Talk:Jordan Peterson/Archive 14

Fascism
Let's begin a talk on the contested new section. -- Moxy - 13:56, 24 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I can hardly see why two opinion pieces, one being a book review in the The New York Review of Books, and one being an op-ed in a small Australian magazine Overland, deserve a whole section dedicated to them. Is there anything in an RS about this? &#8209;&#8209;Volteer1 (talk) 14:18, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Good point. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:48, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify my revert, I had seen that prose in the article when I answered an edit request a few days back and saw it being removed by an account with a red link talk page. I assumed some amount of consensus existed for inclusion and advised to seek consensus to remove. I have no opinion on the section itself as I haven't done any reading into it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:22, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It sounds like we should be able to find RS which discuss this: "Those on both the Right and Left defend him against charges of fascism and membership in the alt-right... Peterson’s fans argue that he is not a fascist, just a classical liberal Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:32, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * For clarity, (I don't think you're implying this, but) Jacobin is probably not a reliable source (most recent RS/N discussion), given they are a partisan socialist magazine which only publishes opinion. It does make me think there might be more to be said about this in other reliable sources though. &#8209;&#8209;Volteer1 (talk) 14:48, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Fascist is, indeed, a very skewed epithet to use against a man who openly identifies as Classical Liberal. We need to be straight with our definitions here; what defines a Fascist? If we use Mussolini as the prototype, a Fascist is someone who is 1) nationalist, 2) military and 3) revolutionary. One can hardly associate any of these traits with Jordan Peterson. It's a stretch, like calling Biden a Stalinist. Trakking (talk) 15:00, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , "classical liberal" is, of course, fascists' preferred term for alt-lite. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:43, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that these sources are weak given the association they are trying to establish. It comes off as gossipy vs carefully considered.  It's also a guilt by association attack vs saying Peterson actually is a proponent of even a core tenant of fascism.  Springee (talk) 16:07, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

The Mishra piece and reaction are quite noteworthy. Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:54, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * "Jordan Peterson & Fascist Mysticism", above cited article from The New York Review of Books
 * "After the Indian essayist Pankaj Mishra charged him with peddling 'fascist mysticism,' Peterson tweeted that Mishra was an 'arrogant, racist son of a bitch'...", The Atlantic
 * "Jordan Peterson slams left-wing academic who called him a fascist: 'I'd slap you'", Fox News
 * "Indeed, for Pankaj Mishra in the New York Review of Books, the invocation of such pseudoscientific guff places Peterson alongside a host of other 'intellectual entrepreneurs' in a lineage of 'fascist mysticism' (this criticism did not go down well)." Vice
 * "After a brutal but perfectly polite and clinical takedown in the New York Review of Books by Pankaj Mishra ... He called Mishra a 'sanctimonious prick'" The Guardian
 * "... his critics on the left say Peterson ... is one step removed from a white supremacist or similar to notable fascists. In March, Pankaj Mishra wrote an article titled 'Jordan Peterson & Fascist Mysticism'" National Review
 * Yegor Zhukov's "ideas have raised eyebrows. Critics have pointed to his support of Jordan Peterson, a Canadian thinker who has been described as a purveyor of 'fascist mysticism.'" The Moscow Times
 * Honestly, that comes across as petty twitter fights. I don't see any of this as serious analysis or worthy of an encyclopedia article.  Springee (talk) 18:00, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , it's astonishing to me that anyone can distil anything at all, beyond Christian nationalism and misogyny, from the disjointed nonsense Peterson comes up with. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:08, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * His reaction is petty yes, but these stories and the book review are clearly noteworthy. Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:26, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , clearly? Says who? Not me. Peterson's actual importance as a philosopher is strictly limited. Guy (help! - typo?) 07:20, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , I'm a bit confused as to what you're getting at. This isn't about Peterson's relevance as a philosopher, this is about his characterisation of a wide array of noteworthy critics, who point out the close and unmistakable link between Peterson's views and fascism. Are you opposed to the inclusion because of Peterson's percieved lack of notability? Because that makes very little sense. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 08:26, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No, I am saying that the article could be about one tenth the size, and better for it. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:24, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * With that logic, one could argue that Trump shouldn't have a dozen articles about him, from his own article to his racial views to his conspiracy theories to his eating habits, yet you would object to this claim and you would be right to do so. Like it or not, Jordan Peterson is a high profile far right agitator and his role in the current socio-political and cultural landscape cannot be downplayed. Jordan Peterson has been widely covered by noteworthy, reliable sources, and his insane ideologies have been criticized by all but the most fringe public figures. I agree with you on Jordan Peterson, which I why I believe the article should go into MORE detail about what exactly it is he preaches and the many ways he has been criticised. If anything needs to be trimmed down, it's his list of works, which go into excessive detail, and maybe his misinformation campaign against Bill C-16, which should focus only on the fact that he campaigned against it, the consequences of his actions and the refutations of his false claims. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 08:53, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * If you think that Jordan Peterson and his not-cancelled career is comparable with Donald Trump, there's not a lot I can do to help you. Separately, I think we could also do with a lot less about Trump. Far too much of it is blow-by-blow reactions to the many outrageous things he said and did in the last four years. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:49, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Plase stay on topic. I only brought up Trump because (redacted). 46.97.170.112 (talk) 09:16, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Your point eludes me. My view is simple: I think this article is longer than the objective significance of the subject justifies. My benchmark is Robert Hooke. That article, on a man who coined the biological term "cell", surveyed half of London after the Great Fire, designed the dome of St. Paul's and the Monument at Fish Street, was Gresham Professor of Geometry and founding Curator of Experiments to the Royal Society, performed the observations for Boyle's Law and pioneered the tabulation of expected versus achieved results in an experiment, developed the law of springs, wrote the first great scientific bestseller, invented the sash window and wrote the first set of building controls in the UK, is 76,000 bytes. This, on a guy who wrote a particularly trite, albeit popular, book, is nearly twice that. I do not think that we will still be discovering significant work by Peterson four hundred years after his death, as we are for Hooke. Most of what is written about Peterson is already irrelevant by the time it's written down. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:57, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * HERE HERE! BULLY BULLY!!! I've been passively following this conversation, and this is about the best summation of my position I can think of. Additionally, it applies to probably about half of the articles on Wikipedia, and four out of five articles that relate to anything with any controversy related. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:16, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , this is what I have to say about your Hooke argument []. Springee (talk) 15:00, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , heh! Yes, a bit. "England's Leonardo" as one book is memorably titled. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:30, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I would once again like to ask you to stay on topic. We're not talking about Hooke (who's article would probably be twice the size of Peterson's had Wikipedia existed at the time he was alive), we are talking about this article. My point is that we can't just arbitrarily exclude valid criticism of Peterson just because the article is too long already. Mishra's and Brooke's criticism of Peterson and their accurate assessment that Peterson's ideologies skirt the edges of fascism are perfectly valid, are notable and come from reliable sources. Even you agree with their assessment, so length is no argument against leaving this out. If the article is too long, that's because of the large amount of pointless fluff text, much of which is self-promotional, and should be cut. The disputed section on the other hand should not be. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 09:06, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * This is entirely on topic. The article is packed with recentism and trivia. Rather than adding more, we should be removing more. Guy (help! - typo?) 14:12, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are a lot of recentism and trivia. The article is twice as long as it should be. That pointless fluff needs to be removed, I agree with that. BUT that is not what this topic is about. This is about including two paragraphs of relevant and notable criticism of Peterson's ideologies, which SHOULD be included, regardless of what recentism and trivia needs to be removed. You're disagreeing just for the sake of disagreeing, and you didn't really add anything to this discussion besides you're personal dislike of Peterson, which is perfectly justified and we all agree with, but that doesn't change the fact that we need to STAY ON TOPIC. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 10:08, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * "Petty twitter fights" describes Peterson's reaction to Mishra, but not Mishra's and Brooker's criticism of Peterson, which is both noteworthy and accurate. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 08:26, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Break 1
I think it's fine to include these criticisms of Peterson, but it's best done in a general "Reception" section (which this article could use), and not in a section called "Fascism", which inherently skews the debate. And hopefully it can be done in a less biased way than the current writing, which for example includes the phrase "fetishisation of strength" placed outside of quotes. The writing should also make it clearer if he's being accused of fascism or of just holding views that fascists have also held; the latter is just shoddy logic of the kind covered in the reductio ad Hitlerum article.

