Talk:Beyond Order

Biased choice of reviews
It is obvious that this article is quite slanted - At Amazon - as of 2021-03-27 it is rated 94% positive - so we are back to dueling realities. Hate is at play here - if someone with ideas is not PC people throw the baby out with the bath. Hearing more than one side of things leads to better choices - this is a one sided article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.243.106.82 (talk) 00:52, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Citation clarification
I would appreciate clarification whether or not citing Jordan Peterson's actual Quora post from 2012 (revised in 2018) constitutes a reasonable citation (https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-most-valuable-things-everyone-should-know). It has now been removed twice for what seems to me to be specious reasons.

- I can see a reasonable argument for excluding it: Quora is easy to change and Peterson at any time could decide to remove those 42 rules. While I see no rationale for his doing so, it is a theoretical possibility. (That's why Quora has a policy of preferring secondary sources, after all.)

I can also see a reasonable argument for using that citation despite it's relative instability: no other non-Peterson source actually contains those 42 rules. (The currently cited and reverted source does not even mention Quora, nor the number 42, nor does it list the rules. Please see for yourself: https://www.chronicle.com/article/whats-so-dangerous-about-jordan-peterson/?bc_nonce=9d1mkh3lalu6afvxnbo6be&cid=reg_wall_signup).

It seems strange to cite a source for information that is not actually in that source. Am I asking for too much? Is the actual Quora source not less than ideal but better than an irrelevant and perhaps a hostile one too, depending on how you see it?

Please help me understand what recourse I have here, as I am new at Wikipedia editing, but an old hand at the copyeditor game and what I see here smacks (frankly) of activism, which has no place on Wikipedia.

Final point: Jordan Peterson has faced some unfair charges in the popular press, including the CBC in Canada, where he has been associated with racism (https://www.cbc.ca/cbcdocspov/features/why-its-important-to-oppose-jordan-petersons-views-on-gender-pronouns), and NBC, which called him a "favourite figure of the alt-right". People do make rather exaggerated claims against him, which I do not mean to counter with also exaggerated claims. I'm trying to reach the truth in good faith. Please help me.

Is it paranoid of me to suspect some rather vandal-like but clever people are trying to dissuade me from editing this page with obviously relevant information to replace irrelevant stuff? I'm open to correction! Eager to hear reasonable feedback.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vandeburgt (talk • contribs) 06:58, 10 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree the previous source was inflammatory. Please see the one I added and if you agree that it works better.Nweil (talk) 16:55, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The Chronicle of Higher Education is a gold-standard reliable source, and not "inflammatory" in any way. You do not have consensus to remove it, and I have replaced it. Do not remove it absent clear consensus to do so. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:04, 10 March 2021 (UTC)


 * That outlet does not appear in the perennial source list. Furthermore, the article you cite is not in the actual Chronicle. It's in the "Review" which is essentially an opinion section. The way it has been described by others is "a fearless, free-thinking section where academia's best and brightest can take their gloves off and swing with abandon at both sides of the increasingly predictable political divide." Not reliable at all. See how the author talks about Jordan Peterson (https://twitter.com/tebartl/status/997511127939469314). The author clearly dislikes Peterson. This is not the detatched analysis you are claiming.Nweil (talk) 17:26, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * RSP is not meant to be exhaustive (to me it feels like yesterday when it was created, and I have been evaluating reliability since several years before it gained widespread use), and I must agree with NorthBySouthBaranof that it's a gold-standard reliable source from my previous research into its reliability. A person expressing humor on Twitter is hardly evidence that we should cancel them. Reviewers are supposed to have an opinion. I responded to Vandeburgt in response to the other comments on my talk page. — Bilorv ( talk ) 20:37, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Upon revisiting it seems that Chronicle doesn't mention any Quora-related stuff. We need a secondary source that cites that Peterson posted 42 'rules' on Quora. — Bilorv ( talk ) 22:56, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The source I added (Irish Independent) does mention the quora stuff. The Chronicle source is now superfluous and should be removed.Nweil (talk) 23:20, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Advertisement language
I am concerned that some language in this article reads like copypasta from a press release - notably the "available in hardcover, e-book, and audio" section. My removal of that language was reverted by J.Turner99, so I request that they discuss it here. Looking at other book articles across Wikipedia, we don't tend to be interested in telling people what formats the book is available in. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:20, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * This language has been removed by another editor. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:08, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * has since been reintroduced, I tend to agree with this objection re:promotional tone, product iterations, regional publishing houses etc. not required. Single instance of multinational publishing conglomerate suffices in text. Acousmana (talk) 19:22, 10 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello I don't know what we shoudld discuss. I looks fine to me, I think I should revert it again, seems to be better to have more information than less. J.Turner99 (talk) 23:19, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Since you have reverted it four times today already, I suggest that doing it again would be a spectacularly bad idea. Black Kite (talk) 23:24, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * you are forbidden from doing so by the three-revert rule, which you have already violated. What part of this is unclear to you? An argument has been presented in favor of removal so you would need to present an argument in favor of inclusion (and "better to have more information" is not such a thing) and then not revert but engage in discussion only. — Bilorv ( talk ) 00:44, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That may or may not be so, but I am an editor who values consenus, and so we must discuss these proposed changes. J.Turner99 (talk) 23:34, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * (Observe that J.Turner99 has now been topic banned from post-1992 American Politics (Special:Diff/1011470741), explicitly described as including Peterson and his activities (Special:Diff/1011436594), and so will be unable to comment here further.) — Bilorv ( talk ) 11:33, 11 March 2021 (UTC)