Talk:Stefan Molyneux

This article reminds me of very primitive Soviet propaganda,

with all those doubtful name calling, ideologically engaged sentences and judgements, significant effort to put described person in bad shade. The article contains very little informational value and very big judgmental side - there is very little information of actual views of the person, instead a lot of quotes from random ( actually not so random, because all picked opinions are strictly negative ) people how they evaluate those views ,and how they categorize described person (without presenting what he even said himself) - which is clearly a try to devaluate described person by appealing to authorities. This article is so far away from neutral POV policy it makes me speechless. It's a shame.

B.Informata — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:F41:38DB:CEED:646E:C50B:F69B:EF28 (talk) 04:35, 19 July 2020 (UTC) — 2A00:F41:38DB:CEED:646E:C50B:F69B:EF28 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Sorry you are so unhappy. If you have independent reliable sources discussing the harmonious side of Molyneux. Feel free to list them here.

Until then, all we have are independent reliable sources saying he is a far-right, white nationalist and white supremacist podcaster and former YouTuber who is best known for his promotion of conspiracy theories, scientific racism, eugenics and white supremacist views, which we neutrally report, per WP:NPOV. - SummerPhD^v2.0 05:17, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Except that is the Soviet Union the media was state controlled, we base this article in non state independent media. So if you have independent third party non state RS that contradict our claims, please provide them.Slatersteven (talk) 10:52, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I took a look at some of the sources. The first source from NBC News calls him a "white nationalist", but gives absolutely zero proof or sources of this. The second source from the Independent calls him a "white nationalist who has been accused of promoting scientific racism". First of all, the Independent doesn't give any proof or sources of this white nationalist label either. Second of all, the Independent literally reads "who has been accused of". Anybody could make an article on the internet saying "Person XYZ has been accused of [insert horrible crime here]" and it would be 100% legal because anybody can accuse anybody of anything.

For the third source... it's the SPLC which shouldn't be used as a source as the first section in the Talk Page clearly lays out and explains. For the fourth source, Columbia Journalism Review; all it does is once again resort to name-calling without giving any proof or sources. In conclusion, the first four "sources" fail to provide any substance or proof of the claims. It's unfortunate that mindless churnalism is now acceptable as a source these days. --Barren Tundra (talk) 17:45, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Sources do not have to give proof, that is why they are RS.Slatersteven (talk) 17:47, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority#Cognitive_bias — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.114.36.201 (talk) 09:02, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

wp:rs, its a policy. If you do not like it argue for it to be changed.Slatersteven (talk) 09:34, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

It is not "proof" which is missing from this article. Missing are examples of things Molyneux might have said that suggest the validity of the label "racist". Bus stop (talk) 16:04, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Again, and again, and again, and again: Independent reliable sources do not need to "prove" anything. If independent reliable sources say something, it is verifiable. Independent reliable sources regularly and repeatedly say Molyneux is a white supremacist/white nationalist so Wikipedia verifiably and neutrally reports that Molyneux is a white supremacist/white nationalist.

Your continuing inability to hear this is disruptive. - SummerPhD^v2.0 06:11, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Consider this about the white supremacist issue

STEFAN MOLYNEUX vs. WHITE SUPREMACY — Preceding unsigned comment added by LadyLirazel (talk) 09:10, 20 July 2020 (UTC)— LadyLirazel (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Yes, we know he claims he is not, I claim you ow me £5,000, is that true?Slatersteven (talk) 09:29, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

See 9:12 to 10:08. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:02, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

He, in this video, provides justification for not being a white supremacist, by referencing many of his past statements, putting them into context. --LadyLirazel (talk) 11:07, 20 July 2020 (UTC)— LadyLirazel (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

And? He would be an RS for him saying it is not true. But wp:rs is clear he is not an RS for it not being true.Slatersteven (talk) 11:21, 20 July 2020 (UTC),

He would be a reliable source for saying he said it, but he is not an independent reliable source. We don't clutter an article with a selection of things dependent sources say about a subject, otherwise every article about a car or cheeseburger would be clogged with so much marketing garbage from the companies making them that there would be no real content. I'm sure Molyneux says LOTS of things about himself, but those things are simply not relevant -- unless the statements are discussed in independent reliable sources (or provide basic, uncontroversial biographical info under WP:PSTS). - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:19, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

And his points are an attempt to distract from the things he's said that really only make sense in a certain context. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:55, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

And so how do you deal with the case where "independent sources" are only voicing their opinions as opposed to something substantive? To use your analogy, at some point in the past, a rumor went around that Wendy's Burgers had worms in them, and so you can just imagine the hysteria of mutiple "independent sources" all claiming the same, not based on fact, but based on fear. It turned out that the rumor was false, but damage had been done to Wendy's reputation at the time.

