Talk:Jordan Peterson

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)Reply

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

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

And yet those same men quote him or share his videos on a regular basis. Maybe not quite so much the Tate-loving incel types as the controlling, narcissistic misogynists, but they're all under the same umbrella. His reputation amongst the general public certainly reflects that but this article does not. His academic accomplishments are factual but they aren't what he's most known for, and the fact that he's on the verge of losing his license for unprofessional conduct certainly supports that. 24.113.229.172 (talk) 23:56, 4 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

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

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

Posting this here because Trakking appears to have an issue with the changes I made. He's free to revert specific ones or make changes, but i'm going to need to see policy based arguments as to why you reverted the section about the Newman interview? Given that's what the source says. The source does not say that she was criticized by youtube commenters and journalists for her 'performance'. That is a gross misrepresentation of the source and inconsistent in every way with Wikipedia's core policies. Chuckstablers (talk) 15:37, 21 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Your edits violated many of Wikipedia's fundamental guidelines:

• WP:CON: There has been a consensus in Talk for including information such as the citation count.
• WP:VANDAL: Addition of incomplete sentences such as "He has been criticized" and "He has" in the middle of nowhere is pure vandalism.
• MOS:CLAIM: Changing neutral words like "attribute" and "argue" to "claim" and "assert" is not acceptable. (Changing different neutral verbs to a repetitive "said" is also against this rule.)
• WP:DISRUPTIVE: Removing authoritative sources such as Peterson's reference to Fred Singer is disruptive editing that has no place in an encyclopedia.
• WP:MOS: Your edits are full of typos such as "condemneds" and "teach in" (missing a hyphen), violating the fundamental principle of writing correctly.
• WP:NPOV: You accused Peterson of making "broad generalizations" etc. which is non-neutral wording.
• WP:WQ: Removing sourced information and writing "who cares" is showing a lack of etiquette.
• WP:RS: Propagandistic and ideological sources such as Jacobin are not considered reliable sources.

But don't worry, other people will revert your vandalism and disruptive edits. My reversion has already received thanks from other people as well. I would be surprised if you received consensus for even a single one of your edits. Trakking (talk) 16:23, 21 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Not to nitpick, but per WP:RSP, Jacobin is actually considered a reliable, though biased, source. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Rhododendrites: I see that you have already begun the tedious work of cleaning up this disruptive mess. I have never seen a user commit so many violations at one time. We ought to revert back to status quo and let that user seek consensus for any additional edits.

@Dumuzid: Thanks for the information, but the Jacobin source was used to claim that Peterson is a "member of the far-right". It was just ideological propaganda and nothing else. That edit has already been reverted, by the way. Trakking (talk) 16:41, 21 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

It's the old "lots of edits where some look constructive and some don't" conundrum. Hard to say what the best procedure is. Some of the edits look good to me, so I just fixed what I saw as the most problematic of the edits (the fragment and the "member of the far-right" claim per my edit summary). I'm inclined to think cleanup is preferable to just a full-undo in this case, but it's complicated. Regardless, I don't think characterizing obvious mistakes as vandalism is helpful. Ditto characterizing removing reliable sources as disruptive -- just because a reliable source exists doesn't mean it has to be included after all (WP:ONUS and whatnot). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:50, 21 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

For what it's worth, Rhododendrites, I think you have the right approach. The constructive stuff will find its way back in. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:59, 21 July 2024 (UTC)eReply

To be clear, I am not vouching for the edit, merely wanted to clear up an apparent mix up. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:58, 21 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Trakking; Jacobin is on the reliable source list. It isn't ideological propaganda; that's false. It's the statement made by a reliable source that he is a member of the far right. I'm fine with it being removed if you feel it's not due, but I'd like to see an argument for it in the future? Thanks. Chuckstablers (talk) 19:27, 21 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

There's a long range of counter-arguments throughout the article:

• Peterson identifies as a classical liberal—a centrist position.
• Peterson has stated that he is usually mistaken as right-wing, supporting some policies that are usually considered left-wing.
• Commentators such as Cathy Young have denounced the accusation of far-right as unsubstantiated.
• Peterson is equally critical of identity politics of the left and right.
• Many of Peterson's associates are centrists or centre-leftists—Joe Rogan, Bret Weinstein, Russell Brand etc.

Trakking (talk) 19:52, 21 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

That isn't a policy based argument. We use reliable sources. A reliable source calls him a member of the far right. Your original research on his positions do not cancel that out. You would need a reliable source SPECIFICALLY saying that he is not a member of the far right. Do you have one? Chuckstablers (talk) 19:57, 21 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

No, the burden of proof lies on the part making a claim. You have only found ONE source in support of your claim—a source identified by Wikipedia as "biased" and therefore problematic. Meanwhile a range of commentators have refuted this accusation. Trakking (talk) 20:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Trakking, could you let me know where the consensus in Talk for including information such as the citation count might be found? The information presented here does not correspond to what I see included in other BLPs. Newimpartial (talk) 17:08, 21 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Newimpartial, someone removed the citation count earlier but were reverted because they did not receive consensus for that edit in Talk. Trakking (talk) 17:14, 21 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

OK, but could you point me to the relevant discussion on Talk? If there wasn't one, then I think it's safe to say the content in question no longer has WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS (if at least three editors have objected). It may of course have explicit Talk page consensus - which is what I'd like to find out. Newimpartial (talk) 17:27, 21 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

We're including citations to his books. That's my issue. I'm fine having it there if we're only including citations to his actual academic articles. Chuckstablers (talk) 19:29, 21 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

WP:CON: Where is the consensus? They're not indefinite.

WP: VANDALISM: Which were fixed by the time I was done.

WP:MOS: teach-in is a term. It's used in the source.... It's a word referring to a sit in on a campus where people come to teach others. In this case it was a teach-in held by a hundred trans and non binary students on campus. That's not a protest. They are different words referring to different things.

WP:NPOV: That was what the source said. The source used those words exactly. But I've since changed it to now make it clear who exactly is saying those words.

WP:WQ: Yes, I removed content that I felt was given undue weight. I think the only real significant section I REMOVED instead of rewrote/replaced was his economic beliefs section, given that it was two sentences sourced I believe to a youtube video of his? Don't really see an issue with that. If you have some argument as to why this is WP:WQ

WP:RS: Jacobin is a reliable source according to the perennial source list.

Your comment that "But don't worry, other people will revert your vandalism and disruptive edits. My reversion has already received thanks from other people as well..." is needlessly inflammatory and inconsistent with a constructive editing environment. Please reassess your approach. I'm open to people changing it (I've already cleaned it up to a large extent) and to policy based arguments. Cheers. Chuckstablers (talk) 19:53, 21 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yesterday this article was under assault by some new user making a thousand edits that were disruptive and destructive. The user removed large parts of information without explanation, they cluttered the article with typos and grammatical errors, they tried to add extremely ideological language to the very first line of the article referencing a source identified as biased by Wikipedia guidelines, and they violated all sorts of rules such as MOS:CLAIM. They did not receive any explicit support in Talk for any specific edit either. It was just pure vandalism and disruptive editing. If that user wants to make any drastic change to the article, they must argue for it here and seek consensus. We have had major debates about minor edits in the past—some random new user is not allowed to turn the entire article upside down without discussion. Usually there are many different users reverting this sort of vandalism on this article, but Wikipedia is rather dormant during summer and some of them might not be back until a short while, so I decided to take action. Trakking (talk) 09:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I support your revert. And I agree with your suggestion that if User:Chuckstablers wants to make those significant changes, he must come to the talk page first. Masterhatch (talk) 09:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Trakking, you've just violated the great big arbitration remedy at the top of this page. You should self-rv before someone opens an WP:AE. Repeatedly characterizing someone else's edits in extreme and misleading ways (saying chuckstablers did so "without explanation" when there are lengthy edit summaries in nearly every edit, for example, or calling it vandalism or disruption) is not great either in a contentious topic. There are problems introduced in the recent edits, but there are also improvements, and people have been saying for some time that this page needs some trimming/rewriting. It's not clear to me which version has fewer problems. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 11:49, 22 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

According to Wikipedia policy, one is allowed to revert more than once in instances of vandalism. How is it not vandalism to make vast unexplained removals, rampant grammatical errors, blatant policy violations, extreme ideological accusations such as calling Peterson a fascist in the introduction, and avoiding to reach any form of consensus in Talk? Every time someone else has made this sort of edits they have been reverted immediately. I’ll self-revert just in case all of that madness does not count as vandalism, but @Masterhatch is free to revert my reversion. Trakking (talk) 12:19, 22 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

WP:NOTVAND (also pinging someone to make an edit on your behalf after you've passed the 1RR threshold is not great, either). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:41, 22 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rhododendrites, could you please show me a single improvement made by that user? There have been serious attempts by other editors to improve the article quite recently, but I don’t see any signs of it in this particular instance. Trakking (talk) 12:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't know, let's just look at the first big edit here. We had a paragraph that used an op-ed rather than a reliable source to set the tone (that "Newman's performance was criticized") and downplayed the abuse which was central to that story when in fact the sources are pretty clear that the abuse is one of the major pieces of the story. So yes, that one was an improvement. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:41, 22 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Great, so there’s one arguably relevant thing out of hundreds of disruptive edits. Still, the sensible thing is to roll back the onslaught and discuss any possible changes in order to reach a consensus. The latest move that user pulled was to clutter the lede with a bunch of ”citation needed” templates even though this violates the recommendations at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section#Citations. This combined with frequent violations of MOS:CLAIM and other rules indicates that they don’t understand the basic rules of editing. Trakking (talk) 14:13, 22 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Can we just stop with the WP:BATTLEGROUND characterizations here? Still mischaracterizing the edits as "disruptive" when it's obviously not WP:DE (like repeatedly calling them vandalism, when they're obviously not). It's not an onslaught -- it's editing, some of which was sorely needed. I clicked the very first big edit and it was constructive. And it just took me about 10 seconds to fix those cn tags just now -- probably less time than it did to complain about them here. In the sum of the edits I see a few MOS:SAID issues, but also several fixes of MOS:SAID issues. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:47, 22 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the advice. Please read MOS:SAID more carefully though. The first sentence states that ”repeated use of said is considered tedious, and writers are encouraged to employ synonyms.” Not only did the user violate the MOS:CLAIM rule by changing a bunch of neutral verbs to claim and assert, they changed a bunch of neutral verbs to a repetitive said, which is also against the recommendations. Trakking (talk) 15:03, 22 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

You have misread MOS:SAID. In some types of writing, repeated use of said is considered tedious, and writers are encouraged to employ synonyms. On Wikipedia, it is more important to avoid language that makes undue implications.. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Trakking -- very much with Rhododendrites here. Vandalism is not synonymous with "not an improvement" and certainly not with "changes with which I disagree." Good faith editors will often have different viewpoints and different visions of how an article should look. That's a feature, not a bug. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:21, 22 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

The Manual of Style also states: ”In order to avoid the twin pitfalls of biased wording and tedious repetition of ’he said ... she said ...’, consider rewriting the prose to remove the need for such verbs in the first place.” Cluttering the article with ”He said” sentences is not an improvement. Trakking (talk) 15:33, 22 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Here are some concerns I see with the current state of the article:

1. "Conservative views on cultural and political issues" in the lead seems to simply fail verification and should be removed.
2. I can't find any source saying he recieved two bachelors degrees; this too seems to fail verification by current sourcing.
3. Do we normally note that a published book didn't make the NYT bestseller list? That reads pretty POV to me.
4. Nosheen Iqbal's statement that he denied the pay gap is verifiably false. I understand that this is attributed, and maybe that makes it worthy of inclusion. But it's a really bothersome take given that it's straighforwardly, factually false.
5. Why are we removing the statement that there was violence at some of the protests of Peterson?
6. "Climate change denier" fails verification in the provided sources.

