Talk:12 Rules for Life

Lengthy quotes, trivia, and "Amazon best seller" status
Regarding these reverts, I maintain that a lengthy quote stripped of any context is inappropriately promotional. The quote is not Peterson talking about this book, it is a random quote taken from the book without any additional commentary or context from reliable independent sources. Of all the thousands of quotes, why this one? As for the quote being "not controversial for removal", I am controverting its inclusion, therefore it is controversial.

As for Gregg Hurwitz, this might justify inclusion somewhere, but not in the first paragraph of the "description" section. This is not a useful description of this book, it is a description of some other book written by a different person at a different time.

As for Amazon "bestsellers", bestseller lists are a minefield of publishing garbage, and this is especially true of Amazon's many, many, many lists. Therefore, this needs context from reliable independent sources. It is also not clear what "most read book" means. How on Earth would anyone actually know this? These kinds of claims need context and attribution, otherwise they are functionally advertising. Grayfell (talk) 22:13, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed. If I can ever find time to do some serious editing, I will try to get the page down to fighting trim.   22:25, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks guys. Grayfell is right. Doug Weller  talk 08:29, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Also agree with Grayfell. The quote is cherry picking unless sources are there to show that quote is important (and then you'd need to describe how that is so). Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:35, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Reception cherry-picking
Per WP:BRD I guess is technically correct that the changes by  should be discussed, but it's pretty overt that the previous Reception section was cherry-picked, now that the problem has been brought up. The source is... um, the reviews themselves. Miki Filigranski, do you have any reason do oppose the changes? — Bilorv(c)(talk) 11:47, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Somehow I didn't notice the section directly above this, which establishes consensus for Grayfell's change, so I've reverted to their version, and also removed the bestseller list content from the lead, which I previously reverted to include. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 11:49, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Except it doesn't, it was about "another quote", there's no issue in "bestseller list" (except for Amazon rightly so). Don't revert to a new revision for which there's no stable consensus.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 11:57, 27 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's unavoidable. That previous section was about other changes, so there is no consensus for these new changes. Therefore we will need to discuss these problems now.
 * The "reception" section was repeatedly misrepresenting negative reviews as neutral, and was providing far more detail from positive reviews. This was then abused to WP:SYNTH the lede into saying that the book received "mostly positive reviews". Even the reviews cited in the article are not mostly positive, so this is inappropriate. While this phrase "mostly positive" is a common cliche on Wikipedia, and is sometimes non-controversial, this doesn't mean it isn't WP:OR. The book has received many negative reviews from reputable critics and experts and any attempt. Some of these reviews have already been cited, and should still be added. Lacking a review aggregater, or better yet, an academic summary of the work's reception, we have to assess the most significant reviews on their own merits and attempt to briefly summarize them in our own words. The previous attempts to do this have failed to do so in a neutral way. Grayfell (talk) 20:41, 27 October 2018 (UTC)


 * No need to make claims like "repeatedly" or "abused". It's hard to find neutrality when the reviews criticism itself depends on journal's or reviewer's ideological background (left or right, atheist or theist) or approach (e.g. Thagard's "philosophical" which is clearly negative toward individualism etc., and interestingly along the way promoting his "correct" book), as well reviews themselves are not completely positive or negative on everything.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 22:26, 29 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I think there is a need for this. Whether intentionally or not the article has selectively highlighted positive reviews and downplayed negative ones. This pattern was than used to improperly include editorializing into the lede of the article, which is an abuse of sources. You have challenged these changes, so the burden is now on me to document them so we can discuss if we need to fix them, and how. "Be precise in your speech", right?
 * Compartmentalizing reviews is exactly what reliable sources should be doing, not editors. If you want to dismiss a negative reviewer as having an ideological bias, that's your opinion. All reviewers will have a background and an ideology which informs their assessment. Peterson is no different. This doesn't negate their opinions. The claim that "reviews were mostly positive" is not acceptable, because it's not supported by any source, and doesn't appear to be true. We don't ignore a source just because it's a different ideology from Peterson. If Thagard's clearly negative philosophy is somehow relevant, readers can either read the article on Thagard to find this out, or you can provide a reliable source contextualizing his opinions as they relate to this book and we can go from there. Grayfell (talk) 22:57, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with you about the claim in the LEAD. I get your point, probably happened a misunderstanding. As for other, look, it could by my or your opinion, but the reviewer's background doesn't negate their opinion rather it defines it, that's what I was saying. It was a general statement, without any dismissal or approval.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 21:57, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I was the one who added the general statement into the lead. This is standard practice in media-related articles, as far as I'm aware—I do it on articles I've worked on ranging from I Am Malala to San Junipero. The fact that this book is contentious does not change anything. The reviews were cherry-picked so my summary was incorrect, but there should still be a summary. "Mixed reviews" or whatever. The lead needs to summarise the main aspects of the topic and reception is one of the most important parts of a book article. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 01:04, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

I apologize. It would be hypocritical of me to now claim that it's inappropriate to summarize reviews in the lede. I've added similar sentences, and will probably do so in the future. It's expected and useful, but it's never obligatory. Many Category:FA-Class Book articles and Category:GA-Class Book articles have this, but many don't, or they use a different approach. My impression is that comparative rankings are less common with non-fiction. Sometimes it's straightforward. This isn't straightforward, so we need to be more careful.