Of course, they have long since recovered.

How many of these "independent sources" point to anything substantive? Have you even bothered watching the video yourself? Stefan basically points to his own past posts and statements, which any "independent source" would be expected to do the same!!!--LadyLirazel (talk) 16:32, 20 July 2020 (UTC)— LadyLirazel (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

If enough RS say something is true, we have to assume they have all checked, that is why they are RS (see wp:rs).Slatersteven (talk) 16:38, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

LadyLirazel: Independent reliable sources did not regularly and repeatedly say any such thing about Wendy's burgers. Independent reliable sources do regularly and repeatedly define Molyneux as a white nationalist/white supremacist. These are not randomly circulating rumors, it's why Molyneux is notable. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:51, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

SummerPhDv2.0—on the issue of whether or not Molyneux is racist, his own opinion on that question warrants inclusion. You compare to "a car or cheeseburger" but that is far afield. Racism being a highly abstract concept, the reader should be afforded a glimpse of many facets pertaining to that underlying question. I think you are simplifying to a harmful degree. You seem to be endeavoring to put a person into a small, enclosed compartment, but abstract concepts don't lend themselves to succinct definitions. I am not saying the question is not legitimate. But we best address that question by providing the reader with a multitude of responses to the question of the alleged racism of Molyneux. One such response would be the response provided by Molyneux. This is an important question in this article that should not be given short shrift. Bus stop (talk) 17:30, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

EVERY source we cite within the past five years defines Molyneux as being a white supremacist/white nationalist/etc. It's what he's notable for. That you feel it is "negative" and should be screened out doesn't change that.

That Molyneux wants to say he isn't a white supremacist, is a philosopher, has a world-class stamp collection or whatever are all things that independent reliable sources have taken absolutely no notice of. Wikipedia is not in the habit of scouring primary sources to find something for the subject to say about themselves. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:58, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

You aren't explaining—why wouldn't we report that "Molyneux wants to say he isn't a white supremacist"? Is that somehow not valid for inclusion? Bus stop (talk) 05:16, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Why aren't we "explaining" everything Donald Trump says about himself or everything Ford said about the Pinto? Two reasons: First, you would be selecting material from thousands of "pages" (hundreds of hours of podcasts/videos) to include. (Pick a world leader you don't know very well. With very little effort, you can make them sound like the next Pol Pot or the kindest human who ever lived.) Next, you would be interpreting that primary source.

How -- objectively -- will we select what to include? Given that the material is not in any independent sources, how is it not the poster child for WP:WEIGHT issues? - SummerPhD^v2.0 06:42, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

We link to one source for "he has however denied this", its not hard.Slatersteven (talk) 07:50, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

