Talk:Jordan Peterson/Archive 11

Expert opinion attribution
This content was recently added [] claiming that Peterson is mistaken about the origin of postmodernism. The source for the claim is an a book by an academic. Since Jordan is also an academic we need to treat this as a disagreement between academic sources. As such we need to attribute the opinions. This edit reverts the attribution I added just after the original content was added []. The attribution should be restored as this claim of an error on Peterson's part should not be in wiki-voice. Springee (talk) 12:25, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Springee is correct, the relevant part of policy is WP: YESPOV. Conflicting assertions should be treated as opinion and not fact.  --Kyohyi (talk) 14:37, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * "Since Jordan is also an academic," in an "academic" context, his primary field of expertise is psychology - not philosophy (and in particular not poststructuralism). Views Peterson offers on subjects outside of his area of expertise should be taken as opinion. If enough "expert" sources attest to Peterson's misapprehension re:postmodernism, then it is not a "disagreement between academic sources," it's expert opinion versus Jordan's ideological nonsense. Acousmana (talk) 21:31, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that the fact that Peterson is an academic is irrelevant to this discussion. In reality, Wikipedia should not be stating anywhere that postmodernism is not related to Marxism. It's a matter of opinion, and the evidence would really have to be overwhelming for this to be stated as a fact. (And I'm guessing the evidence is not that strong, given the far-left leanings of postmodern philosophers like Michel Foucault and Jean-François Lyotard.) Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 23:03, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , I disagree that "postmodernism is not related to Marxism [...] [is] a matter of opinion." You seem to believe that "Cultural Marxism" is a real thing. I also dispute your notion that Foucalt and Lyotard can be so easily dismissed as far-left (I do not dispute they are left-leaning). By the way, that is not the only source; this is extensively discussed by sources for "Peterson's perspectives on the influence of postmodernism on North American humanities departments have been compared to the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory" statement. That same sources support the academic book's argument. Davide King (talk) 08:27, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Ironically enough, the author of the source's field of expertise is also psychology, not philosophy. Maybe we should just remove the whole sentence since they aren't an expert either.  --Kyohyi (talk) 00:18, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , as I wrote above, that is not the only source supporting that; all, if not most, sources for the preceding statement already support that. Therefore, your argument is irrelevant since it is not just Burston saying that and I agree with "it's expert[s'] opinion versus Jordan's ideological nonsense." This was also discussed by  and, so I hope they can state their thoughts. Davide King (talk) 08:31, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * "far-left leanings of postmodern philosophers like Michel Foucault and Jean-François Lyotard." guessing this is a US perspective, a country where Joe Biden is called a socialist (and that's laughable). We could similarly accuse Jordan Peterson of being nothing more than a right wing eschatologist. Terms like "far-left" or "radical-left" are often used by right wing commentators to try and undermine, or even dismiss, forms of academic inquiry they don't like. Editors shouldn't ignore WP:RS publications because they feel politically threatened by their content. Acousmana (talk) 12:34, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It sounds like you're trying to argue some sort of Academic consensus on the subject. Do you have a source which meets WP:RS/AC?  If not, remember the opinions of editors on Jordan Peterson shouldn't be pushed into the article.  --Kyohyi (talk) 13:32, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , the sources we already use to support the "Peterson's perspectives on the influence of postmodernism on North American humanities departments have been compared to the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory" statement? Also scholarly analysis of Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory that "academics of postmodernism [...] are not Marxist theorists, and have slight connections to the Frankfurt School, to Marxism, or to critical theory" and that "the Frankfurt School and critical theory [...] were directly in opposition to the theories promoted by postmodern philosophers, who are frequently identified by proponents of the conspiracy theory as leading examples of Cultural Marxism." Davide King (talk) 13:43, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The recent edit is not sufficient to put this in wiki-voice. It's good to say that his view is opposed by others but given this is a battle of opinions between academics in an imprecise field we should not say "Peterson is wrong" rather "[others] say Peterson is wrong".  Springee (talk) 13:50, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually the best approach would be to document what both their opinions about the subject, that way readers get why they disagree. But that wouldn't really fit in this article.  --Kyohyi (talk) 13:57, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , I disagree. The second part is important for context and supported by the first statement. The reason why "Peterson's perspectives on the influence of postmodernism on North American humanities departments have been compared to the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory" is exactly because of his use of Cultural Marxism and postmodernism as interchangeable terms and his mistaken take of postmodern philosophy as an offshoot or expression of "neo-Marxism." Davide King (talk) 14:17, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Looking at the sources that are used to support this claim in wiki-voice we have several news type articles and the one acacemic article by Burston. The part of The Guardian that supports the claim cites Ira Wells (assistant professor in English and Academic Programs at Victoria College in the University of Toronto). The Guardian attributes those claims which again means we should as well. We should never take a statement that is attributed in the source and then remove the attribution as we put it in Wikipedia. The Pacific Standard doesn't appear to support this particular claim as a keyword search for "neo-" returns nothing (note: it may support other parts of the rather long and convoluted sentence). The Vox again attributes the statements that seems to support the claim (thus we need to) yet I'm not clear the people making the claims have more standing that Peterson. I think we would say Shuja Haider and Harrison Fluss are the attributed sources. I don't think Haider is an academic and again Fluss's standing seems no better than Peterson's. Viewpoint Mag is an article by Haider. Again, not sure his standing is sufficient to put his opinion in Wiki-voice. Finally, a keyword search for "neo-" returns nothing in the Politico article. Again, this needs to be treated as a disagreement of opinions and needs to be kept out of Wiki-voice. Springee (talk) 14:07, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I disagree that this is just "a disagreement of opinions". You seem to hold a double standard in supposing that Peterson's reading of postmodernism is correct, or at least not mistaken, when scholarly analysis of the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory concluded what I wrote above and the reason why Peterson's views have been compared to the conspiracy theory is exactly because of his mistaken assertion that "Cultural Marxism" and "postmodernism" are "neo-Marxists" and that "postmodernism" is "Cultural Marxism" and vice versa. Davide King (talk) 14:21, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't hold that it is correct. I hold that we have sources that attribute claims thus we should.  Additionally, the sources saying Peterson is wrong don't have the sort of standing (or is the field a hard science with clearly testable hypothesizes) such that we can say outright that Peterson is wrong in wiki-voice.  Springee (talk) 14:30, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No credible scholar would make the mistake of conflating "neo-Marxism" with "postmodernism". They are philosophically, politically, and even aesthetically distinct. Peterson's use is either wrong or WP:FRINGE, and per WP:FRINGE, we do not imply that false or fringe information might be accurate as a courtesy to fringe adherents. Grayfell (talk) 23:40, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

The two are distinct, but I don't think Peterson has ever said they're the same thing - at least, this article doesn't quote him ever saying that. If I understand his views correctly, he has said that many Marxists in academia gave up on economic Marxism in the 70s and replaced it with "cultural Marxism", critical theory, or whatever you want to call it - and rebranded themselves as postmodernists. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 02:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Which is exactly what and  were essentially pointing out. These concepts shouldn't be conflated, and it's either intellectually dishonest or lazy to confuse them, or to label it all under a tent of "Cultural Marxism", implying both coordination and correlation where none exists. These are all distinct schools of thought that progressed and were modified, occasionally borrowing from one another, as would be the case in any philosophical system, and bear no direct link to the conspiracy theory that Cultural Marxism posits. To use a simplified and obtuse example, it would be like saying that anthropology and sociology became the eugenics movement, which largely postdates the serious development of both of these rather distinctive fields of study, because eugenicists use 19th century scientific racism, which neither field supports (then or now). It's sort of absurd. Just because Peterson can speak persuasively, doesn't necessarily mean he's making sense. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 02:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)


