Talk:Stefan Molyneux

Glad this page has become less biased

Not sure when it changed but this page was more biased than it is now until very recently. It amounted to a character assassination and a one sided opinion of his views out forward by his political opponents. There has been a lot of popular media lambasting of him that has had a platform on Wikipedia. Moderated now but still negatively biased as per media. Stephan states his own views very clearly and supporters these with research and data. LiquidElk76 (talk) 06:40, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

How biased was it before that falsely calling him a "far-right, white nationalist" today qualifies as less biased? CheckThatSpelling (talk) 00:41, 3 April 2020 (UTC)— CheckThatSpelling (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Wikipedia's policy, WP:NPOV, does not suggest that we not call things what they are. Additionally, we do not take a position whether "far-right" or "white nationalist" are good or bad. Instead, we are to fairly represent what independent reliable sources have to say about a subject.

That Molyneux is a far-right, white nationalist Canadian podcaster and YouTuber who is known for his promotion of scientific racism and white supremacist views, a leading figure of the alt-right movement, a far-right activist, has "a perverse fixation on race and IQ" and has been described as a cult leader, using cult indoctrination is sourced to NBC News, the SPLC, Columbia Journalism Review, the Data and Society Research Institute, The Guardian, Palgrave Macmillan, Politico, The Washington Post, CNN, The New York Times, The Independent, The Times, The Globe and Mail, etc.

If you feel we do not accurately report what the sources say, please explain.

If you feel the sources do not meet the criteria outlined at WP:IRS, please explain (espve ecially since many of them are covered at WP:IRS/P.

If you have independent reliable sources that we have missed describing him as a swell guy who wants all of the children of the world to join hands and sing in peace and harmony, please present it here. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:16, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Does anyone have a single source that actually shows evidence of him being Alt Right or a white nationalist?

Obviously I like him, that's why I'm defending him. But that doesn't mean I have my head in the sand. If you have evidence that he is racist, I'll accept it. That being said, I looked through the sources for the claims in the first paragraph of this article and they don't hold up to scrutiny. For example, the SPLC's article on him uses as an example a sentence he uttered on his podcast: “I don’t view humanity as a single species...” Now that seems inflammatory and racist, until you look at the context, which the SPLC cites and apparently they didn't listen to (or they did and they're hoping you don't). In the show, he's referring to the difference between evil psychopaths and the rest of us, not to people of difference races. That's just one example. Does anyone have an example that does show that he's racist?

I've been a listener of his for a while and haven't encountered a single piece of evidence that he's a racist or wants a white ethno-state. In fact, his beliefs contradict those accusations. First, he is an anarchist, which is about as far as you can get from supporting an ethno-state (because that would require a lot of government intervention). There are instances of him supporting border controls, but that's only because a welfare state exists -- as Milton Friedman said, "you can’t have open borders and a welfare state." Agree or disagree with him, if we assume that's true, then supporting border as a defensive measure while the welfare state exists is not supporting borders as an ultimate ideal. Molyneux is for the elimination of political borders as long as the government isn't intervening in other ways. Here's an analogy: if a slave get to vote on an overseer and one would beat him more and he votes for the one that beats him less, is the slave supporting slavery? Second, the claims of racism come mostly from calling him a supporter of "scientific racism," a term which is normally put in quotes to mock those who allegedly try to mask their racism with fancy scientific terms. Molyneux draws from conclusions from The Bell Curve and other scientists who show that the average IQ is significantly different for each race. And what IQ tests show is that white people are not the most intelligent, so he's not much of a white supremacist if he believes that whites aren't the most intelligent, that should be your first clue that the label is just slander. But, you might say, maybe putting whites somewhere in the middle of the IQ spectrum is just a ploy to make the racism more believable and as long as the blacks and mexicans are under whites that's good enough. Now we're entering pretty speculative territory, which would be cut by Occam's Razor unless you have great evidence. But, you might still say, even if he honestly believes that whites are somewhere in the middle of the IQ spectrum, isn't that sill racist against the races that fall under the middle? Let's define racism: it's the believing that one race is superior to another. Ask yourself: if you are smarter than one of your friends, does that make you superior to them? If you answered yes, then you're wrong because intelligence doesn't determine a human's value, it's only one factor of who we are. If you answered no, then it doesn't make sense to call Molyneux a racist based on him mentioning IQ research. But, you might insist, even if that's all true, why does he talk about IQ if not to denigrate other races? Because if societies operate on the wrong hypothesis that every race has the same average IQ, then large differences in economic success will lack the explanatory power of differences in IQ and the odds that the economic differences will be blamed on racism in the workplace will be much higher. The reason not many other people out there talk about IQ research is because so many people fail to understand that intelligence doesn't determine the value of a human and will try to destroy the career of anyone who talks about it. And this article is a perfect example of that misunderstanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CheckThatSpelling (talk • contribs) 01:59, 3 April 2020 (UTC) — CheckThatSpelling (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Wikipedia does not examine evidence then decide if the Earth is flat or spherical, whether or not NASA landed astronauts on the Moon, whether or not Nazis murdered 6 million Jews during the Holocaust or whether or not Molyneux is a far-right, white nationalist. Wikipedia reports what independent reliable sources say about the subjects (spherical, yes, yes and yes).