"How -- objectively -- will we select what to include?" By topic, SummerPhDv2.0. We "select" based on whether the comment or assertion is on topic. Does the comment reflect his reaction to being called a "white supremacist"? If so, that might be a good candidate for inclusion, because it is on topic. Once again, we have to get back to what we are talking about. We are talking about racism. We are talking about allegations of racism. You've been talking about everything but racism. At the WP:BLP/N#Stefan Molyneux you say If independent reliable sources said that Molyneux is a cheese sandwich, Wikipedia would say "Stefan Molyneux is a cheese sandwich." That may be funny but that also changes the subject, in that case to cheese sandwiches. It would be appropriate to include in this article the view(s) of Molyneux on his own alleged racism. Such inclusion has the potential to inform the reader about the subject of the article. We aren't trying to paint a one-dimensional portrait of Molyneux in which he is racist and racist only and irredeemably racist, racist, racist. You are claiming that "EVERY source we cite within the past five years defines Molyneux as being a white supremacist". Is Molyneux only a racist? I don't think our aim is to "define" Molyneux. Racism could be a part of his personality. We should be aiming to introduce nuance concerning these charges of racism and white supremacism. Yet you are arguing that we can't even include his own view on whether or not he is a racist. Bus stop (talk) 12:26, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Bus stop, not really, per WP:MANDY. Most racists don't admit to being racists. It's almost as if they know that racism is actually abhorrent. Guy (help!) 12:59, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Bus stop: You say "racist" a lot. I don't. Sources do not say he is a racist, they say -- regularly and repeatedly -- that he is a white supremacist/white nationalist. As a result, Wikipedia verifiably says he is a white supremacist. Independent reliable sources do not say he is a white nationalist who says he is not a white nationalist, so Wikipedia does not say that. That you have selected a few lines from hundreds of hours of video and podcasts that you interpret as saying something you feel is relevant -- but that independent reliable sources don't see as relevant -- doesn't seem to be how Wikipedia articles are written. If editors at Donald Trump and/or Barack Obama dug through hundreds of hours of recordings to find primary source material that they feel is relevant -- exactly what you are doing -- those articles would be hundreds of times longer than they are. - SummerPhD^v2.0 19:00, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

• For context, Molyneux is now known for "white nationalism" above all else, but Molyneux's presentation of his own views is not consistent, or even coherent, over time. Any attempt to summarize or cite his own works is going to be a mess.

As the SPLC profile documents, the signs were always there, but when sources first noticed him around 2008 he was known for "cult-like" views of family. For a long time, he was grouped with the men's rights movement, and the few sources that paid any attention mostly commented on his views of women (which are remarkably strange). I think it's unfortunate that more recent sources have not covered this aspect, as I think it would be very useful to be able to explain to readers how white nationalism, anarcho-capitalism, and misogyny are connected. Oh well. Since he lost his important social media accounts, sources have largely ignored just about everything about him, especially his efforts at public relations. We follow sources.

Any discussion of this as an update would needs to start with updated reliable sources, but there really aren't that many out there. Grayfell (talk) 00:28, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I didn't want to do it myself, but I affirm Grayfell's most recent update in keeping the quality of this page unblemished. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 03:55, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I have followed Stefan Molyneux for over 10 years, have listened to hundreds of hours of his videos and podcasts, and when I say that he is not a "white supremacist" or "white nationalist", that should carry some weight. Of all your cited sources here, how many of them have done the same? Or did they all take one statement he said out of context and have overblown it? Or well, 100 Frenchman says so, so it's gotta be so.

It's kinda like if someone were to say to you, "So when did you stop beating your wife?", and now you are left holding the bag defending yourself, with everyone saying "this wife-beater is not owning up to his wrong!!!" How is that any different from how this page treats Stefan? Perhaps if the ad-honimen attacks that are on this page were replaced with actual evidence, actual quotes, and the like, allow the readers to decide for themselves? What a concept!--LadyLirazel (talk) 10:26, 22 July 2020 (UTC) — LadyLirazel (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Because they are RS which means they tend to check facts. And no your OR carries no weight, any more than any other users.Slatersteven (talk) 10:30, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I'll merely say you confessed to WP:CONFLICT by stating "I have followed Stefan Molyneux for over 10 years" meaning any edit you make should be reverted on principle. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 18:52, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

It would be interesting to see what "facts" they are "checking", as they run counter to what I know of Stefan. And that's the entire problem, isin't it. Objectivity. I've been over the science myself regarding average IQ difference among different ethnic groups, etc. The data and findings are very real, but difficult for many to swallow. Stefan is just the messenger. Perhaps what I say "carries no weight", but only because no one knows me here. So when did you stop beating your wife? See how inflamatory that sounds? Or, there are not many Chinese men tall enough to play in American Basketball. This is a factual statement. It does not mean that I -- or anyone else who states this fact -- is an "American Supremacist". There are basic biological difference among ethnic groups driven by evolution over time. And as much as we might hate it, the same forces of evolution has made a difference in cognitive ability ON AVERAGE. Our ancestors who never ventured out of Africa were not under the same selective pressures as those who migrated northwards and had to face different climates, had to learn how to plan to feed themselves and stay worm during the winter months, etc. Evolution is a fact. It does not matter whether we like it or not. It does not make me a "white supremacist" for pointing out the facts of evolution anymore than it makes Stefan Moleyneux one.