 * What specifically has he said that's incorrect? A direct quote would be useful. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 03:13, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it would be helpful if the source wasn't behind a pay wall. A direct quote from Peterson would also be important since it's quite possible (and sadly common) that a reasonable statement is presented out of context or in a way that implies the original speaker said something that is not what they mean.  If we are going to say "Peterson is wrong when he said X" then we need to make sure we include Peterson's complete statement.  Certainly Peterson's credentials are sufficient that we cannot assume he is saying things without justification and in this case we have two people with similar credentials.  One saying Peterson is wrong and Peterson not having an opportunity to refute the specific claim.  For this reason (and the reasons I included above) we should attribute the statement.  Remember, attribution doesn't mean the statement is wrong, only that we shouldn't put it in Wiki-voice.  Springee (talk) 03:35, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * As given refs say, Peterson has published a video called Postmodernism and Cultural Marxism and "has tapped into the alt-right’s discourse of cultural Marxism and cashed in on the anxiety and anger of a large and growing alt-right fan base (Southey 2017). Peterson is not a fascist and he often says he hates Nazis, but Peterson's deployment of 'cultural Marxism' as a term of opprobrium when ranting against 'political correctness' and 'social justice' in Canada appeals to reactionaries worldwide. Every usage of 'cultural Marxism' is not essentially fascist, but this phrase is used by contemporary fascists as an ideological weapon. When Peterson berates 'cultural Marxism,' he may be helping the alt-right bring its conspiracy theory of hate into the mainstream (Berlatsky 2018)."
 * Another given ref says "Peterson has tweaked this argument a bit. In his lectures, he mostly traces cultural rot to postmodernists like Derrida (whose work Peterson comically garbles) rather than to the Frankfurt School. In Peterson's new book, though, he does explicitly link postmodernism to the Frankfurt school, and in other venues he regularly uses and approves the term 'cultural Marxism.' One of his videos is titled 'Postmodernism and Cultural Marxism." Here, explained it. You seem to believe Peterson is referring to the first type but he is not referring as given refs report; he is clearly referring to the second type by mentioning the Frankfurt School and how 'Cultural Marxism' allegedly controls academia and universities.
 * Here, Matthew Sharpe explained how "[t]he term 'cultural Marxism' moved into the media mainstream around 2016, when psychologist Jordan Peterson was protesting a Canadian bill prohibiting discrimination based on gender. Peterson blamed cultural Marxism for phenomena like the movement to respect gender-neutral pronouns which, in his view, undermines freedom of speech. [...] So, what is cultural Marxism? Insofar as it goes beyond a fairly broad term of enmity, the accusers of 'cultural Marxism' point to two main protagonists behind this ideology. The first is Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci. Writing under imprisonment by the fascists in the 1920s, Gramsci argued the left needed to capture the bureaucracy, universities and media-cultural institutions if it wished to hold power. The second alleged culprits are 'neo-Marxist' theorists associated with the Frankfurt School of Social Research. These 'critical theorists' drew on psychoanalysis, social theory, aesthetics, and political economy to understand modern societies."
 * In other words, this has nothing to do with the first type ("Marxist humanism and more generally Western Marxism, which were actual intellectual and political movements of the 20th century") and everything to do with the second type ("a conspiracy theory used as a shibboleth in the Culture War. The former describes real phenomena and is seldom described in RS as 'cultural Marxism'- compared to the use of other labels - and never as 'Cultural Marxism'"). Here, nicely summed up the confusion. Davide King (talk) 13:36, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I would suggest including something along those lines as a quote inside of the citation. It's too long to have in the text of the article but it gets to the heart of the issue with what others say is wrong with what Peterson is saying.  BTW, I think quotes in footnotes are something we don't use often enough.  Far too often we want to put "Mr Smith is wrong when he said X" but that lacks all the needed context etc.  This helps bridge the gap between a short statement and the longer supporting claims that sometimes are behind paywalls.  We can say "Prof X is criticizes Peterson's use of the term X in context Y" and then have a footnote with the full explanation of the issue. Springee (talk) 14:12, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Should probably looks for the best criticism and filter our some of the references first. For instance Noah Berlatsky, a comics and culture free-lancer, writing for Pacific Standard is not appropriate. fiveby(zero) 14:31
 * "Derek Robertson is an intern for POLITICO Magazine". fiveby(zero) 15:01, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The Vox piece quotes Shuja Haider a "writer and musician based in Brooklyn" from Viewpoint Magazine, not appropriate. Harrison Fluss an academic better, but "he's full of shit" may be a slight departure from normal academic discourse, and maybe someone to steer away from in a BLP? fiveby(zero) 15:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * David Neiwert quoted in Guardian, probably needs some discussion, and would probably should be avoided if there is a better source available. fiveby(zero) 15:49, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

"Marxists in academia gave up on economic Marxism in the 70s and replaced it with "cultural Marxism", critical theory, or whatever you want to call it - and rebranded themselves as postmodernists." This is utter bollocks. Acousmana (talk) 12:20, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * What is the source for that statement. Where did Peterson say it?  What was the context?  Was it an interview reply said in context or something from one of Peterson's books?  I think the text we have now is reasonable since it help make it clear this is a dispute without Wikipedia choosing sides (see IMPARTIAL).  Saying he "falsely claims" is picking sides.  Springee (talk) 12:47, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Peterson didn't say that, I did. The person is just quoting me. Apparently it's "bollocks".
 * More seriously, referring to the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory article is a bad idea, because I think that article is trash right now - including the fact that Cultural Marxism redirects to it, meaning that anyone who believes there's such a thing as "cultural Marxism" is labelled as a conspiracy theorist - and a Nazi to boot, judging by how the theory is described. That's nonsense (or bollocks, if you prefer), and just quickly scanning through that article reveals that the concept of "cultural Marxism" has been discussed seriously in a variety of mainstream sources, while the people complaining about the term can mostly be found in left-wing academic sources like the Journal of Social Justice. That article, at the moment, refutes itself. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 14:21, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , it's the correct link for cultural Marxism. Not liking that doesn't stop it being true. Sorry Wikipedia is not blazing the trail in rebranding progressive values as Marxism, we're waiting for RS first. Guy (help! - typo?) 14:49, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

, it's probably best to wait for the above discussion to die down but I think this was a good removal []. It didn't change the text in the article and the source removed, per the discussion above, were weak to given how they were being used in the article. Still, I think it would be better to edit the section a bit. Pull those weak sources, attribute the claims and include the source material that supports the claims as imbedded quotes. Springee (talk) 16:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * "Where did Peterson say it?" nutty professor [Peterson] spouts a bunch of this unhinged drivel for PragerU. Acousmana (talk) 16:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Please remember that BLP applies to talk pages. Springee (talk) 16:53, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * and please remember that when the subject of an article spouts far-right lunatic fringe red scare antisemitic Christian fundamentalist garbage it's perfectly reasonable to draw attention to the fact; to not do so would be intellectually dishonest. Acousmana (talk) 18:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The video you linked certainly gets basically everything wrong about the intellectual history of postmodernism and Marxism, but you can express that without insulting a living person. -Thucydides411 (talk) 12:52, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