If you would like to debate any of those questions, challenge the data, point to shadows in photos, etc., you are on the wrong site. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:21, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Whether Molyneux is what he's called in the article is not comparable to whether the moon landing is real, flat earth conspiracies are true, or whether the holocaust happened. The latter are commonly known and easily verifiable, the former is not. In your above comment, you've violated (unprovoked) Wikipedia's rules against personal attacks by comparing me to people who try to disprove the moon landing by "point[ing] to shadows in photos." Read the code of ethics again and come back when you're ready to apologize.

Let's examine the claim that independent and reliable sources show him to be an alt right, white nationalist. As I stated above, the claims in the Southern Poverty Law Center article -- which is currently being used as a source -- are contradicted by the primary source material. It is simply attributing to Molyneux a meaning that is not supported by the podcast being referenced. So, even if the SPLC is generally a reliable source, it is not reliable in this case. I won't go down the line for the other sources right now to avoid being tedious, but this should at least be a good starting point from which to open up the conversation about whether the article is using unreliable sources. CheckThatSpelling (talk) 17:21, 3 April 2020 (UTC)— CheckThatSpelling (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I am not comparing you to flat Earthers, Holocaust deniers, etc. and I'm not sure what "code of ethics" you are referring to. I assure you I am quite familiar with WP:NPA.

Independent reliable sources state quite clearly that Molyneux is a far-right, white nationalist. That your interpretation of primary sources is at odds with that is not relevant. That Molyneux may prefer other terms is not relevant. Independent reliable sources are abundantly clear here. - SummerPhD^v2.0 20:33, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

As SummerPhDv2.0 says, we are not interested original research, and any attempt by an individual editor to analyse primary sources is original research.

Because I think it might help explain why sources are so important, I will explain what I think it happening here. Molyneux's videos tend to avoid making bold claims, but instead he presents a parade of isolated facts which have been stripped of context (the pseudoscience of The Bell Curve is one example). His viewers then form the obvious (but false) conclusion from this selective sample, without Molyneux having to spell it out himself. Molyneux gets to look smart for teaching something, and his viewers get to feel smart for thinking that they came to the conclusion on their own. This is superficially similar to the Socratic method, except that Molyneux has the luxury of ignoring his better-educated, more informed critics.

It would be easy to get lost in the weeds with specific examples, such as that Molyneux's views rely on an extremely simplistic form of racialism to make any sense, but this is exactly the point. There is always some esoteric bit of nonsense he can point to as a defense. One of the things that makes reliable sources so reliable is their ability to push back against these rhetorical tricks. Reliable sources ignore the evasion and come to the conclusion that Molyneux's self-published media implies white supremacy, regardless of his purported intentions.