I have checked out the first three citations. Two of which slams Stefan Molyneux as a "White nationalist" without offering any evidence. One accuses him of "scientific racism", whatever that's supposed to be, again without offering any supporting evidence. Reliable? --LadyLirazel (talk) 19:06, 22 July 2020 (UTC)— LadyLirazel (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Read wp:or and wp:v.Slatersteven (talk) 19:41, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Again and again and again: Reliable soures do not have to prove anything, ever. That they do not offer "proof" is immaterial. - SummerPhD^v2.0 06:21, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Its time to close this.Slatersteven (talk) 09:43, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven, Agree. The horse is dead. Guy (help!) 09:51, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I know Stefan Molyneux has some ardent fans, so the article is hard to police.

On the other hand, with so many newspapers and press outlets closing and laying off staff since the development of the internet, the quality of reporters' reporting has gone down and around the world and people trust the press less and less. Maybe press outlets don't pay like they used to and can't attract top talent.

Gallup reported in 2019: Americans' Trust in Mass Media Edges Down to 41%.[1] Pew Research indicated in 2009 "Press Accuracy Rating Hits Two Decade Low".[2]

Wikipedia should take this into account as far as what so-called reliable sources indicate.

The Independent reporter made a mistake when he indicated that Stefan Molyneux is a white supremacist. Molyneux claims that Ashkenazi Jews and East Asians have higher IQs than non-Jewish whites.[3].Knox490 (talk) 21:10, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

The Pew link is an article about American reader opinions of the overall accuracy of all outlets. It is inappropriate, for several reasons, to use that here to make claims about the reliability of one specific UK source.

Further, this is a "mistake" only if we accept a very specific, very simplistic, and very convenient use of "supremacy" which has been artificially detached from "white supremacy". This would be WP:OR in defense of a specific viewpoint.

Last, if journalist accuracy is important to you, Dave Rubin's youtube show should be avoided at all costs. Grayfell (talk) 21:25, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

The British trust the accuracy of the British press very, very little on their coronavirus reporting.[4]

Gallup reported in 2019: "The degree that the public trusts journalists varies widely across 144 countries and territories included in the 2018 Wellcome Global Monitor study. Worldwide, the percentage who express at least some trust in journalists ranges from a low of 12% in Greece to a high of 93% in Uzbekistan. Median global trust in journalists stands at 59% -- the trust level in the United States."[5]

The UK/American press, pundits and pollsters got Brexit and the 2016 presidential election wrong. The reliability of these people aren't what they used to be.

Tim Russert is dead. Ted Koppel is semi-retired. The mainstream press hasn't replaced them with comparable quality. Koppel says the greater politicization of the press has made it impossible for them to be seen as being objective by the public.[6]Knox490 (talk) 22:14, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

My point is that it is apparent that Molyneux appears to have a very specific type of racial supremacy view and nobody is more of an expert on Molyneux's views on race/IQs more than Molyneux. Furthermore, the press doesn't have the degree of accuracy/quality in their reporting that they had in the past. And there are many reasons for this, but the lower profitability of the news reporting business post the internet is certainly among them. Finally, Wikipedia does have a "ignore all rules" rule so that common sense prevails.Knox490 (talk) 22:42, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Knox490: If you want to sincerely argue that mainstream journalism isn't reliable (and aren't just looking for an excuse to discount whatever you don't like hearing about Molyneux), you're going to need to go to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) and suggest that we scrap the WP:No original research policy and WP:Identifying reliable sources guideline.

Also, (source, see pages 44-46), less than two-thirds of the world knows that electrons are smaller than atoms, about half of people in the world think antibiotics kill bacteria and don't know that lasers are made from light, more than a third (almost two-thirds of Americans) don't know about the Big Bang, and about a third of the world doesn't know what a Y Chromosome is. The problem with polls is that the general public are mostly idiots (by definition, about half of the population should have a double-digit IQ and the most average person you can think of should be riding the line). The generation that trusted Tim Russert and Ted Koppel (reasonable as they were) was also the generation that thought that the war on drugs was a good idea (and not colonialism), and that trickle-down economics might actually work ("people are idiots" is a historical constant rather than a trend).