The problem is that he is nowhere close to an expert on philosophy, never mind the history of philosophy, this should be clear in the article. He routinely refers to a hand full of distinct philosophical movements interchangeable often under the umbrella of 'cultural marxism' that does not seem to be clearly defined as a philosophical movement for him but just a nebulous collection shit he doesn't like. I can't find any academic sources that 'cultural marxism' is anything other than a conspiracy theory---in no small part pushed my peterson. blindlynx (talk) 17:19, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, it's a good thing we don't just cite academic sources. Though I did find this - I don't know if it's been published, but it's by a notable critical theory professor, Douglas Kellner, who seems to view cultural Marxism approvingly. You can also find the phrase used in a variety of notable mainstream publications - see here, here, here and here. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 18:40, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Here, gave a good summary and rebuke of those sources. National Review and The Spectator are not reliable, The Jerusalem Post is by Melanie Philips and Kellner seems to be using it "to mean something like 'Marxist approaches to culture', not as a term that would be relevant to [the conspiracy theory]." Davide King (talk) 18:56, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No, National Review and The Spectator are not considered unreliable - rather, there's no consensus on their reliability. Melanie Phillips is a notable commentator like any other, and you also didn't mention the Providence Journal. As for Kellner, I see no difference between the way he uses the phrase and the way that, say, Jordan Peterson does, except that his view is positive and Peterson's is negative. They both make heavy mention of the Frankfurt School, for instance. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 19:42, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * oh sure, Melanie Philips, yeah, really authoritative source there, another lunatic fringe climate change denying Islamophobic wing nut, have we got anything by Nigel Farage on postmodernism? Acousmana (talk) 19:49, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, I meant to say that they are not reliable and they are not mainstream, i.e. generally reliable. I did not mention the Providence Journal because the link does not work, at least for me; and if you do not see any difference between the way they use the phrase and how Peterson use it and what it implies, then I do not know what to tell you, other that "his view is positive and Peterson's is negative" is an absurdly oversimplification. The BBC has said that Phillips "is regarded as one of the [British] media's leading right-wing voices" and a "controversial" columnist, so I do not see how that is enough to show the conspiracy theory or 'cultural Marxism' is real, or somehow rebuke scholarly analysis that shows how "Cultural Marxism does not exist — not only is the conspiracy theory version false, but there is no intellectual movement by that name" and that postmodernism is not Marxism, much less "Cultural Marxism" and "none of its members were part of any kind of international conspiracy to destroy Western civilization." Davide King (talk) 20:07, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Korny O, the relationship between Doug Kellner's discussion of "cultural Marxism" and the "Cultural Marxism" CT has been discussed repeatedly, ad nauseam, at Talk:Frankfurt School and Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. The TL;DR is that they are not really related, since Kellner is basically talking about Marxist humanism and the CT err, isn't. Newimpartial (talk) 20:15, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Davide King - no, one person's opinion doesn't rebuke the other's; these are all opinions, and they should be treated as that. Speaking of being fringe or "controversial", I don't see any truly mainstream sources criticizing the "cultural Marxism" phrase or Peterson's views - just a bunch of far-left scholars and publications like the Critical Political Theory and Radical Practice book series. In a battle between the left and the right, I don't see that we need to take a side. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 21:09, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * nothing to do with "taking a side" to do with calling out bullshit, folk buy into Jordan's drivel because they think "oh, this dudes a professor! like bro, he must really knows what he's talking about!" Reality is his published academic work and his rambling polemical verbiage are two entirely different things, and the latter is riddled with right leaning ideology and Christian fundamentalism, his "opinion" is colored by his politics, as such anything he has to say on the subject of postmodernism/deconstructionism/poststrucuralism/cultural Marxism needs to be presented in a manner that makes his bias clear to our readers. Acousmana (talk) 21:26, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * What is problematic, apart from your dismissive way to refer to scholars and academic publications as far-left, is that you see this as a mere matter of opinion; it is not. It is not an opinion that Marxism and postmodernism are "philosophically, politically, and even aesthetically distinct." You seem to believe that Cultural Marxism is true, or at least that an academic movement bearing that name, or following its footstep, actually exists. Davide King (talk) 21:58, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You're right, it's a fact that Marxism and postmodernism are distinct; I agree with that, and so, it would appear, does Jordan Peterson. And yes, I believe that there are many scholars who have applied Marxist thinking to cultural issues - that's essentially what critical theory is, after all. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 23:22, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The Douglas Kellner piece and what you just said are examining culture through a marxist(marxian) lense in an academic context not a political movement like Peterson argues. blindlynx (talk) 01:18, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Either way the point is he is not a professor of political philosophy or the history of philosophy and is not an expert or a reliable source on those subjects. blindlynx (talk) 01:22, 25 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Slavoj Žižek: "The notion of ‘postmodern neo-Marxism’ (or its more insidious form, ‘cultural Marxism’), manipulated by some secret communist centre and aiming to destroy Western freedoms, is a pure alt-right conspiracy theory (and the fact that it can be mobilized as part of a ‘liberal’ defence of our freedoms says something about the immanent weaknesses of the liberal project). First, there is no unified field of ‘cultural Marxism’— some of today’s representatives of the Frankfurt School are among the most vicious denigrators of the ‘French thought’ (poststructuralism, deconstruction); and many ‘cultural Marxists’ are fiercely critical of identity politics, etc. Second, any positive reference to the Frankfurt School, or the ‘French thought’, was prohibited in socialist countries—where the authorities were much more open towards Anglo-Saxon analytic thought (as I remember from my own youth)—so to claim that both classic Marxism and its ‘cultural’ version were somehow controlled by the same central agent has to rely on the very suspicious notion of a hidden master who secretly pulls the strings." Myth and Mayhem: A Leftist Critique of Jordan Peterson, Ben Burgis, Conrad Bongard Hamilton, Matthew McManus, Marion Trejo, John Hunt Publishing, 24 Apr 2020 - Political Science - 256 pages. Acousmana (talk) 13:10, 25 November 2020 (UTC)


 * comment - I didn't really want to enter into this morass, and will try to stay out of the fray. The fact is that Wikipedia is not supposed to treat all sources equally, nor should editors treat all academic sources equally, per policy. The policy-compliant approach to sources is to base their reliability on their standing within the field being addressed. ATTRIBUTEPOV applies to opinions, not to factual descriptions whether accurate or inaccurate, and to treat Peterson's inaccurate factual claims about intellectual history on the same level as accurate factual claims by intellectual historians would be FALSEBALANCE of the worst kind.
 * The actual relationship between Marxism and Postmodernism (mostly via Poststructuralism) is subject to only fairly minor dispute among the positions maintained, based on the historical evidence, among actual scholars in the field, and Peterson's is not one of those defensible positions (nor is it intended to be, since he is after something rather more "mythic" or archetypal rather than an account that is factually accurate). If anything, the current draft of the relevant passage in this article is still overly deferential to Peterson's opinions about these issues, which are treated in the reliable sources as somewhere between laughably ignorant and consciously manipulative of his followers. Newimpartial (talk) 19:19, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * "...most often Peterson gets involved in politics or political-theoretical approaches, any  concern with a  modicum of specificity gets thrown out  of  the  window.  Everything becomes determined by idealized highly general categories without care. This could be readily dismissed if it wasn’t for his influence on the centre and  the  Right. My  suspicion  is  that  many people buy  into  his simplistic narratives about the  Left  because they sound vaguely plausible. There are a few scattered references to major authors the public often associates with the Left, a couple of clear and strident quotations from  Orwell and  Solzhenitsyn, and  sufficiently  clunky intellectual sounding neologisms like ‘post-modern neo-Marxism’ or‘cultural Marxism’. But none of Peterson’s analysis is actually done with any care or knowledge of what he is talking about. He would be well advised to adapt Rule Six into ‘set your understanding in basic order before you criticize 150 years of critical theory’." Myth and Mayhem: A Leftist Critique of Jordan Peterson, Ben Burgis, Conrad Bongard Hamilton, Matthew McManus, Marion Trejo, John Hunt Publishing, 24 Apr 2020 - Political Science - 256 pages. Acousmana (talk) 21:00, 24 November 2020 (UTC)


