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 10 | ← | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | → | Archive 20 |
@ Tsavage and Kolya Butternut:, I think the removal of this opinion from Current Affairs is reasonable [ [1]]. It seems more about insulting and less about actually pointing out errors in Peterson's comments. I don't see that the magazine nor the editor are notable enough to warrant inclusion of such an inflammatory quote. KB, you said their was a prior conversation about this. Can you point to it? Springee ( talk) 20:27, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
[t]he startling success of his elevated arguments for the importance of order has made him the most significant conservative thinker to appear in the English-speaking world in a generation." Kolya Butternut ( talk) 20:55, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
his vacuous words are a kind of Rorschach test onto which countless interpretations can be projected" can only be reasonably read as, "his words convey no particular meaning, such that anyone can take them to mean anything they like" or "his words, devoid of meaning, are worthless". Sensational language aside, that sounds pretty damaging in any context, from any source. In this case, I can find little on Nathan J. Robinson or Current Affairs, nothing that suggests the quote as being more reliable or significant than numerous other published Peterson comments by journalists. And what does it have to do with Peterson's political views -- how does one opinion about how differing views may have been arrived at fit here? -- Tsavage ( talk) 22:07, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Peterson has been seen "as everything from a fascist apologist to an Enlightenment liberal,We shouldn't paraphrase or trim someone's words just because we find their meaning to be objectionable, that would be whitewashing. There's no reason to exclude negative material as an attributed opinion. – dlthewave ☎ 03:00, 21 April 2021 (UTC)because his vacuous words are a kind of Rorschach test onto which countless interpretations can be projected."
Is there anyone who would be opposed to summarizing Robinson's view and removing the "vacuous" word as a compromise solution? I think that addresses the bigger BLP policy concern. Springee ( talk) 17:08, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Peterson, meanwhile, was completely vacuous." [4] We should keep looking. Kolya Butternut ( talk) 18:17, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
more than anything else." [6] Kolya Butternut ( talk) 20:33, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." All of the opinion pieces discussed are RS for opinions. "Vacuous" is a significant viewpoint. We could cite someone more prominent, but their language wouldn't be any less harsh. Chomsky isn't just saying that he agrees with Robinson, he communicates that the Robinson piece is noteworthy. Kolya Butternut ( talk) 22:22, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
People ... seeing him as everything from a fascist apologist to an Enlightenment liberalis Robinson's opinion, undeveloped further in the article. Which people "people' called Peterson a "fascist apologist", who called him "an Enlightenment liberal", from where was this data gathered? From what we know of it, is this publication likely to have a robust fact-checking process?
his vacuous words are a kind of Rorschach test onto which countless interpretations can be projected, is an argument that it's impossible to discover Peterson's views from his work, so what is it doing here, is it rebutting the other sources that do categorize his views?
Trakking, There has been an ongoing discussion regarding the content you edited here [ [8]]. You might offer your view to the discussion above. Springee ( talk) 20:40, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Comment Not sure what to make of the near complete wall of silence when it comes to determining if Robinson/Current Affairs is RS, and if so, for fact, opinion, or both. Isn't determining reliable sources the first basic function in WP editing? Has there already been a consensus discussion that I'm not aware of (please let me know!)? Is everyone waiting for this to just fade away, so no decision has to be made? -- Tsavage ( talk) 01:27, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Context Matters - sources are not "reliable" in the abstract; they are reliable (or not) for specific claims. Currently, the only use of Current Affairs is for an attributed opinion belonging to Nathan Robinson. Is Current Affairs a RS for Nathan Robinson's opinions? Hell yes, it is. Newimpartial ( talk) 02:50, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
@ Kolya Butternut You reverted this edit:
In The Guardian, Gareth Hutchens wrote, regarding "media outlets trying to come to terms with" Peterson, that "he’s been described as 'rightwing' or 'far right' by journalists who have apparently forgotten how to think."[102]
Can you explain your reason for reversion? In the edit comment you said "Undue quote insulting journalists without context" -- please explain. -- Tsavage ( talk) 16:43, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
a news reporter and editordoesn't grant recognized expertise in right-wing politics or any of Peterson's other areas of interest. Newimpartial ( talk) 21:47, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author.-- WP:NEWSORG
recognized expertson journalism are scholars, not journalists, just as the recognized experts on the second world war or on psychoanalysis are scholars, not journalists.
recognized experts on journalism are scholars, not journalistsFar as I know, journalism is a university discipline, journalists get degrees in journalism, journalism professors are often ex/journalists, and editors (who are journalists) are the front line experts in understanding and managing journalists, so I'm pretty confident journalists are sufficiently qualified to speak expertly on journalism. By your measure, shouldn't political scientists be the experts determining political views?
