Talk:Peterson–Žižek debate

This article was nominated for deletion on 20 April 2019. The result of the discussion was keep.

Slovenia Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Slovenia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Slovenia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SloveniaWikipedia:WikiProject SloveniaTemplate:WikiProject SloveniaSlovenia articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Slovenia to-do list:

Here are some tasks you can do (watch):

Requests: Jože Tisnikar (sl), Protestant Reformation in the Slovene Lands (sl), Metlika black (sl)
Wikify: Russia–Slovenia relations
Unreferenced: Inner Carniola, Litostroj, Pavel Golia, Predjama Castle
Cleanup: Edvard Ravnikar, Škofja Loka, Inex-Adria Aviopromet Flight 1308
Expand: Education in Slovenia
Stubs: Ajdovi žganci, Čop Street, Omar Naber, Radenska
NPOV: Gregorij Rožman, Siddharta (band)
Portal maintenance: Update News, Did you know, announcements, and suggest Selected article and picture
Help assess the quality of 63 unassessed articles
Take/Add requested photographs

Philosophy Low‑importance

	Philosophy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Croatian media[edit]

@Vsejevoda:@Bilorv:, in edit summary was a statement that "the croatian analytics haven’t said that Peterson was more convincing", which is not true. I thoroughly checked both of Croatian sources and the first says "S druge strane, u određenim se pitanjima jednostavno previše slažu da bi debata zadovoljila visoka očekivanja. Iz istih je razloga teško, a vjerojatno i besmisleno, reći tko je "pobijedio" u ovoj debati, iako je Peterson bio daleko uvjerljiviji u svojoj obrani kapitalizma" (which translates as "On the other hand, in certain matters, they simply agree too much for the debate to meet high expectations. For the same reasons it is difficult, and probably meaningless, to say who has "won" this debate, although Peterson was far more convincing in his defense of capitalism").--Miki Filigranski (talk) 15:24, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Croatian media isn't very reliable. In croatian media there is a strong influence of "newborn" libertarians and objectivists under the umbrella of highly influential and controversial right wing-libertarian think thank Atlas Network close to Trump and Bolsonaro." (Marin)

WP Traffic[edit]

https://pageviews.toolforge.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&start=2017-07&end=2020-06&pages=Jordan_Peterson%7CSlavoj_%C5%BDi%C5%BEek could be added as an entertaining statistic--Quin451 (talk) 22:45, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Transcript[edit]

I found a transcript prepared online of the debate, should I submit it as an external link? It can be found here — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artimaean (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Artimaean: Wikipedia is based on published, reliable sources so we can't have something that you could (well within your rights) take down at any moment (it's unpublished) or something that isn't published by an expert or in a source that has expert fact-checking, as someone could falsify the transcript in some place and we'd be none the wiser (it's unreliable). In this case there's the additional consideration that publishing a transcript would be copyright infringement, so no, we cannot host or link to any transcript that's not published by the copyright owners. — Bilorv (talk) 21:57, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

left-wing framing in "reception"[edit]

Peterson clearly won this debate, the article tries to make it look the other way. Also Zizek speaks with a strong accent therefore most people even fail to understand him probably.

Of course left-wing to far-left newspapers like the guardian or the german "Spiegel" will spin everything into something different trying to keep up the left-wing narrative.

62.226.93.106 (talk) 03:54, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if this is a joke or not, but let's take it seriously: can you show us the reliable sources not included in the article? As for The Guardian and Der Spiegel, both are pro-capitalism and anti-communism. — Bilorv (talk) 22:29, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Right wing framing of “debate”[edit]

While the reception section of the article describes Petersons view of Marxism as being simplified and incorrect, the debate section characterizes that same view as a "critical reading".

We need to either add pro-Peterson sources to "reception" or make the "debate" section less pro-Peterson Calumapplepie (talk) 13:07, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of improperly formatted sources and blacklisted URLs[edit]

@Epsilon Moron: I have reverted the addition of a "youtu.be" link in an improperly formatted citation. Links to "youtu.be" are blacklisted, and should be replaced by the full, unshortened, URL. In addition, the citation is improperly formatted. A properly formatted citation would be to use {{cite AV media}}, for example, <ref>{{cite AV media|url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsWndfzuOc4&t=24m07s|title=Add title here|website=YouTube|date=...|access-date=...}}</ref>. also, paraphrasing a video without a text source is also problematic, since it involves a certain amount of WP:OR. finally, making the change over and over again without any discussion or signficant changes counts as WP:Edit warring and could get you blocked from editing. Frietjes (talk) 14:09, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "included unique and significant revelations from the debate in question not available elsewhere in print form". This is precisely a description of why the content is not appropriate for Wikipedia. It is not the job of individual contributors to decide what politics and ideologies are most important to share with the world. See WP:NPOV. — Bilorv (talk) 17:18, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]