 * comment - Oh boy, I wasn't active for some time but it seems the state of the talk page didn't change much. I agree with Fiveby. This talk page scope is not to write a wall of text, better to say mess of personal commentary about philosophical and ideological definitions, differences, what was said here or there, no one is going to get involved into. First and foremost, we are philosophically uneducated for doing so, and secondly, that's not the way it's done. We rely on secondary and tertiary reliable sources and as such there must be some logical and organized manner. We need to find whether the cited sources are published by reliable publishers as well as have reliable authors who have expertise in the field of philosophy and politics for making claims that Peterson is wrong, what is cultural Marxism, and so on. The editor Fiveby started something on the way and follow in those steps while adhering to neutrality and balance - and please stick to the content of the article. Jesus.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 01:14, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree. I think this overall discussion has shown a few things: there are a lot of academics who disagree with Peterson that there is such a thing as "cultural Marxism", or that it is related to postmodernism; most of these academics are themselves far-left; right-wing commentators tend to agree with Peterson; and mainstream sources have generally not expressed an opinion either way. Would everyone agree with that? Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 17:03, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source for most of these academics are themselves far-left? That smells like OR; from what I've read, and seemingly endless discussions on Talk:Frankfurt school and Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, there are plenty of mainstream sources noting that there is not such a thing as "Cultural Marxism" and no reliable mainstream sources that there is such a thing. But I am always interested in seeing additional, reliable sourcss. Newimpartial (talk) 18:18, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's original research; I'm just judging based on what I see. What are these plentiful mainstream sources? Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 18:34, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I know you don't like academic sources, but for me at least the New York Times, Salon, The Independent, The Guardian and Jewish Chronicle qualify as mainstream. Newimpartial (talk) 18:51, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * the fact of the matter is that Peterson has a poor grasp of Marxist philosophy, when asked to provide examples of ‘post-modern neo-Marxists’ he couldn't, why? Because most post-modern theorists were opposed to Marxism and he couldn't cite any that were actually aligned with it. Acousmana (talk) 18:57, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * https://doi.org/10.1177/1363460718792419, https://doi-org.ezproxy.leidenuniv.nl:2443/10.1080/13504630.2020.1787822 , https://doi-org.ezproxy.leidenuniv.nl:2443/10.1111/rec3.12258 Just the first few that come up, blindlynx (talk) 19:03, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Newimpartial - it depends on what exactly you're referring to. By The Independent, for example do you mean this opinion piece, cited in Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory? If I'm reading this column correctly, it seems to say that, yes, cultural Marxism exists, but you shouldn't use the phrase "cultural Marxism" because it's used heavily by anti-Semites.
 * blindlynx - what are those supposed to be examples of? Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 19:14, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * They're WP:RELIABLE sources that cultural marxism isn't what peterson claims it is. Again he is not an expert in philosophy.blindlynx (talk) 19:16, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Korny O, perhaps you should read the piece again. It doesn't say that the Frankfurt School et al. were actual "Cultural Marxists"; it says that the term had been popularized in a way that enables antisemitism and the far right, even among those who are unaware of the term's context. And I wasn't offering The Independent as the best available treatment - that would be found in the academic sources - but only as one of the plentiful mainstream sources contradicting the allegation that Cultural Marxism is a real thing. Newimpartial (talk) 19:26, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * blindlynx - I can only access the first of these papers, and it seems to say that cultural Marxism does exist. Regardless, I'm sure you could find a dozen obscure academics, writing in a dozen left-wing academic journals, saying that Peterson's views are wrong. None of those are RELIABLE per se on what is clearly ultimately a matter of opinion.
 * Newimpartial - it doesn't say they were, but it doesn't say they weren't; which, given the thrust of the piece, seems pretty damning. Are there mainstream sources making a stronger case than this one? Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 19:45, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I have resolved to stop responding to marine mammals, but you can find the sources I referred to in the same reference list you were already examining. I will note the usual injunction about trying to prove a negative, which is not what The Independent piece does. It simply says "this is what real Marxists did; this is what conspiracy theorists say" while clearly distinguishing the real from the trope. Newimpartial (talk) 19:52, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This Salon piece is the exact same thing - it says nothing about whether there actually are cultural Marxists, just that the term "cultural Marxism" is bad because white supremacists use it. But fine - you don't have to answer any questions you don't want to. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 20:22, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * These are peer reviewed papers that represent the academic consensus on the subject. They are still WP:RELIABLE even if you WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. blindlynx (talk) 19:57, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't believe there's any academic consensus on Peterson's views. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 20:22, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

There is a clear academic consensus that "Cultural Marxism" in the sense of the conspiracy has never actually existed, and that Western Marxism, Post-Marxism and Postmodernism are three quite distinct phenomena. In so far as Peterson does not "agree" with this consensus, then there is an academic consensus that Peterson is ill-informed on this set of issues (as is documented by many RS). Newimpartial (talk) 20:29, 25 November 2020 (UTC) Also, Korny O, you may not have noticed the central point of the Salon piece, to wit That same anti-egalitarian worldview was found in the thought of William Lind, the paleoconservative activist who coined the term “cultural Marxism” and did more than anyone else to shape the narrative, promote its spread and argue for its centrality. The piece flatly states that both the term and the narrative of "Cultural Marxism" were constructed on the far right. Newimpartial (talk) 20:33, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That's true, there does seem to be an academic consensus that there's no secret conspiracy related to cultural Marxism - but I don't think Peterson has ever said there was. And your description of the distinct phenomena also matches what Peterson has said, I think. And yes, that Salon piece, like many others, talks about how bigots invented and use the term - but, like many others, it never actually says that there's no such thing as a cultural Marxist. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 21:00, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * For the love of the collective unconscious, can you present one reliable source that states that "Cultural Marxism" is anything other than a conspiracy theory trope? If not, please sit down. Newimpartial (talk) 21:04, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * "Sit down"? That's rather rude. And I hope you're not sealioning me - especially since I already presented a bunch of reliable sources earlier in this discussion. But here they are again: Kellner, Owens, Hernandez, Phillips, Tudehope. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 21:49, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * What are Owens, Hernandez, Phillips or Tudehope supposed to be WP:RS about, besides their own opinions? As far as Kellner is concerned, his "cultural Marxism" is a reference to Marxist approaches to culture - a kind of Marxist humanism - and not anything related to the "Cultural Marxism" of the conspiracy theory. Newimpartial (talk) 21:57, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You said that before, and I don't know what it means. How do you know which of the two Jordan Peterson is talking about? Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 22:19, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * (1) He talks about "Cultural Marxism" (and "Post-modern Neo-Marxism") as something taking place in the 21st century, which Marxist humanism isn't; (2) he uses "Cultural Marxism" not "cultural Marxism" (which is a fairly reliable indicator though not proof in itself) and above all (3) his "Cultural Marxism" (and his Neo-Marxism, and his Postmodernism) are thoroughly situated in the Culture War narrative, whereas nobody using "cultural Marxism" to talk about the midcentury cultural turn in Marxism is taking about relativism, or the assault on Western values - which makes sense because the Marxist approach to culture doesn't have anything in common with relativism at all, and Western Marxism was as much in tune with the values and traditions of the West as any philosophical or political movement has ever been. Enlightenment goals fulfilled. Newimpartial (talk) 22:40, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * He regularly conflates the two. There is no point taking what he says about the serious topic if he constantly ties it back to fringe nonsense.  blindlynx (talk) 23:17, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's true that Kellner talks about cultural Marxism as if it was only in the past - he talks about 60s thinkers' influence on the present day. Not that it matters that much what one academic (himself a neo-Marxist) thinks. (It does underscore that just about all the supposedly-reliable academics being cited seem to be from the far left.) There doesn't seem to be a single unimpeachably reliable source (if there even exists such a thing) commenting on Peterson's views on Marxism, or even "cultural Marxism" in general - just a bunch of sources from left and right expressing the opinions you would expect them to express. Which is fine - after all, this is a matter of opinion. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 02:34, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Anyone who can't accurately assess the difference in reliability between respected academics writing within their area of competence, and conspiracy theorists, should not be editing this article IMO. Nor should anyone who cannot distinguish between midcentury Marxist humanism and contemporary Neo-Marxism be weighing in on whether "Cultural Marxism" is real or more like Pepe the frog. Newimpartial (talk) 02:46, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Your characterization of academic sources as 'far-left' is POV pushing. Just because you don't like something doesn't make it wrong or bias. blindlynx (talk) 02:59, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Not all academics are far-left, but it seems like most or all of the ones who have been discussed in this context are: Douglas Kellner, Shuja Haider, Harrison Fluss, Joan Braune, Daniel Burston, etc. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 14:47, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) that's your POV. 2) if they are so what. The entire point of peer review is to minimize bias and ensure that the article in question is as objective as possible. 3)Wheather or not there is bias in academic publications has no bearing on the fact: Peterson isn't an expert in philosophy or political theory. blindlynx (talk) 18:25, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I must agree with Korny. I am also having difficulty finding reliable sources by experts who are comparing Peterson's claims about "postmodern Neo-Marxism" with antisemitic conspiracy theory to clearly understand whether they are similar or exactly the same theories. The majority of sources, including reliable, are seemingly only making association fallacies due to terminology. @Blindlynx, it's not a personal opinion and pushing a certain point of view stating a fact that some sources and authors have an ideological and political background and bias. That's common sense, we all know what's the political leaning of The Guardian or The Spectator. Peer review in general and social journals with ideological tendencies especially don't make some grandiose efforts to minimize bias. If the majority of reliably cited sources are WP:BIASED then it may make in-text attribution appropriate, as in "Feminist Betty Friedan wrote that..."; "According to the Marxist economist Harry Magdoff...".--Miki Filigranski (talk) 02:11, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * More importantly those sorts of qualifications about Peterson's writing is exactly what this entire discusion is about. blindlynx (talk) 03:58, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

same as Kellner, Stuart_Hall_(cultural_theorist) and Birmingham school. Not that this has anything to do with this article, where references should actually mention Peterson, but "sit down", "Pepe the frog", and oh that's Marxist humanism? You asked for references and you got em. fiveby(zero) 01:56, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, Fiveby, you are correct that Dworkin is talking about the cultural turn in Marxism, same as Kellner, and not the Pepe the frog conspiracy theory that Peterson is invoking. You are also right that Dworkin's usage has nothing to do with this article. Newimpartial (talk) 02:10, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Possible path forward
I'm no longer sure how to summarize everything above. My primary concern was putting something like "Peterson is wrong" in wikivoice. Based on what others are saying it seems we have experts that view Peterson's use of the terms as wrong. Could we say something like:
 * Peterson's use of cultural marxism, especially his interchange of the terms post-modernist and cultural marxism has been disputed by academics [Footnote: examples of X says Peterson is wrong and why. Note that the why is critical here and we should not simply say Prof someone says Peterson is wrong].