By the way, Peterson's reaction to Mishra (like threatening to slap him) only comes off as "petty" if you think he was responding to Mishra's accusations of fascism. In truth, he was responding to Mishra describing Peterson's friendship with a Native American man as "romancing the noble savage". Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 12:57, 26 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree with Korny O&#39;Near's cogent comment (immediately above). Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 01:23, 27 April 2021 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter what Peterson was replying to. We're not here to document every bit of nonsense and drama that alt right pseudointellectuals start on social media every single day. Mishra's criticism of Peterson is perfectly valid, and I agree with including it under it's own heading, as per WP:SPADE. Peterson's reaction to him is little more than a childish temper tantrum. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 08:43, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * A summary of the reviews may be due so long as its presented in the form of arguments against, not attention grabbing quotes. Such quotes have no place in an encyclopedic article.  As a side comment, the agressive nature of the claims you make against Peterson come across as personal rather than well reasoned arguments.  Your case would be stronger if you dialed back the rhetoric and made your case based on dispassioned reasons. Springee (talk) 12:18, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * First off, my claims against Peterson were no more agressive than those made by Guy, and he's an admin - not to mention one of the few people on wikipedia who actually understands what impartiality means, but that's besides the point. The only "attention grabbing quotes" I see here are Peterson calling Mishra names and threatening to slap him, and if that's his best response to being accused of peddling fascism, than maybe it can be construed as admission of guilt. Unsurprising from self described "classical liberals". Mishra and Brooker's criticisms ARE presented as arguments against. The two paragraphs in dispute are neutral, impartial and encyclopedically worded, and properly summarize both criticisms. Maybe instead of making vague claims that Mishra and Brooker are attempting "guilt by association", you could tell us which parts of the two paragraphs you consider "attention grabbing quotes". 46.97.170.112 (talk) 08:53, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I just read Mishra's full opinion piece, and it should be noted that he never actually accuses Peterson of fascism - or even of holding fascistic views. Rather, the whole thing is essentially "guilt by association", full of examples like that Peterson thinks we should read Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn - and hey, did you know Solzhenitsyn supported Vladimir Putin when he was 90? You could read the whole thing as insinuating that Peterson is a fascist - Peterson certainly did, as have some of the people on this talk page - but I actually think Mishra is making a subtler point: that Peterson, though not himself a fascist, is playing with fire by extolling things like ancient wisdom and personal strength, which could lead his followers to clamor for a fascist strongman. I don't think Mishra ever says that directly either, though.
 * Brooker doesn't call Peterson a fascist either, though he makes the connection more explicit, saying that Peterson's "worldview connects up with historical fascism". It's a bit light on actual examples, and the examples he does cite seem rather insubstantial, like that Peterson writes with a "folksy flavour" and that his appeal is "among an economically and socially weakened middle class feeling besieged by a perceived rise in status of minority groups". (Which is also guilt by association, if it's even true - no one controls who their fans are.)
 * I'm not arguing against including these views; these are reliable sources, or at least the New York Book Review is. (I don't know about Overland.) But the summary should accurately describe what they're saying, not what they're hinting at. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 16:26, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Nobody is saying Peterson is a fascist, or that Mishra and Brooker calld him a fascist. You're arguing over nothing. Peterson's ties to fascism has always been what you describe Mishra and Brooker saying, and this is also what the contested fragment said. Peterson's ideologies are very closely tied to the things fascists believe and you cannot deny that. This is not guilt by association, this is calling a spade a spade. Your claim that nobody controls who their fans are is asinine. You will not find fascists and white supremacists among the fans of Slavoj Žižek, or the fans of any of the members of BreadTube, but you will find plenty among the fans of Jordan Peterson, and that has everything to do with the nature of the ideologies Jordan Peterson spouts on a regular basis. If Jordan Peterson wasn't promoting beliefs and ideologies that are associated with fascism, then he wouldn't have so many fascist cultists flocking to him. this isn't guilt by association. This is an objective assessment. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 09:06, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You're wrong about a few things. White supremacist Richard B. Spencer, for example, has quoted Žižek approvingly. As for no one saying that Mishra and Brooker call Peterson a fascist, the text under discussion says that they describe him as "holding views that are fascistic in character". Which is... pretty much the definition of a fascist, no? I'm also confused by your insistence that we "call a spade a spade", given that you don't think Peterson is a fascist. What does "spade" mean in this context - "near-fascist"? Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 13:55, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Rest assured that I am not wrong. Richard Spencer has a history of using his abysmal reputation to try and smear people outside the alt right trumpist echochamber, but people inside this echochamber are usually the only ones who fall for this grift. Richard Spencer is far right, therefore it stands to reason him quoting Žižek favorably is disingenuous. He also quoted Ibram X Kendi favorably, which is nonsense because a white supremacist isn't going to agree with an anti-racist on pretty much anything, And he claimed to endorse Biden in 2020, which is bullshit because everybody knows he's a trump supporter. This is just his way of giving the alt-lite a reason to say "see, he's not one of us". as if anybody still believes that.
 * Mishra and Brooker say Peterson's ideologies are closely related to fascism and are sympathetic to fascists, both of which are true, and at the very least, Peterson likes to act like he doesn't know that. That in itself means vewry little, as not saying the silent parts out loud is exactly what separates the self proclaimed "classical liberals" (i.e. the alt-lite), from the outspoken fascists and neonazis. also, "fascist-adjacent" or "overlapping with fascism" is what I would call his nonsense. Guy insists on using the term "christian nationalism" but that means something very specific. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 10:08, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I wonder, do you have any evidence that there are white supremacists among Peterson's fans, or is that similarly an evidence-free assertion, like seemingly the rest of your arguments? This is hardly the place to get into a general discussion of fascism or white supremacy, but you may be surprised to know that historically, those who have promoted racial separation and inequality have also tended to favor left-wing economic policies, including the KKK, the Nazis and Apartheid South Africa. Perhaps if you knew more about the history of racial supremacy, you would not be quite so assured in your convictions. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 14:16, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Evidence? You mean aside from every single breadtuber that ever analyzed his ideologies in depth, and aside from the fact that all of Jordan Peterson's fans on youtube are members of or associated with the alt right? I souldn't need to prove what's common knowledge and easily verifyable.
