tinged verbiage. Wikipedia is not here to sanitize any person's reputation. It's here to describe a subject the way that reliable sources describe them. Fred Zepelin (talk) 15:06, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Introducing a high-profile individual as controversial is pure disrespect; it is not worthy of an encyclopedia. Equivalent articles on people like Nietzsche and Freud—other highly ”controversial” thinkers—mention controversial aspects only in the final sections of their respective lede. Trakking (talk) 16:08, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Controversies are important to mention, but simply describing someone as controversial is redundant. Practically every political theorist has some "controversial ideas", because their methods and their effects are disputed. Dimadick (talk) 16:27, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Peterson is not Nietzsche or Freud, even if we assume his scientific work rises to that level, he's a very political guy. It'd be like if Sigmund Freud spent most of his time writing Fatherland Front (Austria) propaganda in Austria. Allan Nonymous (talk) 16:28, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

The first reply to my comment has set up a straw-man argument. Peterson is not "described as controversial". He is not "introduced as controversial". The second sentence says he has received "widespread attention in the late 2010s for his controversial views on cultural and political issues" - a statement that is absolutely true and backed by dozens of sources already in the article. Stick to what's actually in the article. No one is proposing the first sentence should say "Jordan Peterson is a controversial guy." Fred Zepelin (talk) 19:46, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

This too. Allan Nonymous (talk) 20:08, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

FZ, the sentence in question was recently changed. The long term stable version of the article does not say "controversial views". Springee (talk) 22:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

The article says: "Often described as conservative, he began to receive widespread attention in the late 2010s for his controversial views on cultural and political issues." Allan Nonymous (talk) 22:56, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

That was a change you made 7 days ago [8]. It was also reverted by both Trakking and myself. Presenting the sentence with "controversial" as the stable version is misleading. Springee (talk) 23:12, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

This is a different straw man. It doesn't matter that the word "controversial" was introduced 7 days ago in the context of this thread, because commenters above claimed that Peterson was "described as controversial" or "introduced as controversial" in this lead. He is neither. The word "controversial" is in the second sentence and is only in the context "widespread attention in the late 2010s for his controversial views on cultural and political issues" - can you argue that that sentence is factually incorrect and unsupported by reliable sources? No one can, because it is factually correct and supported by reliable sources. Which explains why some editors are clever enough in this discussion to subtly move the goalposts just a little bit. Stick to the facts, please. Fred Zepelin (talk) 01:32, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

What are you even trying to argue? You quoted the current lead as the long term stable version, "Stick to what's actually in the article" (your post at 19:46, 12 May 2024). I noted that the version of the lead you referenced was not the QUO version. AN said the article says...[new version of lead]. I'm not arguing what's in the current version of the lead. Instead I'm arguing why the previous, long term stable version was better. Note that because it was the stable version NOCON says we need to restore the previous version since a new consensus hasn't been formed. Springee (talk) 01:38, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

The common meaning of "controversial" is something beyond just that the other side of a culture war or political war considers it to be such. North8000 (talk) 22:53, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

This is pure opinion, or WP:OR, if you prefer. When multiple reliable secondary sources report that Peterson is known for his controversial views, his lead reflects that Peterson is known for his controversial views. It's that simple. Fred Zepelin (talk) 01:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I have a procedural question for @North8000: Is your topic ban from post-1932 American politics still in place? Fred Zepelin (talk) 01:26, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

If you are able to find that ancient post then you already know how to find the answer to your question, already know that the answer is no, and yet you asked here anyway. North8000 (talk) 13:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

No, I had no idea that the answer was "no", actually. All I saw on that link is "His 2013 topic ban from the Tea Party movement is broadened to encompass post-1932 American politics". I had no idea that it has been lifted (if it has) nor would I know where to find the lifting of that topic ban. Fred Zepelin (talk) 21:34, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

You—and another user before you—claim that reliable sources report that his views are controversial. But these are not ”reliable sources,” which would be journals or books; they are sensational newspaper articles, often with a very explicit ideological profile. And none of them even seems to use the word ”controversial” or, more importantly, the phrase ”controversial views,” so that’s just your own interpretation of the content. Trakking (talk) 02:59, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Ummm....? They are all RS. There is no PAG about RS anywhere close to your claim about "journals or books". Get that idea out of your head. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

It’s not only that they are newspapers, it is that they’re often of a very sensational and ideological character. There’s better and worse journalism. Trakking (talk) 03:42, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Pure WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Simonm223 (talk) 13:21, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Can't the reverse be said as well, pure WP:ILIKEIT? Springee (talk) 14:00, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

No. It cannot. Simonm223 (talk) 14:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it can. :) Trakking (talk) 14:55, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

"This is a consistent description of the subject per WP:RS" is not covered under WP:ILIKEIT. Simonm223 (talk) 14:57, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

What reliable sources? I thought it was all Vox etc. Please cite some reliable sources and give me exact quotes. Trakking (talk) 15:00, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

The lead is supposed to be a summary of the contents of the article. Using the word "controversial" when creating that summary needs something beyond just that the other side of a culture war or political war considers it to be such. Otherwise everyone in politics or who offers views on a political or culture war topic would need to be described as controversial, and there would inevitably be some sources that say that or use that term about them or their views. North8000 (talk) 14:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Wise words.

Since there is far from any consensus here, someone ought to go ahead and revert Allan’s controversial edits. Trakking (talk) 14:58, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I would advise you open up an RfC if you want to pursue the issue any further. Given the number of reliable sources that describe him as controversial (i.e. "controversial [psychologist/political commentator] Jordan Peterson", Wikipedia here is, frankly, giving him the benefit of the doubt by describing his positions as controversial, which most clearly are. Allan Nonymous (talk) 15:58, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Once again: Which reliable sources precisely? And which exact quotes from these sources? You fail to answer this basic question. Trakking (talk) 16:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Citations 5 through 9 as of the current edit summary. Simonm223 (talk) 16:47, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Those sources were added to refer to other things than the latest controversial edit. Once again: Which exact quotes that use the exact word controversial and from which reliable sources? For example, Vox is not a reliable source. Trakking (talk) 17:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Simonm223, please be more careful with such claims. This is source #5 [9], his U of T web bio. No where does that source reference controversies of any kind. Not surprising as it's a university quick bio. However, when you say "all these sources support X" and then the very first source doesn't remotely support it, what are editors to think about the other sources? I agree with Trakking here, which sources specifically say he gained notability in the late 2010's based on his "controversial views"? Springee (talk) 19:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

AN, please review NOCON. The change you made is not restoring a long term stable version of the article. That means, per policy, the burden of showing a consensus for that change is on those who wish to make it. Absent a new consensus the article should be reverted back to the last stable version. If you feel a RfC is needed to establish a new consensus version of the article the burden is on you to create it, not the editors who oppose you change. Springee (talk) 19:08, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I believe there are 4 editors in this thread that have no problem with the change that was made, and the couple of editors who have argued against it haven't given any policy-based reasons for their opinions outside of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. To me, this discussion shows that among the editors actually citing reliable, quality sources, the consensus is to leave the word in place. Fred Zepelin (talk) 21:37, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Loking at this thread, IMO you are mis-characterizing the arguments made by both sides. North8000 (talk) 22:04, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Fred, you have consistently failed to cite a single authoritative source that uses the word controversial or the phrase ”controversial views.” We are four people opposing your controversial edit, meaning that there is no consensus for it and that we ought to restore status quo. Trakking (talk) 22:28, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

This shouldn't even be in the BLP let alone the lead. Doesn't pass the WP:10Y test, no one is going to care in 2 years, let alone 10. Editors should be aware that WP:NOTEVERYTHING needs to be in an encyclopedia, despite how much modern news media covers it. Peterson **is** a controversial figure, so he's going to get a lot of coverage because it draws clicks and advertising revenue. Wikipedia need not pull every bit of melodramatic and salacious opinion from overtly polemic articles into his biography. Kcmastrpc (talk) 22:16, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I just noticed this. How does a court decision not pass a 10-year test? A constitutional law decision at that? At the risk of being pedantic, Canada has a legal system that is built on common law. It's migrating to a hybrid system, but yeah, there is this thing we call precedent... Elinruby (talk) 05:52, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Excellent observations by Kcmastrpc. Some people are trying hard to make this encyclopedic article be much more sensational and provocative than it ought to be. Trakking (talk) 22:33, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

@Talking: I see that my comment is back where I put it, good. The other thing I want to make sure you understand is that this page is under a one-revert restriction, and so apparently a you as an editor. Do you understand that any time you undo someone else's edit, that is a revert? So when you reverted my addition addition of a rationale to that template and told me to seek consensus first (!) That was a revert. When you moved my talk page comment and edited the indent, that was another revert. Then you reverted AN for a third revert, for a grand total of two more reverts that you are allowed on a 24-hour period. Do you understand that now? Elinruby (talk) 11:32, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't see where Trakking has violated 1RR. Also that 1RR applies to the article page, I don't think it is normally viewed as applying to the talk page though talk page edit wars are also rather rare. Springee (talk) 11:55, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

"political correctness" is pejorative and NPOV

We should not be allowing Peterson's opinions to frame the article Elinruby (talk) 00:37, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Some consider it a positive term and others consider it to be a pejorative. But either way, in the article it is attributed as being his argument. North8000 (talk) 00:48, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

if that's him talking then:

• It should be in quotes
• It kinda proves my point about him framing the debate, don't you think?

If it is not him talking it should not be in the article in Wikivoice Elinruby (talk) 00:57, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Can you point to specific texts? Also, if the statement is attributed it doesn't have to be a quote. That said, if we can come up with alternative langauge that all find acceptable it likely means the article is better for it. Springee (talk) 02:44, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I beg to differ. "Political correctness" should not appear in wikivoice. Elinruby (talk) 03:23, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

On what basis? Springee (talk) 13:10, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Right. Political correctness is a pejorative term for inclusive language. Just call it "criticism of inclusive language, which he calls political correctness". — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:10, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

that works for me Elinruby (talk) 02:19, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand why we are putting these terms in quotes. I don't see evidence that PC is a pejorative. Can someone offer a clear reason why these are now quoted terms instead of the stable version? Springee (talk) 13:10, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Also, there were a number of other changes made with the addition of the quotes. I don't see those as improvements and the retention of those changes should be independent of the use of quotes. Springee (talk) 13:15, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I think they were an improvement. Simonm223 (talk) 13:21, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't. The old version of that text has been stable for at least 2 years and I think was established after talk page discussion. Regardless of the use of scare quotes I don't agree with the other text changes (location in the lead is something I'm open to). Springee (talk) 13:23, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't think we need to use quotes around charged terms like "political correctness" if we make it clear that this is a claim or opinion (which in my opinion the previous version was already fulfilling). "inclusive language" is not a neutral term either, and should be treated similarly to "political correctness".

(apologies for my now-deleted mistaken comment about sourcing, I got confused) NicolausPrime (talk) 14:04, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

So there are two views of the term "political correctness", both referring to the same thing. One views "that thing" as fine, the other (the pejorative) views it as being cases of excessive or unwarranted. (BTW the "fine" came first and was where the term came from) ) So we have some folks conflict with themselves. Holding the "fine" view but still calling it a pejorative.  :-) North8000 (talk) 14:17, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

When people who think inclusive language is a good thing use the term "political correctness" they're typically nodding at the pejorative connotations or using the word that's been a [pejorative] part of popular culture since the 80s. I'm sure you can search and find some examples of people using it with no trace of that pejorative just like we can find examples of any pejorative being used in other ways. For those who say "inclusive language" isn't neutral either, what is the neutral term? Could just go with the definition of inclusive language: a language style which avoids sexist, racist, or otherwise prejudiced or insulting language. Alternatively, what is the concise non-pejorative definition Peterson provides for his own use? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:37, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I had debates with Canadian friends where I have argued along the lines of what you just said (that is is primarily a pejorative term) and they say that I'm wrong, that it is primarily a positive term. Also the first ~70 words of the Political correctness article describe it as a positive term and it is only after that the the pejorative view is covered. North8000 (talk) 14:47, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Snort with all due respect to your Canadian friends, er, no. It is not in common use in Canada except by people who are driving their semis to Ottawa and honk their horns in freon of the Parliament Building. It absolutely does not reflect Canadian values. Elinruby (talk) 19:33, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

It certainly doesn't describe it as "a positive term". It describes some of the underlying meaning and then promptly makes clear that In public discourse and the media,[4][8][9] the term is generally used as a pejorative. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:13, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Do we need to use the term "inclusive language" at all? I found no mention of it in the body and the sources. We could instead write "genderless pronouns" (which I think is neutral) while noting that this is only Peterson's interpretation, as there are no specific references to gender pronouns in Bill C-16. NicolausPrime (talk) 15:02, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Need to? No, not necessarily. If there's a more descriptive way to talk about what he calls political correctness we can use that? I don't know how much it matters that it doesn't appear in the text, since most of what we're quoting would be implicitly or explicitly tying the criticism of "political correctness" to Peterson's usage of that term (or use the term because it implies a criticism). For our bios of people who criticize "wokism" or "woke mobs", we don't just say "x is a critic of wokism" but describe what it is they're actually talking about (DEI, affirmative action, complains about sexist jokes, or whatever) plus "what X calls wokism" or somesuch. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:13, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

The reason *I* am saying it should be in quotes is that people are saying it is ok to use it because we are quoting him. If we are quoting him it should be in quotes. If we are describing the root of his employment woes with the University of Toronto then why not simply say that he insisted on using either "he" or "she" to refer to his students? Even if they had asked to be referred t as "they"? Or I personally am fine with "inclusive language".Elinruby (talk) 19:27, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Name-dropping Rachel Notley is UNDUE

It adds nothing of significance and is arguably a BLP violation against a once and conceivably future premier of Alberta. I don't think we should judge her just because a town of 2800 people had nobody to date but Howdy Doody. Elinruby (talk) 01:08, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

It just says they were friends, way back. It doesn't say anything about them dating. I don't think it reflects poorly on her, particularly given their youth and that Peterson claims that his politics were progressive at that time. Surely there can't be a person alive who wasn't once on friendly terms with somebody who later turned out to be... a bit... um... you know. So, I can't see a BLP violation here. As for whether it is too trivial to be worthy of inclusion, I'm neutral on that. DanielRigal (talk) 01:27, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

"shared double-dates" is in the sources. So is Howdy Doody. I'll cite it here the next time I travel through the current sources. I can't pull all of them up on certain devices, so I need to check before calling them dead links. I am pretty sure she would rather not be mentioned in the same breath as someone who now says that women just aren't good at certain things, so your opinion of what this might do to her polls... Well. Probably OR. Mine too for that matter, but this is a potential BLP violation with respect to an important Canadian politician. Certainly in the top five or ten female politicians in the country. I don't think we should be guessing. How about we see what NPOVN thinks? I can't articulate any way that this isn't just whitewashing him, but perhaps you can.Elinruby (talk) 02:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

On one hand I don't see it as a claim that requires a strong source. This is just his background history. However, I also don't see it as a critical fact and wouldn't see an UNDUE argument as out of place. I can't see how this is any kind of a BLP issue. Springee (talk) 02:42, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

It's UNDUE with respect to him and possibly defamatory with respect to her. If it isn't a big deal as far as you are concerned, take it out. Rachel Notley doesn't mention Peterson, and Peterson should not invoke her name either. Elinruby (talk) 03:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely no BLP issue here. Springee (talk) 10:21, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

@Springee: why is she mentioned at all? Elinruby (talk) 10:48, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I've already said that I think the weight of inclusion (BALASP) can be argued. I don't see it as inherently important to describing him in the now. It does fill in a bit of background but, as they were both unknowns at the time I can see it being removed as irrelevant (I don't think it needs to be removed). That such a fact could in anyway be a BLP issue is something I can't understand but perhaps it could be raised at BLPN to help calibrate our perceptions of the question. Springee (talk) 11:30, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Peterson's work has generated billions of views from all over the world. Meanwhile, Rachel Notley is some minor politician in Canada. How many people outside of Canada know about her or care about her? Remove her from the article if you want. Obscure people shouldn't be allowed to parasitize on the success of famous people. Trakking (talk) 10:28, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

So according to you, Trakking, his "billions" of views means we can say what we likes about her? Or that she is a parasite because we mention her in the same section as him? Does that make you a parasite if I mention you? I'm so confused. Has anyone ever mentioned to you that "billions" of views even if you could substantiate them are absolutely not the criteria we use to make decisions on Wikipedia? Elinruby (talk) 10:40, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I think it's absolutely wild that you think Rachel Notley, who was premier of Alberta, is "parasiting" on the notability of a self-help youtuber. Simonm223 (talk) 12:05, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I know, right? Elinruby (talk) 12:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Don't forget that the parasiting is caused by being mentionef by us. Do I need to ping you at NPOVN? I am assuming you saw the new section. I don't know who else needs to be notified. I stopped with the two I was talking to last night but feel free to notify whoever else needs to know Elinruby (talk) 12:46, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

we are not required to report blatantly false claims in exquisite detail

First of all, what he said about Bill C-16 is simply false, or so ludicrously looney-tunes that to expound on it is to misrepresent the law ourselves. The sources quote law professors saying that. The court ruled that his protrayal of the law was deeply flawed, to be charitable. Yet we expound on it at length, uncited, as if it were a fundamental axiom like pi. Just no. Canadian courts are competent to interpret Canadian laws. Random dudes on the internet are not. All that uncited OR needs to go. Elinruby (talk) 07:52, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

The article explains what Peterson said then explains what scholars have said. I don't see any issue here. Springee (talk) 10:21, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Btw, the reference to the courts cites something unrelated to bill C-16 so it doesn't add to the topic at hand. Springee (talk) 10:33, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

"Random dudes on the internet"—really? He is a highly cited social scientist, he has written an erudite intellectual work [Maps of Meaning] as well as several best-selling books, he has worked at several reputable universities such as Harvard, and his podcast is often ranked #1 in Education. Trakking (talk) 10:21, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

As with the "billions" of views, his ranking on a download site irrelevant. Elinruby (talk) 10:52, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

For the purposes of coverage Bill C-16 he is a "random dude on the internet" given a complete lack of legal background. Allan Nonymous (talk) 12:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Peterson's critique was political, not judicial. And the man has a bachelor's degree in political science, which gives him some authority on the topic. Trakking (talk) 12:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

No it really doesn't. The minimum basis for treating someone as academically valuable in a field on Wikipedia is a PhD thesis. Wikipedia affords no special expertise to a Bachelor's Degree. Simonm223 (talk) 12:38, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

References

British liberal

Just a comment on some of the recent edits regarding Peterson calling himself a British liberal. A few editors have, not unreasonably, changed the visible text to match the hyperlink. However, we need to keep in mind that the hyperlink was picked by Wiki editors. If the source for the British liberal claim uses the term "British" then we either need to change the hyperlink or get rid of it. The logic here is similar to the logic of MOS:NOLINKQUOTE. Springee (talk) 11:43, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Actively edited article, so I just looked at the diff of total changes from the last few days. It looks like [[classical liberalism|classic British liberal]] was changed to [[classical liberalism|classical British liberal]]. Is that controversial? In general, I agree that when it comes to "described himself as a _____", we should stick to the language he uses. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:32, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

We should probably just follow what he said. I can see the rationale of the person who changed it to align with the real term Classical liberalism but we should follow what he said. North8000 (talk) 20:37, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Now in the limelight at NPOVN

I am going away for a while now. Elinruby (talk) 12:37, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Just adding a direct link: Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Need_some_patient_people_at_Jordan_Peterson — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:29, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks The stuff about Notley being a parasite pretty much blew my fuses. Elinruby (talk) 20:02, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Jubilee medal

Was curious about the Queen Elizabeth II Platinum Jubilee Medal mentioned at the bottom, supported just by a primary sourced-list of thousands of names without context plus a tweet. A google search for even just '"platinum jubilee medal" "jordan peterson"' returns no reliable independent sources at all. I would think that given Peterson's celebrity this would've been covered somewhere, but I can't even find anything confirming it was awarded to this Jordan Peterson (not that I doubt it -- it's just surprising). I searched the talk page archives and it doesn't look like it's ever come up. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:26, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah it happened but nobody cared because, frankly, nobody really cared about the provincial Jubilee medals that were mostly a way for premiers to give a prize to people they liked. The premier at the time in Alberta was Jason Kenney. Simonm223 (talk) 19:42, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

For the Americans playing at home, think Trump wannabe. Elinruby (talk) 20:04, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

A premier so broadly unpopular by the end of his term that Alberta did something unprecedented and elected an NDP provincial government. Simonm223 (talk) 20:07, 16 May 2024 (UTC)