Consider that many of our readers are not experts in this subject and Peterson does have clear academic credentials. This is not a hard science and at the higher academic levels specific areas of knowledge aren't always limited to a single silo (this is something I have seen first hand). I think it's safe to assume Peterson isn't making claims from a position of pure ignorance so even if he is "wrong" a reader is better educated if we provide a more detailed discussion within a footnote. Springee (talk) 19:32, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * From here, a citation would be needed for I think it's safe to assume Peterson isn't making claims from a position of pure ignorance - I think we have actual intellectual historians and specialists in the field who would directly contradict this view. I agree that it is possible to take the "silos" in the academy too seriously or too literally, but I think it is still important to be able to observe when academics are speaking entirely out of their anal orifices.
 * As to language for the article, I would propose something like Specialists in the history of political and social theory have disputed Peterson's characterization of "Cultural Marxism" (a conspiracy theory trope), particularly his using the term interchangeably with Postmodernism. with an appropriate citation. Newimpartial (talk) 19:47, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The first is a little strongly worded perhaps but i support the second. blindlynx (talk) 19:59, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't like the idea of suggesting a conspiracy unless Peterson has specifically said as much. As a hypothetical example, I might say bankers are conspiring with lawmakers to screw people who try to save money and X is how it happens.  My proof is all these bankers supported some new series of laws.  But does that make it a conspiracy?  Perhaps the bankers all support it for the same self interested reason.  There is no "conspiracy" even if all the bankers want the same thing.  Again, the idea that Peterson is somehow outright ignorant is questionable given his academic standing and position.  If he is wrong, and it sounds like he is, it will make a better article if we can explain his position and then why experts disagree vs just saying "Peterson wrongly says/does X".  Springee (talk) 20:38, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I think you are missing the point, Springee. According to all available RS, "Cultural Marxism" is a conspiracy theory trope - it has no other denotation. Peterson may not regard it as being such a trope, but he is not a RS about Marxism (or about conspiracy theories), and we have multiple experts weighing in specifically on his misuse of the term.
 * Also, your argument that Peterson is unikely to be outright ignorant in areas outside of his professional specialty is questionable, to say the least, and needs some kind of evidentiary support beyond his academic standing and position (as a non-practicing educator and therapist?) for editors to take your assessment seriously. Newimpartial (talk) 20:47, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If Peterson doesn't see it as a trope or is using it to mean something other than the conspiracy theory then that is relevant. For example, let's suppose I make a series of arguments but I confuse the prefix "intra-" and "inter-".  The rest of my argument might be coherent but technically is wrong due to the prefix confusion.  If we are going to say Peterson is wrong about cultural marxism we should first define what he says it is then why his definition is wrong.  Again this can/should be in a footnote.  Finally, if you want to suggest that Peterson is dumb, then I think that is something you would have to prove.  I'm not sure I need to prove the reverse given his university has already placed a reasonable level of faith in his abilities.   Springee (talk) 21:05, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * But we don't need to do what you propose (nor should we, per policy). We need to summarize what the reliable sources on the topic agree on: which is that "Cultural Marxism" is a conspiracy theory term, and that Peterson misuses it by conflation with "Postmodernism".
 * As far as Peterson being "dumb", that isn't my view at all - I think he is smart like a fox. He is an expert in Jungian concepts like "myth", and is a pretty good practitioner of "myth" in his capacity as a public intellectual and in his construction of his own persona. One consequence of his approach however, is that he makes statements that are neither supported by evidence nor descriptive of reality, and he doesn't always explicitly label them as metaphorical or "mythic". (And yes, I can find reliable sources saying essentially what I just said, but I can't be bothered right now. This isn't a proposed addition to the article: it is my answer to whether I want to suggest that Peterson is dumb. Not at all.) Newimpartial (talk) 21:14, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Both and 's (minus the parenthetical "conspiracy theory" phrase) proposals above look fine. I don't see a problem with attributing criticism of Peterson's use of the terms "post-modernist" and "cultural Marxism". As I understand it, there have been a number of notable critics of his usage of these terms. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:32, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * something along the lines of:
 * Peterson is not an expert on the subjects he is popularly known for writing on and he is often corrected or dissmissed by exterts in those fields
 * blindlynx (talk) 19:50, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * "This is not a hard science and at the higher academic levels specific areas of knowledge aren't always limited to a single silo," this means nothing, compared to authorities on poststructuralism etc., actual academics with reams of published work on the subject, Jordan is a hack who has pieced together an argument using secondary sources written by right leanings commentators, he does not possess the kind of thorough academic insight on the subject that would lead one to call him an expert, his academic credentials count for nothing in this field, so lets not pretend otherwise. We have a published assessment, by a leading authority on Peterson's notion of "Post-modern Neo-Marxism" (read Cultural Marxism), we should use it. Acousmana (talk) 20:25, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This isn't hard science. Can you run an objective test to verify a hypothesis within a reasonable margin of error?  One's undergrad degree might not be in the same field as their terminal degree.  The side subjects one studies while getting or after getting a doctorate might not be in the same silo as their diploma.  Regardless, as wikipedia editors we are supposed to write in an impartial way.  I think stating that some things he has done/argued are disputed and then using a footnote to include some detail of the dispute is a good way forward. Springee (talk) 20:38, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * And per BALANCE and DUE, Peterson's story about "Post-Modern Neo-Marxism" falls into the category of "Myth" (and as a Jungian, Peterson is supposed to know something about myth), but is not supported by any relevant evidence as representing anything factual in the contemporary university setting. Since Peterson discusses it as though it were a real thing rather than a myth, the impartial course is to note what he says and then note that specialists in social and political thought agree that what he says is incorrect (though in something more like the more elegant wording I suggested above). The idea that we should present Peterson's claims in main text and the scholarly consensus in a footnote is not supported by policy. Newimpartial (talk) 20:53, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I think IMPARTIAL is policy and so is IAR. If we are going to use sources to claim Peterson is wrong then we need to make sure it is done in an impartial way.  That means helping the readers understand both sides and why Peterson's side is considered to be incorrect.  Sadly Wikipedia has far too many cases of "Mr X falsely said Y" without helping readers understand why Mr X might have claimed Y and where there are issues with it.  Springee (talk) 21:09, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe the language I proposed above follows this requirement very closely, and doesn’t say anything like Peterson falsely claimed that feminists are trying to undermine freedom of speech, to pick an example almost at random. Newimpartial (talk) 21:17, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * "If Peterson doesn't see it as a trope or is using it to mean something other than the conspiracy theory then that is relevant." according to Žižek when Peterson uses the term "Post-Modern Neo-Marxism" it's the conspiracy theory version of Cultural Marxism he is alluding to, and he explains why, we can cite him, and we most probably should considering his expertise on the subject. Acousmana (talk) 21:26, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If you're proposing that Žižek should be cited by making vague claims about what he is saying and explaining - then why are you not citing him directly here with a link? Did you refer to this passage from Areo; Another oft-repeated Peterson-motif is the idea that, according to the “postmodern neo-Marxists,” the capitalist West is characterized by “tyrannical patriarchy” (with Peterson here triumphantly mocking this claim, enumerating cases of how hierarchy existed not only in non-Western societies—but also in nature!). Again, I sincerely don’t know which “neo-Marxists” claim that patriarchy is the result of the capitalist West. Marx says the exact contrary: in one of the most famous passages from The Communist Manifesto, he writes that it is precisely capitalism itself which tends to undermine all traditional patriarchal hierarchies. Furthermore, in “Authority and Family,” an early classic of the Frankfurt School (the origin of “cultural Marxism”), Max Horkheimer is far from just condemning the modern patriarchal family—he describes how the paternal role model can provide to a youngster a stable support to resist social pressure. As his colleague Adorno pointed out, totalitarian leaders like Hitler are not paternal figures.
 * There have been several attempts to defend Peterson’s interpretation of postmodern neo Marxism. One of the best recent efforts is an article in this magazine, by Jonathan Church—though even its title is telling: “Jordan Peterson Is Not Entirely Wrong About ‘Postmodern Neo-Marxism.’” Church argues that Peterson overstates his case and “does not appreciate many of the subtleties of postmodern philosophy.” Nonetheless, Church claims that Marx’s influence can be seen in postmodern culture’s ongoing obsession with social marginalization, which has resulted in a left-wing effort to seize the means of cultural production in order to engage in social justice activism, inspired by critical theory going back to Marx. Church also points to the influence Marx still holds in the academy, in social science and humanities courses.
 * It seems the topic is still not discussed in the proper manner by citing reliable sources yet editors are primarily making personal opinions and conclusions seemingly backing them up with links to some reliable sources, often of non-experts, as if their claims are reliable and relevant enough to be a trusted paraphrasing what's said in the sources themselves. No, they aren't. It's far more valuable and constructive to have a list of citations to which we can always go back to during the archive. Another thing, you are missing the context. The issue with Peterson's perspective on the occurrence and influence of postmodernism in academia is that Peterson isn't an expert in the field of philosophy but neither his thoughts are original opinion. He is influenced by philosopher Stephen Hicks, particularly his book Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault (2004), as can be seen as an example in a speech from February 2017. When he speaks about Neo-Marxists in academia who gave up on economic Marxism and became postmodernists whose influence is undermining proper-culture and science & rationalism in the academia it isn't far from direct paraphrasing of Hicks who showed, citing book review by another philosopher, "how the anti-capitalist left has responded to the spectacular failures of socialist practice and theory by abandoning the scientistic objectivism of Marx while embracing postmodernist irrationalism, multiculturalism, and extremist rhetoric". That's not the antisemitic conspiracy theory and per WP:BLPBALANCE we must be "beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased, malicious or overly promotional content". --Miki Filigranski (talk) 01:52, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

I have no idea why, Miki, you are attributing to Aero Magazine a passage from Zizek's contribution to a book. And if the best recent effort to defend Peterson's interpretation of Postmodern neo Marxism is the one by Jonathan Church you cite above, then we shouldn't be spending any more time on this question. Church is an economist by profession, without academic publications, and "Aero magazine" is not a reliable source on any topic at all, much less the specific topic of Marxist theory. What is more, Church rewrites Peterson to something that broadly corresponds to the real world, which cannot be construed as a "defense" of "Peterson's interpretation" in any real sense (nor is there any reason to think it would be due for inclusion as an attributed opinion, as Jonathan Church is not a public intellectual with the international standing of Slavoj Zizek even if Church did say something more relevant than, "if Peterson has said this other thing, it would have been defensible". As far as Steven Hicks is concerned, it is very important that we not engage in OR here. If Hicks manages to caricature the cultural turn among midcentury Marxists without engaging the anti-Semitic tropes of the "Cultural Marxism" conspiracy theory, then that is all well and good. But it is not our job as editors to make the original argument that because Peterson offers Hicks as his source for "Post-modern Neo-Marxism" (although Hicks does not conflate these things)| that therefore Peterson should be immune from criticism of the ways he uses "Cultural Marxism" and his own nonsensical term because his work is based on Hicks, who knew better. If there are any reliable, published sources that have made this argument, of course they could be included, but I have seen none. We must follow the reliable sources, and the only reliable sources that have been presented here agree (1) that "Cultural Marxism" is a trope of a conspiracy theory and that (2) "Post-modern neo-Marxism" is a neologism that Peterson has created (possibly a Jungian "myth") that does not correspond to any intellectual movement that actually exists or has existed in the past. As far as I know, there is no RS dissent from these conclusions. For a lighter but still realistic portrayal of this debate, see this. Newimpartial (talk) 02:52, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * additional relevant cites from Žižek's assessment of Peterson's "postmodern neo-Marxism":
 * "The cracks in his advocacy of cold facts against politically-correct dogmas are easy to discern. His big image is that of a radical leftist conspiracy: after communism failed as an economic system and there was no revolution in the developed-West, Marxists, he claims, decided to move to the domain of culture and morality, marking the beginning of ‘Postmodern neo-Marxism’. Its goal is to undermine the moral backbone of our societies and thus set in motion the final breakdown of our freedoms..."
 * "The alt-right obsession with Cultural Marxism (Peterson’s ‘postmodern neo-Marxism’) signals its rejection of the fact that the phenomena they criticize as effects of the Cultural Marxist plot (moral degradation, sexual promiscuity, consumerist hedonism, etc.), are actually the outcomes of the immanent dynamics of late capitalism itself…"
 * "The term ‘Cultural Marxism’ thus plays the same structural role as that of the ‘Jewish plot’ in anti-Semitism: it projects (or rather, transposes) the immanent antagonism of our socio-economic life onto an external cause: what the conservative alt-right deplores as the ethical disintegration of our lives (feminism, attacks on patriarchy, political correctness, etc.) must have an external cause—because it cannot, for them, emerge out of the antagonisms and tensions of our own societies…"
 * "I find Peterson’s fixation on political correctness and other targets as the extreme outgrowth of ‘cultural Marxism’ (a bloc which, in its ‘postmodern neo-Marxist’ form, comprises the Frankfurt School, the ‘French’ poststructuralist deconstructionism, identity politics, gender and queer theories, etc.) to have numerous problems. He seems to imply this ‘postmodern neo-Marxism’ is the result of a deliberate shift in Marxist (or communist) strategy: after communism lost the economic battle with liberal capitalism (waiting in vain for the revolution to arrive in the developed Western world), its leaders, we are told, decided to move to the domain of cultural struggles (sexuality, feminism, racism, religion, etc), systematically undermining the cultural foundations and values of our freedoms. In the last decades, this new approach proved unexpectedly efficient: today, our societies are caught in a self-destructive circle of guilt, unable to defend their positive legacy. I see no necessary link between this line of thought and liberalism. The notion of ‘postmodern neo-Marxism’ (or its more insidious form, ‘cultural Marxism’), manipulated by some secret communist centre and aiming to destroy Western freedoms, is a pure alt-right conspiracy theory (and the fact that it can be mobilized as part of a ‘liberal’ defence of our freedoms says something about the immanent weaknesses of the liberal project). First, there is no unified field of ‘cultural Marxism’—some of today’s representatives of the Frankfurt School are among the most vicious denigrators of the ‘French thought’ (poststructuralism, deconstruction); and many ‘cultural Marxists’ are fiercely critical of identity politics, etc. Second, any positive reference to the Frankfurt School, or the ‘French thought’, was prohibited in socialist countries—where the authorities were much more open towards Anglo-Saxon analytic thought (as I remember from my own youth)—so to claim that both classic Marxism and its ‘cultural’ version were somehow controlled by the same central agent has to rely on the very suspicious notion of a hidden master who secretly pulls the strings."
 * "What I sincerely don’t get is Peterson’s designation of the position he is most critical about (not as the usual ‘cultural Marxists’, but): ‘postmodern neo-Marxists’. Nobody calls himself or herself that, so it’s a critical term—but does it hold? Peterson seems to like to give precise references, he mentions books, etc., so I would like to know his precise references here. I think I know what he has in mind: the politically-correct multicultural, anti-Eurocentric, etc. mess. But, where are Marxists among them? Peterson seems to oppose ‘postmodern neo-Marxism’ to the Western Judeo-Christian legacy. I find this opposition weird. First, post-modernism and Marxism are incompatible: the theory of post-modernism emerged as a critique of Marxism (in Lyotard and others). The ultimate post-modernists are today conservatives themselves. Once traditional authority loses its substantial power, it is not possible to return to it—all such returns are today a post-modern fake… The very term ‘postmodern neo-Marxism’ reminds me of the typical totalitarian procedure of combining the two opposite trends into one figure of the enemy (like the ‘Judeo-Bolshevik plot’ in fascism)…"
 * "can one imagine anything more ‘Western’ than post- modernism or Marxism?..."
 * "Another oft-repeated Peterson-motif is the idea that, according to the ‘postmodern neo-Marxists’, the capitalist West is characterized by ‘tyrannical patriarchy’ (with Peterson here triumphantly mocking this claim, enumerating cases of how hierarchy existed not only in non-Western societies—but also in nature!). Again, I sincerely don’t know which ‘neo-Marxists’ claim that patriarchy is the result of the capitalist West. Marx says the exact contrary: in one of the most famous passages from The Communist Manifesto, he writes that it is precisely capitalism itself which tends to undermine all traditional patriarchal hierarchies. Furthermore, in ‘Authority and Family’, an early classic of the Frankfurt School (the origin of ‘cultural Marxism’), Max Horkheimer is far from just condemning modern patriarchal family—he describes how the paternal role model can provide to a youngster a stable support to resist social pressure." Acousmana (talk) 14:46, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * @Newimpartial, replying to you is just a waste a time. It's very simple, or are you here being focused on the editing of the content or shut up and leave others alone. @Acousmana, great, thank you for the citation. Do you have in mind some short sentence we could possibly include with in-text attribution to Žižek?--Miki Filigranski (talk) 23:02, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Vice
This edit which included the sentence "On 23 November 2020, Penguin Random House Canada held an internal town hall where many employees criticized the company's decision to publish the book.47". This statement is WP:RECENTISM. People, we are editing an encyclopedia. This news could be or could not be notable for inclusion only within the context of the time when the book is published, like in the case of Newman's interview. What's the point and scope of it for this article if it's still going to be published by Penguin Random House Canada? Also, please don't cite Vice News when are available mainstream sources because there's no consensus on Vice's reliability.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 02:38, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You are quite right that since the story has been covered in The Guardian, the Independent, the National Post, the Telegraph, and the National Review (!) there is no reason to cite Vice. Newimpartial (talk) 03:16, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Then why did you make a WP:POINT revert to an unstable revision? It's not stable since it's contested by other editors, neither you replaced Vox source, neither made any comment on book sections change. What unconstructive, unfriendly, and pushing WP:OWN behavior.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 23:08, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't revert any edits where the edit summary raised any questions about the Vice source or the content in question, so I'm not sure what Miki is talking about. Newimpartial (talk) 23:27, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * What you wanted to say with this pointless and incomprehensible comment? --Miki Filigranski (talk) 10:06, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The comment was comprehensible and it's purpose is clear. Ungrammatical and antagonistic comments like this are not helpful. Grayfell (talk) 21:50, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The comment was pointless as the user is constantly writing comments which are not focused on editing the article's content.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 08:18, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I was saying that no objection was made to the Vice source in any edit that I reverted. If that objection had been raised, I would have looked for (and found) the many better sources available. But the sourcing issue was only brought to my attention here on Talk after the fact. Newimpartial (talk) 08:23, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * After what fact? You made the revert after you commented in this discussion.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 08:29, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