A serious problem with the argument that no one is a better source for Molyneux's views than Molyneux is that the Alt-right lies all the Goddamn time about what they actually believe (as to most cults), in order to appear more presentable. It started with "Oh, we're not white supremacists, we're white nationalists" and when people realized that it's still the same Nazis, they said "oh, we're not white nationalists, we're identitarians," "we're race realists," "we're the alt-right," and so on. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:58, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Mr. Molyneux is undoubtedly the expert as to the nuances of his own beliefs (and his own phenomenological experiences), but that does not mean he gets to categorize himself as a matter of ipse dixit. If, arguendo, imagine I proclaim loudly that I am not a flat-earther, I just believe the universe consists only of our earthly realm, and it is finite and bounded. No matter how much I protest, other people are well within their rights to say "yeah, that's just flat-eartherism." To put it more succinctly: if it looks like a milkshake duck, walks like a milkshake duck, and walks like a milkshake duck, it's a white supremacist. Or something along those lines. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:05, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

If we are going to talk about common sense, common sense says we shouldn't trust him. Doug Weller talk 09:19, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Maybe he is, but people lie all the time.Slatersteven (talk) 09:22, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

It's obvious that Molyneux buys into the ideas of English psychologist Richard Lynn about the high IQs of East Asians mixed in with a belief about the high intelligence of Ashkenazi Jews (which is a common belief). Thats why Molyneux claims that Ashkenazi Jews and East Asians have higher IQs than non-Jewish whites.[7]. Whether or not he holds to the views of Charles Murray (Author of the book The Bell Curve) I don't know (Molyneux did interview Murray, but I did not watch the interview).

On the left end of the political end of the political spectrum, their is a knee jerk propensity to call all white people who claim there are racial differences in intelligence white supremacists, but we know that is not true because Richard Lynn indicates that East Asians are the most intelligent people on the earth and Lynn is a white man. You will notice that the Wikipedia Richard Lynn article does not call him a white supremacist.

Now the Vox Day Wikipedia article indicates, "he has been described as a white supremacist". But the Vox Day article also indicates "Concerning the notion of white supremacy, Day has said, "white supremacy simply isn't true. Whites are not superior, but whites are the only tribe willing and able to maintain Western civilization because they are the only tribe that truly values it. The answer for those who support Western civilization, regardless of sex, color, or religion, is to embrace white tribalism, white separatism, and especially white Christian masculine rule."[8] This is a compromise that was made. That a compromise was made is not surprising since Day is a mixed race person (White and Native American). Day does have some racist ideas and calls black women who marry white men "mudsharks".[9]

I propose that a compromise version of the article be done for the Molyneux article and have the Wikipedia article for him indicate "he has been described as a white supremacist". And then later in the article quote what Molyneux says about himself. Knox490 (talk) 11:50, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

"White supremacist" [[10]], [[11]], [[12]]. This list could also other variations or ""white nationalist channels", I have chosen not to. So do you have one RS that says "he is not a white nationalist"?Slatersteven (talk) 12:02, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven, you first cite the Southern Poverty Law Center which has been rocked by scandals (for example, National Public Radio (NPR) published a piece entitled "After Allegations Of Toxic Culture, Southern Poverty Law Center Tries To Move Forward").[13] So the SPLC cannot really be called a "reliable source".

You then cite the Huffington Post, but Wikipedia's article on the HuffPost has a very extensive "Criticism and controversy section, so the HuffPost should not be considered a "reliable source".

