Virtually all of your references are YouTube links -- rather than references to any of the scientific evidence you so frequently mention. Beyond that, Petersen is an idiot. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 13:50, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
- Perhaps more importantly: Rather than taking quotes from the referenced videos, you merely cite them as if they are 100% true. As such, I've moved what's essentially a draft to your userspace: User:Morgan9218/Jordan B. Peterson. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 14:00, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
FuzzyCatPotato of the Lifeless Goats (talk/stalk) your claim that most the references are YouTube links, yes, which is an appropriate thing, right? Given the previous version of the page likewise had "virtually all the references were YouTube links". Okay, so the merit of my edition is equal to the original version on that point, thanks.. My goal was rather to provide expository analysis rather than low-thought sensationalist writing like the previous author. I am gathering the scientific references. Additionally I note you ignored providing examples of my writing where any scientific paper references may have been a benefit to readers. BUT you actually went to personal name-calling? Your own critical reputation drops for that. You would benefit in reading the quote I took from a referenced video in the Free Speech section. On the topic of moving it to my user space, thanks. I will also update with *more* quotes taken from referenced videos, rather than *just one*. But... still... I'm surprised you are not critiquing the very-low-thought nonsense of the original article. I'll be back with better content.
- Hi. Itemwise response:
- 1: The original is also shit. Your edit changed the claims but still didn't add stronger evidence. This is but a change in opinion, not in factuality.
- 2: You mention statements like "scientific biological- and psychological-based opposition". This, too, is editorializing (just as the original does), unless the sources get ponied up. [Perhaps more importantly: The sources should be those Peterson cites, not ones that you find that back up his argument.]
- 3: Peterson is an idiot. As an example: Fighting "Marxists" (who almost certainly represent less than 0.1% of the American population) and "postmodernists" (same as before) is typical of right-wing conspiracy theorists, instead of right-wing intellectuals. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 22:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
User:FuzzyCatPotato: the above itemized response is much more meaningful and I thank you for it. Indeed, I am adding another two sections, Lab Research and Authorship, with references to non-Peterson sources. The claims he makes is often based on his own empirical research and he has has operated in a lab, generating his own results, which is why he's also a popular source for citation by other academic white papers. However, I'm getting more and more of these references so it's balanced, according to RationalWiki:Mission. The label of idiot, I won't argue against your stats, because that's outside of the objective. I don't agree with you, but greatly appreciate your points in any case, for the sake of RationalWiki:Constructive_dialogue. This is again, part of the objective of Peterson's goal as quoted in my rejected edit. Morgan9218 (talk) 00:02, 15 September 2017 (UTC)