 * ...you may be surprised to know that historically, those who have promoted racial separation and inequality have also tended to favor left-wing economic policies, including the KKK, the Nazis and Apartheid South Africa - Perhaps you missed the memo, but PragerU is NOT considered a reliable source here on wikipedia. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 09:19, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm starting to suspect that you're trolling, because you mock citing PragerU (which I didn't do), right after yourself citing Breadtube (I don't know what that is, but I'm guessing it's some sort of left-wing equivalent). Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 13:36, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That's a pretty serious accusation, but I'm going to ignore it, because it's not relevant. Your claim that historically racist and segregationist factions have always favored left wing economic policies. Even if this claim doesn't come directly from PragerU, it's the kind of "the left are the real fascists" propaganda that pundits like Prager spin on a regular basis. Also, it's a contentious claim that needs some real evidence. The fact that Peterson is popular among the alt right is an easily verifyable reality. I mentioned Breadtube, because they have experience in debunking Jordan Peterson and combatting alt right narratives, but this simple fact is as easy to verify as searching for Jordan Peterson on Youtube, and look at the kind of people who make it their business to regugularly defend him. You will notice that all of them are either republican pundits, or alt-right/alt-lite influencers. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 09:33, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * This is hardly the place for this kind of in-depth discussion, but since you asked, here's some evidence right from Wikipedia: KKK (see bottom of section for their connection to the Democratic Party), Nazis, South Africa. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 16:42, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The only thing I asked is that you acknowledge what is self evidente: that Jordan Peterson's biggest enblers are all alt right influencers. You are absolutely correct in that this is hardly the place for discussing the preferred economical policies of racists (and especially not the place for party switch denialism), a topic which you yourself brought up, and that you keep coming back to, to deflect from my points. Now please stay on topic. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 08:51, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that that was the main topic - it doesn't even seem that relevant to this overall discussion. But since you insist: I have no idea what you mean by "alt-right", but if you can provide a definition, I'm sure I can give you some counterexamples. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 13:31, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm beginning to question whether you're arguing in good faith here. The topic is that Peterson's rethoric primarily appeals to people in the alt right. You said Peterson doesn't choose who he appeals to, and I responded by pointing out that Breadtubers and socialists do not have any alt right fans, while Peterson does. Then you brought up Richard Spencer and economic policies, and derailed the entire conversation. But sure. I can name some people.
 * Ben Shapiro of the Daily Wire, Dave Rubin, Ethan van Sciver of Comicsgate - they are of the more mainstream figures.
 * Various members of the Intellectual Dark Web.
 * Carl Benjamin, who I'm sure doesn't need introduction, Adam Friended - a cultural christian youtuber who's entire youtube carreer revolves around praising Peterson and trashing people in the atheist community, PSA Sitch, a former youtube skeptic and Gamergate member, and a disgraced sociologist Aydin Paladin, a holocaust denier - These four also refer to themselves as "the Jordan Peterson Defense Force" and engage in some rather cult-like behavior.
 * Mr Obvious, a d-list Qanon conspiracy theorist, Dave Cullen (computing forever), a christian nationalist, Tim Pool (speaks for itself), and several members of Comicsgate and the Fandom Menace (the hate group behind every single organized harrassment campaign against prominent women and minorities working for Lucasfilm)
 * I'm sure there are plenty more, but these are the ones just off the top of my head. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 09:51, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * This seems to be turning into a rather pointless conversation. Are these people all alt-right? If so, what does "alt-right" mean? And what, if anything, does it have to do with fascism? Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 13:35, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Are they alt-right? My description of them, and wikipedia's article on the Alt-Right would suggest yes. Strange how you would ask for a definition, when you could just use the search function yourself, or that you would ask what the alt right has to do with fascism. This is nowhere near as complicated as you make it out to be. Mishra and Brooker pointed out that Peterson's ideologies, especially those on gender relations, social hierarchies, the cult of strength and the return to tradition, have a lot in common with the ideologies of some of the most influential fascist philosophers, and what people like Umberto Eco have defined as potential constitutive elements of fascist ideology. I merely added, that there is no better way for one to verify these claims than to see for oneself what kind of people Peterson's teachings appeal to.
 * This entire discussion is about two paragraphs about notable commentary on Peterson's views from notable critics. Your main point of contention is that it's unclear as to whether Peterson was accused of being a fascist or if he was being smeared by dishonest actors using guilt by association. The truth is, neither side of that false dichotomy is the case, and Mishra and Brooker do nothing more or less than what the two paragraphs state. That certain views Peterson holds, overlap with key elements of fascist ideology as defined by academics like Umberto Eco. But I have explained this clearly in the other thread, and you would understand it if you had just clicked the link to the article on the Definitions of Fascism, which I linked to multiple times and which you keep ignoring. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 14:38, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The alt-right article notes that "the term is ill-defined". I don't think you know what it means either. You're also not very good at understanding what I've written, but that's a separate issue. Please tell me what you think this term means, and then we can continue the conversation. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 14:48, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I Like s comment about how to present a summary of the arguments against and not the attention grabbing quotes. Basically as long as its WP:NPOV which seems to be quite hard with contentous figures such as Jordan Peterson. MaximusEditor (talk) 23:42, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Break 2
While Peterson has repeatedly expressed opposition towards fascism ... several commentators have criticised him for holding views that are fascistic in character, or at least sharing views with fascistic and other far-right thinkers of the past -- This premise comes across as so manufactured and undue that it reads to me as absurd. More so when: At best, a brief mention of Mishra's overall review in a "Reception" section may be reasonable (there have been a lot of commentators). --Tsavage (talk) 03:23, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The "several commentators" appear to be two writers, one of them (relatively?) obscure and publishing in a (relatively?) obscure "radical literary magazine".
