Talk:Maps of Meaning

Copyright
according to your edit which redacted allegedly copyrighted content (previously and still found at Jordan Peterson, must note you that nor was aware about nor cited the source Summary and Guide to Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief (2015) by Jordan Peterson, instead mainly was cited Harvard Magazine article (1998) by Craig Lambert which was published before the book was even released in 1999, along other three sources from 1995, 2016, including the book 1999 edition (pg. 12), but for that book citation do not see copyright issue.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 18:58, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * However, the " The book describes a comprehensive rational theory for how meaning is constructed, represented by the mythical process of the exploratory hero, and also a way of interpreting religious and mythical models of reality presented in a way that fits in with modern scientific understanding of how the brain works. It synthesizes a large number of ideas drawn from narratives in mythology, religion, literature and philosophy as well as research from modern neuropsychology. Peterson’s primary goal was to figure out the reasons why individuals, not simply groups, engage in social conflict, and try to model the path individuals take that results in atrocities like the Holocaust or the Soviet Gulags ... Peterson deeply explores the origins of evil, and also posits that an analysis of the world’s religious ideas might allow us to describe our essential morality and eventually develop a universal system of morality " is practically word-to-word quote and hence it should be removed nevertheless. What you advise, complete removal from this article and the Jordan Peterson's article section, or 1) to keep the direct quoation with proper double quotation marks 2) half direct quotation half paraphrase, in both using the 2015 (or/also 1999) source as a reference? --Miki Filigranski (talk) 19:09, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Just for disclosure, the Peterson's article included that direct quotation before my first edit there on 11 November, 2017 and the titled section "Works" included copyrighted: " In 1999, Routledge published Peterson's Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief. The book, which took Peterson 13 years to complete, describes a comprehensive theory for how we construct meaning, represented by the mythical process of the exploratory hero, and provides an interpretation of religious and mythical models of reality presented in a way that is compatible with modern scientific understanding of how the brain works. It synthesizes ideas drawn from narratives in mythology, religion, literature and philosophy, as well as research from neuropsychology, in "the classic, old-fashioned tradition of social science." ... Peterson's primary goal was to examine why individuals, not simply groups, engage in social conflict, and to model the path individuals take that results in atrocities like the Gulag, the Auschwitz concentration camp and the Rwandan genocide. Peterson considers himself a pragmatist, and uses science and neuropsychology to examine and learn from the belief systems of the past and vice versa, but his theory is primarily phenomenological.[citation needed] In the book, he explores the origins of evil, and also posits that an analysis of the world's religious ideas might allow us to describe our essential morality and eventually develop a universal system of morality. ", and although cited source 1999 (pg. 12), it did not include any quotation marks. So, Cwmhiraeth, I would do an edit using the 2) solution proposed above, and could give an example below.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 19:33, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I have asked for the redaction to start from the edit of 00:13, 3 March 2018‎. I was using the "Earwig tool" https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/ to identify copyvios, and because I removed the offending passages, the tool no longer shows them. If you put the article name in the tool and look at the text for each source by clicking "Compare" on the right hand end, you can see concerning text highlighted in pink. I did not take any notice of the passages in quotes, nor the blockquote from Petersen in the box, I just removed the part that I thought concerning. Do you still think there is copyright violation in the article? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:42, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I think your action was on point. I don't know if there still is the issue, but my loose research of source 1999 (including pg. 12) found that could not verify these direct quotation and hence source was improperly used as a reference.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 20:02, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Per my recent edit at Peterson's article, would replace previous paragraph " Peterson's primary goal was to examine why individuals... " with " According to Peterson, his main goal was to examine why both individuals and groups participate in social conflict, explore the reasoning and motivation individuals take to support their belief systems (i.e. ideological identification ) that eventually results in killing and pathological atrocities like the Gulag, the Auschwitz concentration camp and the Rwandan genocide. He considers that an "analysis of the world's religious ideas might allow us to describe our essential morality and eventually develop a universal system of morality". ". Is it alright, and can be included in the article before admin's review the request?--Miki Filigranski (talk) 21:16, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Will make a bold edit because the redaction is independent, if there's further issue it can be reverted.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 22:12, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Mangled language
Is this the English-language Wikipedia? Because some stretches of text do not read like English. Here's one, verbatim: He shortly reflects on his childhood and being raised in a Christian family the responses to his questions about the literal truth of Biblical stories seemed ignorant causing him to lose interest in attending church. And one more: During adolescence and early adulthood trying to find the answer for "the general social and political insanity and evil of the world" (from Cold War to totalitarianism) for a short period of time embraced socialism and political science, but unsatisfied and falling into a depression, found an inspiration in the ideas of Carl Jung and decided to pursue psychology. What is going on? Is this a new standard? In an article about written word, as well. -The Gnome (talk) 21:25, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * As the guidelines at WP:SOFIXIT say, "Fix it yourself instead of just talking about it". Marteau (talk) 22:35, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The guideline is about a choice and not an obligation. The guideline denotes the freedom contributors have to change text in Wikipedia. It allows us to act boldly. Hence, its original initials, WP:BOLD. About this specific article's problems, I decline to assist further, without being obliged to give my reasons. Perhaps you do not approve of such a stance. -The Gnome (talk) 23:07, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, I wholeheartedly support your decision not to assist further without saying why. We all contribute to the work as suits our skills and desires, and if yours is to simply point out errors and not correct them, hey, whatever floats your boat. Marteau (talk) 23:20, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and tweaked the sentences in question. Thanks for bringing them to our attention.  Marteau (talk) 23:28, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Quote
The quote revert states that it needs "a reliable, independent source establishing this specific quote as relevant to the article", well, the quote was sourced not other but Harvard Magazine. How to establish such a thing? Quote was directly relevant to the section's content.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 22:52, 29 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Why that quote? Why not the quote before it, or after it? This five paragraph blurb, which predates the book's publication, includes roughly five direct quotes from Peterson (depending on how we slice them up) and is already cited six times in this article. Why do we need a blockquote from this minor source, and why that particular quote? The author of the short article doesn't give that quote any special emphasis, and even if he did, there would be a reason that quote was significant. That quote is presented by the source as an expansion of a point raised by another quote, so its inclusion here is removed from both its original context, and the context provided by the source. Grayfell (talk) 23:56, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Is there a copyright Violation -for WP to link to a Book in PDF that says it is copyrighted?
This is not my field - I'm sure someone here can advise about the legality of links to a PDF of an entire book - that is still in copyright.

The links is at the page bottom under 'External Links': Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief.PDF

The PDF linked to says: "Published in 1999 by Routledge  29 West 35th St.  New York, NY 10001  This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2002. Published in Great Britain by  Routledge  11 New Fetter Lane  London EC4P 4EE  Copyright © 1999 by Routledge  All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilized in any form or  by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopy ing and recording or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from  the publishers. CanterburyUK (talk) 22:18, 13 July 2020 (UTC)