Again (and again, and again) this is why we need to use reliable sources to come to conclusions. Unreliable sources, such as Molyneux himself, are not reliable, not independent, and not useful. Grayfell (talk) 21:51, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

SummerPhDv2.0, it doesn't seem like you're familiar with WP:NPA because you did compare me to moon landing conspiracy theorists. Just look above: "Wikipedia does not examine evidence then decide if the Earth is flat or spherical, whether or not NASA landed astronauts on the Moon [...] If you would like to debate any of those questions, challenge the data, point to shadows in photos." Pointing to shadows in photos is a reference to disputing moon landing photos based on shadows. Why are you doubling down on such an obvious remark?

Anyway, from your link, SummerPhDv2.0, the OR page states, "The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.." I pointed out that the allegations of the SPLC are false based on going to the primary source, which the SPLC claims as evidence for their claim. I'm not arguing that Molyneux is a reliable source. The SPLC used a recording of his as evidence for its claim, so what the recording says, in this case, is the most reliable source for whether that specific claim is true. To give a simple example: if someone says "this recording of my neighbor shows that he plans to steal my furniture," and when you play the recording it's just him singing La Cucaracha, the claim has obviously been shown to be false. Grayfell describes this as "getting lost in the weeds." If listening to the contents of the original recording to determine whether an accusation is true is getting lost in the weeds, then the neighbor in my example can be sent to jail if the accuser has been sufficiently reliable in the past. You see the problem? CheckThatSpelling (talk) 05:18, 5 April 2020 (UTC) — CheckThatSpelling (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Again, you seem to be arguing an independent reliable source is wrong, based on your interpretation of the primary source you believe their statement is based on. The independent reliable source, SPLC (see WP:RS/P), says Molyneux is "A skilled propagandist and an effective communicator within the racist 'alt-right' and pro-Trump ranks, his promotion of scientific racism and eugenics".

You are attempting to compare what one source clearly and directly states with your interpretation of the primary source and deciding that your synthesis (part of WP:OR) strikes down the reliable source.

The independent reliable sources clearly state Molyneux is "known for his promotion of scientific racism and white supremacist views", though I suppose we could include eugenics in that list.

I am not comparing you to Moon landing conspiracy theorists, Holocaust deniers or anyone else. I am saying your methodology -- pointing to your analysis of primary sources to cast doubt on independent reliable sources -- is similar to that used elsewhere. Yes, Moon landing conspiracy theorists point to shadows in NASA photos in an attempt to cast doubt on various independent reliable sources (various academic publishers, assorted national science bodies, etc.). If that were comparing you to Moon landing conspiracy theorists, it would be comparing Molyneux to NASA. I assure you I am doing neither.

Cutting to the chase here: If you wish to dispute that SPLC is a reliable source, the question has been repeatedly discussed and you will not be able to override the consensus here. Please take the issue directly to the Reliable sources noticeboard.

If you are arguing we should dismiss what an independent reliable source directly states based on your interpretation of the primary source, I do not see any way past that conflicting with WP:OR, one of Wikipedia's pillars. If that is your concern, please take the issue directly to Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard.

If your concern is something else, please state it as simply and directly as possible. - SummerPhD^v2.0 05:58, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I understand that formally/logically, you might be comparing my methodology to that of moon landing conspiracy theorists and of course there are some similarities, but you should have known that the example you picked was charged with negative connotations. I can correct someone making a math mistake by telling them, "Like the designers of the Kansas City, Hyatt Regency walkway that collapsed and killed more than a hundred people, you've made an incorrect calculation here." They'd look at me like I'm crazy for making such a charged comparison.