WP:DUEHutchens' comments on the assessment of Peterson's political views are significant by virtue of having passed the The Guardian's op-ed review process and been published. We should present all significant views.
special connection between [Peterson] and the Australian mediaWhat type of special connection? And what's wrong with Australia? In any case, google "Jordan Peterson Australia", as I did, and you'll find him all over Australia: multiple lectures in multiple cities, appeared in all sorts of media, including on a TV debate panel with various members of parliament from different parties, and an hour+ interview by a former Deputy Prime Minister of Australia. Is that what you mean?
Nathan J. Robinson is more plausible for inclusionReally? From the available evidence, he's practically self-published: he is the founder, presumably owner, editor-in-chief, and (as of 2017) the only staff, of his magazine, Current Affairs. His editorial oversight is himself. He doesn't seem like a reliable source for sweeping statements about the entirety of a BLP subject's work. -- Tsavage ( talk) 23:49, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Do you have any basis for any of that in policy, or did you just make all of it up? Newimpartial ( talk) 03:16, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Acousmana You reverted the Hutchens item with the reason: Unde, a journalist criticising journalists for criticising Perterson?
(Geographical location has nothing to do with "mattering" -- we do have the Internet.)
Hutchens is stating that the main areas of opinion that are used to establish Peterson's views as consistent with "the right"/"conservative" were views shared by prominent thinkers on the left, example: Noam Chomsky and Christopher Hitchens. How is that UNDUE when it directly relates to the subject at hand, which is assessments of Peterson's political views?
It shouldn't be overlooked that the "conservative" label is not simply a neutral term describing political orientation, it is also commonly used as a pejorative (by the left) and as a partisan claim (by the right), [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] especially so in the US in 2017-2018, the period from which ALL of the quotes in this section or taken.
My original suggestion was that none of this detailed listing of opinions belongs here, it's too recent and unclear. However, the acting consensus at the moment seems to be that adding opinions is preferable. -- Tsavage ( talk) 17:05, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
we can assume a professional oversight and fact-checking process and op-ed editors; please stop making inaccurate assertions, T. Thanks. Newimpartial ( talk) 23:38, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
we can assume a professional oversight and fact-checking process and op-ed editors, but neither WP:RSOPINION nor WP:V supports that assertion - I ask you again, why do you think the opinion of a Guardian Australian journalist merits inclusion in this article? Do you have a policy-based reason for inclusion, or just YOULIKEIT? Because unsupported claims about fact-checking are not, in fact, a policy-relevant reason. Newimpartial ( talk) 02:29, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
a non-notable commentator, in an area of expertise that is not hisIn the local "Political views" context, the majority of opinions (and they are all opinions, none are sufficient for Wikipedia to say, "Peterson is a conservative") are from "non-notable" journalists, and there's even a lengthy, fairly nonsensical one from a semi-obscure satire writer (Nathan Robinson) writing in his own publication. What's the special case here?
a cherry-picked quoteIn what way? It's a quote, from a piece evaluating Peterson, that addresses Peterson's political views in a summary way. The material you suggest doesn't summarize; there are subsections that go into more detail on areas that we've called political. Do you have an alternative wording?
