Talk:Jordan Peterson/Archive 2

Peterson a Christian
The article currently states: By religious beliefs, he is a Christian, but with agnostic elements and gives this http://quillette.com/2017/11/12/non-believers-turning-bibles/ as a source. The source, however, is entitled "Why Are Non-Believers Turning to Their Bibles?" and the source does not say he is a Christian in any way. Do we have a source which has him identifying as a Christian? Or at least a reliable source which explicitly says he is one?Marteau (talk) 02:13, 22 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I searched and found this video, titled "Am I Christian?", on his "Jordan B Peterson clips" YouTube channel, which would qualify under WP:SOCIALMEDIA.
 * Interviewer: Quick question, are you a Christian?
 * Peterson: I suppose the most straight-forward answer to that is yes, although I think it's... it's... let's leave it at "yes".
 * The interviewer authored The Spectator article which states "[Peterson] is a Christian". I will incorporate this into the section. Hrodvarsson (talk) 20:07, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Excellent work. That will be a valuable resource for interested readers.  Marteau (talk) 21:03, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Please help regarding inclusion of Peterson's statement that he's agnostic regarding Christ's resurrection
Before my edit, the article stated: "By religious beliefs, he is a Christian,[83] with views similar to the Christian existentialism of Søren Kierkegaard and Paul Tillich, as well as influence by Carl Jung."

Immediately following that sentence, I added by my edit this sentence: "Peterson has said that he is an agnostic on the issue as to whether Jesus Christ literally rose from the dead."

I cited as my source, in a footnote, the very same YouTube video that was used to support the preceding sentence that said "he is a Christian." Here is a transcript from that video: Interviewer at about time point :45: "Do you believe that Jesus rose again from the dead, literally?" Jordan Peterson answers: "I find that, I cannot answer that question." Later, at about time point 1:44, Jordan Peterson says "I would say that at the moment I'm agnostic about that issue." Jordan B Peterson clips (August 1, 2017). "Am I Christian? - Timothy Lott and Jordan B Peterson". YouTube.

I wrote the following comment to justify the inclusion of this new sentence: "It's true & significant that Peterson stated he's agnostic on the issue as to whether Jesus Christ literally rose from the dead. Wikipeda principles justify this."

One of the persons who deleted my edit wrote this in a comment: "Find a reliable source explaining why it's significant. Not everything that's true belongs."

In response to that, I wrote: Wikipedia article on The Resurrection of Jesus says: "In Christian theology, the resurrection of Jesus is a foundation of the Christian faith" & "It is the central tenet of Christian theology" & "Gnostics did not believe in a literal...resurrection."

Please help resolve this dispute.

I believe this information is highly relevant to providing a fair representation of the thinking of Professor Jordan Peterson. His religious ideas are a major part of his many videos. Informing readers that Jordan Peterson is a Christian who is agnostic on the issue of the literal resurrection of Jesus Christ is very important, I believe, because it means that, on this issue, Jordan Peterson differs from the vast majority of Christians for whom the literal resurrection of Jesus is a central tenet of their faith.

Many Wikipedia articles specify the type of Christian a famous, politically-active or culturally-significant person is when that person has specified in public the type of Christian he is.

For example, the Wikipedia article on Ted Cruz includes this: "Cruz has joked, 'I'm Cuban, Irish, and Italian, and yet somehow I ended up Southern Baptist'."

The Wikipedia article on Rick Santorum contains an entire section on "Religious Faith," consisting of five lengthy paragraphs.

The Wikipedia article on the famous psychiatrist M. Scott Peck includes this religion-specifying quotation from Dr. Peck: "After many years of vague identification with Buddhist and Islamic mysticism, I ultimately made a firm Christian commitment – signified by my non-denominational baptism on the ninth of March 1980..."

In specifying that he is agnostic on the issue of the literal resurrection of Jesus Christ, Jordan Peterson has by his own choice informed the world about a very significant fact about the type of Christian that he is. I believe it will be helpful to Wikipedia readers to have ready access to this true, verified fact that comes directly from the lips of Jordan Peterson himself, as part of the larger Wikipedia article on Jordan Peterson.

Please comment here on this Talk page so that the Wikipedia community can decide whether this edit, or some version of it, should be included in the article on Jordan Peterson. Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Credidimus2 (talk • contribs) 22:58, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You are picking on a minor statement that forms part of a larger and more nuanced world view, and blowing it up. Plus, you are expressing with very loaded language. Ceoil (talk) 23:47, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The text you were inserting was: "Peterson has said that he is an agnostic on the issue as to whether Jesus Christ literally rose from the dead."
 * Inserting in a sentence leading off with "Peterson has said that he is an agnostic..." right after the sentence saying he is a Christian is misleading without context (even with the removal of the word "an" preceding "agnostic").
 * An "agnostic" (in its noun form which is by far the most common usage) is a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God, which was not what Peterson was saying. Clearly, Peterson was using the term "agnostic" not in its noun form, but as an adjective linked to the story of the resurrection.  Just leading off with "Peterson has said that he is an agnostic..." (even though you do qualify it) would tend to mislead the reader, appears to be WP:SYNTH and WP:UNDUE and needs to be placed in context.
 * I do agree with you, though, that having more information about Peterson's brand of Christianity would be useful to the reader. But not like that.  Marteau (talk) 00:05, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * it is probably referred to previous revision which you edited on 22 November, in which the statement was "By religious beliefs, he is a Christian, but with agnostic elements[33] and viewpoints similar to the Christian existentialism and philosophy...", while in the source (mentioned in first discussion above by Marteau) was stated "Jordan Peterson, like me, is an agnostic", which is really insufficiently argued in the text itself. as for "having more information about Peterson's brand of Christianity", well, Christian existentialism and influences are already cited. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 00:36, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That's true. We do cite his influences and broadly categorize his Christianity, however, his actual statements differ in some instances... I personally would welcome the opportunity to include more in-depth descriptions of his beliefs (from good sources of course).  Marteau (talk) 03:24, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * To preserve due weight, this kind of thing should be based on independent sources as much as possible, instead of entirely on interviews and primary sources. The nuances of his personal religious views are significant to the extent that they are commented on by reliable sources, not to the extent he himself has commented on them. Grayfell (talk) 03:32, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why "independent sources" would be better than Jordan Peterson's own verified statements about his religious view? By "independent sources," I assume the editor above means Secondary Sources, i.e., persons other than Peterson who have commented on or described Peterson's religious views.  Assuming that I am correct in interpreting what is meant there by "independent sources," why would such independent sources be better? Don't English teachers drill into us that Primary Sources are always or usually superior and preferable to Secondary Sources? In an encyclopedia article about Albert Einstein, would not pertinent, verified quotes from Albert Einstein about his religious views be the very best information that could be included?  Also, consider that Jordan Peterson is a tenured university professor who has been teaching courses on the psychology of religion for decades now, and who has published a book on that topic called "Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief."  Consequently, far more than most people, Jordan Peterson is capable of accurately and precisely describing his religious beliefs and placing them in their place in the broad spectrum of religious beliefs--and he has done precisely this in several of his videos.  I think it may be very hard at the present time to find Secondary Sources, authored by true experts in religion, describing Jordan Peterson's religious views.  The one Secondary Source currently cited in this section of the Jordan Peterson Wikipedia article is an article published in The Spectator, a British conservative magazine, written by the journalist and author Tim Lott.  As far as I can tell, Tim Lott has no education or expertise that would qualify him to evaluate or categorize the religious beliefs of Jordan Peterson or anyone.  Therefore, would it not be the case that the very best thing that any encyclopedia could do at the present time is to provide pertinent, verified quotes from Jordan Peterson that describe succinctly and briefly some vital information about the unique nature of his religious beliefs? At the present time, this Wikipedia article on Jordan Peterson does not contain any quotations from Jordan Peterson pertaining to his religious beliefs, though it does contain quotations from Jordan Peterson regarding his views on political and educational matters. Why should Jordan Peterson quotes about his religious beliefs be unacceptable in this Wikipedia article? Please help.  Thank you.Credidimus2 (talk) 21:03, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia, as a tertiary source, strongly favors secondary sources. "Primary source" has different meanings in different contexts, but if your English teacher was instructing you on how to write as a journalist, primary sources would be desirable in many cases. This isn't what we're doing here, however. We establish due weight based on secondary, independent sources, and use primary sources to fill in details, or to resolve WP:BLP concerns. Journalists are generally considered reliable if they have a reputation for accuracy and fact checking, which in practice means they are published by an outlet which has a history of editorial oversight, among other things. Quotes from Peterson should be limited to those which are supported by secondary sources, or which meet some other specific criteria for inclusion beyond merely being of interest to whatever editor decided to add them. This is an ongoing problem on Wikipedia, but making it worse by adding more quotes does not address the underlying problem. I hope that explains my concerns. Grayfell (talk) 02:14, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * did you see my reply below? How is a quote made more accurate, more neutral, or more verifiable, by using secondary sources? By your logic either we should remove any reference to Peterson's religious beliefs, or we should include direct quotes about them. ··gracefool &#128172; 04:01, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I was attempting to directly answer these questions, hence the placement of this reply. The problem is not the accuracy of the quote, it's the relevance of the quote. Not every aspect of this person belongs in the article, and the neutral approach is to rely on independent sources, not editor opinion. I will respond to your comments below. Grayfell (talk) 04:19, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It's clearly misleading to simply say that Peterson is a Christian, when by his own admission he does not believe that Christ actually rose from the dead. It also is incorrect to say that Kierkegaard or Tillich had similar views, when Peterson doesn't share this most fundamental belief with them. This needs to be clarified.
 * Credidimus2 is correct with regards to secondary sources: the only reasonable source for a person's statement is the person themselves, not any other source. At most you could use a secondary source's direct quote, but that is not any better than a primary quote. Directly reporting the recorded or written statement of a person is not original research - it's not research at all. It's a quotation. ··gracefool &#128172; 03:17, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * A line or two summarizing his beliefs is only appropriate if we have some specific reason to summarize his beliefs. Deciding which quotes to include, and which to leave-out is a form of original research. It is diving into primary sources to support a conclusion not made by a reliable, independent source. It isn't really up to us to interpret these quotes, and it's especially not up to us to apply labels to him based on these quotes. Christian means whatever reliable sources say it means, but Wikipedia says it means ...a person who follows or adheres to Christianity. Belief in the resurrection is, of course, extremely common, but it is only a defining trait to the extent that the reliable source at hand defines it as such. Saying that Peterson cannot be a Christian because he doesn't believe Christ literally rose from the dead extremely subjective, and invites a large number of distracting controversies surrounding the nature of faith, etc. This has very little to do with Peterson unless reliable sources say it has something to do with him. If sources say he is a Christian, so should we, and if they don't, so should we. If they don't comment on it, or barely comment on it, we probably shouldn't bother going into it either. This is why, especially for BLPs, secondary sources are of prime importance. Grayfell (talk) 04:19, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Proposed: A separate section on the "Religious Teachings" of Jordan Peterson
Currently, Jordan Peterson's religious affiliation or orientation is briefly mentioned in the "Personal Life" section. In Wikipedia, things mentioned in the "Personal Life" section are never the things for which person qualifies as having sufficient notoriety to have an article about them in Wikipedia. The "Personal Life" section is for incidental things, background sort of things. But, as I see it, Jordan Peterson's religious teachings and views are NOT incidental to what makes him a notable figure. Jordan Peterson became a notable person, in 2016, as an opponent of a Canadian law pertaining to pronouns for transgendered persons. But it seems clear to me, based on articles published about him and videos by him and about him, that more recently, much or most of the interest in Jordan Peterson is centered on his religious teachings. Another difficulty: Jordan Peterson is a professor of psychology at a government university. He teaches courses in the "Psychology of Religion," which is well-established sub-discipline within the field of psychology. But Jordan Peterson is very different from most psychology professors who lecture on the psychology of religion. He goes far beyong presenting mere "academic" information. Peterson is what National Review magazine called a "self-help guru." In this sense, Peterson is very comparable to Dr. Deepak Chopra and Dr. Laura Schlessinger. The Wikipedia articles on Chopra and Schlessinger each have separate sections on the religious teachings or views of those figures.

Credidimus2 (talk) 19:31, 16 December 2017 (UTC)Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Credidimus2 (talk • contribs) 16:26, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Please WP:KEEPCONCISE the discussion and write less such WP:FORUM comments. I disagree with your WP:WALLOFTEXT which is not about article content per se, and your proposal is out of WP:SCOPE. Considering Peterson, a well established academic, as a "self-help guru" comparable to New-Age fringe personalities as "Dr." Deepak Chopra is totally bogus.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 21:06, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I believe that the secondary sources show that Jordan Peterson's notoriety comes from two activities: (1) His conservative activism against those he calls "Postmodernists," "Marxists," and "SJWs," and (2) His "self-help guru" talks on video and on stage, in which he urges and helps people to get their acts together. The National Review magazine said: "Self-help guru Jordan B. Peterson teaches today’s men to find what they are missing." Peterson's self-help teachings are profoundly religious in nature; he urges his audience to take God and Jesus Christ seriously in their lives. He argues against atheism in many of his videos. In a magazine article already citied in this Wikipedia article, Peterson is quoted as saying: "Some of the young men who come to my lectures are desperately hanging on every word because I am telling them that they are sinful, and insufficient, and deceitful and contemptible in their current form...." Notice that Peterson says:  "I am telling them that they are sinful...."  That's not what academics do in their role as academics; but it is what religious self-help teachers do. That same magazine reports that "Peterson’s Christianity is perhaps one of the most mysterious sides of his personality," that his Christianity is unlike "...anything to be found in the Midwest Bible belt," that Peterson has "almost evangelical convictions...." and that "His Christianity is also viewed through a Jungian lens." Peterson is reported as telling his audiences: "You guys really need to get your act together...."  This aspect of Peterson's notoriety, the religious self-help aspect, is not represented in this Wikipedia article.   It is true that Peterson is a well-established academic, but that's not wherein his notoriety lies.  There are thousands of well-established academics who lack the notoriety to have a Wikipedia article about them. The current Wikipedia article on Peterson mentions his religious beliefs in the "Personal Life" section, along with the fact that Peterson is a husband, father, and grandfather.  This placement gives the impression that Peterson's religious beliefs are, like the composition of his family life, not part of his notoriety.  I believe that a number of Secondary Sources show that Peterson's religious beliefs are a major part of his notoriety.

Credidimus2 (talk) 14:04, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Most people had never heard of Peterson until the SJWs got the university to go after him for refusing to be told how to speak. Peterson teaches in the English language, and the words he was told to use are not Standard English. Re being Christian, perhaps you are a US Fundamentalist who defines non-Fundamentalist as non-Christian, but in Canada, the mainstream Protestant faiths, namely Anglican and United, are not doctrinaire about taking every verse of the Bible dead literally. In these denominations, babies become Christians by virtue of being baptized, and if they continue to identify as Christians as adults, they remain Christians. Note to another commenter, equating Christians with conservatives is a US thing originating in the Bible belt. Most Canadian Christians are not Fundamentalists. His Church (United) is very left-wing, even more so than Anglicans. Even Catholics are somewhat left wing outside of abortion. Every Liberal PM of Canada, in the last several decades, has been Roman Catholic. PM Trudeau is a Catholic, and admired Castro.77Mike77 (talk) 23:23, 20 December 2017 (UTC)


 * If you've got a reliable source that uses the term SJW regarding and Peterson, I'd like to see it. Regarding the sources about religion being proposed here, the two secondary ones above are not persuasive to me that this justifies an entire subsection. The Spectator one specifically contextualizes his work on the Bible as an outgrowth of his work on myths and folk tales (the article includes The Lion King and Pinocchio as comparisons) and this work is already discussed in the section on his 1999 book. As an op-ed, the National Review one should only be used with caution. There's something here, but these particular sources do not, to me, suggest that a new section would be an improvement. Slightly expanding and rearranging an existing section could work, though. Grayfell (talk) 01:00, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree that there should be no extra section about his religious beliefs. My main objection was against the phrase "conservative Christian", because the phrase sounds like the US "Christian right", which he is not. He was born and raised in a very non-fundamentalist denomination in which some of the clergy are openly atheist, and the denomination openly supports leftist causes. Peterson's dislike of leftist ideologies suggests that he is politically conservative, and as a disconnected side note, he apparently identifies as some type of non-denominational Christian, but the two are not connected. It could be said that he is a Christian, and that he is a conservative, but not a "conservative Christian". Maybe best to just mention, in the bio section, that his parents were members of the United Church of Canada, and leave it at that. Re "SJWs", someone else said he used the phrase in videos, but I don't think it is very important. It is very common to refer to campus fanatics as SJWs, so not a bid deal.77Mike77 (talk) 03:41, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Peterson’s new book is a self-help book titled "12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos." It will be released on January 23, 2018, and pre-orders have already made it a bestseller on Amazon. I believe that most of the YouTube videos featuring Peterson are of a self-help nature. Many secondary sources recognize Peterson as a self-help teacher or "self-help guru." ("self-help guru" is the term used by the National Review magazine). Peterson's slogan, "Clean your room," has gained notoriety and has even been said in one secondary source to have created a movement, and this "Clean your room" slogan is an entirely self-help slogan. The Wikipedia article makes no mention of this well-known slogan of Peterson's. The Globe and Mail newspaper wrote in 2017 that "Increasingly this spring, Peterson has been speaking directly to his young male followers in videos and online chats. Don't hate women, sort yourself out, clean up your room." The Republican Standard writes about "People thanking the professor for the positive changes they’ve made in their own lives due to the Professor’s message of self responsibility — 'Clean Your Room', 'Sort Yourself Out' and other related messages...." If the Wikipedia article included coverage of Peterson's notoriety as a self-help teacher, that would necessarily involve some mention of the content of Peterson's self-help teachings. And that would necessarily involve some mention of the significantly religious nature of Peterson's self-help messages. My view is that the current Wikipedia article gives the impression that Peterson's notoriety is based solely or mainly on his academic research, academic publications, and academic teaching, when that is not the case. I believe the Secondary Sources indicate that a major source of Peterson's notoriety is his self-help teaching, and therefore the Wikipedia article on Peterson needs some coverage of that, including some coverage of the partly religious nature of his self-help teachings.Credidimus2 (talk) 17:36, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * "My view is that the current Wikipedia article gives the impression that Peterson's notoriety is based solely or mainly on his academic research, academic publications, and academic teaching, when that is not the case" - yeah, you somehow missed the Bill C-16 controversy (I do not remember why and how was it removed from WP:LEAD). I highly doubt your consideration because by such logic every psychologist consideration can be classified as "self-help" and they as a "guru".--Miki Filigranski (talk) 19:47, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The information about Peterson's political activism regarding Bill C-16 is covered within a section titled "Critiques of political correctness." But I do not see any section that is covers Peterson notoriety for his voluminous work as a self-help teacher and self-help author.  Where in this article should information be presented about his already bestselling new self-book, "12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos"?  Where should his famous self-help slogan, "Clean your room" be mentioned?  Most professors of psychology do not write self-help books or produce self-help videos on YouTube. "Self-help" is a distinct, recognized field of activity, as seen in the Wikipedia article titled "Self-help."  Self-help teaching and authorship is different from work as a professor of psychology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Credidimus2 (talk • contribs) 22:25, 21 December 2017 (UTC)


 * To simplify this discussion, can you please point to the reliable, independent sources which label him as a self-help figure? "Guru" is optional, but passing mentions are probably not enough to elevate this to a defining characteristic. Having an as-yet unpublished self-help book isn't necessarily enough either, by itself, although obviously it's likely to be part of how sources cover this. Grayfell (talk) 23:02, 21 December 2017 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that his opponents even in national newspapers such as the Guardian like to refer to him as a "self-help author" rather than as a "professor of psychology". This seems to be an attempt to diminish his credibility: a professor of psychology is a respected and learned figure, and it takes a lot of work to get to that position, whereas a self-help author might just be a crazy guru/crank who managed to get a publishing deal. People can call him what they like, but I think wikipedia should be neutral, and as it stands now I think it gets the balance right. 2A02:C7D:A343:A400:9029:3B4E:4E8B:A6AB (talk) 09:32, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

January 2018 - Peterson is not a Christian?
we might have an unending issue on the topic because in recent interview on the question "Are you a Christian? Do you believe in God?" Peterson answered, "I think the proper response to that is No, but I’m afraid He might exist". Should we revert the "agnostic" part of previous revision cited above by me?--Miki Filigranski (talk) 22:02, 19 January 2018 (UTC)


 * They are contradictory answers but we can include both, I think. Introduce the "yes" as "in an interview with Tim Lott in 2017" and the "no" as "in an interview with Christie Blatchford in 2018". In a review of his new book in The Times, Melanie Reid described him as "A Christian", though self-identification takes precedence for matters such as religious belief. The term "agnostic" would need to be explicitly stated by himself for us to plainly identify him as such, but we could attribute the agnostic label to the author of the source you cited. Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:44, 20 January 2018 (UTC)


 * think that Reid described him as a Christian exactly because of this Wikipedian article unanimous statement and tag he is a Christian (should we remove the category?), although as discussed above this is a bit problematic. Will do a bold edit.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 00:56, 20 January 2018 (UTC)


 * It's possible that it's citogenesis but can't know for sure. But go ahead and make the edit, the article needs to be updated to include information on his new book in any case. Hrodvarsson (talk) 01:02, 20 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Done an edit regarding his new book, but sorry, will not on religious affiliation, I'm not sure how to do it using, , without making it too confusing or going off-track citing journalists name etc.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 01:14, 20 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Re-reading the National Post article, it seems the "no" may have been in response to only the second question, "Do you believe in God?". It's not very clear. I will try to incorporate the three sources. Hrodvarsson (talk) 02:09, 20 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree with what has been done. Considering the subtleties and qualifications of his religious beliefs I don't think we do well by the reader to simply say he's a Christian full-stop, even though we have one source saying he is and have the man himself saying so...  I do agree with Hrodvarsson that his answer in the latest interview is ambiguous and we can't simply disqualify him as Christian based on that... was he saying "no" to a belief in God, or to whether he's a Christian?   But anyway, reasonable people can say that without belief in God you can't be a Christian, or without belief in a literal resurrection, and others equally as reasonable can have other definitions so I like the solution of our not simply saying "Peterson is a Christian" but instead having the encyclopedia quote sources; the article currently has a good mix. Marteau (talk) 14:14, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree, for now, there's no other better solution to keep as neutral and verifiable as possible. Regarding the recent answer, it can be interpreted for both, and considering his viewpoint and influences it is most suitable.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 17:06, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

in recent interview with Quillette Peterson said:

" I want to ask direct questions about Christianity. Firstly, do you believe Christ existed as a man?

Yes.

Do you believe Christ existed within the conception of the Trinity?

That’s a harder question, because it starts to depend on what you mean by the Trinity. The problem with a question like that is that it assumes that the questioner, and the audience, and the answerer share the same conceptualisation of the categories. So, I would say yes, but it’s a bounded yes because I have a particular conceptualisation of what the Trinity means.

Do you believe in the resurrection?

[Sigh, pause] That’s… I am going to eventually finish my [voice slightly falters] lecture series on the Bible, and I hope I can delve into that with the depth that it requires.

You call yourself a Christian?

I don’t; other people do.

Do you object to that?

I don’t object to it, but it’s complicated.

So, it’s not unfair?

It’s not unfair, but I’m not sure that what I mean by that is generally what is meant by that. I could give you a more specific example of that. You have an ethical responsibility if you are a Christian to imitate Christ. So, you think “What the hell does that mean? It’s not the Middle East two thousand years ago. What are you supposed to do? Put on a robe and parade around on the street?” That’s not what it means. It means something like you need to take responsibility for the evil in the world as if you were responsible for it. That’s part of it. That’s the idea of taking the sins of the world unto yourself. And you need to understand that you determine the direction of the world, whether it’s toward heaven or hell, by your actions of speech, and you need to take responsibility for that. I would say that if you do those things then you’re a Christian, but I don’t think that that’s the way people generally conceptualise Christianity. "

So, it seems that the case about his religious affiliation is a bit more understandable. Basically, Peterson is and is not a Christian depending on the viewpoint what does it mean generally and personally. Considering the provided context, think his quote "ethical responsibility if you are a Christian to imitate Christ ... means something like you need to take responsibility for the evil in the world as if you were responsible for it" could be cited, in some intermediate version of current and previous revision of the section.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 15:30, 31 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Nice work, the personal life section is much better now. Hrodvarsson (talk) 19:18, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Is he YouTuber?
I am debating on my talk page whether he is a YouTuber or not I do think the debate has value so I bring it here for y'all to decide. I have cut out all stuff that do not relate to this specific topic of the conversation. I have modified some of my sentences because otherwise it would be a bit confusing, I think I do it justice.
 * Filmman3000: He is by definition a YouTuber look at the definition. You·Tu·ber ˈyo͞oˌt(y)o͞obər/Submit noun noun: YouTuber; plural noun: YouTubers a frequent user of the video-sharing website YouTube, especially someone who produces and appears in videos on the site.
 * Miki Filigranski: By default he is not a YouTuber.
 * Filmman3000:Why by default he is not a YouTuber? I always saw him as one as well as a university professor, and a clinical psychologist. The same way Clint Eastwood is an actor and a director, or :Ice Cube a rapper and actor.
 * Miki Filigranski: It's part of weight and context, he is primarily a university professor and a clinical psychologist, that's his job. His YouTube activity is mostly uploading filmed lectures which were not specifically made/edited for YouTube, and it is not a right comparison between professor/psychologist(job)-YouTuber(does not monetize lectures, wonder if the same for other videos) and actor(job)-director(job)-rapper(job).
 * Filmman3000: Actually, he does monetize, I think his video were demonetize, however he now uses Patreon to make money out of YouTube. Look below all his videos: Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/jordanbpeterson

ThanksFilmman3000 (talk) 17:34, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Which videos he monetize? His lectures are by his decision not monetized. If I understood well, because of that reason (as well others) he uses Patreon instead.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 18:19, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The current descriptions cover it, as the topics of his videos pertain to his work as a clinical psychologist and a professor of psychology, as well as cultural criticism. "YouTuber" is a very vague term and needlessly corporate. If he starts producing daily vlogs, reaction videos, etc., and RS routinely describe him as a "YouTuber" ahead of the other labels it could be added. Hrodvarsson (talk) 20:19, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree. Reliable sources don't call him a Youtuber. It's fine as it stands. --hippo43 (talk) 22:11, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, he is a YouTuber. He makes more money off of Patreon now than he does as a professor, so calling his job a "professor" ignores a huge part of his income over the last number of years. The opposition to this seems to come primarily from rabid fanboys who fight any attempt at bringing balance to the article.Geoffdice1 (talk) 18:52, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Another editor removed your 'unbalanced' tag on the article. I was just about to do that as well.  Unless you have a policy or guideline based argument for why the article is 'unbalanced' tagging it like that is inappropriate.  And the fact of the matter is, you don't have a policy or guideline based argument for imbalance.  Wikipedia requires reliable sourcing.  You have not provided a reliable source.  WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not enough grounds for tagging it as "unbalanced" Marteau (talk) 20:19, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * And while I'm at it, who are you calling a "rabid fanboy"? I have to assume it is me, because I shut your previous edits down on this article. If you will look at the edit history, you will see that I have objected to Peterson being labeled other things besides "Youtuber". Someone just this passed week labeled him a "Philosopher" and I shut that down, too.  Is that the action of a "rabid fanboy" or perhaps someone who follows the policies and guidelines of the encyclopedia? An apology would be appropriate.  Marteau (talk) 20:43, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Lindsey Shepherd material
I removed this "material" since it relates very peripherally to this bio. It should be added to the Lindsey Shepard bio or maybe the Wilfrid Laurier U article. --Malerooster (talk) 03:37, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I removed this again since its seems to be undue weight for THIS bio. Again, this would be more appropriate for the Lindsey Shepard bio. If there is consensus for this material to be in the article I will add it back in. --Malerooster (talk) 17:26, 7 February 2018 (UTC) ps, I will also take this to the BLP board to get more eyes. --Malerooster (talk) 17:27, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * What "Lindsey Shepard bio"? There is no such article.  There's a redirect for her, but you are on record as not even wanting a re-direct for her..  And why the rush to BLP noticeboard, which is generally for "cases where editors are repeatedly adding defamatory or libelous material to articles about living people over an extended period."? You have not even given discussing the issue here a try, which would have been appropriate. I agree with the other editors... this deserves a place in the article.  Marteau (talk) 18:22, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's the point, this "material" is completely undue weight linked to a non notable individual that is SO peripherally related its not funny, and no, the BLP is a perfect board to get other opinions about this rather than echo chambering here. Also, not wanting a redirect to a non notable, one event individual really doesn't mean much to this argument. --Malerooster (talk) 18:39, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, going to BLP without even giving the talk page the slightest of chances is completely inappropriate, not what that board is for, and is indicative of a combative attitude, especially considering your reference to "echo chambering".  Marteau (talk) 18:48, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Marteau, I will concede I could have waited. Fine. I would hope you would also assume good faith that I went to that board because I know alot of folks do good work there and we would have more eyes and opinions than the maybe two or three I saw here over the last few months. If folks say, yes that "material" belongs, good, we are done. If not, then it should stay out until consensus for inclusion is reached.--Malerooster (talk) 18:54, 7 February 2018 (UTC)


 * It has nothing to do about undue weight as much scope of the article, and there is to the section and controversy. Not to mention you ignored discussion and edits at Talk:An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 20:39, 7 February 2018 (UTC)


 * The material is fine though could be focused more on Peterson's response. By the way, it is "Lindsay Shepherd". Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:48, 7 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree that as currently written this material doesn't seem to have anything to do with Peterson other than him being the person in the video that the TA used. It doesn't appear that the subsequent incidents have any relation to Peterson and would likely have occurred if anyone else were in the video expressing similar opinions.  So the section either needs to be rewritten so that readers understand exactly why it's critical for them to understand if they're to know about Peterson (i.e., why is this material included in this encyclopedia article) or it needs to be removed.  I'm skeptical that it can be closely tied to Peterson so I think that removal is the more likely course.
 * If the material stays, we should not use the TA's name. This is the only incident for which she is plausibly notable so BLP demands that we respect her privacy especially since this event officially ended with an apology from the university essentially for publicly dragging her name through the mud.  Moreover, using her name is completely unnecessary for readers to understand these events so it's also a due weight issue. ElKevbo (talk) 05:58, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Re relevance: it's absolutely relevant, as it is the perfect demonstration of what Peterson feared would happen with bill C-16 - in an amazingly ironic way by involving his debate on the subject. The bill was explicitly mentioned as a reason to not show the students a discussion about the bill! Further he has talked about it many times and has talked to Shepherd herself about it.
 * Re her name: She's done several interviews on the topic so I don't know how you can reasonably imply that she is wanting to stay anonymous. Using her name is just a lot less awkward - and in any case we are merely reflecting the sources, which all use her name. ··gracefool &#128172; 08:55, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It's outside the scope of this biographical article. If you included every event Peterson thought supported his worldview the article would be absurdly long. Without a higher standard of inclusion this thing will go on forever. 2607:FEA8:620:4F2:C868:887E:ABF3:55C5 (talk) 16:56, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The event should definitely stay in the article. At the very least this is a biggest media scandal that happened in Canadian academia in the last 10 years and it is directly related to Bill C16 controversy and Jordan Peterson's reaction. For Canada event is a) huge, b) directly related to Peterson. Also I think Lindsey Shephard name needs to be included, since she is now a public person, has given multiple interviews on the topic and more importantly, if someone wants to go deeper into exploring the subject, they will have more information to start their search with. FreedomGonzo (talk) 17:08, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, this has been a huge story in Canada that is intertwined with Peterson, and omitting Shephard would amount to censorship.77Mike77 (talk) 17:03, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The incident would scarcely qualify as a media scandal; the University grossly misinterpreted the scope of C-16 (particularly given that the Canadian Human Rights Code has no jurisdiction in a provincially regulated body). That Peterson talked it up to be more than it actually was amounted to a laughable confirmation of his biases and total, glaring ignorance on matters of law. Shepard was determined by a third party to have done nothing wrong, completely ratifying the view that Peterson's rhetoric surrounding the law was nothing short of misinformed fear-mongering. Sophomoric (talk) 19:28, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a soapbox and your personal opinion about the matter is irrelevant. Talk pages are for the improvement of the article, not an opportunity so you can vent. Marteau (talk) 19:54, 10 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Note it's "Lindsey Shepherd", everyone. -The Gnome (talk) 06:52, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Brief reviews of 12 Rules
I added two brief paragraphs summarising the reception of 12 Rules for Life thusfar, which have been reverted twice now.

The content I added was:

The criticisms in the revert comments were:


 * 1) don't need copy-pasted info from another article, and a bit too recent for proper critical summary, think section should for now be more focused on content/release
 * 2) another problem here is the red link reviewers, and the narrow black and white selection of reviewers, like all that exists are conservatives and liberals. level of detail belongs on 12 rules page, not here

The content I added was all written by me or quoted from the cited reviews and the selection of reviewers was based entirely on which reviews came up in a quick Google; the black-and-white nature of reviews is somewhat inevitable for a pretty divisive book by a pretty divisive author. I'm not married to those specific reviews but I do think this article should contain at least a brief summary of the book's reception — which can of course be updated over time. More detail than a couple of quotes from each perspective should clearly be kept to the article about the book itself, but it seems odd that there wouldn't be a brief summary in this article also. — OwenBlacker (talk; please &#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me in replies) 15:22, 8 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Greetings. Let me just comment that the current status of the sections "Release" and "Reception" in the article 12 Rules for Life are in my humble opinion an exemplary case of how such sections should be shaped, especially when the subject is considered controversial. We do not see, for instance, words such as "liberal" or "conservative." We should try and emulate this great encyclopaedic precedent. -The Gnome (talk) 07:02, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 April 2018
Change "As part of the tour, Peterson was interviewed by Cathy Newman on Channel 4 News. In a short time the interview received considerable attention and over seven million views on YouTube"

to

"As part of the tour, Peterson was interviewed by Cathy Newman on Channel 4 News. In a short time the interview received considerable attention and over nine million views on YouTube 203.187.211.98 (talk) 10:13, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yellow check.svg Partly done: I combined the two sentences to bring the references closer to the claim of significance and remove the number of YouTube views. YouTube views are not inherently significant and require updating and are less important than the three reliable source citations following the sentences. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 12:21, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Newman interview
This interview was probably the first time a lot of people had heard of Peterson. It seems like there should be some mention of it.

This had been added, but was then removed:

—WWoods (talk) 18:46, 21 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Does it has such a notability for mention? Many reliable sources reported on the case, and possibly many more will in more detail, but it could be briefly mentioned in "12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos" section in relation to "To promote the book Peterson went on a world tour" sentence because besides other than that I do not see how it does have any importance to the Scope of the article. I would not include the box to the external video.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 18:57, 21 January 2018 (UTC)


 * It shouldn't be included as a standalone portion of the article, but it could reasonably be discussed in the context of the tour promoting his book, as Miki Filigranski suggests, similar to the list of podcasts Peterson has appeared on is covered in "Other projects". Hrodvarsson (talk) 01:39, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

The controversy around Peterson and his relationship with the LGBT community has been systematically edited out of these articles. It is a biased article. It does not mention the fallout from this interview. There has been an aggressive attempt to silence criticism of Peterson on his pages. Geoffdice1 (talk) 23:45, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you give me an example where a criticism of Peterson was removed from the page? I know there are many people who strongly disagree with him. Are there any notable quotes criticizing him that you think should be included on this page that aren't? We can't just write essays in the middle of the Wikipedia page about why we don't like a certain person. What happened after this interview that you don't think has been fairly covered? BenjaminMan (talk) 02:01, 25 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes. This one my one attempt to balance this page a bit (on the premise that having not an ounce of "criticism" of a person whose ideas have been criticized as extensively as Peterson's--is not balanced). In the first diff, the author was misidentified, and that was used the basis for removing the first source. In the second diff--surprise--both sources were still found to be lacking. As for source quality, living people who are still in the news are rarely going to have disinterested works published about them that review criticism; thus to include anything, we have to point to prominent criticisms themselves. My sources were deemed "not good enough", but I expect that would always be the case. They were mainstream enough sites for editorial; thoughtful articles by people who know what they're talking about.  Meanwhile, "Epoch Times", a transparently conservative source, is presently good enough for this page, as is a Medium article and "Study Breaks"--a student magazine, while my higher ed source was deleted. There is literally no criticism on this page, which is telling. (My own POV on the article topic is not what you might expect.) Outriggr (talk) 03:03, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The "Study Breaks" reference is being used as a source for his book being a "Best Seller". I agree the source does not seem to be a heavy hitter, but it is not and was not used to support an academic opinion or criticize an interpretation of philosophic concept like you were wanting to do with "Viewpoint Magazine".... it's just being used so we can say he has a best seller, and yes, it should probably be replaced. "Epoch Times" however IS a heavy hitter and a reliable source.  Check out their awards.   Also, just because a source is "conservative" does not make them unfit for citation, see WP:BIAS where it says, "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective."  I do agree that criticism of Peterson's interpretation of postmodernism is a thing, and inclusion of criticism would be warranted... IF we can come up with a source better than the "militant research collective" (as "Viewpoint Magazine" calls themselves) that you put forward, with no awards to its name (that I can find), no significant presence, and no Wikipedia article for that matter.  04:17, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

"I'm no right-winger"
"I'm no right-winger" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OeWGMr_tns --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:20, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * What you wanted to say with this comment? It has anything to do with the article content? If not, see WP:FORUM.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 22:44, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It could be included in section of the article if an editor deems it worthy of inclusion. I am just leaving it here and seeing what people think instead of just adding it in. Thanks for reminding me of WP:FORUM but I already know what that is. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:05, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I would put it in the "Personal life" section. w umbolo   ^^^  21:25, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:35, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Neo nazi shows ?
i'm sorry if this is not the proper way to do this but, in this article it describes a youtube video in which jordan peterson is a guest as neo nazi

isn't this statement unverified at best and intentional propaganda at worst ?

thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.196.252.67 (talk) 23:00, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I wrote this statement. The video in which he appears, is made by self-professed White Nationalist Tara Mccarthy. Maybe the Neonazi termonology isn't strictly accurate, but White Nationalist certainly is. This interview is worthy of a mention, because the show exclusively features members of the radical far right. Peterson's appearance is incongruous to his appearances on other platforms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.153.14.147 (talk) 04:39, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

It is consistent. He's fighting for free speech and in particular he has spoken, in his capacity as a psychologist and psychology professor, about the psychological need for free speech and the role of speech in thought. Specifically the idea that peoples' ideas are formulated through conversation, when you hear yourself speak and hear others respond, that functions as an extension of your own cognitive processes and we all rely on this. So appearing on shows with highly controversial or even wrongheaded opinions is not at all inconsistent with his message, regardless of what those opinions are. Groupthinker1984 (talk) 16:48, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


 * "White Nationalist" is what neo-nazis and white supremacists have tried to rebrand themselves today. That's all. It's just orwell doublespeak. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.236.42 (talk) 20:22, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not. Neo-nazi is not a generic slur but describes a certain ideology. Therefore, one can be white supremacist without being nazi, one can be nazi without being white supremacist, and one can be white nationalist without being either neo-nazi or white supremacist 37.7.191.153 (talk) 10:40, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The term "Nazi" is used in modern times in many circumstances, typically to denote brutality and boorishness in behavior, or in interaction with others. See Seinfeld for the "Soup Nazi." A Nazi was by definition a white suppremacist avant la lettre; and modern Nazis, or neo-Nazis, are perforce white supremacists. The differences between white supremacist and white nationalist ideologies are artificial and trivial, since both are founded on racial exclusion. (Sources: everywhere.) -The Gnome (talk) 09:20, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

One can also be a White Identitarian, which is neither Nationalist, Supremacist, nor neo-Nazi. The unsigned commenter was using the term as a slur.77Mike77 (talk) 16:58, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the unsigned commenter was trying to link the subject of this article to an ideology he has nothing to do with. It seems more like a low key character attack than a slur. -- Sleyece (talk) 00:59, 28 April 2018 (UTC)