Ideally, there should be some external summary to lean on, somewhere. Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes have their flaws, but they provide a level of insulation from cherry-picking. Literary Hub has marketed itself as something like this for books, but I'm cautious of how reliable this is. Regardless, it's relatively few reviewers are not particularly positive about this book in total, giving it a "Pan" rating.

In this case, the book's contentious nature does matter, because any editor-written summary is going to risk WP:OR. If we use Lithub, how do we reconcile the 'Pan' rating with the large number of positive quotes the current section? The section will need to be rewritten to more accurately summarize these reviews, but my attempts to start tackling this have already been reverted, so I'm not sure what the next step is, other than an RfC or something. Grayfell (talk) 06:21, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about Literary Hub's reliability but what concerns me here is its small sample size, when compared to the large number of reviews we list in this article. I think you should go ahead with the rewriting for accuracy. Then it should be a simple matter of skimming through, mentally tallying the number of mostly positive, mixed and mostly negative reviews, and giving a broad descriptor of the overall consensus. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 10:27, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Hagiography
Per WP:BRD, this edit. Explain why and how these sources are unreliable, and note that these numbers (38/35) are already outdated because according to Peterson's site (which somehow tends to be updated) the book is prepared "for translation into 45 languages". That a significant information, not trivia.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 12:05, 27 October 2018 (UTC)


 * No, this level of detail is absolutely trivia. It is not significant just because you say it is. A WP:PRIMARY source which wasn't even properly cited is not sufficient for routine, promotional information. If you want to mention the number of languages according to a primary source, sure, I wouldn't object. For comparison, Wikipedia has thousands of articles on books which have been translated, and we do not presume that every publishing house and every language must be listed, because this is the English language Wikipedia. We don't mention, for example, In Search of Lost Time's Korean publishers, even though it has several listed at the Korean article. To pad-out the article with minor statistics based only on a promotional source is puffery. It's implying that the topic is more significant than it is based only on flimsy sources. The significance of information like this is based on WP:SECONDARY sources, per WP:DUE and common practice. Further, using phrases like "Complex Chinese" suggests that this was not based on contextualized knowledge of these languages or these publishers. Do we have sources verifying that every one of these these publishing houses is reputable and legitimate? Without independent verification for both accuracy and weight, this is indistinguishable from the kind of spam we typically see with publisher-written blurbs, or authors promoting their own self-published motivational fables. The burden is on you to establish, through reliable sources, the significance of trivia you want to include in any article. Grayfell (talk) 20:27, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not friendly reverting to new revision stating "Since there has been no response on talk" when only two days passed, the editors are not always available to continue the discussion, which by the way did not finish nor there was any critical issue to speed things up. You make several strange arguments - Complex Chinese is not about a language but writing system or why should we verify the reputation and legitimacy of publishing houses, what's the point when the publishing rights were sold? What PRIMARY source were you talking about, Peterson's website? PRIMARY is always an issue hence were cited SECONDARY sources, which you removed and replaced with one PRIMARY because of exactly what reason? Now we have a fact referenced by authors PRIMARY source (which always could have an issue in your words with "promoting their own self-published motivational fables") instead of SECONDARY source.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 22:41, 29 October 2018 (UTC)


 * You wasted no time reverting my edits under BRD, and I waited two days for you to reply. Now we are discussing these changes, and if my edit was what prompted this, so be it. Our shared goal is to improve the article.
 * The master source for this list was a press blurb from Peterson's literary agent from April. Only a few of these languages had individual sources, some of which were also primary or press releases (which are primary, if that wasn't clear). One is maybe an industry site? The author's website is not ideal, but it's a reliable, primary source for routine information about the book. The number of planned languages is a promotional tidbit which I would not include at all, if it were up to me. The reason his agent promoted this info is not assumed to be compatible with Wikipedia's goals. We generally don't include obscure, future information without a specific reason which is supported by secondary sources. I retained the raw number as a courtesy, since that's what was supported by a source which seems barely sufficient.
 * I only speak a tiny bit of Mandarin, but I've studied it in college. My textbooks did not call the Traditional Chinese set "Complex Chinese", and it's strange to me that a literary agent would. Perhaps it's more common than I realized, or it's a Canadian thing, but even if that's so, there's a bigger problem. The Quartz article used for that statement did not mention that translation at all. Including information which is not supported by its attached source is not acceptable. We cannot misrepresent a source by implying it's saying something it is not. Do I really have to explain why?
 * So this section was backwards. It started with an obscure, promotional press release and then tried to backfill it with more sources, most of which were also obscure and promotional. Instead of building on information which has demonstrated encyclopedic significance, it presumed significance and tried to find sources to support this subjective prior assumption. This isn't WP:DUE, this is public relations. If reliable, independent sources don't mention the specific languages it's been translated into (or is "slated" to be translated to) neither should Wikipedia. Grayfell (talk) 23:31, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Here is a cite template for the agent's news feed, with an archive link. There was no obvious link to the relevant post itself, so this will eventually be pushed-off the bottom of the page: Grayfell (talk) 23:40, 29 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Sadly this is a frequent problem. We aren't supposed to use press released, counts by editors, etc for translations, as Grayfell correctly states we need independent reliable sources. That's the only way to assess whether its significant enough for inclusion. Doug Weller  talk 13:51, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Weird Citation
Having been burned trying to fix a similar issue on the Beyond Order page, I have to ask here first instead of making an edit:

Is it strange that after the phrase "comprised 42 rules" there is a citation to The Chronicle of Higher Education, the content of which has no mention of the 42 rules (or Quora)? It mentions two of the rules but not the genesis that the sentence cited is supposed to be about. If you find the question here salient and the change worthwhile, please help me fix this page and also the one on Beyond Order, where I'm being called belligerent for pointing out what seems to me to be a self-evident truth: that a reference actually needs to be on-topic. Vandeburgt (talk) 07:59, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * See also: User talk:Bilorv. This is the first I'm hearing that the sources don't actually contain the information they are cited for and on checking, they don't (... quite. It looks like Irish Independent cites some of the information at Beyond Order). My fault for not doing due diligence, and for overlooking the comment at Talk:Beyond Order though would have been better to simply point to this factual inaccuracy in their message on my talk page rather than the easily-misunderstood You suggest that the Guardian article, for example, more accurately reflects what Jordan posted there. Unfortunately, that is not the case [...] Your suggested citations do not appear to even summarize those 42 rules he posed, let alone list them, which is the whole point of that sentence. buried deep in a lengthy post.
 * Vandeburgt should try finding a secondary source that contains the information "Peterson posted 42 'rules' in answers to questions on Quora, which later formed the basis of his two books 12 Rules for Life and Beyond Order", or whatever the fact happens to be, else it should be removed. Thousands of academics have accounts on Q&A sites and if this one is significant to mention where almost all others are not then it can only be because a secondary source discussed it. — Bilorv ( talk ) 22:55, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Endnote misnumbering
My comment about endnote misnumbering on Jordan Peterson's 12 Rules for Life was reverted. While this point has not been formally published, I did report this to the book publisher about 3 years ago -- so maybe it is on their errata lists. In any case, the fact is easily verified by looking at a copy of the book (certainly true for the Allen Lane (GB) edition in 2018 (ISBN 978-0-241-35163-5)). IMHO the misnumbering point is a useful piece of information, particularly for someone casually looking up an endnote referenced in the text then finding it doesn't relate to the point in Peterson's argument.

Reverted text titled "Endnote numbering error" read: Some editions have misnumbered endnotes, due to a missing tag on endnote 34. Thus notes marked as 35 - 220 in the text are incorrectly indicated as 34 - 219 in the Endnotes. Copyeditor42 (talk) 09:37, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * if it's not been formally published, it's not fit for Wikipedia. This is a consequence of our verifiability and original research rules: Wikipedia is limited in scope and we don't seek or claim to host all information about a topic, just what is verifiable and due weight. I do not dispute that the fact is true or can easily be checked by comparing two editions. — Bilorv ( talk ) 18:07, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Add a Mnemonic??
How about this "Silly Tigers Munch Crunchy Donuts, Sipping Peach Tea, And Belly Dancing Playfully!"

Stand, Treat, Make, Compare, Do not, Set, Pursue, Tell, Assume, Be, Do not, Pet — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riskit 4 a biskit (talk • contribs) 11:30, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

2xS: Stand/Set

2xT: Treat/Tell

2xD: Do not…Children/Skateboarding

Who can slate this ? Riskit 4 a biskit (talk) 09:58, 19 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Made it my phone Home Screen background wallpaper!! Riskit 4 a biskit (talk) 11:43, 19 September 2023 (UTC)