To get back to the meat of the matter, it's not my belief that the primary source I mentioned is what their statement is based on. They link to it next to the statement as evidence. And I'm not arguing we should dismiss what an independent reliable source directly states based on my interpretation of the primary source. Why would I expect you to take my word for it? Maybe this next question will lead the discussion to a conclusion: if we have a situation where an independent, reliable source (deemed so by Wikipedia rules) makes a claim and links to a recording as evidence, and that recording doesn't support the claim, is that a problem by Wikipedia rules? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CheckThatSpelling (talk • contribs) 03:31, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Again, a shortcut here: Several independent reliable sources confirm that Molyneux is far-right, white nationalist, promotes scientific racism and white supremacist views, a far-right activist, has been described as a cult leader, and uses cult indoctrination techniques.

To counter that, you would need to establish

• the sources do not meet the criteria outlined at WP:IRS (note that WP:RS/P discusses several of them)
• the sources do not support the statements
• the descriptors are not a significant aspect of his identity according to the sources.

Arguing that one of the sources is "wrong" or doesn't support its claims is a non-starter. If independent reliable sources said Molyneux was a cheese sandwich, this article would say, "Stefan Molyneux is a cheese sandwich", cite the sources and a discussion on the talk page would begin to figure out whether to link that to Cheese sandwich, Cheese and Sandwich or something else. That the source doesn't show that he is cheese stacked between two pieces of bread would be moot.

Wikipedia does not try to determine "truth". It tries to determine "verifiability". Stefan Molyneux is verifiably a far-right, white nationalist who promotes scientific racism and white supremacist views. - SummerPhD^v2.0 05:52, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

"Arguing that one of the sources is "wrong" or doesn't support its claims is a non-starter. If independent reliable sources said Molyneux was a cheese sandwich, this article would say, "Stefan Molyneux is a cheese sandwich". That the source doesn't show that he is cheese stacked between two pieces of bread would be moot." SummerPhD this is not correct. Please read WP:LIBEL, WP:TRUTHMATTERS, WP:LABEL, WP:ONUS, WP:5P5, and WP:IGNORE before editing any more BLPs. Under many definitions of defamation, such as California's, truth absolutely matters. - 218.214.175.194 (talk) 21:26, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I am quite aware of Wikipedia's policy on the matter, as well as the various essays and such you linked to. Yes, if something is true, it is not libel. No, if something is not true, it does not mean it is libel. Saying Molyneux is a white supremacist does not unjustly harm his reputation. As the sources show, he has the reputation of being a white supremacist, using pseudoscience to support scientific racism, etc. (Similarly, if multiple independent reliable sources said he is a cheese sandwich, this would not harm his reputation.) If you disagree, please pick one of your IP addressed or user names and take the issue to the BLP noticeboard or, if you'd prefer, directly to AN/I. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:08, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

"No, if something is not true, it does not mean it is libel." Where in my comment did I say 'if something is not true it is libel'? Your claims that 'truth' isn't important is what I took issue with. If it's untrue that Stefan Molyneux is a white supremacist, then stating that "Stefan Molyneux is a white supremacist" (in an encyclopaedia not an opinion piece), would harm his reputation. So to say that the truth of the statements in the lede don't matter, is categorically incorrect.

"If you disagree, please pick one of your IP addresses or user names". SummerPhDv2.0, I'm sure you already know this, but on Wikipedia "accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence" are considered to be personal attacks (see WP:NPA). If you or Grayfell have evidence that I use multiple usernames (which is a violation of Wikipedia's policies), please provide it.- 218.214.175.194 (talk) 04:56, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

SummerPhD—it is not a hard-and-fast fact that "Molyneux is far-right, white nationalist, promotes scientific racism and white supremacist views". These are the opinions held by the sources used to support those assertions. Shouldn't those opinions be attributed to those sources? It is currently being said in Wikipedia's voice. I'm not sure if that is proper. Bus stop (talk) 06:27, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

To answer that question, I think we would first have to examine the reliable sources stating that Molyneux is not far right, white nationalist or promoting of white supremacist views. Are there any? Newimpartial (talk) 14:39, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Newimpartial—how is it in anyone's interest to convert opinions to assertions? Bus stop (talk) 15:02, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Being "alt right" is an attribution, not simply an opinion. Attributions can be supported and contested. The particular attributions we are talking about, I have never seen contested in reliable sources. Newimpartial (talk) 17:57, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Newimpartial—why would the source of a characterization be relegated to a citation when the the source of a characterization can be plainly stated? Bus stop (talk) 18:15, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

As has already been asked of you multiple times and multiple places, including this talk page, please stop asking these pedantic, loaded questions. This doesn't improve the article at all. Many sources describe Molyneux this way in factual terms. Your attempt at casting doubt on these sources by framing this as an opinion is as disruptive as it is obvious. Grayfell (talk) 19:32, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Bus stop is right. Grayfell see WP:Label. Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist or sexist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution.

So whether or not you are correct that SPLC, Ben Collins (NBC), Zoe Beery (Columbia Journalism Review), Rebecca Lewis (Data & Society), Gavin Evans (The Guardian), Aaron Winter (coauthor of the book 'Online Othering') and Kevin Roose (New York Times), are authoritative sources of information on the views of Stefan Molyneux, is inconsequential.

Based on your respective edit histories, I can see that both you and SummerPhD have very strong opinions on those you deem to be a part of the 'far-right' (like many journalists do), but please remember that BLPs must be written cautiously and with extra care. - 218.214.175.194 (talk) 21:26, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Nothing in this comment is worth responding to in specific detail. If you have an actionable proposal based on reliable sources, which hasn't already been debated to death, you should start a new section. It is disruptive to revive the dying embers of old drama by inserting unhelpful comments in the middle of a thread. This talk page isn't a playground for expressing indignation over how unfairly the mainstream media treat a white nationalist vlogger. Emulating Molyneux's theatrical pretense of neutrality is almost as ineffective on a Wikipedia talk page as it is in a real life discussion. Grayfell (talk) 21:42, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

This page is for discussing improvements to this article, not for discussing your opinions of what you think my or anyone else's opinions of white supremacists might be. If you have concerns with our editing, this is not the forum you are looking for. Take it to either of our talk pages, AN/I or the appropriate forum of your choice.

The independent reliable sources are The New York Times, The Guardian, etc., not the individual authors. If you feel those sources are not independent reliable source, please take the issue to the Reliable sources noticeboard. I'd suggest starting with The New York Times and going from there. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:24, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Grayfell your personal opinions on my 'neutrality' or the 'helpfulness' of my comment, is irrelevant. As clearly explained in WP:LABEL, the pejorative, value-laden labels used in the lede should not be stated using Wikipedia's voice, regardless of whether the sources are reliable or not.

See WP:CONSENSUSLEVEL. Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope.

SummerPhDv2.0 as I already explained above, whether one thinks that opinion pieces from The New York Times or The Guardian, are high-quality reliable sources or not, is inconsequential. - 218.214.175.194 (talk) 04:56, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Molyneux's political views are not really comparable to shape of the Earth or holocaust numbers. The first is a question of empirical science, the second is a question of historical methodology as well as some empirical proof. For that reason, for wikipedia to have any credibility it has to go by peer reviewed academic sources. On the other hand, the sources describing Molyneux as a White supremacist are just journalistic sources, mostly left leaning media outlets (some super left leaning the SPLC). This article here seems to at least go against neutrality, as I don't see any conservative news journals labeling him a White supremacist.

With that said about the article's lack of neutrality, I do think White nationalist is fitting. He has said numerous times immigration from Black and Brown countries is a mistake because these are low IQ countries. And he has also said that he thinks it's largely because of innate genetic differences. Just watch his interview on the Rubin report, and he even made a video praising Poland for how White it was. "White supremacist" though, that's a tough one. When people get the idea of a White supremacist in their minds, they don't view a guy running an internet podcast talking about IQ scores. They think of KKK rallies or terrorist bombings of Black churches. Arch Hades (talk) 21:40, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

"Low IQ countries" requires evidence. So what are his sources, exactly? This mostly stems from Richard Lynn's work in Mankind Quarterly and published via Washington Summit Publishers, which many, many better academics already poked holes before Molyneux got to it. Citing unreliable white supremacists for misleading/false white supremacist talking points doesn't make him less of a white nationalist. Presenting white nationalist ideas with a flimsy veneer of science doesn't make them less wrong, it just makes them pseudoscience, which we already knew.

Ultimately, none of this has much bearing on Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, so it's drifted into WP:NOTFORUM territory. We, as editors, cannot concern ourselves with one editor's personal opinion about how hypothetical people conceptualize white supremacy, much less how that might potentially be incompatible with vlogging. That's just too many layers of WP:OR. The idea that the SPLC is "super left" is both absurd and irrelevant. The only sources viewing them as "super left" are doing so for political reasons, but since a "super left" source can also be reliable, who cares? Expecting "conservative news journalists" to be propped up as a counter-point is WP:GEVAL. If you have actual sources to propose, do so. Impugning sources based on the hypothetical existence of contrary sources, somewhere, based on some undefined ideological purity test, is non-productive. It's just a way of casting aspersions against those sources with some unnecessary steps added to appear "neutral". Grayfell (talk) 23:48, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Grayfell—don't you think the reader might want to know which entity is characterizing Molyneux a white supremacist? The article can say something like "Source A, Source B, and Source C consider Molyneux a white supremacist." Bus stop (talk) 01:43, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

If readers want to know, that's why we cite sources.

The in-line attribution method gets repetative very quickly and, IMO, is often promoted as a "solution" in situations like this to change simple, direct statements -- like "Stefan Molyneux is a far-right, white nationalist Canadian podcaster and YouTuber who is known for his promotion of scientific racism and white supremacist views" -- into a long, droning list:

SPLC says he is a propagandist for the racist alt-right and pro-Trump ranks.

SPLC, Columbia Journalism Review, Data & Society Research Institute, The Guardian, Palgrave Macmillan say he promotes scientific racism.

SPLC says he promotes eugenics.

SPLC says he uses pseudo-scientific sources.

SPLC says he cloaks the practical implications of his beliefs.

Data & Society Research Institute says he advocates for the men's rights movement.

Data & Society Research Institute says he promotes white supremacist conspiracy theories.

Palgrave Macmillan says his lectures are ill-researched and scientifically unsound.

Politico Magazine and The Washington Post say he is alt-right.

CNN says he is far right.

CNN says his podcast is far right and frequently gives a platform to white nationalists.

The New York Times says he promotes racist conspiracy theories.

The New York Times says he is right wing.

The New York Times says he was a men's rights advocate.

The New York Times says he believes feminism is a form of socialism.

The New York Times says he says progressive gender politics hold young men back.

The New York Times says he is fixated on "race realism", a favored topic of white nationalists.

The New York Times says he promotes white nationalists.

The Independent says he has a perverse fixation on race and IQ.

The Times and Channel 5 describe him as a cult leader.

The Globe and Mail and Channel 5 say he encourages people to cut off contact with their families.

The Globe and Mail says he is often compared to a cult leader.

The Daily Beast says his podcast is often compared to a cult.

- SummerPhD^v2.0 03:02, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Grayfell. I'm not really interested in debating or providing evidence about Nationality and IQ. This article isn't about that. I think his sources are just from guys like Lynn, Rushton, Jenson, Murray & Hernstein etc as you say. I believe even Flynn says these are countries which score lower on IQ (as do Black Americans vs White Americans and East Asian Americans), but he maintains a much more environmentalist stance. You are right that from what I can tell, most of the time in his podcast he's just asserting this. Perhaps he's just taking for granted his viewers have read the material he has, I dunno. Anyway, I agree he can be viewed as a White Nationalist. I mean if you oppose immigration from Black and Brown countries then how are you not a White Nationalist or at least your views are very in line with White Nationalist views? If a British person opposes immigration from Ireland or France, we can assume he's a British Nationalist. So if Molyneux does this with only with Black and Brown countries, I'd say we can assume he's a White Nationalist. Not to mention he literally has videos praising Poland for being all White, etc.