 * The connections to fascism are tortured - I can't even follow the esoteric reasoning to any useful conclusion (what is the chance that it makes any sense to the general reader?) -- only "Peterson -> Fascism" clearly registers.
 * The noteworthy point: that a couple of writers see some sort of fascistic tendencies in some of Peterson's work?
 * And... What is the importance of people speculating about what Peterson "really" means about anything? The "Peterson said, but..." formulation of the first sentence suggests that Peterson is being misleading, or lyinig. Where is the evidence for that?
 * Because Peterson IS being misleading, all the time. He can describe himself as one thing but his ideologies speak for themselves. This is neither manufactured, nor undue. Nobody is speculating, at least not in the cited paragraphs. Mishra and Brooker look at Peterson's own words, break down what his ideologies are, and conclude that they are closely related to fascism. This isn't speculation in any way. And the reasoning is only esoteric to readers who are completely ignorant of academic definitions of fascism. Of which we have an entire article here on wikipedia. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 10:08, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Mm...he's apparently the basis for the new Red Skull...so the perceived connections to fascism may not be so tortured. Kolya Butternut (talk) 13:49, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * @ The article you linked to doesn't mention fascism. Reading elsewhere on the subject, I found to me the most evocative Red Skull comment from Peterson: "It’s hard not to be shocked by the sheer surreality of the time we inhabit..." Red Skull, huh. "In popular culture"? --Tsavage (talk) 05:14, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The point is that putting Peterson's words into the mouth of a skull faced nazi character makes them sound like a villain monologue. But Peterson apologists are too devoid of self awareness to realize that. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 10:11, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * @46.97.170.112 "Mishra and Brooker look at Peterson's own words, break down what his ideologies are, and conclude that they are closely related to fascism. This isn't speculation in any way." <- That's practically the definition of speculation: reasoning that arrives at no reasonably indisputable conclusion. Speculation is stuff like, for a concise example, Mishra arguing that:
 * Peterson adopts the public persona of Jung;
 * Jung wore a primitive snake ring;
 * Peterson collects [primitive] Native American art;
 * Jung put down Jews and sympathized with Nazis;
 * [You connect the dots.]
 * See para 13 of the review for Mishra's exact words -- am I reading that all wrong? For me, the entire review is of the same: comparison, guilt my association, no evidence. It doesn't once use the word, "fascism", or call Peterson a fascist, fascistic, or anything like that, it labels other people and things fascistic, and tries to associate Peterson with them. The writer apparently doesn't have the conviction to state his conclusions directly. If that's solid scholarly analysis, I think we are doomed. --Tsavage (talk) 05:14, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * None of those things are mentioned in the two paragraphs that are in dispute here. You cherry picked some of the weaker points from Mishra's review and separated them from the broader context that gives them meaning. Not to mention you ignored Brooker's points entirely. This is what the Mishra review states, that's is being recommended for inclusion:
 * Pankaj Mishra describes Peterson's views on social hierarchy and gender relations, as well as his belief that the "desperation of meaninglessness" expressed by modern society can only be cured by a return to "ancient wisdom" and with the help of "the great myths and religious stories of the past," and compares them to beliefs about nationalism and myth expressed by the likes of Richard Wagner, as well as Proto-Fascist thinkers like Georges Sorel and Italian fascist Julius Evola And from the Brooker review:
 * In relation to Eco's list of the fourteen properties of Ur-Fascism, Brooker lists Peterson’s "syncretistic retooling" of Christian and secular myth; his disdain for weakness and fetishisation of strength; his appeal among an economically and socially weakened middle class feeling besieged by a perceived rise in status of minority groups and the "strange folksy flavour of much of Peterson’s otherwise sophistic prose.
 * There's no sign of the nonsense you're trying to use to strawman Mishra's points in a transparent attempt to run damage control for Peterson. No trace of "connect the dots", nothing even remotely similar to guilt by association. All of the criticism weighs Peterson's ideologies on their own merit. Maybe you should be asking yourself why so many people recognize fascist rethoric in Peterson's teachings, instead of using contrived mental gymnastics to defend the indefensible. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 09:19, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Let me try to make it easier for you to understand. An argument that's not guilt by association: "Peterson's belief in ancient wisdom is bad because ancient wisdom was often wrong." An argument that is guilt by association: "Peterson's belief in ancient wisdom is bad because that's the same thing Julius Evola believed." You see the issue here? Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 13:36, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not seeing the problem because that is not what Mishra is saying, and it's also not what the paragraphs I quoted have said. The paragraphs didn't say "Peterson's belief in ancient wisdom is bad because that's the same thing Julius Evola believed". He said Petersons views on hierarchy, gender relations and return to tradition are comparable to the views that notable fascists held on these topics. If you were to take a few minutes to read wikipedia's own article on the Definitions of fascism, especially Umberto Eco's concept of Ur-Fascism (which Brooker, whom both of you continue to ignore, has made explicit reference to), you will understand why this isn't a simple association between Peterson and known fascists on grounds that they hold similar views on unrelated topics, but an unnerving parallel between Peterson's beliefs, and fundamental constitutive elements of fascism itself. HUGE DIFFERENCE. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 09:42, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe part of the reason that Brooker hasn't been discussed as much is that he was published in Overland, which may not be a reliable source; it's a self-described "radical literary magazine". Anyway, I don't think either Mishra or Brooker have said that Peterson's views include the "fundamental constitutive elements of fascism" - that seems to be entirely your opinion. His embrace of ancient myths and physical fitness would find a natural home with, say, Muscular Christianity, which I don't think anyone has accused of being a fascist movement. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 13:44, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * From Definitions of FascismIn his 1995 essay "Ur-Fascism", cultural theorist Umberto Eco lists fourteen general properties of fascist ideology.[20] He argues that it is not possible to organise these into a coherent system, but that "it is enough that one of them be present to allow fascism to coagulate around it". He uses the term "Ur-fascism" as a generic description of different historical forms of fascism. Peterson's obsession with ancient traditions, his fetishization of strength and contempt for weakness, his appeal to a frustrated middle class that feels threatened by minorities, and his folksy (populist} prose, are all things that can be recognized on Eco's list. These are all things prominent fascists had in common with Peterson. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 09:58, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

What is the question?
I think the question is: "Should the article contain a section about the debate among some (a few?) writers regarding whether or not Peterson is fascist?" Is that correct? Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 02:46, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The question is, should the two paragraphs on top of the section be included in the article. So far, there are two arguments against it:
 * Guy argues that the article is too long, and information should be trimmed, not added, but that doesn't necessarily result in that this particular fragment should be excluded.
 * Korny O'Near argues that Misra and Brooker's analysis of Peterson's ideologies are disingenuous or made in bad faith and that their comentary should be ommitted entirely, or reduced to a brief mention. I tried to argue that their assessment is wrong but that went off on a week long tangent that didn't go anywhere. Not that it matters, because it's their subjective opinion, and that's not what determined what gets included and what isn't.
 * There also appears to be a disagreement on whether the two paragraphs should be included under Peterson's political views as a subsection called "fascism", or as part of a more broader "Reception" section along with commentaries from other critics. The latter appears to be less contentious although it's all the same to me as long as the paragraphs are included in their current form.
 * Finally, Springee and a few others seems to be warning about avoiding "attention grabbing words", but they didn't specify what those are, and I'm not seeing them. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 09:22, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * 46.97.170.112 - that's not what I said at all. I suggest you stop trying to paraphrase me; you don't seem to be that good at it. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 15:01, 11 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I think a good way to summarize Guy's argument is the content isn't DUE. We don't need to put in a quote from every person who has an opinion of Peterson and a keyboard.  This is especially true when the opinion is trying to create a negative guilt by association argument that doesn't seem to be taken seriously by most sources.  Springee (talk) 11:41, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Calling Mishra and Brooker "people who have opinions of Peterson and a keyboard", is a bit disingenuous, don't you think? And I spent far too much time arguing with people over why their assessment of Peterson's views are NOT "guilt by association". Nowhere in the two paragraphs does this "guilt By association" appear. On the other hand, there is plenty of undue, promotional material in this article that could be cut. Indeed, more than half of the article could be deleted by removing all the undue material that go into needless detail for every single thing Peterson does. For example, the section on "An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code" could be reduced to three short paragraphs. One on his opposition and his reasoning, one on the criticism he got for misrepresenting the bill and one on the direct consequences for him. The "influence" section, which is just two lines of ego-feeding can be removed entirely, and so on. I see no reason for excluding these two paragraphs however. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 13:06, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree the article has far too much stuff shoved into it. The answer isn't to add questionable opinions by people who are trying to promote a guilt by association angle.  Springee (talk) 13:13, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * No. The answer is to remove over half the stuff. That's it's own problem. Adding criticism from two notable people is a separate issue. And I have yet to hear a single convincing claim that Mishra and Brooker promote guilt by association. In fact I did my best to debunk that claim. You can't just keep repeating it over and over and expect me to believe it. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 13:48, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * When you say a person promotes ideas that are part of X then you have, legitimately or not, linked the two which, if X is a negative trait, creates guilt by association. You have not shown that these author's opinions warrant inclusion. Springee (talk) 14:07, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Hold up. That is not even remotely close to what "guilt by association" means. An example of guilt by association would be if we used the times Peterson was on a white nationalist's podcasts to imply the Peterson must also be a white nationalist. In this situation, the only "association" is Peterson's own words and ideas. He is fully "guilty" of saying and doing the things he has done and said. Factually stating something in plain terms is not "guilt by associations", and Wikipedia should not bury important information merely because it might be "associated" with something that is unflattering. Grayfell (talk) 20:35, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It very much is a guilt by association. Finding things they have in common does not mean they have the undesirable trait in common.  When we point out, call them neutral, traits that an individual has in common with an undesirable group it creates an association even if that association leaves out critical differences.  That is very much guilt by association.  Springee (talk) 20:53, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Saying that he said X and that fascists have also said X has an obvious unwritten implication – fascists are bad, therefore Peterson is bad – which completes the formal fallacy. An example from the article you linked is the same case as the one we're discussing here:
 * Group A makes a particular claim.
 * Group B, which is currently viewed negatively by the recipient, makes the same claim as Group A.
 * Therefore, Group A is viewed by the recipient of the claim as associated with Group B, and inherits how negatively viewed it is.
 * I think this is fairly off topic though. &#8209;&#8209;Volteer1 (talk) 21:03, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * No, that list shows a common, but inaccurate simplification of the concept, and its misuse here would damage the article. If anyone insists on claiming this is "guilt by association" then it's on topic to discuss this issue.
 * Peterson's views and statements are separate from Peterson's associations in isolation. The article can and must discuss his views and statements in a neutral fashion, and this must, necessarily, include the context of those statements per independent sources. In order for this to be "guilt by association", we would have to explain what or who the "association" is, based on reliable, independent sources. Otherwise it is incoherent and tautological to imply that the is being "associated" with his own statements! If his statements are consistent with any significant position or ideology (including fascism) and reliable sources discuss this, it would not be "guilt by association" to include this in the article.
 * To explain "guilt by association": If (strictly for example) Stefan Molyneux said something specific which supported fascism, the article could not use that statement in isolation to imply that Peterson must also support fascism entirely because he has appeared on Molyneux's show. Instead, sources are free to look at what Molyneux and Peterson discussed and summarize conclusions based on those discussions. Likewise, James Flynn also appeared on Molyneux's show (although only once) and sources discuss that appearance in context. Reliable sources can be trusted to look at these activities in context for all parties involved. Reporting on someone's activities with another person is not automatically "guilt by association", it's just what we expect from a reliable source. Grayfell (talk) 05:11, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That would all be well and good if we were talking about either a) Peterson's views in isolation, or b) Peterson's associations with other people in isolation, but we're not – so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Peterson is not the one saying that elements of his views are shared with elements of historical fascist's views, we're not saying that Peterson is being "associated" with his own statements. &#8209;&#8209;Volteer1 (talk) 07:42, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no need for the pointless abstraction. We are not talking about "Group A, Group B and X", we are talking about Peterson and his views. Your claim that the Mishra and Brooker criticisms are guilt by association would carry water only if the subject was something like Peterson's preference for a certain genre of music, or a certain economic policy. As things stand however, the subject is Peterson's views on gender relations, strength and masculinity, return to tradition, and his appeal to the frustrated middle class. He isn't just holding worldviews that just happen to coincide with views held on similar subjects by other people who just so happen to be fascists. All of these things fall under the 14 characteristics of Ur Fascism, as defined by Umberto Eco. How many times do I have to link to Definitions of Fascism for you to acknowledge that? Eco says even one element is enough for fascism to coagulate around it. And here we have not one, not two, but FOUR boxes checked. Five if we count his way of delivering his lectures. This is not guilt by association. This is looking at Peterson's own beliefs and recognizing that they echo actual fascist talking points and philosofies. I wasted two weeks of my life trying to explain this, and here I am back at square one. I'm very sorry but it's becoming increasingly difficult to assume good faith here. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 08:29, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * These shared qualities – support for gender roles and masculinity, hierarchy, the praising of stoicism/strength/self reliance, some level of traditionalism, appeals to the frustrated middle class – are really just conservative, or more accurately reactionary ideals, which make sense, because Jordan Peterson himself is a conservative. These kind of beliefs are fairly common threads on the right, and are certainly not exclusively fascist things. He shares these beliefs with historical fascists because he shares these beliefs with just about every other reactionary of his ilk; it makes him a fascist no more than a support for gender equality and helping the poor make you a communist. Hurtling off topic at breakneck speed at this point though. &#8209;&#8209;Volteer1 (talk) 09:13, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * No, this is on topic. Off topic was what I had to deal with above. It has been noted that you believe these are just regular right wing conservative talking points (ignoring for a moment that fascism is right wing and conservative). However, you missed one tiny detail. Namely that it's not up to wikipedia to make that call. Wikipedia simply reports on what authoritative sources say. If Mishra and Brooker say Peterson's views are fascistic in nature or at least share a lot of common ground with fascism, it's not our place to be the arbitters of deciding whether they are correct or not. We simply report on what they say. If authroitative sources declare that those views and beliefs are indeed fascistic in nature, then they are fascistic, as far as wikipedia is concerned. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 11:38, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * "It's not up to wikipedia to make that call. Wikipedia simply reports on what authoritative sources say" is what I meant by my comment being off topic, as you're right – what you and I believe shouldn't be relevant. The more relevant questions surrounding WP:DUE, WP:RS etc. are a separate matter. &#8209;&#8209;Volteer1 (talk) 14:52, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Good. So is there any real argument against including the two paragraphs that don't involve OR and personal interpretation of Mishra's and Brooker's reasoning? Because if not, I see no reason to keep the disputed section out of the article. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 09:19, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, WP:RS is still an issue, for one; it's not clear that Overland, a "radical literary magazine", is a reliable source. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 13:36, 13 May 2021 (UTC)


 * (@46.97.170.112 You've mentioned Definitions of Fascism several times, which says first thing, "trying to define 'fascism' is like trying to nail jelly to the wall" and lists 16 different scholarly definitions, plus 8 more from assorted others. --Tsavage (talk) 15:04, 12 May 2021 (UTC))
 * Yes. And I also mentioned Umberto Eco's name every single time, and his fourteen properties of Ur-Fascism, which is the basis of Brooker's criticism, in order to debunk the claims that the arguments linking Peterson to Fascism are guilt by association. Not sure what's the rationale for persistently ignoring that point. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 09:19, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Wow, this is one heck of a conversation. I want to bump @Mark D Worthen PsyD's question. What, exactly, are the proposed changes? Perhaps the major contributors here could post below their recommended text, and the group could review and discuss from there. That might help focus the discussion to a specific request rather than a wider-ranging discussion. Squatch347 (talk) 12:43, 13 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree! :0) Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 19:38, 15 May 2021 (UTC)


 * That's a reasonable question. Here is what I came up with:

In a review of 12 Rules for Life, left-wing author Pankaj Mishra agreed with Peterson's view of Western society as undergoing (in Mishra's words) an "intellectual and moral breakdown", but found Peterson's prescription for the problem "disturbing", stating that Peterson's advocacy of an embrace of ancient wisdom and personal strength was reminiscent of that of many thinkers of the late 19th century and early 20th century, including Max Nordau, Georges Sorel and Mircea Eliade, and that such thinkers had laid the intellectual groundwork for "the cataclysms of the twentieth century: two world wars, totalitarian regimes, and the Holocaust".
 * I didn't include Brooker because I don't think the source that published him (Overland) counts as a reliable source. This summary also, I think, gets to the heart of Mishra's argument: not that Peterson is a fascist (although Mishra certainly doesn't do anything to counter that view), but that his views could embolden future fascists. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 02:42, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * We can't leave out the word "fascist". We also need a citation to call Mishra "left-wing" in wikivoice. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:05, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I believe we can, and should: any direct connection between fascism and Peterson is only hinted at in Mishra's essay, never made explicit. As for the citation for "left-wing", it could be the same one used in the original disputed wording, this one. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 03:44, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Reversion of edit due to "special pleading"
User:JzG: You reverted this edit, commenting "This looks very much like special pleading":


 * , and "what’s being missed by the critical media coverage, even the positive media, for that matter—what I’m doing is not political. It’s psychological, and focused on the individual."[100] There have been varied media accounts of Peterson's political positioning.

I'm not clear on why you reverted it. Please explain. --Tsavage (talk) 19:43, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , we should not rely on self-sourced presentations of his claims. There are independent sources that analyse this, so describing it in his own words risks giving undue weight. Guy (help! - typo?) 07:16, 22 April 2021 (UTC)


 * you should not have reverted that. Quotes from the subject of an article are allowed per WP:QUOTE. Nweil (talk) 21:48, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * disagree, Peterson's view of what he believes is being "missed" is undue. It's patently obvious he has been vocal on a number of political and sociopolitical issues and has drawn criticism for his views. Yet again there is an attempt here to conflate Peterson "the academic" with Peterson "the public intellectual" - his activities in the former relate to psychology, whereas the latter is him engaging in subject matter outside of his field of expertise. If criticism relates to views expressed publicly, on a range of issues, some of which are political/sociopolitical in nature, it's a fudge to say he's really talking about psychology and the media is "missing" what he's about. Acousmana 22:05, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That is your POV, and there are many, many individuals out there who disagree with you. So if we are looking at properly representing due weight, the revert is clearly going in the wrong direction. Nweil (talk) 22:12, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * NPOV, however, must be based on the views of the highest-quality RS, not on a poll of people who may agree or disagree with the subject of the article. Newimpartial (talk) 22:19, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , yes I absolutely should. See WP:PROFRINGE. Guy (help! - typo?) 07:41, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It appears this is a statement from Peterson himself. Has any source said Peterson said this in reply to his critics?  If yes then I think it could be included.  If no then the question is does ABOUTSELF apply.  If this is a specific response to things critics have said about him then I think it could be included per about self.  If this is a general statement then I don't see it being DUE.  Springee (talk) 01:37, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , "X says Y, source, X saying Y" has always been a terrible idea. It's an open invitation for us to take on the role of arbiter of significance, mining the internet for the things that best support our vision of how a subject should be represented.
 * That's particularly important with Peterson, given his fans' tendency to assert that every criticism is invalid because you have to have seen this statement on this YouTube video for context first, and if you haven't consumed every word he's written and every moment of his many thousands of hours of video, then you can't possibly understand. They act as a kind of pseudointellectual Zamboni, constantly having to sweep up the damage from his actual words, which do keep being "misunderstood" as dumb Christian Nationalist misogyny (odd how someone who makes his living from words seems to be so consistently misunderstood).
 * So with Peterson, especially, we must rely on how reliable independent secondary sources present his ideas, and never on how he spins them himself. Guy (help! - typo?) 07:50, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't agree though your concern is not without merit. Suppose a reporter takes a particular Peterson statement and says, "here is why this statement is a closet support of racism..." and that makes it into our article.  Then in an interview Peterson directly responds to that reporter's claims.  That would be a clear ABOUTSELF case.  I think the same is acceptable if a number of sources have the same criticism of a specific Peterson POV/statement.  However, to be an ABOUTSELF the linkage needs to be clear.  I have no idea if that applies in this case.  If it does then I think ABOUTSELF can be used here but I think the linkage needs to be shown since the text has been challenged.  Springee (talk) 11:33, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , WP:MANDY. And that applies to people who are clear communicators - Peterson's signature word salad allows people to cherry-pick phrases to defend even his most egregious bullshit as somehow being "out of context", in fact that's the near-universal response of his fanbois to any form of criticism. Guy (help! - typo?) 07:17, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Politico is reliable and this quote seems simple and limited enough to be acceptable (though, as always, we'd prefer to paraphrase it). He's not a fringe figure on the topic of psychology—rather, it's his (only) field of expertise. Additionally, politics doesn't have the same notion of "fringe" as science does: a political perspective cannot be wrong, per se, but either consistent or inconsistent; and mainstream or non-mainstream. As such, if Politico thinks it was an important enough statement from the interview to use in the article and even choose as the headline, then we can think it's important enough to give half a sentence to. — Bilorv ( talk ) 11:38, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't see a valid removal here. This is published in Politico magazine so this isn't a self-source issue.  The content was Peterson describing himself, and we word the content as such.  In order for this to be some sort of special pleading we have to be deviating from accepted standards without good reason, and I'm not seeing the argument for that.  --Kyohyi (talk) 12:56, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * On the topic of self-sourcing, for comparison's sake, this seems like a textbook example: In his video posted on October 2020, Peterson mentioned, "...with God's grace and mercy I'll be able to start generating original material once again and pick up where I left off."[175] From the "Religious views" section. Entirely unlike the quote you removed, which is from a reliable secondary source, and reflects a central theme of the article (in fact, the quote is in the article headline). --Tsavage (talk) 00:34, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , this should go too. We have no need to use the quoted words of Peterson. We should rely instead on what reliable secondary sources say about his words. Guy (help! - typo?) 07:19, 26 April 2021 (UTC)


 * When we can so easily demonstrate that Peterson contradicts this claim re:"not political," lending credence to his POV on this is a bad idea. It's unduly self-serving and an exceptional claim. Ac<b style="color:#804fb3">ou</b><b style="color:#9969c7">s</b><b style="color:#b589d6">m</b><b style="color:#9969c7">a</b><b style="color:#804fb3">n</b><b style="color:#6a359c">a</b> 13:36, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * This would be a valid rebuttal iff they were discussing the same thing. The not political quote is in response to a question on his life advice and intellectual program.  The PragerU video is not about his life advice and intellectual program.  A person can have a political aspect and a non-political aspect, we're not one thing all of the time.  --Kyohyi (talk) 13:52, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * "The not political quote is in response to a question on his life advice and intellectual program, correct, and that's exactly why an editor shouldn't - in a section on political views - be stringing an out of context quote together with existing article content (He has stated that he is commonly mistaken to be right-wing) to form a sentence that reads: He has stated that he is commonly mistaken to be right-wing and "what’s being missed by the critical media coverage, even the positive media, for that matter—what I’m doing is not political. It’s psychological, and focused on the individual". The only place this would be appropriate, if at all, is in the section on the book '12 Rules for Life', because that was the reason Politico did the interview, and that's the proper context for the answer. <b style="color:#552586">Ac</b><b style="color:#804fb3">ou</b><b style="color:#9969c7">s</b><b style="color:#b589d6">m</b><b style="color:#9969c7">a</b><b style="color:#804fb3">n</b><b style="color:#6a359c">a</b> 16:08, 23 April 2021 (UTC)


 * The relevance of that argument depends on whether the section in question is "Political views held by Peterson" or "Views described as political". Based on the (largely news media coverage) that I've read, it's the latter, a "walks like a duck, quacks like a duck" type of comparison, which is often a useful heuristic, but not evidence. It's up to us to sort out this political thing, and then find a way to cover it in a verifiable way. --Tsavage (talk) 22:55, 25 April 2021 (UTC)


 * User:JzG: "It's not political" is a directly relevant and appropriate to the majority of what we have categorized as Peterson's "Political views". By and large, what Peterson produces (books, speaking events, comments, etc), is based on psychology, not politics.


 * Peterson refers to mainstream Big Five personality trait theory. People high in trait OPENNESS (spontaneous, imaginative) vs those high trait CONSCIENTIOUSNESS (disciplined, careful) naturally sort "left-right" in all aspects of life. The two types exist in tension with each other, continually trying to achieve a balance. A high Openness farmer may constantly try new crops and new methods, take on too many things at once, and fail. A high Conscientiousness farmer may stick to traditional crops and methods, resist adapting to changing conditions, and at some point fail. Better for the two farmers to continually come to an agreement on maintaining a stable production system, while steadily addressing change as it happens. This dynamic can be seen in couples, in business (the entrepreneur idea guy partnered with the pragmatic financial type). It also maps onto politics, which we commonly refer to as left-wing/right-wing, liberal vs conservative, social safety net vs pull up by bootstraps, new ways vs traditional ways, all of that. This is a non-controversial, prevalent, science-based view in psychology.


 * It's easy to slot this stuff as "political". If a contraception researcher published a research-based book that concluded abortion seems on balance safe and largely beneficial, and then gave some interviews, and was widely branded in the media as "anti-Christian" and "anti-religion" or "radical left", would we automatically have a BLP section on "Anti-Christian views", or "Political views"?


 * A lot of the argument here is not making a distinction between how commentators (media, etc) have chosen to focus on a political interpretation of Peterson, which is not the only interpretation. Making certain media themes predominant leads to POV, undue weight, lack of balance, all of that.


 * The amount of critical coverage and political framing in the media certainly merit full coverage in his BLP. But the context has to be accurate, not simply repeating the loudest headlines. --Tsavage (talk) 22:00, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , you're missing the point. This is Peterson's own self-serving statement. Independent observers note the contradiction between what he claims to be his philosophy, and the actual message everyone seems to take away, which is straight-up conservative christian nationalist misogyny. Guy (help! - typo?) 07:18, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * "But the context has to be accurate," yet your recent edit couldn't have been more out of context. You can try and spin it any way you want, but the reality is that Peterson has a political voice, has expressed political views, and has received notable coverage as a result. <b style="color:#552586">Ac</b><b style="color:#804fb3">ou</b><b style="color:#9969c7">s</b><b style="color:#b589d6">m</b><b style="color:#9969c7">a</b><b style="color:#804fb3">n</b><b style="color:#6a359c">a</b> 15:52, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , Thanks for your replies. My response: "Views" is about fairly setting out what a subject has actually said and done regarding X or Y topic, and allowing readers to come to conclusions for themselves. We shouldn't be shaping the impression in favor of third-party opinions, in place of the subject's own views -- this isn't a "Reception" or "Criticism" section. For example, if Peterson is reliably quoted as saying that both detractors and supporters in the media who frame his work and comments in terms of politics, are missing the point, that he's speaking from psychology, that's his claim to make. Why would we suppress that, and only list the opinions of certain commentators, as to what his "views" must be? Where is info about his voting record, policy endorsements, party affiliations, associations with cause-oriented groups -- if he's so political, where is some concrete evidence of a political agenda, in all of that media coverage?  --Tsavage (talk) 03:36, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * sorry to reiterate this, but he was clearly talking about the responses of "detractors and supporters in the media" to his first self-help book, however the way you framed the quote extract was misleading. Peterson has expressed a lot of explicitly political views, trying to frame this as him talking about psychology is a fudge, and not something Wikipedia should be engaging in. <b style="color:#552586">Ac</b><b style="color:#804fb3">ou</b><b style="color:#9969c7">s</b><b style="color:#b589d6">m</b><b style="color:#9969c7">a</b><b style="color:#804fb3">n</b><b style="color:#6a359c">a</b> 11:38, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

- I was referring to context in this article; now I'm clear you meant context in the source. That's reasonable: Commenting on media coverage of [his work OR "12 Rules..."], he says, "what's being missed [is that] what I’m doing is not political. It’s psychological, and focused on the individual." In an attempt at incremental improvement, I added that quote to give context to the (to me) inexplicable list of other media to tell the reader what Peterson's views are.