Forbes, which you cite, does have an elitist flavor to it and much of corporate America leans to the left nowadays, but many people consider Forbes to be a reliable source and I would grant you that. I would say on business matters, Forbes is a reliable source, but not so much on cultural matters as they are a business publication and not cultural anthropologists.Knox490 (talk) 12:19, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

SO? the SPLC is an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 12:26, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ad Fontes Media puts Forbes dead in the middle. To imply that it's leftist suggests you're trapped so deep in a far-right echo chamber that you might be willing to cite white supremacists' own admissions to being white supramcists as some sort of defense against accusations of being white supremacists. Wait, you also did that. Why are you still here? Ian.thomson (talk) 12:27, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) The ContraPoints video I've already linked to above (and here again, see 9:12 to 10:08) explains the problem with that East Asian red herring, it's dishonest pedantry. The Vox Day quote is pretty much a confession to being a white supremacist. If you think a quote including the line "The answer for those who support Western civilization, regardless of sex, color, or religion, is to embrace white tribalism, white separatism, and especially white Christian masculine rule" is balancing against being described as a white supremacist (rather than being evidence of being a white supremacist), you don't need to be editing. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:27, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

IanThompson, I don't follow Stefan Molyneux very closely and only watched a couple of his videos. But what I am seeing in the footnotes largely seems to indicate is sort of a tribalist who believes that various racial tribes should control various geographic areas.

I don't see any direct quotes of Molyneux saying that the white race is supreme or of him embracing neo-nazism (Nazis clearly asserted Germanic/white supremacy).

As far as your comment that I am caught up in a right-wing echo chamber (your commentary on my comment on Forbes), I don't follow right-wing news sources. Frankly, given the unreliability of todays news publications and the greater ideological bent/polarization of the press, I don't have the time to watch the news from the various sources in order to get a more objective/balanced view of today's news. So instead, I look at various trends, reliable research, etc. I wish today's press were of comparable quality of 20th century journalists, but they are not given the lower profit margins of the news business due to the internet competing with news organizations (foreign news bureaus closing, news organizations engaging in mass layoffs, newspapers closing, etc. etc.). Much of today's news is sensational or entertainment and is very click-baitish. That's why news programming is often referred to as "news shows". It is entertainment and not very informative.Knox490 (talk) 12:50, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

KnocksFourNinty, Molyneux has straight up said that white nationalism works. Multiple sources have pointed out that Molyneux has pushed politics that advance a white supremacist agenda. This is why I cited Contra. Your appeal to tradition doesn't counter that. The news media in the past played "both sides" (at best) with regard to the Civil Rights movement, so it's really not a great example of what we should be emulating when addressing the issue of whether someone who says that white nationalism works, who claims that white people are smarter than "other" people, who equates modern western civilization with mere skin color -- is or is not a white supremacist. Also, you've yet to cite any actual news, and are instead arguing against the sort of institutions that have remained reliable. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:08, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

IanThompson, you mention a Vox Day quote. Are you referring to Wikipedia indicating that Day "has been described as a white supremacist". Or are you referring to the actual Vox Day quote in the Wikipedia article? Because the actual Vox Day quote in the Wikipedia article has Day clearly indicating that the white race is not supreme and that white supremacy is not true.

I ask because I am proposing a compromise version of the Stefan Molyneux be done.

Right now, the Wikipedia article appears to be inacurrate. Given the reliable sources (and the actual evidence the sources bring forth) and the lack of quotes of Molyneux asserting white supremacy or embracing neo-nazism, it would appear as if Molyneux is a tribalist and someone who embraces the idea that East Asians and Ashkenazi Jews have the highest intelligence (Molyneux claims that Ashkenazi Jews and East Asians have higher IQs than non-Jewish whites).[14] And given that Molyneux interviewed Charles Murray, it would not suprise me if Molyneux embraces the notion that whites have higher intelligence than blacks as a race (But as I noted, I did not watch the interview).

By the way, for clarity sake, I will point out that the the science of genetics demonstrates that humans cannot be divided into biologically distinct "races". Various articles and science journal articles been written about that matter (Scientific American, etc.).[15][16] So although I use the word race above, I believe the term race is a misnomer (made up label) from a scientific point of view.Knox490 (talk) 13:21, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

As I recall he was banned for posing white supremacist and white nationalist material on social media, [17], [18], [19], yes he was.Slatersteven (talk) 13:32, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Why are we arguing then?

1. There are reliable sources calling him "White supremacist", so we don't need to engage in any speculation or WP:OR 2. Molyneux is not a reliable source about his own views, so we can discard whatever he has to say. 3. The fact that other wiki pages say such and such things has no bearing on this article. (and IMO that quote by Vox Day has no place in an encyclopedia anyways). Also whatever "white tribalism" is, judging from the quote by Day it seems to just be white supremacism anyways. 4. It is also sourced that Molyneux has promoted scientific racism - which is really the only way to describe all this talk about IQ quoted here. Mvbaron (talk) 13:39, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't think anyone disputes that Molyneux has been deplatformed from various social media platforms.