Shinealittlelight (talk) 16:08, 22 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I believe that #1 is covered sufficiently, if not in the lede then later in the article. It should be easy for us to find a source for such a basic piece of information as #2. However, #3–6 are all new disruptive edits that ought to be reverted. Good job at pointing out these errors.

Once again, it would be easier just to revert back to status quo and readd separately whatever possible improvement was made in that vast amount of edits. Otherwise we are just leaving dirty job for other editors to clean up later. Trakking (talk) 17:00, 22 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

These issues are all being addressed appropriately by incremental editing, IMO.

As far as I can tell, the status quo version to which Trakking refers contained many, many passages that lacked either implicit or explicit consensus - many editors objected to these passages and elements.

Let's continue to fix issues as they are identified, through the editing process and discussion here on Talk. Let's not revert to a version that was never particularly good, just because it existed at a certain point in time. Newimpartial (talk) 17:06, 22 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

"Conservative views on cultural and political issues" seems to me like an significant oversimplification of the views for which he has attracted attention, and if it can't be sourced with that langauge, I would suggest removal. Can you point out sourcing for 1 or 2? I can't find sourcing for either one, but I haven't looked that hard. Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:07, 22 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

It's sourced. His biggest claim to fame was refusing to call trans students by their preferred pronouns. That is generally associated as a conservative view these days. Again; I'm going by RS's. If we have like a policy based concern about using RS's in this case then I'm open to it?

It certainly is true that back in 2016-2018 there was a lot of pushback against calling his views conservative, but that's not the case anymore. He's very clearly identified as a conservative figure by reliable sources after 2020-2021 when he really went downhill. Chuckstablers (talk) 20:31, 22 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Trakking; this very clearly isn't disruptive or vandalism. You've been told this mutliple times now. Please see the vandalism policy: "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism.".

Please specifically address what passages or additions or removals have been made that you feel are vandalism if you're going to keep claiming it, otherwise it needs to stop. Chuckstablers (talk) 20:37, 22 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

(edit conflict) - replying to Shinealittlelight's initial list. Some reasonable points here. Made some edits and responding to a couple below:

1. "conservative views" doesn't fail verification. Frankly, we should just get rid of the citations in the lead because anything it contains should be well-sourced in the body (as this one is).
2. two bachelor's degrees is, again, sourced in the body e.g.. No objection to removing it from the lead for other reasons, though.
3. No, that's a weird thing. Fixed.
4. Included a quote from the interview (quoted in The Guardian) and tried to summarize/fix issues with the rest, including that she received criticism for mischaracterizations.
5. Haven't looked at this one.
6. There are a lot of sources for climate. For example, there was a CCDH report which named Peterson as one of the chief figures of "New Denial" (a new approach to climate change denial which uses different strategies than the "Old Denial"). report, and reported in the verge, newsweek, bloomberg, etc. Not sure what the best approach to the article is, though, and that's probably all the time I have for edits today. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:12, 22 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for fixes on 3 and 4. On 1, can someone just provide a source? I don't see it sourced in such simplistic terms, and frankly I doubt a high quality source can be found that characterizes his views so simplistically. I missed that source on two degrees, sorry about that. On "denier" none of the sources you provide is straightforward for that claim. We need it explicitly in the source for inclusion in a BLP since it's a fairly incendiary claim. "New Deniers" is some kind of weird technical term in that report, for example. Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:25, 22 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I support purging the lede of sources as per the rationale given by Rhododendrites. It does not make sense that the first section of the lede includes 9 sources while the other sections include none. Trakking (talk) 17:30, 22 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Go for it then! I'm fine with rational changes being made if there's an error :) Chuckstablers (talk) 20:33, 22 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Though you might want to wait at this point for more input? What I'm gathering is that as long as the sources appear in the body it's fine, but just make sure that they do first I suppose. Chuckstablers (talk) 20:42, 22 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

The lead should be a summary of what is in the article. We should make sure that whatever is in the lead is in the article, and the same for the sources/cites. Then remove the cites from the lead. North8000 (talk) 18:52, 22 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I can add more reliable sources identifying him as a conservative if you would like? Chuckstablers (talk) 00:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Chuckstablers: I'm not questioning that sources widely portray him as a conservative. I'm questioning the verification of the claim He began to receive widespread attention in the late 2010s for his conservative views on cultural and political issues. This is a much more specific claim: that alleged "conservative views on cultural and political issues" are what first brought him widespread attention. I'm skeptical of that, and I don't see it in any source so far. Can you provide a source for this specific claim? Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for clarifying, I get the concern now. Feel free to remove that, I'll add it again if I find an RS specifically supporting that statement as a whole. Chuckstablers (talk) 02:07, 23 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Shinealittlelight Removed it myself (agree it's weak for that statement). Chuckstablers (talk) 02:10, 23 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Of the zillions of sources out there I sure that someone could find some that call him whatever one is looking for. Conservative has different common meanings in the US vs. Europe. Both the closest match to his ideas and his self identification is what would be called a classical liberal in the US and a liberal in Europe. Some of the positions he has taken on some of the US culture war issues are the same as those of conservatives, but that's just those. North8000 (talk) 02:24, 23 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

1.) "Of the zillions of sources out there I sure that someone could find some that call him whatever one is looking for." I would disagree. I've searched and have yet to find an RS calling him a socialist or left-wing or liberal. I've found a couple from 2017-2018 where he SAYS he is a "classical liberal". I've found a LOT that use the epiphet "conservative" or "right-wing" or more weakly, frame him with the alt-right.

2.) "Conservative has different common meanings in the US vs. Europe." That's correct to an extent, there are obviously differences but they're not THAT different. There are shared features of conservatism that are conserved in the western world and to a lesser extent the entire world. I'm not seeing the relevance though?

3.) " Both the closest match to his ideas and his self identification is what would be called a classical liberal in the US and a liberal in Europe." You would need a reliable source calling him a classical liberal, identifying him and his beliefs as most consistent with that ideology. As it stands that's your opinion (which is fine, but it's not a basis for anything that can go into the article).

Ultimately we should only really concern ourselves with what actual RS's say and the arguments made within. That's why I removed the conservative epiphet I added previously from the start of the lead; because it was pointed out to me that the sources didn't directly support what was being said (that it was his conservative views that brought him to fame, not just his views). Otherwise we end up with heavily editorialized content with a LOT of synth like a decent chunk of the views section (see below for an example).

One segment of the views section read that Peterson was "heavily involved in THE public debate around cultural appropriation", or "featured prominently in" or something like that, when the source doesn't say that. The source was an interview he did with the Toronto Sun about a journalist who got demoted/punished after making a public tweet saying he'd setup a "$100 appropriation award" for the winner of a debate he arranged and held about cultural appropriation with other journalists. There was a social media backlash and public backlash which led to him being demoted at his job. It was tangentially related to cultural appropriation and Petersons responses were more about the "mob" and claims of "self-censorship" that "many journalists" he spoke to after this guy got demoted are "self censoring". Yet that was being used as a source for the claim that he was "heavily involved in THE debate about cultural appropriation", a pretty clear violation of WP:V/WP:RS (and by extension WP:BLP I suppose). Chuckstablers (talk) 03:31, 23 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I generally agree with you overall but to respond specifically: On #1 I kept it brief and meant (just) amongst the many plausible possibilities not the extreme implausible ones. On #2, it was a general reminder that various such political labels have different meanings in the US vs. Europe and it's probably best to minimize such ambiguous over-generalizations (which context usually makes value-laden) and try to be more informative instead. #3 Just a reminder that such conversations are useful and normal on the talk page. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:29, 23 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think it would be pretty outrageously dumb to call the guy a "fascist"^[sic] in the lead, but I looked through the article's revision history and I didn't see anything like that. Does anyone have a diff for that, or what? jp×g🗯️ 23:48, 27 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Newimpartial: I understand your desire to include a statement to the effect that Peterson denies the consensus. So here's a constructive way to do that: reinstate the edit I made (which made a ton of improvements that have nothing to do with your concern) and add a source which explicitly says that Peterson denies the scientific consensus. If you have a reliable source which says exactly that (not something different!), then I'll agree it should be included. Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:12, 23 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I looked into this some. It seems that he is a critic of the measures being promoted more than a denier. Or "the cure being promoted is worse than the disease". For example https://www.quora.com/What-is-Dr-Jordan-B-Petersons-stance-on-climate-change-Do-you-think-he-is-qualified-to-talk-on-science-issues-and-related-topics North8000 (talk) 19:08, 23 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

That sounds kind of right to me. Most importantly, though, I just literally don't see a source that straightforwardly calls him a "denier". Also, there were like a million other problems with that section, including a self-published source and a mis-quote, which got reinstated. Shinealittlelight (talk) 19:13, 23 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I agree with you both that Peterson seems to be a skeptic not a denier. For many years, the section on climate change included only these three sentences:

Peterson doubts the scientific consensus on climate change. Peterson has said he is "very skeptical of the models that are used to predict climate change". He has also said, "You can't trust the data because too much ideology is involved".

Yesterday some random user added a bunch of irrelevant, false, and/or biased stuff to that section. Shinealittlelight did a meticulous work of cleaning it up, but then Newimpartial reverted it with the pseudo-arguments

1) that it was "status quo"—when in fact it was merely one of many new disruptive edits, the majority of which have already been reverted or corrected by different editors; and

2) that climate change denial/skepticism is "a key part of Peterson's activism"—even though there seems to be only a handful of instances in which he exclusively deals with this topic out of hundreds of lectures, interviews, and discussions, and all of those specific videos, as far as I can tell after looking into it, have been published in the last two years, making the focus on this topic a form of WP:RECENTISM.

