Talk:Jordan Peterson

Semi-protected edit request on 17 November 2021

Change

Jordan Bernt Peterson (born 12 June 1962) is a Canadian professor of psychology, clinical psychologist, YouTube personality, and author. He began to receive widespread attention in the late 2010s for his views on cultural and political issues, often described as conservative. He is considered to be a member of the intellectual dark web.

to

Jordan Bernt Peterson (born 12 June 1962) is a Canadian professor of psychology, clinical psychologist, and author.

Stevenpjohnso (talk) 23:44, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.. Kleinpecan (talk) 23:46, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

References

"Intellectual dark web"

The third (!!!) sentence of this entire article is highly irrelevant and should be removed ASAP. The so-called intellectual dark web is, as the article for it clearly states, a "loosely defined informal group". It is a silly neologism, a trendy name—nothing that should be taken seriously. A year from now it may be gone forever. If no one else takes this matter into their own hands and removes it, I will do it, because there is no good reason for keeping it and whoever added it did not even present a justification for it. The sentence is more obscuring than enlightening. -Trakking (talk) 16:07, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

The "Intellectual Dark Web" has been part of the article's stable content - and reliably sourced - for at least two years, and has been part of the lead section for two months. I am not hearing a policy-relevant to remove it, here, just WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Newimpartial (talk) 16:17, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I was trying to find the diffs of when it was added and modified. This is the last time it was adjusted, and as no one agrees on anything in this article, it's a pretty solid implied consensus since it's still there. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:23, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

The information ought to be included, just not in the very introduction: that's what I objected to. Trakking (talk) 16:33, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I concur.

Undue weight to place it in the lede. BushelCandle 01:23, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Member of the intellectual dark Web?

I think including the above in the first paragraph, effectively suggesting that is definitive of him as a person is basically false. It might be mentioned somewhere, but to mention in the first paragraph is bizarre and over states his controversy. 86.142.102.21 (talk) 19:57, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Do you have recent, reliable sources to back that up, or is it just your opinion? Newimpartial (talk) 20:49, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree with this objection. And the question should not be Are there reliable sources that indicate that it is not relevant? but Are there those that imply that it is? The burden of proof lies with the latter. Trakking (talk) 16:38, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

The reliable sources noting Peterson as a "member" of the Intellectual Dark Web have presumably reached that conclusion (that it is relevant) for us. Which is why I asked for sources supporting the opposite. Newimpartial (talk) 16:43, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

It's clearly DUE that Peterson is identified as part of the IDW. However, that doesn't mean it needs to be in the first paragraph of the lead. This was added to the lead paragraph Sept 25th so I wouldn't view it as long term stable consensus. I don't have a strong opinion but would lean towards putting later in the lead. Springee (talk) 17:21, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think the IDW label and the conservative label should be kept side by side; these are not entirely separate attributions, and it would be quite artificial to separate them. Newimpartial (talk) 17:48, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that there was an official membership in the IDW. GoodDay (talk) 19:06, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

There was but the only person on the member-roll was Sam Harris and he turned in his membership card when the Official IDW came out as pro-Trump. TBH, no, there is no formal membership in the IDW and the association of any given (pseudo)intellectual with it is based almost entirely on vague gestures and the anointment of the media. Frankly there might be value in just wiping the IDW off the website as a piece of unimportant 2010s Conservative ephemera long past its sell-by date. But as long as Wikipedia persists in treating this dubious pseudo-club as something of merit we should probably note those people who have been claimed as "members" and few people are more associated with the IDW than Peterson. Simonm223 (talk) 19:10, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

@Simonm223: The only thing you managed to say with all of that text is that "you don't like nor agree with Jordan Peterson". But a good portion of the people who come here do; show some respect and try to be neutral. And by the way, many people associated with the IDW are not conservative: Steven Pinker, Sam Harris, Jonathan Haidt etc. Trakking (talk) 10:38, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I have no interest in maintaining some sort of artificial neutrality in the talk pages of a pseudo-intellectual. Frankly I've read enough Jung, Heidegger and Neitzsche to recognize both where Peterson is coming from and that he's a lousy academic who doesn't well grasp the theorists he deploys. I, personally, have complete contempt for the man but he's notable and should have a well, reliably sourced, article. Steven Pinker and Sam Harris are, in fact, deeply reactionary and Jonathan Haidt I know basically nothing about but he's not in good company. My concern with the IDW is that I feel it doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability standards as the only sources that describe this loose agglomeration of WP:FRINGE "academics" is newsmedia - and a quick look at WP:RS/N should give you a sense of what I think of the use of newsmedia as reliable sources. My neutrality is not required - only that the article use reliable sources to reflect a clear picture of reality. I will continue advocating that newsmedia does not represent a reliable source and that phenomena such as the IDW that basically only exist in the minds of cranks like Bari Weiss should best be considered beneath the dignity of an encyclopedia. Simonm223 (talk) 13:24, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

The addition to to mentioning IDW to the lead paragraph has been constested multiple times ([1][2]) since it was boldy added a few months ago ([3]). Hence I am removing it. Anyone who argues it belongs in the lead paragraph can form a consensus on the talk page as per WP:BRD. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 14:47, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Do you support its removal? Given the small number if editors that have discussed this so far, each individual opinion will have a considerable impact on the likely consensus, one way or the other. Newimpartial (talk) 14:57, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I would say that if reliable sources can be produced that the IDW is something that exists I'd support Peterson's inclusion as a notable member of it. I'm skeptical any actually reliable sources can be provided for this bit of ephemera though. Effectively the IDW doesn't exist except as a rhetorical device of certain opinion columnists to propose a bunch of pseudointellectualsheterodox scholars are a movement. Simonm223 (talk) 15:29, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

And I question whether the meaning of exists relied on here is relevant to this article at all. Almost nothing referred to in this article exists, except possibly the University of Toronto and/or YouTube. Newimpartial (talk) 15:44, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I think what it comes down to is a question of notability and WP:DUE - you know the low opinion I have of newsmedia as a source, I'm sure, as we've talked about it in other places before. In the case of the IDW, it sprung pretty much whole-cloth out of Bari Weiss' opinion column. There's no organic link between Peterson, Harris, Heying, Weinstein, the Sokal Squared hoaxers, etc. etc. etc. except that many of the have either resigned or been fired from their posts because they weren't particularly talented as academics and all of them have subsequently achieved some level of celebrity in Conservative circles for railing against progressivism and / or Marxism in various forms. I'm unconvinced that the IDW is due mention. I don't dispute that figures like Weiss treat Peterson as being part of this movement. So, if the consensus is that the IDW can be reliably sourced to be an extant organization then Peterson should be treated as a member. Otherwise there should be an AFD up for Intellectual Dark Web. Simonm223 (talk) 15:59, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I will say that this source represents one of the best arguments for inclusion of the IDW on this website and it also explicitly ties Peterson to it, albeit via Weiss' opinion column. Simonm223 (talk) 16:05, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Right. But why should it be an extant organization? Classical liberalism and Traditionalist conservatism, both of which are referred to in this article, are not "organizations" (and Locke, Smith and Burke, to whom these traditions could be ascribed, are not "extant"). So that seems an unnecessary bar and I for one would argue that the IDW is a much more relevant affiliation than either of those ... Newimpartial (talk) 16:10, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Ok but those two examples are both coherent ideologies. There's basically no through line for the IDW aside from being name-checked in an editorial. I mean Peterson is basically a postmodern right-Nietzsche self-help guy. Heather Heying is an anti-vaxxer. Sam Harris is a pop-science author who has a hate on for Islam. Joe Rogan is a podcaster and Ben Shapiro is a youtuber. Like it's basically just a list of people whose opinions Weiss likes and even the academic sources that grapple with it end up falling back to Bari Weiss as a sole-source. And that's my concern about the IDW right there. There's countless people who have formulated Classical Liberalism into something that can be identified, at the very least, as a coherent ideological movement. I don't see the IDW as clearing that bar. Simonm223 (talk) 16:15, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