Is this on topic for the "Political views" intro paragraph?:
Opinions? -- Tsavage ( talk) 00:16, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
This directly addresses the topic (identification of Peterson's political views), is from an RS publication that's referenced multiple other times in this article, and is well-within the level of authority established by other sources in the section (ie: journalists, political commentators, and a satire writer). -- Tsavage ( talk) 19:03, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Opinions? -- Tsavage
Wow. So I guess David Berkowitz and the National Enquirer are reliable sources as well.SEAL, meet LION. LION, meet SEAL. Newimpartial ( talk) 12:43, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
But, per
WP:RSOPINION (and
WP:SEALION), the only reliability
question for opinions is Is the source reliable in reporting the opinion in question? There is no doubt that Current Affairs reliably reports Robinson's opinions. The other issues for inclusion are BALANCE and DUE, and a major factor in DUE, per policy, is the Notability of the person whose opinion is under consideration. Relevance is another factor, and it can certainly be used to rule out the opinions of David Berkowitz unless some stronger connection to this article's subject is demonstrated; this is an entirely different question from whether the National Enquirer can be relied upon to report those opinions accurately ...
Newimpartial (
talk) 16:43, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
This para is about one quarter (25%) of the section "Academia and political correctness". This seems like way too much weight for a single person's critique, especially considering that it adds no actual info about Peterson or his views:
Psychologist Daniel Burston has critiqued Peterson's views on academia. On Marxism, postmodernism, feminism, Burston faults Peterson's thought as oversimplified.[107] On the general state of academia, Burston generally agrees[108] with Peterson's criticisms of identity politics in academia,[111] as well as Peterson's charge that academia is "riddled with Left-wing bias and political correctness".[108] On summarizing the decline of the university, Burston disagrees with Peterson's critique against the Left, arguing that Peterson overlooks the degree to which the current decline of the humanities and social sciences are due to university administration focus.[108]
Additionally:
I suggest this be removed as UNDUE. -- Tsavage ( talk) 02:21, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
flimsy opinion piecesYou've read my opinion, stated several times, that I don't think any of this stuff should be included, that we should be spare in our summaries and not include all sorts of opinions mostly generated in the heat of the moment in 2018. Since the consensus here seems otherwise, the other approach is to include balancing views, and try to remove unbalanced views. -- Tsavage ( talk) 15:18, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm afraid this is approaching or has already entered
WP:SEALION territory. Specifically, Source, context, and weight are interrelated, no one categorically trumps the others. In this case, for example, I could argue
... introduces an absurd WALLOFTEXT, special pleading against a certain source. The framing statement I quoted, however, is sophistical: within the framework of
WP:V and
WP:RS, tertiary sources (where available) are generally preferred to secondary and secondary to primary, and high-quality (notably academic) sources are preferred to magazines and broadsheet news which, in turn, are preferred to sources offering less expertise and/or editorial oversight. It isn't a matter of Source, context, and weight
- none of which are actually terms we use as WP editors in the senses implied by this phrasing. Hence, I scent the marine mammal once again.
Newimpartial (
talk) 20:10, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
just someone who disagreeswith me, at least sometimes. Tsavage, on this matter anyway, is someone who sees the WP policy environment as non-binding guidelines within which they can make up - and spontaneously modify - their own arguments. We have a term for that, somewhere... Newimpartial ( talk) 22:28, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Any other opinions on this due weight question, stated in the original post?-- Tsavage ( talk) 16:06, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
easily due, especially in light of the fact that it's one of the few peer reviewed academic publications on the topic that we have
The source appears to be a chapter from a book by Burston ... ... only a single viewpoint. ... overall critical ... important that it not be given undue weight in a BLP.
I think it's fine to include Burston's views, boring as they are, but they would make more sense within a general "Reception" section.
I haven't been convinced this is DUE.
As the highest-quality source that has been offered, Butston is clearly DUE for inclusion.
Re; There is no need to provide reviews in addition to the factual information: the reader is not underserved by simply having the facts, and is possibly mislead by being presented only one arbitrarily selected viewpoint about those facts.
- I completely disagree with this framing. Presenting the views of the article's subject, without critical reception, implicitly presents those views as though they were factual. One crucial encyclopaedic function is to present the views of authors in context of relevant scholarship, rather than uncritically reflecting the views of authors (and, in this case, their sycophants).
Newimpartial (
talk) 17:00, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Trakking asserts that Peterson is an "author of religio-philosophical literature". IMHO, that adjective applies to Maps of Meaning, but not his subsequent two books.