My revert that you linked above had nothing to do with the use of the Vice source, so the fact that I made it after replying in this section is irrelevant to the issue you raised here. Newimpartial (talk) 09:24, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Then why you didn't do a partial revert?--Miki Filigranski (talk) 11:23, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Please look again at my revert you linked above: your change, which I reverted, didn't touch the use of Vice. No reason to partially revert in that case. Newimpartial (talk) 11:39, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Jesus, you're completely missing the point of what told you before - that you're making reverts and writing comments in which agree with other editors but without making any edit because of which your activity on the article and talk page is only stalling the editing of the article.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 21:01, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * What you wanted to say with this pointless and incomprehensible comment? New number. Who dis? Newimpartial (talk) 21:04, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Removal of book review
''Blindlynx's comment below was a reply to Miki Filgranski's comment above (01:14, 25 November 2020). I'm adding a section break since this is getting long and the book review is not the same topic as the content above Springee (talk) 02:50, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

As was my initial comment. Newimpartial (talk) 19:13, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Your removal of a recent critique of Peterson's book in a Jungian journal, at full article length, does not leave me with much faith about your ability to assess the reliability of sources in this domain. Smells like IDONTLIKEIT, from here. Newimpartial (talk) 01:27, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That's not how neutrality works! We don't just assume people are reliable sources until proven otherwise, if we did i'd be a reliable source on everything because you won't find anyone saying i'm not. blindlynx (talk) 01:47, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * are you aware you are making an accusation about an experienced editor with an obvious lack of WP:GOODFAITH to an unrelated comment and discussion? First, you need to understand what WP:WEIGHT and WP:BLPBALANCE is nevertheless the quality and reliability of the source, secondly that numerous times was discussed we are not going to have a criticism section either about him as a person either for the books because each of these books has their own criticism section at related articles and nobody is going through editing hell about which criticism should be or not included. The new editor who included this criticism in the book's section and not in the book's article obviously wasn't familiar with it. If you think it should be different then you are free to start a discussion and reach a consensus.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 01:56, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I was intending that that consensus be established here, as part of a discussion to which you just contributed and which concerns the same issues of quality sourcing and attribution; do you think it requires its own section?
 * Otherwise, I would recommend that you concentrate on contributions, not contributors and I will do the same. While sitewide policies do indeed criticism sections, the inclusion of criticism of a BLP subject's public positions - when they are an important part of the subject's Notability, as in this case - is essential to WEIGHT and BLPBALANCE. This is especially true with public figures taking WP:FRINGE positions, like Peterson. Newimpartial (talk) 02:11, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you explain why you removed that article then? I just read it and it is a peer reviewed reliable article, doing exactly what you asked for in your initial comment namely refuting Peterson in a reliable philosophical source. blindlynx (talk) 02:31, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * @Newimpartial, it is a separate issue which needs a separate discussion and especially for a consensus. Is there any other RS whose author has expertise in the field which had come to the same conclusion as Gary Clark? What's Clark by expertise exactly by the way? @Blindlynx, it was already explained. No, that's criticism of a book and if we're going to include a book's criticism then we need to have a new consensus to have it for all of them and then we must decide which parts will be cited according to the proportion of both positive and negative reception. Sections about the books need only a short and balanced abstract. Citing several sentences from a single RS isn't how it's done and it's out of scope for this article.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 03:03, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I have not read the review article in question and don't know the author's precise specialty, but he is a Jungian writing in a high-quality Jungian journal and Peterson's professed specialty is - you've got it - Jungian psychology, so this is about as relevant as it gets.
 * More generally, you appear to be dismissing the element of source quality in assessing the proportion of both positive and negative reception. In a case where a book is panned by professional peers and receives a mixed reception from general interest publications, it may be relevant to separate out the specialist reception from the generalist reception, but it would never be DUE to ignore how the most qualified reviewers evaluated the work in question. Newimpartial (talk) 04:11, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * To be clear i'm taking issue with you asking for something that you removed from the article. I think it should be included because, it has to be clear that he is not an expert on many of the things he is known for writing about and faces strong criticism from actual experts, and that article is a good example of taht. blindlynx (talk) 06:57, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Wow, jumping from step 1 to step 10 without a proper discussion, didn't read the review, doesn't know the author's specialty. What a bunch of POV pushers.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 23:13, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Comment, Since there are primary topics on each of the books I would suggest compressing all the books into a single paragraph/section with no more than 3 sentences per book. Any summary of the books reception (both negative and positive) should be very high level and then direct the reader to the primary article on the topic. I support the removal not on the grounds that it is or isn't a DUE and IMPARTIAL review but as it is not a SUMMARY of the primary article on the book. Specific reviews should be in the child article, not here. I think its best when we maintain a hierarchical structure to articles like this. Springee (talk) 02:56, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree, same thoughts, including for merging of book sections into a single "Books" section, but for now, I would keep the same text as it remained as such for a long time (WP:SILENCE) and challenging that needs another small consensus.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 03:05, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment current structure appears to best serve our needs, I would leave as is personally. Acousmana (talk) 10:39, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There is a misunderstanding of Wikipedia's policies here. Whether we like it or not, DUE and IMPARTIAL or relevant to this section. Other Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources, so we should not assume that those other articles are the best summary of the topic. Any summary of these books must still be supported by reliable sources even if it's redundant with another flawed article. Obviously it is common practice for practical reasons to crib from other Wikipedia articles, but we are not obligated to do so. Instead, both this article and the book's articles should summarize what reliable, independent sources have to say. Since Peterson is ostensibly an academic, this will necessarily include some academic coverage.
 * Also, this is a discussion, not a !vote, so you do not need to identify your comments as comments. Grayfell (talk) 22:02, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * valid points, so let's reset and see how long it is before someone reverts using BRD as an excuse. Acousmana (talk) 23:07, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * On a related note, I previously explained my concerns over false equivalence for reviews at Talk:12 Rules for Life. The best approach for most article and for almost all cases is to find reliable, independent, secondary sources. We then briefly summarize those without editorializing. These sources are not always available for all articles, but Peterson is widely discussed, so I doubt that's the problem. So that would mean we summarize a source which directly discusses his books' claims specifically as they relate to Peterson as an author. Very briefly summarize the books for context and then use sources to explain what they tell us about the author. If the sources which allow us to do this are opinions, they should be attributed as opinions ("according to X..."). Grayfell (talk) 23:34, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * are you aware that you made 2 reverts within 24 hours while the article is under WP:1RR sanction? exactly and current book review isn't any kind of summarization.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 08:16, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