You see, this is where we actually disagree. I recognize that There's countless people who have formulated Classical Liberalism into something that can be identified, at the very least, as a coherent ideological movement - and to me, that's part of the problem. The people who self-identify, or are identified by others, as "classical liberals" don't in my view bear any particular relationship to the "coherent ideological movement" distilled by "countless people" - the latter activity is in my view equivalent to a Retroactive continuity project and is inherently misleading. I'd rather have a label like IDW that is simply used rhetorically, rather than one like the 21st century usage of "classical liberal" that pretends to be a coherent ideological movement but doesn't actually apply to people in that way. Newimpartial (talk) 16:24, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Looking at the body of the article there is one sentence saying several sources have associated him with the IDW. That's not much in the body of the article. Given the coverage in the article body I think removal from the lead makes sense (earlier I just said not in the lead sentence). It seems questionable that a one sentence paragraph in the body establishes weight for this to be anywhere in the lead much less the second sentence of the lead. Springee (talk) 16:19, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, it is a convenient and relevant label that is related to "conservative" in the preceding sentence, which in my view justifies its placement. Newimpartial (talk) 16:24, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I think this all ends up circling, in various ways, back to WP:DUE I get where you're coming from and I'm sure that you can imagine that I'd be pretty critical of assigning any of the people under discussion the label of "classical liberal" absent reliable sources making that connection. However I'm unconvinced that Bari Weiss' opinion is due sufficient weight to make it valuable as a rhetorical categorization. She's a failed NYT opinion columnist who helped popularize some conservative media figures and marginal scholars and, from what I can see, she's the ultimate source for the whole IDW thing. Peterson is a conservative. Peterson is a Jungian. Peterson is a right-Nietzschean. Peterson is a self-help author. He's a TERF. These are all things that can be verified petty easily and, aside from the last one, uncontroversially. Peterson is a member of the IDW presupposes the IDW is a thing with a definable membership and that seems dubious. Simonm223 (talk) 16:32, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

But the label didn't originate with Weiss, and it was picked up by such diverse sources as the LA Review of Books, The Guardian, Jacobin and RCP. These are all reliable sources making that connection; it isn't necessary to rely on the NYT piece. And the question of whether the IDW is a real thing is no more relevant than whether there is a "coherent intellectual movement" of right-Nietzscheans, or not. Newimpartial (talk) 16:41, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

The weight of material in the lead should be based on the body, not external sources. Sources like Real Clear Policy etc aren't going to do much to establish this as something that needs to not only be in the lead but prominently in the lead. Springee (talk) 17:04, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider any of those sources reliable (they're all newsmedia) and RCP is, in particular, unreliable as a source. If you have evidence of the use of the term prior to Weiss I'd be very interested to see it. My understanding was that she coined it. Simonm223 (talk) 17:30, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

There is actually no consensus on RSN on the reliability of RCP, as far as I know, and the article I linked above is exactly what I would regard as the sweet spot for where that source is potentially reliable/useful. And since you seem unwilling to read Intellectual Dark Web or its sources, the term was coined by Eric Weinstein, which is a much less important fact about it, I think, than the ways it is used by RS. As far as your considering all newsmedia unreliable, that doesn't align with WP policy, so I am simply going to ignore your personal opinion on that. Newimpartial (talk) 17:57, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

NI, I would agree that RCP is no consensus and thus I would generally say facts reported by it should be assumed true unless shown false. However, this is a question of weight. Only the most important or boiler plate content should be in the opening paragraph of the lead. If this fact is so critical to understanding Peterson it should represent perhaps an entire section of the body. If it's just a subsection then perhaps it should be in the lead. Instead it's one sentence deep in the body. That just doesn't seem like the sort of fact that is so critical as to justify being the second sentence of the lead (or anywhere in the lead). Springee (talk) 18:34, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Springee, I don't think that is normally how labels are assigned in lead sections. For such characterizations, the relevant questions are usually: is it well-sourced, and is it in some way disputed? For Peterson and IDW, I believe the relevant answers are "yes" and "no". This Talk section has been distracted by a question, "does the IDW exist", which is of no relevance to this article's lead based on any WP policy I've ever heard of. Newimpartial (talk) 18:41, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

As a consensus operated platform Wikipedia is built out of the aggregate of people's opinions. You are, of course, free to continue stuffing newsmedia sources into anything to do with social sciences and humanities and I am free to continue harping on how it degrades the quality of the encyclopedia. Eventually, perhaps, I'll persuade enough people to make a change to how newsmedia is handled on this platform. Simonm223 (talk) 18:44, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Again, your perspective seems mistaken in its premise. I don't agree that Peterson has anything to do with social sciences and humanities, at least anything of any importance: he is essentially a pop culture figure. And your apparent requirement that our treatment of Taylor Swift should rely only on musiclogists, our Trump coverage should be limited to political scientists, and our Epstein and Weinstein arricles should be based exclusively on criminologists seems, ahem, unlikely to gain traction. Newimpartial (talk) 18:54, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

NO, you have more than convinced me that this content is due for the body of the article. But this is the article lead which requires a higher standard. If this is so critical for the opening of the lead why is it only a single sentence in the body? Springee (talk) 18:58, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Because there isn't much to say about a label? Either it applies or it doesn't. Newimpartial (talk) 19:02, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