I just said the article lacks neutrality. There's not a single conservative source labeling him a White supremacist. The SPLC is very left leaning, New York times, CNN and Buzzfeed, etc are more central or central-left but they are still left leaning. If there was an article on a youtuber and it labeled him a Communist, Marxist, etc (favorite epithets of Molyneux) and the only sources were from Fox News and Breitbart I'd be a little suspicious and would definitely say the article lacked neutrality.Arch Hades (talk) 03:41, 8 April 2020 (UTC) Anyway, that's my two-cents, just though i could give advice in how to improve it. I'm honestly not the biggest fan of Molyneux so if he's a bit misrepresented on here it is not my problem. Arch Hades (talk) 03:49, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

You're right that this isn't the place to debate nationality and IQ (or the white supremacist tendency to use "nationality" as a proxy for "race), so this isn't the place to casually mention misleading information about that topic, either. James Flynn (even Flynn) is an academic who has provided context and nuance, and his work has been challenged by other reputable academics. Cherry-picking one of his positions in support of this fringe perspective is not an excuse to ignore that context. It is also not a justification for getting in the last word.

You cannot misrepresent Flynn's work to imply that Molyneux's pseudoscience has legitimacy. Not even in passing, and not even on a talk page. To quote Flynn: "You have a limited amount of time in your life, and if you look at what every nut says about every issue, you’ll never have time to do anything else."[1][2] This quote was specifically about Molyneux. Still, Flynn is not the polar opposite to Lynn merely because they disagree on IQ. This false dichotomy is frequently taken advantage of by racists. They are not two equal sides of a debate, and we are not obligated to waste time humoring junk science.

The SPLC is not "very left leaning" unless you are getting that description form sources like Breitbart or the op-ed section of Fox News. If that's the case, I am surprised you would concede that Buzzfeed is "more central". Why on Earth you think this is relevant to this discussion is beyond me, however. Bretbart is so unreliable it has been blacklisted from Wikipedia (per WP:BREITBART). We should not attempt to arbitrarily add unreliable "conservative" sources to balance-out reliable "left" ones. As I said, we are not interested in false balance.

Also, as I said, if you have reliable sources, regardless of supposed political ideology, propose them. We've already had more than enough people kvetching about the supposed bias of the SPLC on this talk page, and on dozens of other talk pages. If you have sources, propose them. Grayfell (talk) 23:10, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Stefan Molyneux

I think many of the things Molyneux says are taken out of context and then published on Wikipedia as reputable sources. He had a lot of experts and academics on his shows, not just Jared Taylor. How come those people with credentials and experts are never mentioned? Anyone can check the credentials of his guests and their expertise. Why can't Wikipedia do this as well? Is it too much of a chore? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.108.11.20 (talk) 04:23, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources say about a subject. In dependent reliable sources say he frequently "gives a platform to white nationalists", "promotes white nationalists" and "promotes racist conspiracy theories." That's what the sources say, so that's what Wikipedia says. - SummerPhD^v2.0 05:04, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Please don't edit your comments after someone has responded, as you did here. It gets confusing. Please just add a new comment after the response.

Wikipedia generally does not use primary sources very much (Molyneux's blog wout be a primary source in an article about him). Instead, we summarize what [[WP:IRS|independent reliable sources say about a subject.

The independent sources say he is a far-right, white nationalist Canadian podcaster and YouTuber who is known for his promotion of scientific racism and white supremacist views, so that's what Wikipedia says. Wikipedia will not look at who his guests were, look up who they are, decide if they are good/bad/indifferent, right-wing/left-wing/centrist, random people/recognized experts/complete lunatics or anything else.

If independent reliable sources say his guests are almost all fans of the Boston Red Sox, that's what Wikipedia will say. If the sources don't mention his guests, Wikipedia won't. It's that simple. - SummerPhD^v2.0 05:53, 8 April 2020 (UTC)