Talk:Jack Richard Peterson

Lack of consistency with incel article
Incel article claims incel is primarily a subculture. This article, until my recent changes, said it is a movement. "Has a" 'Subculture' and 'movement' can be both true at once if incel is primarily neither. But it cannot be both primarily at once, as subcultures are not movements. Bashfan34 (talk) 16:56, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Changed lede to
Jack Richard Peterson is a former representative of at least one online community dedicated to self-described incels. Bashfan34 (talk) 17:15, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Andy Kaufman type stuff
No idea how Wikipedia handles Andy Kaufman type media appearances (as Jack has been doing) and how to treat it or whether to include it as fact. If anyone knows, feel free to comment. Bashfan34 (talk) 17:18, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Notability and proposing a merge to incel article
This individual is a former representative of a single online incel forum. Thus, it would make the most sense to have him in a section of that forum in a respective article Bashfan34 (talk) 17:23, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

If this page is worth keeping, then he should be in the incel article for consistency, if not this page should be deleted imho Bashfan34 (talk) 17:24, 15 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree. Jack Peterson is only relevant due to his connection to the Incel Phenomenon. The article as it currently stands is half Personal Life with short, curt updates about jack's day to day life. In my opinion, this is not really relevant. Also, Jack as a "representative" is specious at best. He agreed to several media interviews, but that doesn't make you a representative per se. I could agree to speak for the Institute of Sciences but that would not make me a scientist or a representative. 71.68.213.232 (talk) 15:53, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed on the comment on Jack and representation. This recently was dealt with through changing it to "self-proclaimed representative", but open to a better term.  Also, used the term "media personality" which does not imply official representation Bashfan34 (talk)
 * Sources also conflict on the spokesperson claim anyway, which is now mentioned in the lede Bashfan34 (talk) 21:43, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

I could name probably 30 comedians/bloggers/podcasters with fewer references than Jack (barely any), less fame than Jack, but more liberal leaning than Jack and suspiciously those are considered notable but Jack isn’t. Very much seems like your issue with the article is Jack’s views rather than his notability. The guy’s been in the news dozens of times, even on Dr. Phil. Treeofalexis897 (talk) 16:07, 16 September 2022 (UTC)


 * How is that an argument? Other articles break the rules so we should let this one slide? Pointless 2603:6080:FD00:47A6:1184:C8F:95D7:6DB6 (talk) 16:10, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

I didn’t say anyone was breaking the rules, including this article. I’m merely stating that Jack’s notability, reference count and overall fame exceeds that of many other articles. Treeofalexis897 (talk) 16:12, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Anyone denying the notability of the subject here clearly is showing a bias against “misogynistic” people having pages. Wikipedia notability has nothing to do with the moral character of the person in question. If this article was about a BLM activist with the same amount of content and references, it would be fine. Treeofalexis897 (talk) 16:19, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The main thing is that incels.co has hundreds of more sources to its name and Jack's notability through what Wikipedia deems reliable sources is predicated on his self-proclaimed representation of that forum and subsequent interview based on that perception. So for this to be an article but not incels.co makes no sense... Bashfan34 (talk) 21:36, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Additionally, the topic of Jack lends additional sources to the topic of the larger parent topic, incelsco, for which to create an article about. I will not be the person to create that article however and would only feel comfortable if a respected and veteran member of the Wikipedia community did so Bashfan34 (talk) 21:39, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It's possible for this to meet WP standards through "media commentator on incels". However, most sources on that are about Jack joining/leaning leaving a specific online community which is reported to have not appreciated his attempts to represent them, rapidly opposite fluctuations in opinions on incels/sexism, and his journey as a sort of incel character for the media to use.  The only rational thing I can see to do right now is to do what Wikipedia does RE Paris Hilton, ie a to describe the subject as a media personality.  IE a orimary-media-personality being a person who is notable simply because media finds the subject useful for a narrative it constructed itself, at times with initial goading of the interviewee.  Sources also support this. Bashfan34 (talk) 21:57, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia also doesn't cover media trolls all too much, the closest I can find is Weev. I suppose, in theory, if Jack does more interviews like his latest one, the Dr. Phil one, the most accurate descriptor would probably be "media troll", "media prankster" or something similar, given Dr. Phil's reaction during the interview, calling into question Jack's sincerity on a program which normally doesn't care about such things. Bashfan34 (talk) 22:16, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Not a spokesperson, an on-off media personality
Definition of spokesperson: "a person who is chosen to speak officially for a group or organization". https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/spokesperson No source says he was chosen to speak on behalf of the forum he represented. 2600:4040:403C:F300:FD3B:F228:F0D4:7D55 (talk) 17:27, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * We should probably change the redirect Bashfan34 (talk) 17:30, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Also removing blogs as sources, as it's against WP rules to have personal blogs as sources Bashfan34 (talk) 17:37, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * If there are no reliable sources claiming he was an official representative beyond a chat room moderator, I still feel weird calling him a 'representative', even though he claims to be one.  Will just leave at 'self-proclaimed representative' until someone comes up with a better term Bashfan34 (talk) 19:39, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Source allegedly describing Jack as a chat room moderator is dead and with no webarchives. Replaced it with a source where he self describes as a minor staff member.  Followed by Daily Beast's portrayal of him being banned from their chat before making a 30 minutes powerpoint to be let back in Bashfan34 (talk) 19:51, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

ReelRomp and Filmcourage were pay-to-review sources
Someone claiming to be Jack approached my talk page, angry about the fact his film stuff is not in the lede. So I looked on Wikipedia for whether reelromp and filmcourage counts as reliable sources. I found an ANI page, wherein a former editor points out that at the time of the articles, Reel Romp published reviews of indie films for about $25, now North of $30 https://www.reelromp.com/submit.html. Film Courage published Q&A interviews for $300 Film Courage "Advertising package" Webarchive 2019.

As these were paid review sites, I do not think they meet Wikipedia rules for inclusion. Bashfan34 (talk) 12:49, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It's cool he is making indie movies though, Seems like a more fulfilling avenue than .me representation Bashfan34 (talk) 12:54, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

"Jack Peterson (filmmaker)" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jack_Peterson_(filmmaker)&redirect=no Jack Peterson (filmmaker)] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. S0091 (talk) 15:55, 10 May 2023 (UTC)