But it's not a label. It's not like saying he is a Sagittarius or he was born in December. It's saying he is a member or associated with a group. Why is that membership/association important? What does it say about him or his beliefs/actions/etc? Also is an "association" binary? Is he associated because people say he is part of the group or is he on the edges of the group? Is he associated with it the way Elliot Ness is associated with Al Capone? You are suggesting it's a simple label but that isn't how it's being used. Springee (talk) 19:11, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Good call  Spy-cicle💥 . Thank you - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 02:02, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Jordan Peterson the Philosopher?

As of today, JP is regarded as a conservative "thinker", even on Wikipedia itself. Shouldn't we regard him as a philosopher or at least public intellectual in his biography? As an example, the israeli historian Yuval Noah Hararis wikipedia page lists him as both a public intellectual and even a philosopher. Even though Harari having presented no philosophical system, very rarely quoting philosophers or even explaining their theories. If Harari, why not JP? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samueldwayne (talk • contribs) 12:51, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

There was a discussion about a year ago on whether he should be called a "philosopher" - the conclusion seemed to be that not enough reliable sources have called him that (though he has been called a "YouTube philosopher"). Maybe things have changed since then. I think the argument for calling him a public intellectual is quite a bit stronger, though; I don't know if that was ever discussed. Korny O'Near (talk) 19:22, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

The New York Times has indeed called Peterson "one of the most influential intellectuals" of our time of something like that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samueldwayne (talk • contribs) 19:46, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

There is a promising academic article on the ironies of Peterson's role as a public intellectual here. Newimpartial (talk) 19:49, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "promising", but I actually just skimmed through that paper, and it looks really dumb. For example, they first say that Peterson's views on hierarchies are incorrect, and then later they say they're actually so correct as to be pointless, because no one disputes them. Anyway, this isn't really related to the topic. Korny O'Near (talk) 20:15, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

No longer a University of Toronto professor

The article's "University of Toronto (1998–present)" is outdated. Peterson himself now writes on twitter he's no longer employed at UofT.

Ontario's $100k+ public sector salary disclosure also shows him (Sector: University) last for 2017, even, 2018+ he's missing (unsurprisingly given the permanent sabbatical).

He still lists it as ongoing on LinkedIn, but like his page at the Dept of Psych at the UofT, that doesn't appear to have been updated since 2017 (for instance, check the Youtube links there, none past that year and some dead).

— 84.163.110.146 (talk) 22:57, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

You make a persuasive argument. I read the Twitter post (from a verified account, which makes it more credible than a random unverified twitter post); looked at the YouTube links you mentioned, confirming that the pages have not been updated for three or four years as you indicated; and I checked the 2020 public sector salary disclosure site - their search engine is limited so I downloaded the spreadsheet - Jordan Peterson does not appear under the "Universities" section. There is one "Petersen" (line 199077) and four professors or staff with last name "Peterson" (lines 199078–199081), but none of them are Jordan Peterson. I edited the infobox entry, changing "present" to "2021". If we confirm an earlier departure date, e.g., 2020 or 2019, we can change it. // I hope you don't mind - I edited the title of your post to make it easier to find now and in the future (after it is archived). Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 01:55, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

That you for the edit. The UoT page has now actually been slightly edited to reflect his retirement: While the previous capture on archive.org (Nov 21th '21) – and current Google Cache entry from Jan 25th '22 – referred to him as "professor of psychology" (→ active), it is now (Jan 29th '22) "professor emeritus" (→ Canada: retired) [no further content changes]. — 84.188.166.3 (talk) 14:12, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 January 2022

Change his YouTube information from 3.96 M subscribers to 4.41 M. 179.49.52.174 (talk) 22:05, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done --Hemantha (talk) 06:06, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Conservatism

The claim is made in the lead, preceeded by the phrase "often described". We are then given only three sources, none of which are particularly reliable. 2A04:4A43:4AFE:D739:0:0:5160:3989 (talk) 00:08, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I concur. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 17:29, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 January 2022

In the Health section the statement "willing to accommodate their treatment desires" is vague. I think it should have a "Specify" tag to encourage someone to fill in what exactly those unaccommodated treatment desires were. AmbientMorality (talk) 18:09, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Medical treatments are generally private. It is unlikely this would ever have a source. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:16, 15 January 2022 (UTC)