But more fundamentally I would ask the question—why are we even including a section on Peterson's views on climate change at all? An equivalent section about his views on Economics was removed two days ago with the justification that it was WP:UNDUE. Peterson is an authority on Psychology with extensive knowledge in Political science and a keen interest in Religion; he is a social scientist, not a natural scientist. His opinion on climate change is completely irrelevant. Trakking (talk) 21:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Seems like we have a consensus that my version was an improvement. @Trakking: would you mind reinstating my edit? I also think that mention of this section in the lead is UNDUE. We don't mention almost any of his other specific positions in the lead. Mentioning this looks pretty clearly POV. Shinealittlelight (talk) 23:33, 23 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I also agree the reversion makes the article worse. Peterson's association with climate change is minimal at best. Springee (talk) 01:14, 24 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Shinealittlelight: Yes, that sentence in the lede is a clear violation of WP:NPOV that borders on vandalism and it ought to be reverted ASAP. I have already removed it once and would like to see someone else do it. I could, however, reinstate your improved version on the climate change section after 24 hours have passed. Trakking (talk) 12:36, 24 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm afraid I don't understand assertions on Talk such as Peterson's association with climate change is minimal at best or His opinion on climate change is completely irrelevant. In a cursory search I found the following:

• a chapter-length contribution to Jordan Peterson: Critical Responses (not currently cited in this section), titled Jordan Peterson on Postmodernism, Truth, and Science, discusses Peterson's "denialist message" about climate change.

• the piece from The Guardian (cited in this section) refers explicity to Peterson's "all-out attack on the science of climate change and the risks of global heating".

• the National Catholic Reporter reporting (also cited in this section) refers to "Canadian climate science denier Jordan Peterson" - so a source for the term is already used in the article.

Additionally, the current section is sourced to The Independent and CNN as well, among others. It is for RS - not Wikipedia editors - to evaluate whether Peterson's activism on this issue is relevant.

So no, we don't have consensus that the whitewashed, "maybe Peterson has a point" version of the Climate denial section is an improvement, much less consenus to remove the entire section. As far as the article lead is concerned, it mentions several of Peterson's controversial views and I don't see why his views on climate change should be excluded. Newimpartial (talk) 15:48, 24 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I can understand your disagreement with some of what other editors have said. I agree that Peterson's position on climate issues deserves a sub-section. But this response does not speak to my concerns. Take for example the issue of sourcing on calling him a "denier". The Chapter you cite is not RS as far as I can tell. It appears to be published by the same press that does all those bullshit "pop culture and philosophy" books. THe piece in the Guardian does not call him a "climate change denier". The NCR piece is really a peice from DeSmog--a largely unknown source that is clearly at best a non-neutral source and would need attribution, in which case it is undue since "According to DeSmog.com..." sounds manifestly ridiculous. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:58, 24 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

As to the reliability of the academic source I linked, it is edited by a Sandra Woien, who teaches Philosophy at Arizona State University. The chapter in question is written by Panu Raatikainen, who teaches Philosophy at Tampere University in Finland. The other chapters in the anthology are also written by scholars, so I don't see why the book wouldn't be consisered an academic source - it offers a scholarly apparatus for each chapter; it is independent and of higher quality than most sources used in this article (not simply in this section). This is not Jordan Peterson for Dummies.

As to the veracity of the "denier" label, Michael Mann, director of the Penn Center for Science, Sustainability and the Media at the University of Pennsylvania, says of Peterson, He is promoting climate change denial at a time when it is increasingly untenable. I don't see how "denier", "promotes ... denial", "denialist message" and "all-out attack on the science of climate change" are anything but a consistent depiction of Peterson's stance by RS, and I don't see any alternative view presented among reliable sources (Quora is not a reliable source). If anyone has a better formulation than "denier" - such as "promotes denial" or presenting the quote denying that the climate exists - I certainly accept that other formulations are possible. But it is clear from RS that he denies the scientific consensus about climate change, and it is clear that Wikipedia policy does not allow us to refer to those who do so using the fig-leaf of "skeptic".

P.S. as far as alleged "misquotes" and WP:SPS, I'd be happy to answer any questions about sources in this discussion - I can't guess from Shinealittlelight's edit summaries what the supposed issues might be. Newimpartial (talk) 17:02, 24 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

These "X and philosophy" books published by this publisher are generally edited by and written by academics, but they're not generally regarded as academic contributions. We can discuss whether the "Jordan Peterson and Philosophy" book, or the opinion piece you linked are legit RS. The deeper point is that you reverted a ton of improvements to the section with no good reason. I suggest to address your issue about "climate change denier" that we reinstate my edit, which made a ton of improvements that you're saying you didn't read closely to even identify, and then go ahead and intoroduce a sentence calling him a climate denier with the source you're proposing. Current sourcing for that claim fails verification. We can debate your proposed sourcing. Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:09, 24 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think Shine's edits are an improvement. If the sources don't call Peterson a denier or if the sources that do make that claim are not accurate to Peterson's statements (or if they provide no reference for their claim) then we need to "do no harm" and not make that claim ourselves. This is a BLP thus we always err on the side of caution [7] Springee (talk) 11:50, 25 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

This is a blatant mischaracterization of the sources provided already, and I suspect it is willful and ideologically driven on your part since this is consistently your WP:ADVOCACY. jps (talk) 18:22, 25 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Please AGF. If the sources don't back the claim BLP limitations clearly apply. Springee (talk) 19:20, 25 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Abundant RS, including a published monograph and The Guardian - as well as an expert quoted in The Independent - all document Peterson's antagonism towards climate science. The "BLP" objection appears to be more WP:CRYBLP. Newimpartial (talk) 20:00, 25 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

We've got promoted a denialist message in the volume published by the "pop culture and philosophy" press. We've got the Guardian saying saying he has engaged in an all-out attack on the science of climate change and the risks of global heating. And the Independent is just quoting "DeSmog," and I think there are better sources for Mann's view. Shinealittlelight (talk) 20:16, 25 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Again, specific claims made by Peterson would be helpful. Someone who is concerned that politics within the community could be impacting research is not the same as saying there is no man made climate change. I do recall seeing Peterson saying something like that, that he is concerned about the process and it's politics, not that he doesn't believe in climate change or human impact on claims change. These are different things and we should get them right given the BLP issues here. Springee (talk) 20:20, 25 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

We don't need specific claims made by the subject. If there are multiple reliable sources which speak to the subject's antagonism with climate science then we are quite entitled to cover that. TarnishedPath^talk 23:33, 25 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Springee and North8000 appear to be proposing that we ought to base the content of this article on editors' collective evaluation of Peterson's views, and whether editors believe RS have presented sufficient evidence to chatacterize these views as "climate change denial". I remember Springee making similar proposals (to evaluate the evidence RS invoke when they apply various terms) on other topics.

I believe these calls amount to a call for editors to base article content on their own original research; I don't believe that editing based on whether editors are collectively convinced that the sources are correct is compliant with enwiki policies and guidelines.

It seems to me that only two questions are relevant: (1) is there RS support that Peterson is engaged in promoting climate change denial?, and (2) is there RS opposition to this characterization? I believe the answers to these questions are (1) yes and (2) no, but in any case editors offering their own interptetations of Peterson's podcasts, etc., are not contributing to a resolution of these questions as policy allows - at least, not AFAICT. Newimpartial (talk) 19:08, 26 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

You have completely mischaracterized what I wrote here to what would be an absurdity in Wikipedia terms. Please stop. North8000 (talk) 19:25, 26 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

NewImpartial, I think you fail to understand OR. OR applies to the content within the article. It does not apply to discussions regarding how much weight to give claims made in various sources. Stating "Peterson is a denier" in wiki voice would mean we give primary weight to the few sources that actually make that claim vs the many other sources that either don't say that or are more nuanced in their claims even while not agreeing with Peterson. This is a question of weight and per OR, talk page discussions regarding the quality of various claims is does not violate OR and is part of establishing a consensus on weight.

Here *some* sources that say "Peterson is a denier" but other sources do not. Should we, in wiki voice, say Peterson is a denier? To decide we can look at the claims in the sources and see how that compares to what is actually said by Peterson; are the sources are being true to what was actually said by Peterson? Are the sources unbiased? These are questions to establish weight per NPOV. This really isn't anything unusual on Wikipedia.

tldr\ As North8000 noted, you are mischaracterizing the arguments. Springee (talk) 19:41, 26 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

For there to be a dispute among the sources, there must be some sources that don't just use words other than "denier" - they have to actually state or present evidence that Peterson does not deny the scientific consensus on climate change. Otherwise there is no dispute among sources, no controversy. I have asked repeatedly for sources representing alternate views to be presented here on Talk, but instead all I've seen is personal interpretations of primary sources by editors. Using such approaches to make editorial decisions is exactly what WP:PRIMARY discourages.

If an editor feels that I have mischaracterized their position in this discussion, I'd be happy to retract (and strike through) my error. But for another editor to say that I fail to understand OR - that doesn't even establish that OR is something different from what I understand it to be, and it is completely tangential to the (unsupported) claim that I "mischaracterized" their views. Insisting that the sources we use "show their receipts" so editors can decide whether they are correct in their assertions - well, we are supposed to rely on RS to make determinations about source quality rather than trying to kit-bash our own evaluations, at least the way I understand it. Newimpartial (talk) 20:12, 26 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

In reply to, "For there to be a dispute among the sources, there must be some sources that don't just use words other than "denier" ", that is incorrect. When you are trying to apply a LABEL it isn't sufficient to say "well those sources don't dispute the label". You linked to PRIMARY but I think you fail to understand the context. Look at the opening sentence to that section, "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources, and to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. " It says the article should be based on mostly secondary sources but doesn't say primary sources can't be used and more to the point, you need to look at the opening of OR which should make it clear your interpretation is wrong, "This policy does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards." We are evaluating sources that could be used for article content. So yes, you fail to understand OR. Springee (talk) 20:31, 26 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

While I do understand that editors are free to express their opinions on how to interptet and evaluate sources, I don't think it is correct to suggest that these editorial discussions are supposed to set aside basic principles of PRIMARY and secondary sourcing when determing article content. Two of the numbered points from WP:PRIMARY seem especially relevant in this context:

2. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation...

4. Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.

In this discussion, we are weighing the evidence to decide how this BLP article should refer to Peterson's stance on climate change. In this discussion, some editors are basing their evaluation on their own interpretation (and synthesis) of primary sources originating from Peterson, and also on their own interpretation of secondary sources (as "not presenting satisfactory evidence"). Other editors are basing their judgement on what reliable, independent, secondary sources say about Peterson, and also on what reliable, independent secondary sources say about those characterizing Peterson's position.

