From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

New controversy

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

Haha. The Guardian is a trashy magazine. They have zero authority behind their words. :) Trakking ( talk) 10:14, 1 September 2023 (UTC) reply
The Guardian is agreed to be generally reliable per WP:RS/P. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED, so criticism can be included. We generally attribute it to the source, e.g. "Ella Creamer said X". Zenomonoz ( talk) 22:43, 9 November 2023 (UTC) reply
In most cases it would be the publishers who choose the quotes, not the authors. Maybe Peterson is an exception but we have no proof of that. If anything, a guideline to stop this sort of thing happening would protect authors from overenthusiastic publishers putting things on their dust jackets that make them look stupid. (Those so inclined may mentally insert their own joke about Peterson's multi-coloured jacket here.) Anyway, this is not really about Peterson, who has quite enough controversies of his own. I think it should be mentioned in the article about the book but it doesn't need to be included here. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 12:45, 1 September 2023 (UTC) reply

« 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) reply

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) reply
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) reply
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) reply
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) reply
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) reply
I don't see how a contempt of court charge is directly related here EvergreenFir (talk) 17:48, 17 October 2023 (UTC) reply
WP:SYNTH. –– FormalDude (talk) 22:07, 17 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • 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) reply

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) reply

 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) reply

Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2024

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

 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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

New controversy

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

Haha. The Guardian is a trashy magazine. They have zero authority behind their words. :) Trakking ( talk) 10:14, 1 September 2023 (UTC) reply
The Guardian is agreed to be generally reliable per WP:RS/P. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED, so criticism can be included. We generally attribute it to the source, e.g. "Ella Creamer said X". Zenomonoz ( talk) 22:43, 9 November 2023 (UTC) reply
In most cases it would be the publishers who choose the quotes, not the authors. Maybe Peterson is an exception but we have no proof of that. If anything, a guideline to stop this sort of thing happening would protect authors from overenthusiastic publishers putting things on their dust jackets that make them look stupid. (Those so inclined may mentally insert their own joke about Peterson's multi-coloured jacket here.) Anyway, this is not really about Peterson, who has quite enough controversies of his own. I think it should be mentioned in the article about the book but it doesn't need to be included here. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 12:45, 1 September 2023 (UTC) reply

« 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) reply

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) reply
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) reply
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) reply
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) reply
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) reply
I don't see how a contempt of court charge is directly related here EvergreenFir (talk) 17:48, 17 October 2023 (UTC) reply
WP:SYNTH. –– FormalDude (talk) 22:07, 17 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • 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) reply

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) reply

 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) reply

Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2024

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

 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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply


Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook