Talk:Stefan Molyneux

Publications section

I attempted to add a publications section listing a few of Molyneaux's notable published Titles and Documentaries, similar to what appears on the pages of other published authors. Within a day the entire section was deleted. The reason given was: "see WP:SELFSOURCE and WP:PLOT for why we didn't include this already". However, all points listed at those links are irrelevant.

Furthermore, on other author's pages, a list of published works on an author's page is included as standard, as it is relevant information that improves the encyclopedia. For example: Noam Chomsky, Sam Harris, Dave Rubin, Ben Shapiro.

Clearly a "Publications" section should be included for Molyneaux just as it is for other authors.

Mherzl (talk) 03:25, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Molyneux is not unambiguously a "published author", he is instead a self-published author. All of the other people you mention are independently notable as authors of books, all of which have been published vie reputable independent publishers.

Further, "notable" is part of notable published Titles and Documentaries. Notable in Wikipedia jargon means independently notable. All of the other authors you mention have had their works discussed in at least some depth by reliable, independent sources.

Therefor, please provide reliable sources which discuss his self-published books and self-published documentaries. For Wikipedia's purposes, these sources would also necessarily be independent sources. I have looked for such sources in the past and not found anything. Molyneux's own website is neither reliable, nor independent, and cannot be used to demonstrate encyclopedic significance. Grayfell (talk) 04:17, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

The distinction between corporate-published and self-published is not material to whether the works should be listed. For example, Michael Malice's "The Anarchist Handbook", is a self-published work which yet still appears in the publications section of Malice's Wikipedia page. Any ambiguity about which kind of publishing was used can be resolved by adding a single word, not by removing the entire publications section.

Independent sources are easy to find via a simple search query. The books are listed on goodreads, and the documentaries on imdb.

Mherzl (talk) 05:52, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello, in fact "The distinction between corporate-published and self-published" is very much THE criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. Have a look at this policy for editing in Wikipedia: WP:SELFPUB. It is pretty much non-negotiable.

IMDB and goodreads are also self-published sources and can not (never) be used as sources. Please see here WP:RSP for a list of sources that can or cannot be used. IMDB and goodreads are red and thus cannot be used. You have to find discussion of M's books in reliable, independent sources.

And this is a good thing, because otherwise someone could just self-publish some book that in fact no one ever read, but pay a couple of friends to add reviews on self-published spaces like goodreads etc and then we would need to include it in here in the encyclopedia. It is clear that this can not be how an encyclopedia works, right? Best -- Mvbaron (talk) 08:02, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Neither of those websites are reliable per reasons explained at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. As I said many times on this talk page, if you have reliable sources discussing any of Molyneux's works, please present them. At this point you should present them here on the talk page for discussion to avoid edit warring. These works were previously discussed on this talk page and consensus was that they are not automatically significant. Therefor, every specific work listed will need a reliable, independent source.

Michael Malice will also need some cleanup, per reasons you have indicated, but see WP:OTHERCONTENT. Wikipedia is a work in progress and all changes will have to be evaluated on their own merits. Grayfell (talk) 08:11, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

We can say he is a self-published author, but I do not think we need (or benefit) from a puffy list of those works.Slatersteven (talk) 12:19, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

The distinction between corporate-published and self-published is not relevant in this context because the article's statement concerns the works themselves. Please review the Acceptable use of self-published works section of Wikipedia’s policies regarding identifying and using self-published works. Note point 3, I will quote it here:

"A self-published work may be used as a source when the statement concerns the source itself. For example, for the statement 'The organization purchased full-page advertisements in major newspapers advocating gun control,' the advertisement(s) in question could be cited as sources, even though advertisements are self-published."

The "published works" section states that Molyneaux has written and published these works. Since their existence is evidence of that, an independent source beyond the works themselves is not required to verify that fact.

The list of an author's published works is relevant information which should be included on the author's page. That's why it is included for other authors, such as all other authors mentioned prior in this discussion, whether their works were corporate-published or self-published. Furthermore, the publications section also represents the author's point-of-view, and thus its inclusion is required per Wikipedia's neutrality principle.

Quoting from the "Neutral point of view" page: "This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus."

Mherzl (talk) 01:12, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Please try and understand exactly what we are telling you, and why we are explaining this to you in this level of detail. It is a bad sign that you are lecturing more experienced editors on matters of basic policy. It doesn't mean you are wrong, but think about it from our perspective.

You clearly do not have consensus for this material. The burden is on you to gain consensus for these changes. This material is not "relevant" simply because you tell us it is "relevant". Relevance is decided by consensus, and that ultimately is based on reliable, independent sources. It is not enough for this to be WP:VERIFIABLE, it also has to be WP:DUE.

As another example, among many, of why this material is excessive, look closer at the IMDB source. It lists hundred of videos indiscriminately. It perhaps lists every video he published to Youtube during the time he was allowed to publish there. Obviously we cannot include a directory of hundreds of videos, and it would not benefit readers to clog-up the article with minutia like this. So for you, as an editor, to decide that a handful are important enough to list would be arbitrary and promotional.

To put it another way, it is not neutral to include a some of his vidoes but not other videos. Why the self-described documentaries but not videos such as An Introduction to Female Evil: Part 3, Wait for It! I've Never Had a Conversation Like This! Oh My!, My Wife Married Her Rapist, The War on Tommy Robinson: Lauren Southern and Stefan Molyneux, and hundreds of other videos with similar clickbait titles? That is a rhetorical question. Any answer would need a reliable, independent source.

So, yet again, please point to a reliable, independent source which mentions his self-published works. We can then figure out how to summarize that source. Grayfell (talk) 05:08, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

• Incidentally, I have cleaned up the Michael Malice article's bibliography section (ISBN numbers, etc.) I removed the anarchist handbook, since it appeared to be a compilation of other people's work which Malice self-published. It was also still extremely obscure per WorldCat. The only other self-published book does have at least a small amount of independent coverage demonstrating notability. This is the same standard I hold this article to. Grayfell (talk) 06:08, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
• If there's no secondary coverage, then it's hard to see how they're WP:DUE. I would also tend to disagree that we can use WP:SELFSOURCE to cover self-published publications that are not noted in any secondary source, since by definition focusing on them is promotional and therefore unduly self-serving - ie. WP:DUE means that listing anything here carries an implication of "these are noteworthy books this person has written, and significant things they have done"; and we cannot rely on the person themselves for that assertion. But even beyond that, WP:SELFSOURCE merely allows the usage of such sources for trivial biographical details; it doesn't mandate them. You still have to illustrate that eg. a particular publication passes WP:DUE to cover it, and I don't see how a self-published work can be due when there's no secondary coverage of it. --Aquillion (talk) 06:54, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Mherzl Your assertions about NPOV are irrelevant to this discussion, and in fact, our NPOV policy is quite clear that this information has no business on this page. See WP:PROPORTION which is a section of our NPOV policy that states An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject.

As there are no reliable, published materials covering Molyneux's self-published books, there is nothing we can say about them per our policies. Also, see WP:SPS (a section of WP:V, which is also policy) for why these books are not reliable sources themselves. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:24, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

I am glad to see that some of the points I have raised now appear to be understood. For example, I hope it is sufficiently clear that self-sourcing is in fact valid for self-referenced material. In case anyone was still doubting that, please notice the work that Grayfell, in attempt to demonstrate his opposing claim, has removed from Malice's published works section. He has removed an actual Amazon bestseller, claiming that it "is extremely obscure per WorldCat". Perhaps he doesn't realize "The Anarchist's Handbook" was #1 nonfiction, and #3 overall, on Amazon's bestseller list. That work should not have been removed from Malice's published works section. And similarly, the self-published works should not have been removed here.

Verifiability has been demonstrated, now consider whether the works are sufficiently relevant for inclusion: The most salient works written by an author are sufficiently relevant for inclusion on that author's page. Full stop. If an author is sufficiently notable to have a page written about him, then his most salient works are sufficiently notable for inclusion upon it. In other words: if Molyneaux's most salient published works are not sufficiently notable for inclusion, then Molyneaux himself is insufficiently notable and the entire page must be deleted. Publications are some of the more obvious information to include about any author.

So both reliability and relevance have each been demonstrated. Now consider how the NPOV principle is relevant here. As MPAnts quoted, the NPOV policy states: "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." Given that the subject of the page is Molyneaux himself, his own works are clearly some of the most reliable published material relevant to the subject of the page. Thus, not only *should* the works be included per Wikipedia's norms, they actually *must* be included per Wikipedia's NPOV principle. Currently material published by others about Molyneaux have undue weight, and the NPOV principle demands representation of his own works. Since the NPOV principle is violated by the removal of the publications section, consensus is irrelevant; the publications simply must be included. Mherzl (talk) 01:45, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

I mentioned Malice merely for convenience and transparancy, as I already said, see WP:OTHERCONTENT. If you would like to discuss any changes to that article in detail, do so at that article's talk page. Please also cite a reliable, independent source explaining the significance of any particular detail. If you only mentioned it to prove a point about this article, then see WP:POINT.

For your claim that "the most salient works written by an author are sufficiently relevant for inclusion on that author's page", this is, to borrow a phrase, "not an argument". This claim has not been supported, nor is it self-evident, since multiple editors here have disputed this claim. Further, how "salient" something is would be demonstrated by reliable, independent sources. You, as an editor, are not a reliable source for what is and is not "salient". Likewise, per WP:SOAP, Moyneux himself is not a usable source for what is and is not "salient".

Regarding your claim that "his own works are clearly some of the most reliable published material relevant to the subject of the page", as several editors have tried to explain to you, this isn't how Wikipedia works. Saying something is "clear" doesn't make it clear. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a public relations platform. Again, as has already been explained here, Wikipedia articles strongly favor WP:RS. Your comments about consensus and neutrality are simply incorrect. This is not more neutral merely because you proclaim it to be more neutral. Your opinions about neutrality are not a justification for edit warring. Grayfell (talk) 03:25, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

If it is relevant and "salient" RS would give a damn, if RS do not...its niether relevant nor "salient" (see wp:undue). as I said we can say he is a self-published author. But only works RS have considered notable should be added.Slatersteven (talk) 09:31, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 July 2021

You need to remove "far right, White supremacist", this is pure nonsense. Your site is just full of left wing extremist rhetoric. 72.138.200.245 (talk) 02:32, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: well-cited to reliable sources. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:35, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Climate change

Hi! Re the claim "Molyneux is also an active voice in the climate change denial movement]" I consulted the reference ("The Nature and Nuance of Climate Change Skepticism in the United States") because the transition from "denial" to "skepticism" caught my attention. My surprise was, however, that Molyneux isn't named anywhere in the cited article. Per WP guidelines a better source is needed to justify the claim. Thanks in advance to those who can edit the article & will do so with due sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.245.191.151 (talk • contribs) 10:43, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

OK, can we have a quote or a better source?Slatersteven (talk) 09:49, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Slater, the source is behind a paywall and there's no free version. I highly doubt the IP has checked anything beyond the abstract. I've requested a full copy of the source from the author, we'll see if that works. For now, I'm removing the fv tag, as there's no compelling reason to suspect it's true. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:59, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

AGF, the OP might have access.Slatersteven (talk) 13:03, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

AGF means "Assume good faith", not "assume the competence of random IPs". I am AGFing that the IP legitimately looked at the link, didn't see Molyneux's name, and thought that was the end of it. But there's nothing in this comment that indicates that the IP has access, explicitly or implicitly. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

IP did you have full access to the paper?Slatersteven (talk) 13:54, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Until somebody can prove Molyneux is named in the source, then obviously per BLP it should be removed. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:56, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Good point, I should have thought of that myself.Slatersteven (talk) 15:05, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I found these two sources by googling "Stefan Molyneux climate change," but the text in those sources only refers to his alt-right type comments. The SPLC page about Molyneux, referenced in the aforementioned sources, doesn't say anything about climate either. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:12, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm okay with removing the claim entirely until someone can show clearly whether or not he appears in the cited source. It can always be re-inserted if it's verified. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:26, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

• Note, I've been digging into this since my first comment. From what I can see, Molyneux once agreed with a denier on a podcast, and once made a video and an accompanying Medium post advocating denialism, but has since deleted the video and post. The podcast is still out there.

The results calling Molyneux a denier are mostly blogs and forum posts, nothing usable so far.

I think his relatively high profile as a "lunatic charlatan" caused those who follow his nonsense to react to this in a way that's a little disproportionate, while the mainstream remained consistently ignorant of the issue, as Molyneux's relatively high profile state is just that: relative to the walled garden of the alt-right and it's critics.

I don't think this would meet WP:DUE, even if the source verifies it. If it's not gone already, I'll remove it as soon as I save this comment. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:32, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I removed it when I made my first comment on BLP grounds. I don't necessarily oppose reinstatement given proper sourcing, but there is also the DUE concern. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:40, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Given the fact that he deleted the only content of his I could find that was actively supportive of CC denialism, I think it's fair to say that DUE is a hurdle we're unlikely to overcome without Molyneux showing a renewed interesting in disputing this particular well-established fact. But given his history, I certainly won't rule that out as a possibility. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:43, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I think we can close this, the IP raised (even if badly) a valid concern, and it has now been dealt with.Slatersteven (talk) 15:57, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your dedicated & prompt attention. I have access to the pdf & Molyneux isn't named anywhere there, as I stated, nor it contains skeptical opinions re climate change from people outside the US. I haven't listened everything Molyneux has ever broadcasted, but I remember him opining about the (un)reliability of climate change models. If someone could mine those podcasts I guess (but you know more re the protocols here) they could be used as source since they'd come from the horse's mouth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.245.191.151 (talk) 20:28, August 4, 2021 (UTC)

We could quote him from those, but not use them to call him a denier. We need a source to do so, and as I mentioned above, the only sources I found were not reliable sources. Honestly, I think any reasonable person reading this article, if later asked if they thought he was a CC denier would say "Almost certainly! This guy's never met a fact he didn't deny." ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:32, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

MPants at work, Slatersteven, Molyneux is actually named in the article on p. 13. Full paragraph: Around the time the film came out, [the interviewee] began exploring the issue of climate change. Via YouTube and other online sources, he discovered the voices of those involved in the climate denial movement such as Alex Jones, Stefan Molyneux, and Christopher Monckton. Mark believes that the United Nations is orchestrating the “hoax” of climate change. He contends: [...].

I am not sure whether this is enough to call him a denier, but it is not like he is not mentioned in the pdf at all. 15 (talk) 19:31, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I am less sure, OK it says he is "he discovered the voices of those involved in the climate denial movement", but that can mean he just interviews climate change deniers, not that he believes it (and let's not forget Fox has said Carlson just talks crap. So I am unsure that any of the names people can be said (based on this) to be anything more than people who give climate deniers a voice. We need a source saying Molyneux denies climate change, not that he promotes it.Slatersteven (talk) 09:05, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, that's very clearly calling him a denier, but I don't think a single source is enough in light of the fact that Molyneux has deleted much of the climate change denialism he had previously published. Don't get me wrong, I'm 100% on board calling him a denier, I just think that the circumstances require better sourcing. I'd argue that the fact of Molyneux's deletion of climate change denialism he'd previous published should be weighed similarly to an RS arguing that he's not a denier; so we don't just need a source, we need a preponderance of sources. 2 or 3 would be enough for me to support it, but 4 or 5 would be ideal.

Note my comment above: I wasn't able to easily find any reliable sources which are explicit about it. I searched to no avail, and not just for a couple minutes, either. Not saying that the sources aren't there, just that I couldn't find them. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:28, 8 August 2021 (UTC)