In line with the introducory statement Springee has quoted, there may be some room for both approaches. However, since article content is supposed to be based in the first instance on what independent, reliable sources say about a topic, I think it is clear that our P&Gs require that we prioritize secondary source perspectives over the original interpretations and opinions offered by editors. Newimpartial (talk) 19:43, 27 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't think you understand NOR. Let's go with the extreme example, should we include a hypothetical fact reported by a RS. Our discussion regarding weight, our references to RSP etc are all OR because we don't have a source that says, "The article on X should include [fact]".

The NOR passages you are quoting refer to article content. Can you point to any content that has been proposed for addition that would violate those rules? If so, what and how? For example, one of the big points of debate is between using the LABEL climate change denier, vs using phrasing that mirrors what sources say Peterson has said. Are either of those OR? Using primary sources/other sources to refute claims made by a secondary source is acceptable OR, in fact it's what we do all the time. For example, when editors felt The Telegraph made false claims related to trans issues, they engaged in OR to look at the claims and compare them to accusations. Are you suggesting that such work to establish if a source is reliable is not acceptable? Springee (talk) 23:35, 27 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

To answer your initial question, competing article content is being proposed to address the issue, "how should this article describe Peterson's stance on climate change?" Editors are approaching this question in two ways: some are saying, "I have read/watched/listened to Peterson's statements on climate change, and his view is X, so this article should reflect X". Other editors are saying, "reliable sources characterize Peterson's position on climate change as A/B/C, and A/B/C are mutually-compatible characterizations, and no reliable source treats Peterson as 'not-A/B/C', and the sources saying A/B/C receive positive approval in secondary sources on them, so this article should reflect A/B/C, probably by saying A or B or C".

Now I recognize that the situation is not as simple as, the former editors are doing WP:OR and the latter editors are not. That would be an oversimplification. But I do think the former editors are basing their preferred article text on OR (their own interpretation of primary sources) and the latter editors are not (they are relying on what independent, secondary sources say). Further, I believe our sourcing policies tell us to do the latter while discouraging the former. (The way I usually express this in my edit summaries is something like, "enwiki articles are to be based on independent, secondary sources and not on the opinions of editors".) Newimpartial (talk) 00:27, 28 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Your concern about what might be added is fair. I don't think anyone has proposed a specific addition so it might be early to say something is OR but you are correct that if we the editors consult primary sources/statements by Peterson, then include our own summation of "what he really means" then that would be OR. However, I don't think removing "is a climate change denier" and replacing it with something closer to some of the summaries of his views presented in RSs would count as OR. I agree with the IP editor who suggested we, via RS, say what Peterson said his views are/what he has said, and then follow that with the reaction to his views from his critics (who don't have to be called "critics" in the article text). Hopefully that will put your OR concerns at ease. Springee (talk) 01:55, 28 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

You also didn't reply to the fact that you reintroduced mis-quotes and self-published sources, which is pretty disruptive in my view. Shinealittlelight (talk) 16:00, 24 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

See above. Newimpartial (talk) 17:02, 24 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

In conclusion, there are no authoritative sources explicitly stating that Peterson is a "denier".

After looking into this issue, I have come to the conclusion that Peterson believes that climate change is real, but that it has both positive and negative consequences on the environment. And he argues that environmental policies keeps the third world poor. And most of all, he is critical of the most fringe environmentalist activists, who explicitly say nihilistic and murderous things like "humans are a cancer on the planet" and "we need to reduce the population to 1 billion". That skepticism of extremist views is not very sensational. And he has received support from climate scientists such as Bjørn Lomborg, Alex Epstein, and Richard Lindzen.

Tricky topics such as this one ought to be presented in a nuanced and balanced way according to Wikipedia guidelines, but I don't see any justification for its inclusion at all. Peterson is known for his opposition to Bill C-16, his best-selling self-help books, his debate with Slavoj Žižek, his Biblical lectures, his Jungian philosophy etc.—not his views on climate change. Trakking (talk) 18:10, 24 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Lomborg is not a climate scientist, but an economist who has no clue about climatology and talks a lot of bullshit about it. Epstein is the same, with different but also non-climate-related fields. I don't think you should talk about the subject if you cannot even get simple facts about it right. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:26, 24 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps, but the only prominent climate scientist cited against Peterson's position is Michael E. Mann. The opposition is not very overwhelming. Trakking (talk) 18:36, 24 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Must be a dream of yours. If you look at the article, you see lots of climate scientists saying Peterson has no clue. And of course you see lots of other clueless deiners agreeing with him. This is a mainstream encyclopedia, we prefer experts to buffoons. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:47, 24 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

"Denier" is often used or mis-used as a vague pejorative term for people who don't deny the main tenet of climate change but who dispute other aspects such as proposed measures. Merely having someone who used the term it is not per se a reason to include it in the article. If we're going to get into that we should be more informative and specific instead. North8000 (talk) 17:42, 24 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

He definitely seems to be "denying" the core tenets of anthropogenic climate change (eg the relationship between greenhouse gases like CO2 and the temperature), but I agree its best to be specific.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 18:08, 24 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Exactly. It is clear he is a denier, and his layman misunderstandings of the field should not be quoted. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:26, 24 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

What's the source which says he is a denier again? Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:31, 24 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Nothing wrong with DeSmog. They are specialized for that. Also, WP:SKYISBLUE: his statements are clear enough. there is no such thing as climate and the Earth's climate is too complicated to accurately model - huh, then why are the models' predictions so accurate?

Every time we have a heat record, climate change deniers get active on Wikipedia, trying to propagate their fringe beliefs... --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:47, 24 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't agree. DeSmog is clearly a biased source and needs attribution. And I don't agree that this is a SKYISBLUE situation: we should follow sources because it is a BLP, and "denier" is very incendiary. I might be ok with "Mann says that Peterson has promoted climate change denial" using the "Tyee" source (never heard of it) above. But it seems obvious that we should have a clear source for such a claim as "He's a denier" in a BLP. Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:53, 24 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

DeSmog is clearly a biased source only in the sense of WP:YWAB. See also WP:FRINGE and WP:FALSEBALANCE. In a fight between science on one side and clueless, dishonest people on the other, Wikipedia is on the side of science. A guy who literally denies that climate exists is a climate denier. The sky is still blue and does not need attribution. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:40, 25 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

HG, can you provide the reference North8000 asked for? Springee (talk) 21:15, 24 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Like it or lump it, climate change denier is the term used to describe those who claim that either global warming isn't happening, it's not being caused by humans, or it's not as bad as the climate scientists say. Jordan Peterson falls into the latter group by claiming that mitigation efforts will result in outcomes worse than the effects of climate change. They only way one can do this is to downplay the actual effects that climate scientists say global warming will have/is having. jps (talk) 17:45, 25 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

We should follow reliable sources, which so far do not directly call him a "climate change denier". We don't just get to infer that label in a BLP. Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:48, 25 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

We have the reliable sources. That you don't like them is immaterial. Jordan Peterson is an unapologetic climate change denier. That's clear. jps (talk) 17:52, 25 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have no problem including if it’s in RS. Can you provide a direct quote from RS please?Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:06, 25 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

[8]. "Peterson has, as a matter of fact, shown a tendency towards advocating pseudo-scientific ideas. For example, in August 2018, Peterson shared on Twitter a video titled “Climate Change: What Do Scientists Say?” with his own comment: “Something for the anticapitalist environmentalists to hate.” In the video, Richard Lindzen, a notorious climate change denialist who is known to have received money from fossil fuel interests, speaks as the only “scientist” (Herzog 2018). This is not the only time Peterson has downplayed climate change and promoted a denialist message. Peterson seems to be open to pseudo-scientific propaganda if it can be used as a weapon against “the left.”" jps (talk) 18:09, 25 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Shinealittlelight, if you are splitting hairs between "climate change denier", Peterson's "denialist message on climate change" and his "all-out attack on the science of climate change" - I don't think there is a basis in policy to treat those as anything but synonymous statements by RS, and the sources for each of these have been linked above.

Nor has anyone presented RS evidence (since Quora isn't reliable, and neither are editors' impressions of podcasts) of any disagreement among RS as to whether Peterson denies the reality of climate change - some such disagreement would be needed for attribution to be called for in this case.

(Also, if attribution is eventually required because of sources not yet presented that dispute this characterization, Michael E. Mann is a relevant expert whose characterization of Peterson has been sought out and published in many RS, and would be DUE for an attributed statement.) Newimpartial (talk) 18:14, 25 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Then, if we're going to cover it here, why not actually cover it here in an informative manner instead of trying to put in a one word vague epitaph?North8000 (talk) 18:20, 25 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry, what? Last I saw, the opposition to identifying Peterson as a denier were interested in removing entire sentences to that effect. jps (talk) 18:25, 25 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

My posts on this topic have all been about the vague "denier" epitaph. I'm all for more thorough informative coverage regarding this. North8000 (talk) 18:52, 25 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

You mean epithet? How is climate change denial vague? It's extremely well-defined. We have oodles of sources on it. It's perhaps the best understood of all the anti-science positions that exist today. jps (talk) 01:01, 26 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

The central tenet and scientific consensus regarding climate change is that the earth is warming and that a major cause of this is human activity. A climate change denier is someone who denies this. That is well defined. The ill-defined parts are when people apply it to people who don't deny that but question or dispute things that do NOT have scientific consensus. Such as projections of the severity of impact, whether or not certain promoted mitigation measures are good or bad ideas etc. North8000 (talk) 02:57, 26 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

You just defined climate change denial. Lostsandwich (talk) 07:40, 27 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Agree with North8000. Additionally, JPS, I don't think that volume is RS: it's published by the pop culture and philosophy people. And, in any case, if RS says "promoted a denialist message" then that's what we should say. If they're equivalent then I don't see the issue. Is there some reason you prefer your variant phrasing, Newimpartial? Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:24, 25 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Are you fucking serious? That's the genre in which Peterson is active. Critics in pop culture and philosophy are the ones that are best equipped to identify his rhetorical style. This is just naked WP:POVPUSHing at this point. I see from your account that this is what you do consistently. Should we ask that you be topic banned? That's a way forward. jps (talk) 18:26, 25 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I'm serious. Sorry if I upset you. My take is that "The Simpsons and Philosophy" is not a serious work, and the publisher of these kinds of volumes is on the face of it not RS. But maybe I'm wrong. Trying to follow policy here. Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:51, 25 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

You are wrong. The Simpsons and Philosophy is not only serious, it is highly regarded. To be clear, your continued pushing in this direction is evident from this talk page to be in only one particular direction. Whether you intend it or not (and I'm bound by WP:AGF to assume you are not intending it), your advocacy is firmly planted towards denying 'climate change denial which is a big enough problem that there were two arbitrations on at Wikipedia. Thus, my section below. jps (talk) 18:55, 25 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Ok, well, we have a good faith difference of opinion about whether the "pop culture and philosopy" series is a serious work of scholarship. My informal sense is that my view is widely held. But maybe others can weigh in. Shinealittlelight (talk) 19:01, 25 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I am open to a variety of phrasing; what I am not open to is editors paring back or denying Peterson's denialism.

As far as the critical responses source is concerned, it is a chapter by an academic professional, with a scholarly appatatus, in a book edited by an academic professional. The idea that it isn't a reliable source (as opposed to a peer-reviewed scholarly source) seems highly tendentious.

This is an article where a whole disputed paragraph in the Careers section is sourced entirely to primary and non-independent, biased sources. Any of the sources we are discussing for the client change characterization are levels in source quality above those used in the paragraph in question (a paragraph that has been supported in its current form by at least two of the editors questioning the climate change sources). Newimpartial (talk) 18:47, 25 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Well I'm not commenting on the other section you mention. I certainly agree with using independent reliable sources there too. A lot of these "pop culture and philosophy" volumes are written by professionals but have an air of whimsy and are marketed to a mass audience rather than being serious contributions to the field. It's weird that we can't find a more serious source for this if it's really DUE in the article. Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:54, 25 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I agree with Newimpartial that Critical Responses is a RS. I trust books, especially scholarly ones, significantly more than sensational journalism, which much of this article is based on, unfortunately. However, I would like to see a verbatim citation from the book in support of the claim. Trakking (talk) 19:15, 25 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

WP:CHEESE. It has been given twice already. jps (talk) 19:16, 25 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Trakking, I think the key quote is This is not the only time Peterson has downplayed climate change and promoted a denialist message. If this were RS then I would think this justifies saying he has promoted a denialist message. But I don't think it's RS. Sounds like I may be the only one who thinks that here. Shinealittlelight (talk) 19:29, 25 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

There is a draft of what i think is the chapter in question available at PhilArchive, unable to find the published version. fiveby(zero) 23:59, 25 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I speed watched 90 minutes at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Q2YHGIlUDk which was informative. Not denying the main tenet of climate change and on the contrary seems to accept it. Is questioning and skeptical on a wide range of related things as such as projections, promoted measures, projections of severity of impact etc. North8000 (talk) 20:11, 25 July 2024 (UTC).Reply

This is textbook climate change denial. There is zero debate. jps (talk) 20:46, 25 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Stating "I'm not denying that the climate changes" while denying essentially everything related to climate change is very much textbook denial. Lostsandwich (talk) 21:19, 25 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Indeed; that's been a part of the denialist playbook for years now. XOR'easter (talk) 22:31, 25 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Any concerns with ...climate deniers such as Judith Curry... fiveby(zero) 00:20, 26 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

So "not denying" climate change is the sign of a climate change denier.  :-) North8000 (talk) 16:43, 26 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

We do have an article on climate change denial if you do not understand what that encompasses. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:50, 26 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Good article, it reinforces what I've been saying. Perhaps you should read it.  :-) North8000 (talk) 18:47, 26 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

We really should be careful about assuming definitions. The literal meaning of "climate change denial" would be saying the climate doesn't change. The problem with using such terms is, even if the term has an understood meaning on Wikipedia, it may not be understood by readers who don't follow our blue links and it many not be the intended use by a source. This is why we have cautionary rules about putting links within quotes. Going back to what North8000 is saying, if someone says, "climate change is real and humans have an impact but I think politics etc..." then it seems illogical to say they are "denying" climate change. Certainly we should be careful about saying such a thing in Wiki voice. We can say RSs have said this "I believe but..." type statement is a form of climate change denial. What we should be careful about is stating that it is denial when the plain reading of the phrase "climate change denial" only implies a denial of any form of climate change. Please note that such absolutist type phrases are politically useful because they paint the "other side" in the most extreme light. As an encyclopedia we should be more concerned with the details of his views (and the details of the responses) rather than using broad, often political, labels. Springee (talk) 17:17, 26 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

On one hand, if we're focused on what the words themselves mean absent how they're actually used, we should probably also explain that Jordan Peterson isn't actually the son of some guy named Peter (argumentum ad absurdum acknowledged). On the other hand, yes, we should be careful with labels. Nuance matters. What do you suggest? I'm going to push back on As an encyclopedia we should be more concerned with the details of his views though. Peterson is not a climate scientist, even if he speaks with confidence on the subject. An encyclopedia should be prioritizing the views of people who actually know about climate science when it comes to the claims made by influential people who are not experts in the field (but nonetheless have an influence on popular opinion/discourse). Obviously we should misrepresent Peterson's views, but that representation should be done through the lens of experts. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:16, 26 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Well, after a couple hours of research, it looks like the reality is "Peterson does not deny the main premises of climate change but expresses skepticism regarding the advisability of various promoted mitigation measures, future projections of climate, and assessments of the severity of the impacts of climate change." Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:42, 26 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Ideally we can find an objective source that did some analysis. North8000 (talk) 20:05, 26 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Peterson is not a climate scientist, even if he speaks with confidence on the subject. I just want to point out, that the problem here isn't just the confidence, but the slick, well-produced videos that are film quality productions, combined with his snazzy dress and way of speaking. There are many people who are instantly smitten by this kind of thing, and whatever critical thinking they once had goes right out the window. I call this the optics over substance problem, and it's what the kids call rizz or charismatic authority. Peterson is intentionally manipulating his audience. Viriditas (talk) 00:02, 27 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

The literal definition of climate change is irrelevant to the discussion, since "the climate changing" is not, and has not ever been up for debate for as long as we've known about the existence of the ice age(s) or any previous climate epochs- by that very definition nobody is a climate change denier (other than perhaps Young Earth Creationists). The concern is not, and has not ever been, in any real capacity, whether or not "the climate changes." The relevant part, the part that matters is what constitutes the real definition of "climate change".

Stating "I'm not a climate change denier, I don't deny the climate changes" is moot. It's an attempt to soften a ludicrous statement and appear reasonable. However, as I've already noted- essentially no one is a climate change denier by that metric. If you do however, deny the real working definition of the term, as it is understood by just about everybody and has been understood by just about everybody for decades, then you are in fact a "climate change denier". Lostsandwich (talk) 22:49, 27 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Do you actually have any evidence that readers of Wikipedia will understand that when we say "climate change denier" that could include people who do think humans are causing climate change and even agree with big the changes are but, for example, argue that the change is something we can accept. Do you have evidence that people who are concerned that climate change research and policy may be driven by politics more than science are not going to be confused with people who say "humans have zero impact on climate"? What evidence do you have for that claim? Springee (talk) 23:25, 27 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Peterson explicitly says he doesn't believe that science of climate change is reliable. Sources clearly reflect that. We follow sources, not personal hunches about how readers may be confused about the different flavors of climate science denial. 12.75.41.13 (talk) 23:37, 27 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

If I'm not mistaken he says he is concerned about how the science is being conducted based on perverse incentives for funding etc. That he isn't a climate change scientist doesn't mean he can't make reasonable observations about, what amounts to group behavior. As an example, one of the scholarly papers studying the Ford Pinto fires is "Pinto "Madness" as a Flawed Landmark Narrative: An Organizational and Network Analysis" by Matthew T Lee and M. David Ermann. Neither author is a engineer nor an expert in automotive design nor automotive safety. Instead, they are organizational phycologists. They look at how organizations operate. They tried to understand how and why Ford was willing and able to produce a car that gained such a horrible reputation for safety. It is worth noting that many of the decision makers, even at the VP level purchased Pintos for members of their own families. If Ford felt the car was so unsafe, why would they do that? Peterson certainly isn't a climate scientist. Peterson, right or wrong in detail, seems to be taking on a roll similar to Lee and Ermann. Using his specific area of knowledge as well as experience working in a similar academic system to judge where he thinks mistakes are being made. That doesn't mean he is correct and certainly people who want to deny climate change (and more often the measures taken to address it) wouldn't use such concerns, even if we assume they are valid, for invalid purposes. Springee (talk) 02:22, 28 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia articles are supposed to follow the reliable sources on the topics discussed in articles; the preferred term in the relevant literatures to evoke the wide range of dissenting positions concerning climate science has been "denial" for some time. Newimpartial (talk) 01:00, 28 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Since most sources don't call him a climate change denier following the sources would mean we also don't call him one. Springee (talk) 01:58, 28 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

The vast majority of sources on Peterson's views on climate change indicate that he denies, or promotes denial of, or doesn't understand, the scientific consensus on climate change. As demonstrated above, the preferred term for this whole range of characterizations is "climate change denial".

We are supposed to determine article content by underanding what RS mean and then using consistent, encyclopedic terminology to reflect that meaning (as we do with other public figures who deny the scientific consensus). We are not supposed to calculate the percentage of sources using a term to decide whether to use that term. Newimpartial (talk) 10:32, 28 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Luckily, there's an entire Wikipedia article on the topic, with a considerable amount of supporting literature. One thing you'll notice is that "climate change" vis a vis "climate change denial" does not cover the "literal definition" of the term, because that would patently absurd. Couching "I don't deny climate change" in actual climate change denial is transparent and obvious. You do not get to say you don't do something while doing that exact thing just because you opened with a (purposefully strawmanned) statement. Lostsandwich (talk) 01:57, 28 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

What we the editors of Wikipedia have decided is meant by "climate change denier" is not the same as what readers might think when they see the term. Do you have evidence that the average or even 25th percentile reader of Wikipedia is going to understand how broad in scope some people view the phrase "climate change denial"? Beyond that, per BLP and LABEL we should not use a value laden label just because some, but not most or perhaps even half, of the sources choose to use it. Springee (talk) 02:03, 28 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

What policy are you referring to when asking what percentage of Wikipedia readers know what global warming denial is? You are sealioning. Keep the goal posts in one place. What do RS say about him when discussing his views on global warming? They say, as demonstrated above, that he is a denialist and science professionals find his stance to be "ridiculous". That is what this article should reflect, unless you have some RS showing his positions are aligned with the scientific consensus on human caused global warming. 12.75.41.13 (talk) 02:23, 28 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

The goal of Wikipedia is to accurately convey knowledge. When we use phrases that imply one thing via plain text, yet are meant to mean something much broader we risk conveying something false to our readers. Beyond that, many of the RS that discuss his comments related to climate change do not call him a denier. That has already been discussed. Only a few, and many of lesser quality, are the ones that specifically call him a "denier". Springee (talk) 03:15, 28 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Everyone knows what it means to deny climate science. Your argument that this concept is too hard for Wikipedia readers is without merit. 12.75.41.13 (talk) 03:21, 28 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Really, what evidence do you have for that claim? What evidence do you have that the average, non-editor reader, when reading the "climate change denier" will understand that even someone who believes in anthropogenic climate change can be a denier? If you read that John Doe is a climate change denier are you going to reasonably assume John actually does believe in anthropogenic climate change? Again, this is why we should look at what a range of sources say rather than pick the most extreme label used only by some. Springee (talk) 03:41, 28 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Please see WP:SEALION. Many citations have been provided. It is borderline disruptive to ask for a source on what words Wikipedia readers use. Stay focused. Provide sources to back your assertions and preferred wording, or take those which have been provided to WP:RSN if you'd like to convince the rest of us that they are not as reliable as we think. 12.75.41.13 (talk) 04:11, 28 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I believe a number have and upon review only a few actually call Peterson a denier. Shinealittlelight went through them. Perhaps we need to start a review table so we can be clear about which sources say what. You also dodged the question regarding your own claim, "Everyone knows what it means to deny climate science". Well, what source do you have for that? Springee (talk) 04:32, 28 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Can you link the studies of Wikipedia reader vocabulary you rely on? This is the definition of sealioning. Provide sources backing what you say (that he is within the scientific mainstream), or discredit the sources that say he has fringe beliefs. 12.75.41.13 (talk) 04:56, 28 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Merriam Webster says the definition of climate change denial is more narrow than Wikipedia. Is it unreasonable to think readers might be thinking of MW's definition vs Wikipedia's? Per MW "rejection of the idea that changes in the Earth's climate or weather patterns are caused by human activity" [9]. Their definition of climate change denier is also consistent: "one who denies that changes in the Earth's climate or weather patterns are caused by human activity" [10]. Springee (talk) 12:40, 28 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't understand this debate about definitions of "climate change denier". What source is proposed for this? Don't we need a source that calls him exactly this to include it? Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:30, 29 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

We have multiple sources that call him a climate science denier, but the argument presented to us is that Wikipedia readers would not understand what that means. It is an argument without merit and can be ignored. 12.75.41.13 (talk) 04:06, 29 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

The common meaning of denier is denying the part that is scientifically established. This is a claim of severe ludicrous behavior. Especially for a BLP we need strong sourcing that he specifically did that. Just somebody hurling that epitaph is not that.North8000 (talk) 12:52, 31 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

So, you do not see how ludicrous his statements are? Seems to be a WP:CIR problem. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:11, 3 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Is there a single reason to believe that any readers may "actually" get confused about what the term climate change refers to beyond your (and anyone defending this) disruptive attempts at deflection? As this apparent position, which is that when people talk about climate change with respect to climate change denial they just maybe might be kinda sorta referring to the fact that "climate changes" which has been known for decades, if not centuries? Is there any reasonable justification that such a thing needs to be noted anywhere, including on the page for climate change denial which itself explains the position, beyond running interference for the individual(s) in question?

Do you *any* evidentiary basis for harping on "the literal definition" of the term being a reasonable measuring stick for anything? Lostsandwich (talk) 03:18, 28 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Again, we are applying a LABEL. As such it either needs to have a consensus among sources (so far it doesn't appear to). While denier certainly applies to those who don't believe in anthropogenic climate change, it is more questionable to apply it in cases where the person says they do believe but have other concerns. Regardless, you specifically made the claim that readers would understand. It appears you don't actually have evidence that such a common understanding exists. Again, as a BLP we are instructed to err on the side of caution. In this case that would be not using the label and instead stating what he actually says while still including the strongly, negative reactions to it. Springee (talk) 03:46, 28 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

So you have zero evidentiary basis with which to claim there is any notable misunderstanding of the term climate change such that one can reasonable label themselves "not a climate change denier" and be truthful about the statement because they were simply referring to the fact that they do not deny the ice age existed?

It was of course, not me who brought up the "literal meaning" (because there is no reason to). That was you. So, unless you're capable of demonstrating that "I don't deny the ice age existed (or any other period that is irrelevant to the topic)" is a reasonable justification for dismissing the label of climate change denier we can easily disregard your entire line of thinking to that end. Lostsandwich (talk) 08:18, 28 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

How about Merriam Webster: [11] "rejection of the idea that changes in the Earth's climate or weather patterns are caused by human activity". So if a reader understands the term to have the same meaning as MW, yeah, using that LABEL could mislead the reader as to what Peterson believes. Springee (talk) 12:36, 28 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Really driving home the point of you not acting in good faith. You provided nothing resembling what was asked in order for your pointless obstruction to have any merit. At this point I'd consider requesting a topic ban. Lostsandwich (talk) 16:41, 28 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Don't accuse others of acting in bad faith. I asked for evidence that our readers would interpret CC denier the same way the Wikipedia article does. None was provided. When I was asked for evidence that readers wouldn't I provide a MW dictionary definition. Springee (talk) 19:39, 28 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Request denied. We do not perform studies of Wikipedia readers language abilities as part of our writing process. You were unable to provide any such studies you use when writing, making me suspect this is a road block that has been invented for this purpose. There is no need to prove what people will understand. We reflect what WP:RS says instead. Do you have any WP:RS? Yes or No? 12.75.41.13 (talk) 20:02, 28 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Let's review, the concern is that not all readers may understand that the Wikipedia definition of "climate change denier" includes people who agree with anthropogenic climate change. Some editors pushed back and suggested that all readers would have the Wikipedia understanding of the term. I asked for evidence that this understanding was true. None was provided. When I was challenged to show it wasn't true I provided at MW dictionary definition that conflicts with the Wikipedia definition. Are you suggesting MW is wrong? Springee (talk) 20:14, 28 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia readers confused about the term are welcome to review the article on the very topic.

Notice how the article on the very topic doesn't say anything about the "literal meaning" because that would be patently absurd, and pretending that is has value is the same tactic deniers of all stripes hide behind.

Denying that the moon landing footage is faked, but agreeing that humans landed on the moon, privileges one to the "moon landing denier" label. Denying that some six million people were killed by the genocidal machinery of the Holocaust, but agreeing that many died from typhus privileges one to the "holocaust denier" label. That is how language works. Just as in this case "agreeing that the climate changes" (which is not, and has not ever been in contention, as you have failed to demonstrate) in the same sentence as denying everything that is germane to the topic does in fact privilege one to the climate change denier label. Quite simple really.

More importantly, if you were to in fact demonstrate (which you've continually failed to) that "climate change just means the climate changes so no, no one denies that!" is a reasonable statement to make, you would also need to demonstrate that such an empty aphorism effectively rebuts the remaining volume of statements made to such a degree they can be ignored in favour of the previous claim. Lostsandwich (talk) 20:49, 28 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

The "dictionary definition" does not support your claim. It was again, you who brought up the "literal meaning" as something that was supposed to be important and have continually danced around supporting that claim. Lostsandwich (talk) 20:38, 28 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think I made it very clear early on that I was referring to human caused climate change. I believe my 17:17 26 July comment was the first time I brought this up in the current discussion and the first time I see that I used the word "literal". In that edit I said, "We really should be careful about assuming definitions. The literal meaning of "climate change denial" would be saying the climate doesn't change. The problem with using such terms is, even if the term has an understood meaning on Wikipedia, it may not be understood by readers who don't follow our blue links and it many not be the intended use by a source. ". I believe that was before your first post in this discussion. So I already was clear what we were not talking about a claim that the climate has never changed since the history of time. I'm sorry if, by arriving after that was said, you mistakenly thought I was referring to your "literal meaning". I hope we are clear on that now. Springee (talk) 23:43, 28 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

All this is a waste of time. We say what reliable sources say. We do not stop doing this just because a user does not like it. If the user keeps trying to get his own opinion preferred to the statements of experts, and keeps wikilawyering in that same topic for years to protect the proponents of an anti-science ideology, topic-ban the user. --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:51, 29 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

You are right. We say what RS say. If those sources don't use the term climate change denier then we don't use the term. We can and should say what RS have said Peterson has said about the subject and what experts have said about Peterson's statements. What we doing do, per policy, is apply contentious labels because we want to. When I got some time, hopefully later today, I will start a table of references and we can see what the various sources actually say vs just using editor's interpretations. Springee (talk) 10:14, 29 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Springee, you have been presented with multiple, reliable sources that use variants of "climate-change denier"/"denial". I think you are approaching stick-dropping time - if not already there. Newimpartial (talk) 12:26, 29 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

As an experienced editor you should know that we distinguish between sources that say things like "his comments support" vs "he is". I will also note that this was a recent change to the article (see the pre July 20 version of the section) and we have no consensus for the charges. Per NOCON, which is policy, the section should be rolled back. The previous version made it clear his views were disputed by experts, included fewer quotes that are out of context from the RS (or possible not supported at all) and made Peterson's central point, regardless of it's validity, clear. There are at least 4 editors who don't agree with the recent changes. That puts us squarely in NOCON territory. Springee (talk) 12:55, 29 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

You have no leg to stand on. This guy actually said there is no such thing as climate. WP:SKYISBLUE. No honest person would deny that he is a climate denier. Stop disrupting this talk page to push your POV. --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:29, 30 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Please provide Peterson's quote. Not the quote from a source that may have taken it or of context, which would then make that source of questionable reliability, process Peterson's quote. The claim that Peterson actually said their is no such thing as climate is clearly REDFLAG. Springee (talk) 10:28, 30 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Springee, why would it be compliant with policy to offer a primary source for the quote in question, when many, many independent RS are available as sources for the quote? I feel that what you are asking comes from the bizarro world version of wikipedia. Newimpartial (talk) 14:00, 30 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Who is suggesting we add primary sourced quotes to the wiki article? I'm not and if I've given you that impression I apologize as it absolutely isn't my intent. I think it is reasonable to consult a primary source to see if a secondary source is presenting a quote in context within the secondary source. It is also reasonable to ask if we should present a quote used in the secondary source if we don't include the context the secondary source also provided. To be very clear, I'm not proposing we add any material sourced to a primary source to the wiki article. One of the dangers of long threads like this is we all lose track of what others have actually proposed or, worse yet, we get an incorrect impression of what others have said and then argue against what we think they intend vs what they actually intent. Really at this point we need to look at what was in the stable version of the text as well as the recent changes and perhaps start over with this discussion with something more like a set of diffs to look at. Springee (talk) 14:34, 30 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

This is just more disruptive sealioning. We don't need to dive into podcasts as a group to determine whether reliable sources are mistaken. If the sources are wrong, Wikipedia is wrong. Please stop asking for people to perform original research. If you think a source isn't reliable, tell us which one and why. If no agreement is had, let's ask WP:RSN. Let's stop running in pointless circles. You have no sources, and you refuse to name which sources are unreliable. If you aren't interested in discussing reliable sources, stop derailing this thread. I considered taking this behavior to WP:ANI but it is semi protected at the moment. 12.75.41.13 (talk) 22:09, 30 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Let me say this again as clearly as possible. The beginning of the very first sentence in the current version of the climate change section of the article is Peterson is a climate-change denier... For this we provide four sources. Not a single one of these four sources uses the word "denier" or any other version of the word "deny". What a ridiculous claim that somehow Springee is at fault here. Springee and I both agree that we should accurately summarize these sources. The current version blatantly violates WP:BLP and blatantly fails verification. It is we who want to move the text closer to the sources. Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:57, 31 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure how closely you've read WP:V, but citations directly supporting "denial"/"denier" are already in the paragraph in question. If you are concerned that the clicky numbers aren't in (what you think is) the right place, you should be clear that if they happen to be in the "wrong" location in the paragraph, that situation cannot in itself result in fails verification. That just isn't what verification involves. Newimpartial (talk) 01:12, 31 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I know WP:V, obviously. I can't tell which source in this paragraph you think supports this label. Are you referring to this "DeSmog" source: [12]? Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:46, 31 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

To answer your question: both that source and The Guardian directly support the characterization, as I have discussed in our exchange earlier in this section. Newimpartial (talk) 09:43, 31 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

The Guardian source says Peterson has been on an all-out attack on the science of climate change and the risks of global heating. I would support use of this source to include the claim that Jordan Peterson has attacked the science of climate change. That's not the same as labelling him a "climate-change denier," which the Guardian source does not do. As for "DeSmog," it is a group blog (previously called "DeSmog Blog") that has received some discussion at RSN, where it is generally regarded as either unreliable or biased. So not RS, at least not without attribution. Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:53, 31 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

According to WP:USEBYOTHERS principles, the inclusion of this particular DeSmog source by the Catholic Reporter - as a news and not an opinion article - lends to support to the reliability of the specific article cited.

In any case, I hope all editors can see that this is not a fails verification scenario. Personally, I would prefer to employ a reference to the Critical Reactions piece by Panu Raatikainen, but I haven't tried to insert the citation because some editors have objected to the tone of other books, in a different series, by the same publisher. !!?? Sigh. Newimpartial (talk) 13:07, 31 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Ok, progress. You're not disputing that the Guardian piece you referenced does not support use of the label "climate-change denier". You're claiming that a source appended to a different sentence--"DeSmog"--is RS without attribution in this case. Let's get clear on what exactly in "DeSmog" is supposed to support this label. The "DeSmog" article says:

1. Peterson is now planting doubt via his podcast and social media posts about the severity and urgency of global warming in the minds of younger generations.
2. ...Peterson’s frequent downplaying of climate risks...
3. ...Peterson is among the most visible promoters of climate crisis denial.

Which of these (or did I miss one) supports the label in your view? Once you say, I'll be glad to take it to RSN. We can also check the Raatikainen piece there if you want; it says Peterson has downplayed climate change and promoted a denialist message. I assume that's the quote you think supports the label "climate-change denier". Shinealittlelight (talk) 13:52, 31 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

To answer your questions: as I have said before, "promoter of climate change denial", "promoted a denialist message" and "all-out attack on the science of climate change" all support the label "climate-change denier". As also noted previously, I am not attached to "denier" vs. "denial" vs. some other formulation of his attack on the scientific consensus about climate change. Many policy-compliant options exist.

What I do not think policy allows is milquetoast, apologetic language like observing that "Peterson argued against the accuracy of climate modelling" and that several scientists "denounced Peterson's statements on these topics". Of course these things happened, but they are not a DUE summary either of Peterson's position or of how it was received. Instead, such formulations come across as, "Peterson has a view, and some scientists disagree with him", which would be a WP:FRINGE violation if presented in this article.

Also, back to the narrower question of terminology: the standard term on-wiki as off-wiki for those engaged in objecting to the consensus about climate change is, in fact, "climate change denial", as I have already documented. This term is used by RS about Peterson. If there is a policy-based reason not to use this standard term, I certainly haven't seen it presented in this discussion. What I have seen is editors offering interperetation of primary sources by Peterson to the effect that they aren't convinced that what they hear from Peterson fits what they understand "denial" to mean. I certainly welcome a policy-based objection, perhaps in a new Talk section, but that surely isn't it. Newimpartial (talk) 14:53, 31 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Posted on RSN: [13] Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:50, 31 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I've said what I have to say on this. I've started to see terrible wiki-negative mis-characterizations of what I wrote....I called those out but don't plan to engage further on such things, and those persons should please stop. I also don't plan to repeat what I said already. If somebody feels that I can give helpful thoughts or help craft a solution, please ping me to make sure I know. Otherwise I plan to bow out of this thread. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:34, 26 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Potential compromise wording - there are plenty of sources about the ridicule Peterson has received about his misunderstandings of math, science, and the climate. Instead of getting into how he is wrong, it may be more fruitful just to describe his pseudoscience as being often ridiculed by professionals. [[14]], [[15]], [[16]]. These are a few sources, hundreds more exist to document the ridicule Peterson has received for his basic mistakes in STEM areas. That seems significant enough to cover, and DUE. 12.75.41.13 (talk) 22:19, 26 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Call a spade a spade. Just say that others have described him as a denialist, that he believes the measures to prevent further change are worse than the change itself, etc. Just do it concisely. But we can't avoid the mention when it's clearly DUE. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:32, 29 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I see no fewer than four different accounts active here who are nakedly POV-pushing: user:Trakking, user:Shinealittlelight, user:North8000, and user:Springee. Should we request at WP:AE that they be topic banned?

jps (talk) 18:29, 25 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Your latest response starts off with "Are you fucking serious?" which is a clear violation of WP:CIVILITY. Everyone else is engaged in fruitful discussion. Personally I believe that everyone here has a point although on different matters. Let's talk and reach WP:CONSENSUS. Trakking (talk) 18:59, 25 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

WP:CIR. This is not fruitful discussion. This is WP:TE WP:PROFRINGE WP:ADVOCACY. There is no "good people on all sides" going on here. This is a clear matter of climate change denial being pooh-poohed in the classic ideological direction of WP:CRYBLP we have seen promoted here at Wikipedia. jps (talk) 19:15, 25 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

This is a clear violation of CIVIL. You claim POV push but why isn't the same true of your actions in the other direction? Honest editors can disagree. Let's turn it around, do we have the actual interviews or Peterson statements on which the claim denier are based? Per LABEL if this term is going to be used in wiki voice or needs to be well supported. Are we at that widely supported point yet? Springee (talk) 19:30, 25 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

It is well-supported. That you are pretending it is not is the problem and it is consistent with your ongoing WP:POVPUSHing WP:ADVOCACY at this site to try to remove reliably sourced identification of climate change denial. jps (talk) 20:45, 25 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Your assertion is wrong and out of line on many levels, including blatantly false and baseless accusations. It's time to stop doing that. North8000 (talk) 20:14, 25 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Identify the blatantly false accusation I made. jps (talk) 20:43, 25 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Who is "we"? If you feel so strongly about this, go make the case. Beware of WP:BOOMERANG. Have a nice (warm) day. Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:22, 26 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have requested admin help at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Jordan_Peterson. jps (talk) 20:53, 25 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I recommend that everybody dial it back a bit and slow down. Jordan Peterson is an overt and proud climate denier; anyone who denies this is just ignoring the heaps of evidence. The fact remains, unless we have good sources about this subject, it will continue to be controversial to discuss it. I don't believe DeSmog is a bad source, and we've discussed this before in other places, but we should attempt to find additional sources. FWIW, Peterson is a vocal advocate of the fringe climate change conspiracy theory which believes climate scientists are in cahoots with world goverments to impose communism/totalitarianism on people who drive their ICE cars to work. It's just so absurd and ridiculous that it's difficult to discuss without breaking out in laughter, but sadly, this is a popular conspiracy theory on the right that is believed by millions of conservatives. Viriditas (talk) 22:00, 25 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I forgot to note, the podcast Decoding the Gurus has repeatedly highlighted and documented Peterson's climate denial, and it's one of the most bizarre things I've ever heard. It was on that podcast that I first heard Peterson deny anthropogenic climate change was real, and quite predictably, he followed up with variations on the Narcissist's Prayer argument (Climate change didn't happen, and if it did, it wasn't caused by humans, and if it was, it isn't bad for the planet, and if it is, it's not important, etc.), which many here may be familiar with since it is one of the hallmarks of oil-funded disinformation that predates Peterson by many years. I don't know how or why Peterson started parroting oil industry talking points, but he did and he still does. There's rumors that he's funded by right-wing organizations with links to oil interests, but I haven't looked too deeply into it because Peterson is such an obviously disturbed person. What's odd and unusual is that he's considered some kind of prophet on the right, and that makes me extremely uncomfortable, so I tend to avoid this topic. Viriditas (talk) 22:14, 25 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

That sounds interesting. I'll look into that but I'm buried in RL today so it will be tomorrow. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:50, 25 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I didn't notice that you were just referring to a podcast series in general. If you have something specific that is on this topic I'd be happy to and would like to look at it. North8000 (talk) 13:01, 26 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

My guess is that material that has already been linked to on this page is used as audio clips on the show. Viriditas (talk) 22:54, 26 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Climate change didn't happen, and if it did, it wasn't caused by humans, and if it was Yes, that is also called Kettle logic. It is pointless to detail what position a denialist opposed at one point in time, since they deny whatever they can get away with. If one of their positions is refuted, they will change their song slightly and deny another thing. The only constant is that one should not regulate any markets, the reason why one shouldn't varies in the way you wrote: didn't happen, wasn't caused by humans and so on. It's motivated reasoning. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:25, 26 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Well said. Skeptical Science highlights several aspects of this rhetorical tactic. Viriditas (talk) 22:56, 26 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

All true. But remember we're talking about the use of a particular term. One which is pejorative because it denies things which are scientifically established as being true. Hob Gadling describes people who avoid doing that and that they avoid doing that. North8000 (talk) 14:17, 27 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Peterson is an object of ridicule because of his inability to understand the science behind climate change, but he wants to continue making YouTube videos denying the science is valid. That is climate denialism - just like the RS say it is. 12.75.41.13 (talk) 18:45, 27 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think we can pretty comfortably say Peterson is a climate change denier. Allan Nonymous (talk) 21:45, 2 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Without addressing that, that really is not related to and does not address the points in my post, which it was indented under. North8000 (talk)

I think the general consensus from most media sources (heck, even some of those on the right), is that Peterson is a controversial figure with controversial views. I think the article and lede should reflect this. Allan Nonymous (talk) 21:39, 2 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't think there would be any issues with this change. Peterson is a popular YouTube influencer who says controversial things for views. 166.198.21.32 (talk) 18:24, 4 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I am not opposed to controversial, but I would also consider polarizing, the adjective used in the article, or a synonym like contentious or polemical. I like some of what Peterson has written, and in the past he did a great job educating people about the (mostly positive) role of religion in society (and to a more nuanced understanding of the Bible), and he has introduced younger people (Gen Z)) to Nietzsche, Jung, Dostoevsky, and other important late 19th and early 20th century thinkers. But boy does he like to provoke arguments for the sake of argument (or for getting more clicks). Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 19:29, 4 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

No. We have already discussed this topic and the consensus was that the label was unnecessary and unprofessional. Wikipedia guideline explicitly states in MOS:LABEL that we must avoid contentious labels such as ”controversial”. Trakking (talk) 19:50, 4 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Being controversial is his job as a YouTube shock jock. It would be silly to skip this Nest of Chum (talk) 21:07, 4 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

MOS:LABEL says, "Rather than describing an individual using the subjective and vague term controversial, instead give readers information about relevant controversies." So we have to do that unless someone wants to get the guideline changed. Otherwise, I see no reason to make an exception here. Peterson is far from the only controversial individual with a biography. TFD (talk) 23:05, 4 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you Trakking and TFD for pointing out MOS:LABEL, a guideline I surely read in the past, but forgot about when replying here. I am glad to see that someone removed controversial. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 11:40, 1 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Not sure what wiki policy is on paywalled sources, but citation 4 is behind one. Public source would be preferable.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2021/04/what-happened-to-jordan-peterson/618082/ 24.113.229.172 (talk) 00:04, 5 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

See WP:PAYWALL. Difficulty accessing a source is not a reason to reject it. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 00:26, 5 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Original: Nutrition experts point out that such a diet can result in "severe dysregulation"[183] and Mikhaila later claimed that Peterson experienced a "violent reaction" to this diet.[185]

The violent reaction was an allergenic reaction he had from a stew before he adopted the lion diet.

Change: Jordan Peterson suffered a severe allergenic reaction which caused many symptoms but primarily severe akathisia. His doctor then prescribed him benzodiazepines to alleviate these symptoms. At the same time Jordan grew in notoriety and his wife was diagnosed with cancer. His prescription was then increased. Eventually he tried to get off it but suffered severe withdrawal. He couldn't find anyone in America who could detox him without putting him on other drugs. Eventually he found a place in Russia that was willing to detox him without the use of other drugs that were making his akathisia worse. This reaction would go on to cause him to he adopt the elimination diet dubbed the lion diet to avoid such problems in the future. For the full story watch Mikhaila Peterson explain what happened to her father in the following video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGi5zorf5is ^[1] Brian543d (talk) 00:00, 10 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Not done: 1. This is a primary source which is generally inappropriate for BLPs. 2. This gives WP:UNDUE weight and is promotional with the final sentence. TheWikiToby (talk) 23:59, 10 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Connor Behan and Rhododendrites:, in looking at these recent changes [17], [18] I thought it was worth asking if there is a better way to address this content. Honestly, I think this is an example of The Independent showing itself to be a poor source and injecting a lot of bias into their reporting (beyond using biased language like "Dressed in a tuxedo, Mr Peterson croaked out a cascade of other questionable claims" Why do his clothes matter? Why use the condescending "croaked" instead of "said"? So the claim by Peterson is that the solar industry takes more lives per year than nuclear. Per The Independent this appears to be a case where two different sources provide conflicting answers, likely due to what which deaths each includes. I'm not sure why we should trust "Our World in Data" more than a Forbes contribution. The Independent doesn't seem to say they think one or the other is correct and they note that OWD's information is rather old. Where I think The Independent shows their strong bias is when they go on to imply it's misleading because both are low compared to fossil fuels. Why would that matter? If two people are arguing alternative energy sources, solar vs nuclear, why would it matter if carbon is much worse? This is a good example of a source showing bias in a way that should have us downgrading it's reliability for this topic. Once the bias is removed they basically say, depending on your source, Peterson may be correct. However, The Independent frames this factual content with a lot of biased tone and the larger negative claim regarding carbon deaths almost implying that Peterson ignores those. At the end of all this I would suggest we simply remove this example as it isn't a good example of Peterson being misleading. What do you think? Springee (talk) 15:54, 24 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I went to look at the original clip it's talking about. Peterson says some dumb things in there, but the solar/nuclear thing just sounds like a tangential fun fact rather than a rhetorical argument. It is in fact entirely plausible that Peterson would talk about deaths from other sources of energy while sowing doubt about climate solutions -- in fact in this clip as soon as he gets out that fun fact he seems to notice an opportunity to do just that and throws in something like "when you change systems, people think only good things happen" -- as in, this switch to solar isn't all good, folks. In other words, there's something to call out there, but that Independent piece missed the mark a bit. I don't have a problem just removing that line.

I do have a problem with making the lead fail to summarize the body. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:13, 24 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't think the climate change content should have been restored to the lead. First, it was a recent addition and despite the long discussion above, no consensus on the content, much less the inclusion in the lead was reached. Second, the sentence is not encyclopedic; "In particular, he has been widely criticized by climate scientists for..." It's not clear he has been "widely criticized" and what counts as "widely" anyway? Also, why is this "in particular"? Pulling back, the lead should be the high level summary of the person. Most sources discussing Peterson, and there are many, say nothing about his views on climate change because they just aren't an important part of why he is notable yet isn't typical BLP boiler plate like home town etc. Springee (talk) 22:01, 27 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Though tangentially related to your question, I feel the need to echo @Rhododendrites' comment, why did you remove the section on his climate denial from the lead? You claimed that "there doesn't appear to be an [sic] consensus on keeping this material in the lead", but 1) previous discussions were not focused on the lead so I'm not sure where you could find such a consensus and, 2) said discussions here & here determined that Jordan Peterson reliably denies (fully or partially) climate change, so it'd be best to leave that in the lead to better summarize the body's contents. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 20:12, 25 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

The removed text was inaccurate. I'd be all for intelligent coverage of him on this topic and a brief accurate summary in the lead but what we had in the lead was certainly not that. Vague inaccurate epitaphs written by people who are his political opponents. I've not seen anywhere where he denied the main established scientific facts of climate change. He has done a lot of criticism of other policies, initiatives, accusations of sometimes skipping science in the name of advocacy, actions etc. related to climate change. North8000 (talk) 22:13, 27 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I do not see how the text was in any way vague, it very succinctly states "he has been widely criticized by climate scientists for denying the scientific consensus on climate change and giving a platform to climate-change deniers." Any more detail would be undue & honestly unnecessary for the lead.

As for "where he denied the main established scientific facts of climate change", he said “there’s no such thing as climate". Regardless, our job is to write what reliable sources say on the matter & as previous discussions have repeatedly shown, he's referred to in several reliable sources as a climate denier. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 23:16, 27 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

What is the definition of "widely"? How many critics do we need to establish "widely"? The "no such thing as climate" statement was part of a rhetorical argument. The logic of the argument may be wrong but presenting it as if that is his complete view on the topic is mislead at best. CNN, while not trying to summarize his argument does try to include more context to show that he is using that statement as part of a larger argument. Springee (talk) 00:24, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

So is your issue only with the use of the word, "widely"? Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 00:30, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Already answered above. Springee (talk) 07:35, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

That is an accurate statement about what his political opponents have said about him. It's not coverage of him, nor his views and statements on the topic. North8000 (talk) 13:52, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

His political opponents are... climate scientists? Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 14:01, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

As a preface, we're talking about a portion of the text in question. No, a scientist would not write like that. North8000 (talk) 14:14, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I feel like I'm missing something as the article I linked had comments from climate scientists. If there's some miscommunication occurring I apologize, but I'm not clear on what your specific issues with statement are & what changes you'd prefer. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 14:40, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes, consistent with that source, do not put in claims that he denies the central established tenets of climate change. Even more ideal would be to find a source that more thoroughly reviews/covers his statements on the topic. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:25, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

We have a whole sourced section regarding his views where you can find quotes like "Peterson doubts climate change is man-made", corroborated here. If your claim is that he shouldn't be referred to as a climate change denier because he only doubts some aspects of climate change, that is also covered here with regards to new denial i.e. the "I'm not a climate denier, but..." argument.

So again, he's referred to as a climate denier by multiple reliable sources, he denies a fundamental aspect of modern day consensus regarding climate change (the fact it is a man-made issue), & he has platformed other climate deniers. We are making no exceptional or controversial claims in the lead, so I still fail to see what specifically you're taking issue with. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 18:21, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

The second one is not behind a paywall and I don't see it in there. Can you quote the text to that effect from there? North8000 (talk) 19:41, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Summarizing that second source and the previously provided source, how about this as a summary?: "Peterson has been criticized by scientists for his statements regarding climate change. He has expressed skepticism about climate change projections, the degree of alarm over climate change, and of various mitigation measures." North8000 (talk) 20:23, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

The wording degree of alarm is out of the question. It uses the denialist framing that those who correctly follow the data are just Chicken Littles making mountains out of molehills while those who reject reality for ideological reasons are calm and collected. Wikipedia is not dishonest enough to pretend that attitude has any merit. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:00, 29 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

What is the non-denialist way to express that Peterson claims people (more specific?) are over reacting. It is clear from the sources this is something Peterson believes. Overall the proposed sentence is more specific and more impartial than the current one in the lead. Springee (talk) 10:07, 29 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

The central issue is this. Saying (or using a term that implies) that someone currently denies the central established tenet of climate change (e.g. that the earth is warming and that human activity is a significant cause of that) is the equivalent of accusing them of being a flat-earther and would need very strong sourcing, doubly so in a BLP. All of the other things that he actually did say ((criticizing the modeling projections or ability to do so, criticizing the degree of alarm being raised, criticizing proposed mitigation measures (in essence saying that the proposed cure may be worse than the disease) and which credible people have criticized him for) are in a totally different category. My proposal is consistent with this. North8000 (talk) 13:22, 29 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Does anyone know why "ABCs of Tragedy" isn’t listed in Jordan Peterson’s Wiki book list? It's arguably his most controversial work—so much so that it was even removed from his website. Any idea what's going on with this?

YouTube has two good videos about it.

One of him announcing it and the other is a group reviewing the book Pragmatic Person (talk) 00:53, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

https://m.youtube.com/watch?si=JhivLbMyq8w_-Df8&v=ZvfGn4phwlE&feature=youtu.be

And for more information on the book itself. Try:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?si=NKDtYbEbreo3iUBG&v=18O9bap8MgI&feature=youtu.be Pragmatic Person (talk) 00:59, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply