Talk:12 Rules for Life/Archive 1

Archive 1

Neutrality

As it stands, this article promotes a biased, unbalanced view, which ignores the fact that Mr. Peterson is a cultural critic as well as a psychologist, and that his viewpoint is hotly contested by the trans activist community. It contains no references to his YouTube success. It reads more like an advertisement for his book than an overview of it. It contains no criticism section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geoffdice1 (talk • contribs) 23:33, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

There is no need for a "criticism" section as any criticism of the book may be included in the Reception section. In fact, a criticism section would be UNDUE. Peterson is primarily a psychologist and psychology professor, adding too many roles to the lead section violates WP:NPOV. I don't think there is a need to specify the interview being controversial; "viral" and "receiving significant attention" is enough. I agree that User:Miki Filigranski's paragraph regarding Peterson's popularity is more suitable for the Jordan Peterson article instead of this, and doesn't show enough relevance with the book. Everyone, please try to refrain from edit warring. feminist (talk) 16:40, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

The paragraph is related to the book because its popularity came after the C4 interview, with both of which are related references and statements by personalities and Peterson. For example, the quote by Paglia is written exactly in praise for the book. However, will move the paragraph to "Reception" section.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 17:02, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm still not convinced that the paragraph is concerned with the book's popularity instead of Peterson himself. If his popularity rose after the interview (which was in promotion of the book, as well the topic , this should be included in the BLP. feminist (talk) 18:06, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Peterson's article is already big enough, although such kind of section could be made. However, this is related to his emerging, and with it (since is mentioned in the sources) book's popularity.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 21:57, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Saying that it promotes with lack of neutrality, but without proper example and proposed replacement for it, is not helping other editors to understand your opinion. His YouTube success is out of scope for the article i.e. it's not directly related to this book. It does contain criticism section - that's section "Reception".--Miki Filigranski (talk) 17:02, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Mishra review

Mishra review should not be removed. Obviously this is a significant event, both the review and the reaction, which is fully inappropriate IMHO and inconsistent with conservative values. But in any case, should not be REMOVED, as it is clearly important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Desouzavalor (talk • contribs) 23:35, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

It will not be removed, it will be properly reverted. If you followed the editing history, within recent 24 hours is going an edit war including you and an IP (yours?), and hence decided to make WP:BRD revert to last stable revision. The review and few other updates will be made in major edit. Don't understand what it has to do with "conservative values".--Miki Filigranski (talk) 23:40, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

They are trying to censor material. There is nothing unsourced here - just parts of review and tweets. Who has objections should discuss here, not remove whole part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.121.84.11 (talk) 23:43, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

No one is trying to censor any material. If you don't understand and wish to follow Wikipedian editing policy then do not come here to make disruptive editing.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 23:46, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

The material is completely neutral, the review is inflamatory but it should be reported. As for conservative values, Peterson did not react according to what he preaches. But that is not important, what matters is that these events cant be just skipped because they portray him in negative light. As for reverts, you have to discuss it here, not just blank sourced material. So, what is your problem?Desouzavalor (talk) 23:47, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

You have been warned about WP:BRD. It is not important whether the material is sourced or not, if two other editors do not agree with your edit and revert you it basically means your revert, instead of starting and making a discussion here, is disruptive editing. Since you broke WP:3RR you are getting reported, also because of the same behaviour at Jordan Peterson's article.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 23:54, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

So, what is your problem with that part of the article? If you have an objection state it here and we can work on it. But you cant just run away from discussion and revert. That is not constructive, just like punching someone is not in accordance to proper behaviour. Desouzavalor (talk) 23:58, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

1) it is far too long. No other reviewer gets more than 2 sentences.

2) There are unsourced characterizations, e.g. "Mishra further compared Peterson to his gurus,". "Gurus" is a loaded term and is unsourced.

3) "In fact, the review never mentioned Charles Jose nor called Peterson a fascist." is unsourced sythesis, and the title of his review included the word "fascist". Charles Jose is not the man's name, and the repeatedly inserted version has Peterson calling him that when his tweet called him "Charles Joseph".

4) Saying he reacted "violently" is unsourced.

5) Saying he then used a "threat of violence" is unsourced. We just can say his words constitute 'violence' without a source, and it is a clear violation of WP:BLP Marteau (talk) 00:10, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

... for starters Marteau (talk) 00:04, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Consider yourself notified. If you re-insert again, you will be re-inserting material in violation of Wikipedia policy. Marteau (talk) 00:05, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Ok that is better. As for what you say,

1) it was apparently you who extended the part with full tweets. There is no way to portray full context if you dont quote relevant parts of review too.

2) This is easy to fix. Though I doubt Peterson would object to this characterization, and guru was the word used in review. But it can be fixed easily.

3) It is statement of fact. He did not call him fascist, and he did not mention his friend. To include his tweets without this is POV.

4) I agree, I will fix that. In fact, you could have fixed that too, had not this guy who removes all interfered.

Desouzavalor (talk) 00:13, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I advise you to not fix anything. You made over WP:3RR and justifiably got reported. If you make another revert it will only further add to your violation of editing policy.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 00:17, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

You were first warned to 3rr but you erased it. In fact, the version is now being discussed and unless you intend to engage in a civilised discourse and discussion, stop your abuse. You are fooling noone. Desouzavalor (talk) 00:26, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

You were the one who started and continued to do disruptive editing and reverting of multiple articles, such warnings i.e. psychological projections and gaming of the system are not going to fool anybody. The discussion does not imply the revision should be kept. It is not reverted until it is reached a consensus.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 00:33, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

1) The context I added was context provided by a source which I added. You are advocating WP:SYNTHESIS by extending it in ways a source has not done. Please do familiarize yourself with that policy, because you are advocating violating it.

3) is another WP:SYNTHESIS issue. It is not up to us to draw conclusions... we can only cite conclusions stated by a reliable source. Marteau (talk) 00:20, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree that edits are relevant and well written, if a bit long but that is necessary. There are many references quoting violent threats, like https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar/23/jordan-peterson-rage-self-help-guru-cathy-newman-twitter or http://www.bodyforwife.com/the-unbearable-whiteness-of-being-jordan-peterson/ or https://newrepublic.com/minutes/147570/jordan-peterson-joins-club-macho-writers-thrown-fit-bad-review QuackDoctor (talk) 01:07, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

@QuackDoctor: None of those sources say Peterson was being violent. You have inserted uncited material in violation of WP:BLP, and you have done so knowingly. Marteau (talk) 01:19, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Besides the "Body For Wife" site, anyway... which does not appear to be a reliable source. Marteau (talk) 01:23, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

And no, there is absolutely no justification for having so much of that one review be quoted. It is FAR out of proportion to other reviews. Marteau (talk) 01:21, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

This one says he threatened violence http://www.bodyforwife.com/the-unbearable-whiteness-of-being-jordan-peterson/. And in fact he did. Anyway, why is this guy not reported Miki Filigranski ? He has multiple edit war bans and has created mayhem here. Also, Marteau you too have violated 3rr, be warned. But presently you engaged in discussion, thats good. QuackDoctor (talk) 01:25, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, "Body for Wife" is in no way suitable for use as a source. Do you not realize that? This is an article about an academic, in an encyclopedia, and you propose "Body for Wife" as a source? Marteau (talk) 01:25, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Guys, how many times I have to tell you that I am currently working on new article revision that will include the review? Can you be a little patient and stop reverting problematic revision for which a user got blocked for 48 hours. @QuackDoctor, not only the review is given too much promotion compared to others, but it is placed in a totally wrong position in the section. If you are not aware it goes chronological and conceptual. Placing it in the upper part of the section and separately from others who also had some negative aspects in criticism is wrong.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 01:27, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I absolutely did NOT violate 3RR. I was VERY careful about that. Please be more careful with your accusations. Marteau (talk) 01:30, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps, but the other guys did. Need to report Miki Filigranski. QuackDoctor (talk) 01:31, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

@QuackDoctor, you are aware that was reverting of disruptive edits by an editor who ignored WP:BRD process, as well the fact it was also reverted by user Marteau and Hrodvarsson, which imply the current consensus is against to keep it? Now you suddenly show up, ignore the stable revision, ignore to first discuss it, wait for a consensus, and only then make a revert or edit which will fix the issues, yet reverted it and immediately point a finger on other editors to be reported. Are you a sock account by Desouzavalor or familiar with Desouzavalor? Both you, the user, and IP which were involved in reverting edited articles related to Serbia.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 01:41, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Why is this controversy being removed?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CatLoverOdie (talk • contribs) 02:25, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Read the discussion, don't revert it unless you also want to get blocked. Two editors already were blocked trying to push for the revision made by sock puppets. Also, please learn how to properly edit Wikipedia, avoid making such disruptive edits. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 02:30, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

The version you just irresponsibly added was the product of a tag team of socks who are now blocked. Please give Miki Filigranski's re-write effort at least a chance. Marteau (talk) 02:36, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Now that his version is out, it is clear that it is so POV that it cant be used. This page should not be owned by peterson fans. Your POV pushing methods are appaling! CatLoverOdie (talk) 03:46, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed protected. That should hopefully cool things off here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:37, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, NeilN. Now that we're a little calmer, lets have a look at the content. I see above that Miki Filigranski is drafting something, so won't add anything to the article as yet. I share the concerns raised above about the length of the editwarred content. And conceive that any quotes should focus on Mishra's views of the book, not general commentary on Peterson. I don't see that there's sufficient sourcing for inclusion of anything on the tweets. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 02:59, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

His response to the review has been covered by a number of reliable sources. Daily Beast, Fox News, New Republic, The Guardian, ABC (Australia), Spectator UK, The Walrus. Not huge, but I think it clears the bar, and as it is the author's direct response to specific issues the review had with the book, mention is warranted in my opinion. The challenge, of course, will be giving it proper weight and prevent it from outweighing the other reviews. Some will, as we have seen, want to include everything and the proverbial kitchen sink. Marteau (talk) 03:23, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

@Ryk72:@Marteau:@Hrodvarsson: the updated revision for sections "Release" and "Reception" can be found at User:Miki Filigranski/sandbox. Please upload them, and then make your edit and continue the discussion. Regarding the review in question, I partly agree with Ryk72, that review citations should be focused on the book and not Peterson, but after reading it, it really is different from the others. There's lack of specific commentary on the book. The review got kind of notability because of arising "controversy" which included Peterson's response. Hence I think it should be included on that basis. I don't know what to make out of book criticism, perhaps we should try to extract parts directly related to the book?--Miki Filigranski (talk) 03:28, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

This is completely unacceptable (the sandbox version). The incident on twitter has been reported in guardian etc, and is not just "negative reaction". This review reporting is extremely POV picking and misleading. Obviously, rick, filigranski and some other are cabal of Peterson fans and are trying to misrepresent what happened. Plus you are trying to bury this controversy. CatLoverOdie (talk) 03:39, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

The article is about the book, the section is about book's critical reception, citing everything which is not related to that is out of scope. NPOV editing is based on weight and scope. I advise you to avoid making WP:PERSONAL attacks, and comment on content.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 03:52, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

The initial (short) version was far better, it did not bury an obviously important review, it covered main points of the review with quotes (picked appropriately), and gave his reaction. Then Marteau extended the tweet part in a way which was pro Peterson, and then Desouzavalor added even more quotes to give full context. It was long. Then you started edit warring and removing it, and now you offer a completely dishonest version. Plus admin is obviously biased. This is very fishy. Just because you are fans of someone does not mean that you can own articles. A more broad editor base is needed to come at a consensus. The initial edits were far superior, even Marteau, Peterson fan, worked with that. CatLoverOdie (talk) 04:03, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, there was no "short" version in comparison to other reviews citation length. Think that such Tweet referencing is probably WP:OR. The whole paragraph was inappropriately edited. Again, I am warning you to stop making personal attacks on other editors and admin. There's no difference between Marteau's and my editing, the only difference is you who is insisting to negatively depict Peterson. Sorry, if anything is fishy here that are those three editors and now you who suddenly appeared after months of inactivity (like Desouzavalor and QuackDoctor), that immediately after Desouzavalor got blocked appeared QuackDoctor, and when QuackDoctor got blocked appeared you, CatLoverOdier. Although suddenly appeared out of nowhere, you are chronologically mentioning what happened which indicates you followed the editing from the very beginning i.e. were part of it. It indicates you are another sock account. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 04:20, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

The old version was far better (short original one), even the extended version. More people need to see this, not just Peterson fans. This cant stand. CatLoverOdie (talk) 03:43, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

There was no "short" version. More experienced editors obviously do not think it was "far better". Sorry, but your pushing for this particular review with which is tried to negatively depict Peterson is suspicious. Why are you mentioning "old version" and "extended version"? How I am not aware of them, yet you are. Were you the IP or one of the blocked editors?--Miki Filigranski (talk) 03:58, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Are we to believe you did not take a look at edit history? You seem to have one admin on your side. What should count are arguments and every editor is equal. We need more editors not just Peterson fans. In any case your version is not acceptable any more than any of the previous ones, in fact it is clear that you are just trying to misrepresent what happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CatLoverOdie (talk • contribs) 04:16, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

There is the issue of WP:WEIGHT. You're kind of new to the encyclopedia... are you familiar with the idea? No other reviewer gets more than two sentences, and going overboard and adding entire paragraphs (as some have already tried) with coverage about how the professor told the reviewer "fuck you" is not appropriate in an article about the book. Marteau (talk) 04:09, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Wasnt it you that extended a short version with full tweets. Original version is far superior to anything after that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CatLoverOdie (talk • contribs) 04:16, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I extended it only enough to give context to what Peterson was objecting to. That context was as per the source I cited. Our sock puppets then ran with the ball and added WP:SYNTHESIS which was not supported by citations. Marteau (talk) 04:27, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Pankaj Mishra, in his review of the book for The New York Review of Books, Jordan Peterson & Fascist Mysticism, wrote that Peterson's insights are "a typical, if not archetypal, product of our own times: right-wing pieties seductively mythologized for our current lost generations" and that "Peterson confirms his membership of this far-right sect by never identifying the evils caused by belief in profit, or Mammon: slavery, genocide, and imperialism". Moreover, in his review Mishra notes that "nowhere in his published writings does Peterson reckon with the moral fiascos of his gurus and their political ramifications; he seems unbothered by the fact that thinking of human relations in such terms as dominance and hierarchy connects too easily with such nascent viciousness such as misogyny, anti-Semitism and Islamophobia". Peterson did not take this criticism lightly, calling Mishra on twitter a "sanctimonious prick" continuing with an apparent physical threat "If you were in my room at the moment, I'd slap you happily"

even this is perhaps too long, but picks the main points. You extended it further.CatLoverOdie (talk) 04:16, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

This is three sentences, two about review and one about the reaction (that part is relevant). The quotes are too long though, but omitting much could make it more POV. It is a sensitive issue. CatLoverOdie (talk) 04:19, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I am sensing a theme here, namely, that we have an influx of obvious foes of Peterson who refuse to play by the rules of the encyclopedia. @CatLoverOdie: has just WP:CANVASSed another editor. Canvassing "is notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way, and is considered inappropriate." As we are attempting to seek concensus for the article, you canvassing is very much trying to "influence the outcome of a discussion" Consider yourself warned... I will bring up your inappropriate behavior in the appropriate enforcement forum should it continue. Marteau (talk) 04:22, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Quite the contrary, we have a cabal of Peterson fans trying to own the article, with support of some admin. More diverse consensus is needed. You could try and discuss the issue, and try to find a consensus, but it should be a community consensus, not just Peterson fans attempt to bury a negative review. And an obviously significant twitter outburst, that has made some press per se. Even discussing the controversy in a separate section would not be undue, given the press it has generated. And it is not just fringe press, there are significant controversies. The book is not included in NY Times bestseller list, this also needs to be discussed as it shows that there is a very strong (and unfair in this case) backlash against Peterson. But this needs to be discussed in article, not skipped and enforced by cabal of Peterson fans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CatLoverOdie (talk • contribs) 04:36, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Stop saying that editors and admin in question are "cabal of Peterson fans". If you continue making such comments you will be get reported. The book's lack of inclusion in NYT bestseller list is already mentioned in the article's "Release" section, have you ever read it? --Miki Filigranski (talk) 04:41, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

@Marteau: ignore him, it is probably another sock account. Please see my response above where mentioned my sandbox which included the updated revision. Make a bold edit uploading it to the article so we can continue the discussion whether to change or not the review's sentence.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 04:31, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Now you are making personal attacks. Sorry, but your version is just dishonest, and there are other editors that are not Peterson fans that can attest to that. But attack them too. That squares well with the very rule to listen to others from that book. Hypocrisy if there ever was one. CatLoverOdie (talk) 04:36, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I've already invested more time than I should have on this today, and I'm going to bed. Ciao. Marteau (talk) 04:42, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I've indefinitely blocked a bunch of editors based on this SPI. Because of all the socking that went on here, I am "resetting" the edit count of all unblocked editors to be zero with respect to WP:3RR. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:02, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

@Miki Filigranski:Thank you for your effort in crafting a re-write and setting up a sandbox. I am not comfortable editing your work there, but will propose changes here. We agree that Mishra's review should receive the proper weight, no more and no less. Currently, other reviewers reviews are covered in a couple of sentences and that's the kind of weight we should aim for with Mishra.

I do however think a couple of sentences of Peterson's reply would be appropriate because his exact words have received coverage from reliable sources. Because various sources have different opinions, interpretations and characterizations of Peterson's reply, covering those interpretations and characterizations properly would bloat the coverage of the Mishra review and give it undue weight. Let's let Peterson's words speak for themselves, let's not editorialize or characterize in ways the sock master was insisting on, and give the reader the sources to let them make up their own minds as to the nature of his reply should they wish to.

I propose placing coverage of Mishra's review, chronologically in-line with the other reviews and my suggestion is: Pankaj Mishra's review in The New York Review of Books accused Peterson of having "membership" in a "right-wing sect", that his influences including Carl Jung and Mircea Eliade had "fascist aspirations", that "Peterson claims that he has been inducted into “the coastal Pacific Kwakwaka’wakw tribe” and is "romancing the noble savage". Peterson reacted to Mishra's words on Twitter, calling him a "sanctimonious prick", an "arrogant racist son of a bitch" and said "If you were in my room at the moment, I'd slap you happily." Marteau (talk) 14:18, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Interesting. This is not good. The review did not claim membership, that was a metaphor. Mircea Elaide is given too much weight. You need to mention accusation of ignoring imperialism, that part should go instead. Jung did support Nazis, that is omitted. Better version is needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:AC8:30:8:0:0:0:2 (talk) 14:48, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Proposal: just say that review was negative and titled Jordan Peterson & Fascist Mysticism. For instance:

Pankaj Mishra gave a negative review in The New York Review of Books titled Jordan Peterson & Fascist Mysticism. Peterson reacted to Mishra's words on Twitter, calling him a "sanctimonious prick", an "arrogant racist son of a bitch" and said "If you were in my room at the moment, I'd slap you happily."

otherwise you have to determine which part of review to include in NPOV way. Obviously no consensus there.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:ac8:30:8::2 (talk • contribs)

If we are able to cite other reviewer's words in a NPOV way we should be able to so with Mishra, and I think I have. Mishra's use of a metaphor is as obvious in intent as Petersons use of euphamisms (e.g. "prick" and "son of a bitch"). No one is going to think Peterson is saying Mishra is actually a dog, and likewise no one is going to think Mishra is saying Peterson literally has a membership card in some sect. Marteau (talk) 16:27, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

• Comment I think Marteau's suggestion is reasonable; a few sentences about Mishra's review (from a very prominent publication) along with a brief summary of of the author's response is appropriate. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:28, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

• Comment I would re-edit Marteau's response sentence as "Peterson angrily reacted to Mishra's words on Twitter, calling him out for saying "half-truths" and said, "If you were in my room at the moment, I'd slap you happily". We really don't need to quote every his tweet reaction, profanity and so on, we are going out of scope - and that is the book critical reception. @NeilN: check these IPs if are related with those sock accounts, they use the same language and have the same consideration.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 16:24, 29 April 2018 (UTC) I made a bold edit which is an intermediary between my and Marteau's suggestion.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 16:36, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I think you are right about it being a sock. Geolocate for 2001:ac8:30:8::2 (first edit today) and for 109.121.84.11 (a banned sock) show them both in the Balkans and looks to be about 100 miles apart. Marteau (talk) 16:51, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

These strange IPs "2001:ac8:30:8::2" and "2001:AC8:30:8:0:0:0:2" could be related to IP 2A00:DD0:FFFF:8:0:0:0:2 which is currently making disruptive edits on the other book Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 17:00, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

The sockmaster is using a webhost. I've semied this talk page so that discussion can continue without disruption. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:11, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

References

PewDiePie review

Is it significant enough that the most-subscribed YouTuber PewDiePie gave the book a positive review, as reported by mainstream news sources BBC and The Guardian, for the inclusion in the article?--Miki Filigranski (talk) 17:27, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Eh, personally doesn't seem worth while. It doesn't really add anything to the article, imo. {{u|zchrykng}} {T|C} 02:22, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Same, maybe is notable in the context of contemporary cultural community on YouTube/internet in general and their relationship to the rise of Peterson's popularity. For now I don't find it that suitable to include it among other reviews. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 07:31, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

A clinical practitioner...with no "highly practical" advice?

See related edits & reversals. I'm just "writing in" to say I'm done here. This is foolishness as regards time. Ce la Wiki. 108.178.113.114 (talk) 20:36, 31 July 2018 (UTC)