On the other hand, was there consensus that Peterson is not a best-selling author? I have a hard time keeping up with all the arguments about this article! Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 19:27, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
religio-philosophical, nor is the term part of the stable version of this article. If I am not mistaken, the long-standing version was actually
self-help. Newimpartial ( talk) 22:11, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Jordan Peterson has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Needs rewording: 'During his time at Harvard, he studied aggression arising from drug and alcohol abuse[21] and showed great readiness to take on research projects, even unconventional ones.'
Taking on unconventional projects doesn't warrant wording in this manner and it isn't clear what this means.
Maybe: 'showed great readiness to take on a range of research projects.' Gibsonfarabow ( talk) 15:38, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. This wording is supported by the source, Lopez notes that Peterson is willing to take on any research project, no matter how unconventional.ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 16:41, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Nonsense, Harvard is a reputable source. And the wording is supported by the source. Please estabilish a consensus for this alteration. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.70.27.106 ( talk • contribs)
Can someone add to this article that peterson is not that popular amongst actual conservatives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.44.238.206 ( talk • contribs)
Why would I need to provide evidence, you're the one who made the claim that he is popular amongst actual conservatives, therefore the ONUS is on YOU to provide the evidence.
I would say that simply saying he is popular amongst conservatives is reductive. He has a fairly diverse “fan base” and to simply describe his admirers as right wing or conservative puts him unfairly, I would say, into a box. Dennehystag18 ( talk) 07:59, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Jordan Peterson has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under the "Antisemitism" heading of the page, the following statement is contained, "Peterson has made many statements on antisemitism that have been received poorly. He has defended other antisemites, such as Carl Jung and Karl Lueger, calling the latter a genius."
However, nothing in either of the sources noted at the end of that statement (#176 or #177) make any reference to him ever publicly praising Karl Lueger in any way. The only reference to Lueger is a caricatured version of Peterson in a Marvel comic book (as the Red Skull) praising Lueger, not Jordan Peterson himself.
Either an appropriate source showing explicit praise of Lueger by Peterson should be added, or this part of the statement should be removed. Lwriv7 ( talk) 15:02, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
but if he’s praised the genius of turn-of-the-20th-century Austrian politician and notorious anti-Semite Karl Lueger, he doesn’t seem to have done so publicly." ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 15:28, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
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 10 | ← | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | → | Archive 20 |
@ Tsavage and Kolya Butternut:, I think the removal of this opinion from Current Affairs is reasonable [ [1]]. It seems more about insulting and less about actually pointing out errors in Peterson's comments. I don't see that the magazine nor the editor are notable enough to warrant inclusion of such an inflammatory quote. KB, you said their was a prior conversation about this. Can you point to it? Springee ( talk) 20:27, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
[t]he startling success of his elevated arguments for the importance of order has made him the most significant conservative thinker to appear in the English-speaking world in a generation." Kolya Butternut ( talk) 20:55, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
his vacuous words are a kind of Rorschach test onto which countless interpretations can be projected" can only be reasonably read as, "his words convey no particular meaning, such that anyone can take them to mean anything they like" or "his words, devoid of meaning, are worthless". Sensational language aside, that sounds pretty damaging in any context, from any source. In this case, I can find little on Nathan J. Robinson or Current Affairs, nothing that suggests the quote as being more reliable or significant than numerous other published Peterson comments by journalists. And what does it have to do with Peterson's political views -- how does one opinion about how differing views may have been arrived at fit here? -- Tsavage ( talk) 22:07, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Peterson has been seen "as everything from a fascist apologist to an Enlightenment liberal,We shouldn't paraphrase or trim someone's words just because we find their meaning to be objectionable, that would be whitewashing. There's no reason to exclude negative material as an attributed opinion. – dlthewave ☎ 03:00, 21 April 2021 (UTC)because his vacuous words are a kind of Rorschach test onto which countless interpretations can be projected."
Is there anyone who would be opposed to summarizing Robinson's view and removing the "vacuous" word as a compromise solution? I think that addresses the bigger BLP policy concern. Springee ( talk) 17:08, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Peterson, meanwhile, was completely vacuous." [4] We should keep looking. Kolya Butternut ( talk) 18:17, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
more than anything else." [6] Kolya Butternut ( talk) 20:33, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." All of the opinion pieces discussed are RS for opinions. "Vacuous" is a significant viewpoint. We could cite someone more prominent, but their language wouldn't be any less harsh. Chomsky isn't just saying that he agrees with Robinson, he communicates that the Robinson piece is noteworthy. Kolya Butternut ( talk) 22:22, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
People ... seeing him as everything from a fascist apologist to an Enlightenment liberalis Robinson's opinion, undeveloped further in the article. Which people "people' called Peterson a "fascist apologist", who called him "an Enlightenment liberal", from where was this data gathered? From what we know of it, is this publication likely to have a robust fact-checking process?
his vacuous words are a kind of Rorschach test onto which countless interpretations can be projected, is an argument that it's impossible to discover Peterson's views from his work, so what is it doing here, is it rebutting the other sources that do categorize his views?
Trakking, There has been an ongoing discussion regarding the content you edited here [ [8]]. You might offer your view to the discussion above. Springee ( talk) 20:40, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Comment Not sure what to make of the near complete wall of silence when it comes to determining if Robinson/Current Affairs is RS, and if so, for fact, opinion, or both. Isn't determining reliable sources the first basic function in WP editing? Has there already been a consensus discussion that I'm not aware of (please let me know!)? Is everyone waiting for this to just fade away, so no decision has to be made? -- Tsavage ( talk) 01:27, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Context Matters - sources are not "reliable" in the abstract; they are reliable (or not) for specific claims. Currently, the only use of Current Affairs is for an attributed opinion belonging to Nathan Robinson. Is Current Affairs a RS for Nathan Robinson's opinions? Hell yes, it is. Newimpartial ( talk) 02:50, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
@ Kolya Butternut You reverted this edit:
In The Guardian, Gareth Hutchens wrote, regarding "media outlets trying to come to terms with" Peterson, that "he’s been described as 'rightwing' or 'far right' by journalists who have apparently forgotten how to think."[102]
Can you explain your reason for reversion? In the edit comment you said "Undue quote insulting journalists without context" -- please explain. -- Tsavage ( talk) 16:43, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
a news reporter and editordoesn't grant recognized expertise in right-wing politics or any of Peterson's other areas of interest. Newimpartial ( talk) 21:47, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author.-- WP:NEWSORG
recognized expertson journalism are scholars, not journalists, just as the recognized experts on the second world war or on psychoanalysis are scholars, not journalists.
recognized experts on journalism are scholars, not journalistsFar as I know, journalism is a university discipline, journalists get degrees in journalism, journalism professors are often ex/journalists, and editors (who are journalists) are the front line experts in understanding and managing journalists, so I'm pretty confident journalists are sufficiently qualified to speak expertly on journalism. By your measure, shouldn't political scientists be the experts determining political views?
WP:DUEHutchens' comments on the assessment of Peterson's political views are significant by virtue of having passed the The Guardian's op-ed review process and been published. We should present all significant views.
special connection between [Peterson] and the Australian mediaWhat type of special connection? And what's wrong with Australia? In any case, google "Jordan Peterson Australia", as I did, and you'll find him all over Australia: multiple lectures in multiple cities, appeared in all sorts of media, including on a TV debate panel with various members of parliament from different parties, and an hour+ interview by a former Deputy Prime Minister of Australia. Is that what you mean?
Nathan J. Robinson is more plausible for inclusionReally? From the available evidence, he's practically self-published: he is the founder, presumably owner, editor-in-chief, and (as of 2017) the only staff, of his magazine, Current Affairs. His editorial oversight is himself. He doesn't seem like a reliable source for sweeping statements about the entirety of a BLP subject's work. -- Tsavage ( talk) 23:49, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Do you have any basis for any of that in policy, or did you just make all of it up? Newimpartial ( talk) 03:16, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Acousmana You reverted the Hutchens item with the reason: Unde, a journalist criticising journalists for criticising Perterson?
(Geographical location has nothing to do with "mattering" -- we do have the Internet.)
Hutchens is stating that the main areas of opinion that are used to establish Peterson's views as consistent with "the right"/"conservative" were views shared by prominent thinkers on the left, example: Noam Chomsky and Christopher Hitchens. How is that UNDUE when it directly relates to the subject at hand, which is assessments of Peterson's political views?
It shouldn't be overlooked that the "conservative" label is not simply a neutral term describing political orientation, it is also commonly used as a pejorative (by the left) and as a partisan claim (by the right), [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] especially so in the US in 2017-2018, the period from which ALL of the quotes in this section or taken.
My original suggestion was that none of this detailed listing of opinions belongs here, it's too recent and unclear. However, the acting consensus at the moment seems to be that adding opinions is preferable. -- Tsavage ( talk) 17:05, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
we can assume a professional oversight and fact-checking process and op-ed editors; please stop making inaccurate assertions, T. Thanks. Newimpartial ( talk) 23:38, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
we can assume a professional oversight and fact-checking process and op-ed editors, but neither WP:RSOPINION nor WP:V supports that assertion - I ask you again, why do you think the opinion of a Guardian Australian journalist merits inclusion in this article? Do you have a policy-based reason for inclusion, or just YOULIKEIT? Because unsupported claims about fact-checking are not, in fact, a policy-relevant reason. Newimpartial ( talk) 02:29, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
a non-notable commentator, in an area of expertise that is not hisIn the local "Political views" context, the majority of opinions (and they are all opinions, none are sufficient for Wikipedia to say, "Peterson is a conservative") are from "non-notable" journalists, and there's even a lengthy, fairly nonsensical one from a semi-obscure satire writer (Nathan Robinson) writing in his own publication. What's the special case here?
a cherry-picked quoteIn what way? It's a quote, from a piece evaluating Peterson, that addresses Peterson's political views in a summary way. The material you suggest doesn't summarize; there are subsections that go into more detail on areas that we've called political. Do you have an alternative wording?
Is this on topic for the "Political views" intro paragraph?:
Opinions? -- Tsavage ( talk) 00:16, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
This directly addresses the topic (identification of Peterson's political views), is from an RS publication that's referenced multiple other times in this article, and is well-within the level of authority established by other sources in the section (ie: journalists, political commentators, and a satire writer). -- Tsavage ( talk) 19:03, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Opinions? -- Tsavage
Wow. So I guess David Berkowitz and the National Enquirer are reliable sources as well.SEAL, meet LION. LION, meet SEAL. Newimpartial ( talk) 12:43, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
But, per
WP:RSOPINION (and
WP:SEALION), the only reliability
question for opinions is Is the source reliable in reporting the opinion in question? There is no doubt that Current Affairs reliably reports Robinson's opinions. The other issues for inclusion are BALANCE and DUE, and a major factor in DUE, per policy, is the Notability of the person whose opinion is under consideration. Relevance is another factor, and it can certainly be used to rule out the opinions of David Berkowitz unless some stronger connection to this article's subject is demonstrated; this is an entirely different question from whether the National Enquirer can be relied upon to report those opinions accurately ...
Newimpartial (
talk) 16:43, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
This para is about one quarter (25%) of the section "Academia and political correctness". This seems like way too much weight for a single person's critique, especially considering that it adds no actual info about Peterson or his views:
Psychologist Daniel Burston has critiqued Peterson's views on academia. On Marxism, postmodernism, feminism, Burston faults Peterson's thought as oversimplified.[107] On the general state of academia, Burston generally agrees[108] with Peterson's criticisms of identity politics in academia,[111] as well as Peterson's charge that academia is "riddled with Left-wing bias and political correctness".[108] On summarizing the decline of the university, Burston disagrees with Peterson's critique against the Left, arguing that Peterson overlooks the degree to which the current decline of the humanities and social sciences are due to university administration focus.[108]
Additionally:
I suggest this be removed as UNDUE. -- Tsavage ( talk) 02:21, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
flimsy opinion piecesYou've read my opinion, stated several times, that I don't think any of this stuff should be included, that we should be spare in our summaries and not include all sorts of opinions mostly generated in the heat of the moment in 2018. Since the consensus here seems otherwise, the other approach is to include balancing views, and try to remove unbalanced views. -- Tsavage ( talk) 15:18, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm afraid this is approaching or has already entered
WP:SEALION territory. Specifically, Source, context, and weight are interrelated, no one categorically trumps the others. In this case, for example, I could argue
... introduces an absurd WALLOFTEXT, special pleading against a certain source. The framing statement I quoted, however, is sophistical: within the framework of
WP:V and
WP:RS, tertiary sources (where available) are generally preferred to secondary and secondary to primary, and high-quality (notably academic) sources are preferred to magazines and broadsheet news which, in turn, are preferred to sources offering less expertise and/or editorial oversight. It isn't a matter of Source, context, and weight
- none of which are actually terms we use as WP editors in the senses implied by this phrasing. Hence, I scent the marine mammal once again.
Newimpartial (
talk) 20:10, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
just someone who disagreeswith me, at least sometimes. Tsavage, on this matter anyway, is someone who sees the WP policy environment as non-binding guidelines within which they can make up - and spontaneously modify - their own arguments. We have a term for that, somewhere... Newimpartial ( talk) 22:28, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Any other opinions on this due weight question, stated in the original post?-- Tsavage ( talk) 16:06, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
easily due, especially in light of the fact that it's one of the few peer reviewed academic publications on the topic that we have
The source appears to be a chapter from a book by Burston ... ... only a single viewpoint. ... overall critical ... important that it not be given undue weight in a BLP.
I think it's fine to include Burston's views, boring as they are, but they would make more sense within a general "Reception" section.
I haven't been convinced this is DUE.
As the highest-quality source that has been offered, Butston is clearly DUE for inclusion.
Re; There is no need to provide reviews in addition to the factual information: the reader is not underserved by simply having the facts, and is possibly mislead by being presented only one arbitrarily selected viewpoint about those facts.
- I completely disagree with this framing. Presenting the views of the article's subject, without critical reception, implicitly presents those views as though they were factual. One crucial encyclopaedic function is to present the views of authors in context of relevant scholarship, rather than uncritically reflecting the views of authors (and, in this case, their sycophants).
Newimpartial (
talk) 17:00, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Trakking asserts that Peterson is an "author of religio-philosophical literature". IMHO, that adjective applies to Maps of Meaning, but not his subsequent two books.
On the other hand, was there consensus that Peterson is not a best-selling author? I have a hard time keeping up with all the arguments about this article! Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 19:27, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
religio-philosophical, nor is the term part of the stable version of this article. If I am not mistaken, the long-standing version was actually
self-help. Newimpartial ( talk) 22:11, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Jordan Peterson has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Needs rewording: 'During his time at Harvard, he studied aggression arising from drug and alcohol abuse[21] and showed great readiness to take on research projects, even unconventional ones.'
Taking on unconventional projects doesn't warrant wording in this manner and it isn't clear what this means.
Maybe: 'showed great readiness to take on a range of research projects.' Gibsonfarabow ( talk) 15:38, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. This wording is supported by the source, Lopez notes that Peterson is willing to take on any research project, no matter how unconventional.ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 16:41, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Nonsense, Harvard is a reputable source. And the wording is supported by the source. Please estabilish a consensus for this alteration. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.70.27.106 ( talk • contribs)
Can someone add to this article that peterson is not that popular amongst actual conservatives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.44.238.206 ( talk • contribs)
Why would I need to provide evidence, you're the one who made the claim that he is popular amongst actual conservatives, therefore the ONUS is on YOU to provide the evidence.
I would say that simply saying he is popular amongst conservatives is reductive. He has a fairly diverse “fan base” and to simply describe his admirers as right wing or conservative puts him unfairly, I would say, into a box. Dennehystag18 ( talk) 07:59, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Jordan Peterson has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under the "Antisemitism" heading of the page, the following statement is contained, "Peterson has made many statements on antisemitism that have been received poorly. He has defended other antisemites, such as Carl Jung and Karl Lueger, calling the latter a genius."
However, nothing in either of the sources noted at the end of that statement (#176 or #177) make any reference to him ever publicly praising Karl Lueger in any way. The only reference to Lueger is a caricatured version of Peterson in a Marvel comic book (as the Red Skull) praising Lueger, not Jordan Peterson himself.
Either an appropriate source showing explicit praise of Lueger by Peterson should be added, or this part of the statement should be removed. Lwriv7 ( talk) 15:02, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
but if he’s praised the genius of turn-of-the-20th-century Austrian politician and notorious anti-Semite Karl Lueger, he doesn’t seem to have done so publicly." ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 15:28, 12 October 2021 (UTC)