why are you again making WP:POINT revert and substantiating it with a lie that has been present for more than a month while it was included on 1st November and was first time reverted on 25th November - less than a month. WP:SILENCE is also the weakest form of consensus to claim it was part of the stable version. It wasn't and at least isn't anymore. You're pushing POV against BRD and on-going discussion.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 11:29, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Accusing me of lying isn't WP:CIVIL. I said the text has been there for more than a month, not that it was 100% stable during that time. It has been stable enough, as I said. Newimpartial (talk) 11:36, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, we do need to be careful about assuming the intent of other editors. I'm sure I'm not the only editor who has been accused of having a motive that I know wasn't my intent.  I'm also certain that some of my edits that were 100% clear to me were not clear to others who couldn't read my mind (which of course is a personal flaw on their part).  :D Springee (talk) 16:15, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with Grayfell that we shouldn't cite other wiki articles. However, I don't think that means we need to have details/specific book reviews here.  WP:SYNC is the relevant guideline here since the books have primary topics.  I don't believe SYNC counts as citing wikipedia any more than a lead without citations is considered to be unsourced if the body supports the lead.  With respect to including any particular review in this article please keep this sentence in mind, " Whether a detail is important enough to include in the lead of the detailed article is a good rule of thumb for whether it is important enough to be placed in the summary."  I haven't reviewed the articles about the book so I will take on faith they are reasonable as stand alone articles vs POV forks that should be reintegrated here.  Springee (talk) 16:15, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

, I don't think in the article for about a month is long enough to consider it part of the stable version. Also, per ONUS even if this is part of the stable version it is now being challenged so the case to keep and consensus to keep it needs to be established. I think it should go on the grounds that it's not part of a summary of the primary article on the subject. I don't have an opinion on if it is DUE (or not) in the article on the book. Anyway, I think at this point policy says this has been challenged and should stay out until consensus says there is weight for inclusion. Springee (talk) 18:53, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * adds interest to the article, gives our readers additional context, it's informative, they can reach their own conclusions, don't see the problem. Acousmana (talk) 21:32, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Convenience break
For clarity, this is the content which is disputed:
 * An article published in 2020 in the International Journal of Jungian Studies, entitled ′Carl Jung, John Layard and Jordan Peterson: Assessing Theories of Human Social Evolution and Their Implications for Analytical Psychology', offers a sustained critique of Peterson’s thought as outlined in 12 Rules for Life. In this critique it is claimed that Peterson fails to take account of research in paleoanthropology, evolutionary anthropology and ethnographic studies of egalitarian societies. Such societies, which are believed to represent the ancient forager adaptation of H. sapiens, are both matrilineal and lacking in social hierarchy. The author argues that a major sociocultural transformation occurred from this ancient adaptive complex with the onset of agriculture giving rise to modern patrilineal and hierarchical cultures. This view contrasts with Peterson’s which postulates modern social and economic structures are an outgrowth of the hierarchical impulses of our premammalian, mammalian and primate ancestors. This led the author to conclude that Peterson seems to have ‘projected his own cultural biases back into the deep past.’

As presented, this paragraph is specifically about Peterson's thought as outlined in 12 Rules for Life. It is not explicitly about the book itself, and the cited article is not presented by its journal as a book review.

Commentary about his professional views is obviously relevant to the topic. I would argue that it's more relevant than much of the article's current information. The article is, however, organized in such a way that there is no obvious place for this information.

The article has a trivia problem which preserves some info while making it harder to make positive changes. The article's many sections tend to present information without any context. For example, the article mentions that he has debated Harris and Žižek in the "career" section, but provides no explanation for why this is important for his career. If this is important enough to mention, it should be clear to reader why it is important. That importance comes from sources, not editors.

Another trivia example is that he was introduced to specific authors when he was a teenager. Since a huge number of teenagers are introduced to the exact same authors at that age, this is almost meaningless, and needs context. Passing mentions are not enough to demonstrate encyclopedic significance. I have trimmed that bit, since it was not even properly supported by the cited source. (The source didn't mention Rand, nor did it mention a specific age). Going through those sources, I suspect there are many other examples of this. Grayfell (talk) 22:40, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 December 2020
In "Early Life": Change: In junior high school, Peterson became friends with Rachel Notley and her family. Notely became leader of the Alberta New Democratic Party and 17th premier of Alberta.[8] Peterson joined the New Democratic Party (NDP) from ages 13 to 18.[9][10]

To: In junior high school, Peterson became friends with Rachel Notley and her family. Notley became leader of the Alberta New Democratic Party and 17th premier of Alberta.[8] Peterson joined the New Democratic Party (NDP) from ages 13 to 18.[9][10]

Summary: Change Notely in "Notely became leader" to "Notley became leader" 131.150.178.140 (talk) 22:14, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done RudolfRed (talk) 22:34, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Sources for JP's religion
The Religion section states that JP is an Orthodox Christian. However, after checking both given sources I found than none of them support this claim. In fact, the article on Helleniscope writes that he is "not a Christian himself but certainly a faithful person" while the article at Engage Orthodoxy argues with a citation "And yet Peterson himself is not a Christian, at least not in any traditional sense of the word" in both cases the sources contradicting not only the denomination but also the general religion. Nxavar (talk) 18:26, 23 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Following your change here, the Religion section now simply states: "Jordan Peterson has favourable views on the teachings of the Orthodox Church". That seems fair. But it's still only Peterson himself who has said he's a Christian, and even then that he doesn't "properly" believe in God. None of the Categories link him to any religion, including Christianity. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:42, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Jordanbpeterson
Could someone politely inform the jordanbpeteraon account about the COI rules and editing about oneself? That isn't really my area, and sooner would be better. Newimpartial (talk) 00:43, 9 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I think it more likely the account is not Peterson but the practical effect is the same. If they are Peterson then they are prohibited from editing their own article.  If they aren't then claiming they are is a problem and again the edits should be reverted.  Springee (talk) 01:13, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Some of the edits made reasonable points; I reinstated what I thought was of value. I don't know much about COI, so I'll leave notification at the user talk page for someone else. Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:35, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't review any of the changes. I'm fine restoring any good content.  I reverted solely on the COI/false pretense basis.  Springee (talk) 01:50, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Some of the reversions made sense, and reviewing the content of the talk page, gives me the impression that as of a few weeks later, people are more critical of the weighty 12 Rules paragraph and moderately indifferent about the rest of the changes. Some are more defining and clarifying and historical.  In addition to my personal review and brief thoughts on those points, I've made an edit to infobox, and am interested to restore or re-edit some of the content from the jordanbpeterson user, as is interesting in brief, historically and practically.  Some of my changes have been reversed without practical need so I need to join here and get cooperative consensus on anything I'm interested to edit. Tomacpace (talk) 23:17, 30 January 2021 (UTC)