None of that media speculation should in "Political views". I checked into the sources, and there's no explanation of how those "conservative" labels were arrived at. And the Current Affairs quote is just weird. What makes sense for that paragraph is simply:


 * Views -> Politics: Peterson has said that politically he's a "classic British liberal" and a "traditonalist." He has stated that he is commonly mistaken to be "right wing". Some commentators have described him as a "conservative". Commenting on media coverage of [his work OR "12 Rules..."], he says, "what's being missed [is that] what I’m doing is not political. It’s psychological, and focused on the individual."

Though really, from what's there now:


 * Views -> Politics: Peterson has said that politically he's a "classic British liberal" and a "traditonalist." He has stated that he is commonly mistaken to be "right wing".

Again, those media quotes are not reliable assessments of Peterson's views, check the sources in the paragraph -- nothing is supported (and NYT WSJ/Hazony is an op-ed piece). I checked them all. There's no explanation, just pronouncements. --Tsavage (talk) 04:22, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I believe you meant "WSJ/Hazony". The other three pieces cited in the section - including the NYT piece - are all RS, and we do not require them to "show their work" before including their assessments in our articles, particularly with attribution as is done throughout this section. Your OR characterization of RS content as speculation isn't a policy-relevant editorial consideration here. Newimpartial (talk) 16:22, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, verifiability is about the reader being able to find out why something is included in Wikipedia, by checking the cited sources. In this case, Peterson says he's not "right wing", which commonly means he's "not conservative". Right after that, three reporters from well-known newspapers are quoted saying Peterson is "conservative". The reader wonders about the glaring discrepancy -- is Peterson being misleading or lying? -- and goes to the sources, where there is nothing to straightforwardly support the reporters' assertions. I consider that unverifiable.
 * Source (article, book, whatever), author, and publication are all part of verifiability. If the New York Times reports: "Bob was born in Smallville," it's probably safe to say: "Bob...Smallville[NYT]". We rely on the publication for a simple, checkable fact. If an NYT article says: "The Moon may cause cancer," it's assumed that NYT vetted it, but we still check, first by seeing how the article came to that conclusion. We don't just write: "Moon...cancer[NYT]" If it was an op-ed piece, with less editorial oversight from NYT, we'd first look at the author. Maybe it was written by an anti-Moon activist, that would be relevant. If the author was a respected Moon scientist, we'd look at the piece itself: what's the reasoning? I believe that's how (Wikipedia) verifiability works, on both ends, editor and reader. Have I got it wrong?
 * Unless there's convincing evidence, it's pretty impossible to say someone is left or right. That's why we're quoting, not stating, "Peterson is a conservative.[NYT,WP,WSJ]" It's speculation. I'm not arguing that the high-visibility insistence from some quarters that Peterson is on the right isn't noteworthy, only that it shouldn't be used to create the impression that Peterson is conservative in a "Political views" section.--Tsavage (talk) 22:51, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, Tsavage, you aren't really understanding WP:V correctly. The point of that policy is to include sources in articles so their content is verifiable; it does not raise the question whether the editor is in agreement with the facts stated in a reliable source. One of the reasons WP:RSN does such brisk business is that we have what is generally a process- or reputation-based system of evaluating sources; it is WP:OR to engage with the evidence reliable sources provide in order to second-guess their conclusions. If you want to dispute a fact documented in an RS, you need another RS stating the contrary as fact. It is pretty much that simple. Newimpartial (talk) 23:52, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, you're missing my point. I understand "verifiability, not truth". But of course, editors in good faith should investigate their sources to see whether they seem solid, and not, for example, google for desired keywords in RS publications. Just because a source is either not likely to be challenged, or likely to hold up to some consensus process, doesn't mean it should be used. And specific news sources -- authors, individual articles -- can be challenged for reliability, for facts used in a particular context (per policy: WP:NEWSORG). All of this sadly misses the point I'm trying to discuss: I think the use of the media quotes in this instance is implying a fact without clearly stating it, that Peterson is a "conservative", and the sources aren't reliable for that case. Quoting journalists isn't an escape from that. Finding counter-quotes to load in isn't a great way to deal with it. It doesn't seem like a good way to write a BLP political views section. --Tsavage (talk) 23:02, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I misunderstood you, then. When you said above that nothing is supported, did you mean that the sources cited don't say that Peterson is conservative, or that they do so but without providing evidence? I thought you meant the second - which isn't a policy-relevant consideration. But perhaps you meant the first. Newimpartial (talk) 23:11, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * What I've been saying is that the source material, the author, and the publisher, and the use context in the article, all have to be taken into account to determine reliability and appropriateness. Calling Peterson a "conservative" is a statement of opinion, not of fact, and it merits examining the source article, as well as the author and publisher. In the case of labeling Peterson's political views, saying "conservative" in passing is not sufficient to give it due weight (or reliability for the source article). IMO, of course. --Tsavage (talk) 20:34, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Re Calling Peterson a "conservative" is a statement of opinion, not of fact, and it merits examining the source article, as well as the author and publisher - I am unaware of any basis in WP policy for this assertion. Do you have one? The reliability for the source article is generally determined by its reputation as a WP:RS, and not by the second-guessing of individual editors which amounts to WP:OR (which is pretty much what your IMO amounts to in this context, IMO). Newimpartial (talk) 21:31, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia policies and guidelines are admirably common-sense. They don't have to be cited constantly, because a reasonable discussion will almost certainly coincide with a reasonable interpretation of the core policies and guidelines. In any case, from WP:V and WP:RS respectively:
 * The word "source" when citing sources on Wikipedia has three related meanings: The work itself (the article, book); The creator of the work (the writer, journalist); The publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press)". All three can affect reliability.
 * Whether a specific news story is reliable for a fact or statement should be examined on a case-by-case basis.
 * I'm proposing that, for example, an article not about Peterson, that describes the subject a single time in passing as "conservative", is not appropriate for stating that the publication has "called Peterson a 'conservative'". --Tsavage (talk) 02:32, 21 May 2021 (UTC)