The issue is whether he is a white supremacist and/or a white nationist.

I will point out that given the sources and the evidence they gave and some of Molyneux's own words, it appears as if he holds to some kind of pecking order in terms of the "races" and inteligence (namely East Asians the smartest, whites the next smartest and blacks being the lowest intelligence) given that he interviewed Charles Murray and appears to hold to some of Richard Lynn's views (according to what Molyneux said about East Asians). Again, I think the term "race" is a misnomer from a scientific point of view (see my comment above).

Molyneux does appear to be a tribalist from the sources I saw quoted in the article.

I don't particularly like Molyneux. I think he is a creep for saying what he says about parents, etc. etc. I added my input as far as how the article could be improved and I am going to leave it at that.Knox490 (talk) 13:59, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

This is my last comment here (and you need to read wp:tenditious) We do not use wp:or to analysis the factual accuracy of sources, we use other WP:RS. Nor do wp:primary sources trump secondary sources. So unless you have at least one RS that says (explicitly, see wp:v) that he is not a white supremacists you have no valid case. At this point you need to WP:JUSTDROPIT, before everyone's patience is exhausted and you are made to.Slatersteven (talk) 14:04, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

"The answer for those who support Western civilization, regardless of sex, color, or religion, is to embrace white tribalism, white separatism, and especially white Christian masculine rule" is advocacy for white nationalism, which is a code phrase for white supremacism under the pretense that being regionalized somehow makes it better. What is to be done with the non-white people living in majority white countries to establish a white homeland? For you to say that quote shows Day clearly indicating that the white race is not supreme and that white supremacy is not true is to excuse white supremacism and nothing more, whether through gross ignorance or willing defense. That you keep bringing up the East Asian red herring that I've already explained the problem with doesn't help. In any case, stop editing this talk page, civilization doesn't need you. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:08, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Ian Thompson, Vox Day indicates he is of European-Hispanic-Native American descent in terms of his ancestry. That puts a damper on your Day commentary. Furthermore, Wikipedia does not call Vox Day a white supremacist. Wikipedia says in their Wikipedia article "He has been described as a white supremacist". Maybe the reason for this is that Day has a reputation for suing organizations/people so Wikipedia does not call Day a white supremacist.

Second, accurately describing another person's views doesn't make someone uncivilized. Don't resort to personal attacks when you are losing arguments and/or when people disagree with you. Your "civilization doesn't need you" comment violates Wikipedia's civility rule.

Third, Wikipedia has a rule called "Wikipedia ignore all rules" so I certainly have the right to appeal common sense buttressed by sufficient evidence. For example, if 5 journalists say the sky is purple, I can certainly say it is blue if I can providence excellent evidence that it is blue. You can certainly cite Wikipedia rule after Wikipedia rule, but I can certainly bring up Wikipedia's rule of ignore all rules. Knox490 (talk) 03:48, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

But this is not a sky is blue scenario, many users here would say that Moly is blatantly a white supremacist who uses...but that is also wp:or, why does your OR trump mine or Ian's? Drop this now, you are not going to get your way.Slatersteven (talk) 09:42, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Knox490, the main difference is that Molyneux is "famous" pretty much exclusively for his racist activism. Day at least has a few video game credits to his name. Guy (help!) 11:55, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Socioeconomic factors have an effect on intelligence.[20] Ethnic groups facing discrimination as immigrants and their IQs temporarily dropping and then later rebounding when the discrimination is over, strongly suggests that IQ is significantly affected by one's environment and not due to any inherent and permanent genetic differences between races.[21]

Molyneux interviewed Charles Murray who takes the view that “intelligence is fixed at birth” and that intelligence is “part of our genetic makeup that is invulnerable to change.”[22] And Murray subscribes that certain races have below average intelligence. Molyneux certainly may hold to some of Murray's errant views about intelligence/race - especially if he did not challenge Murray's views on intelligence/race during his interview with Murray. So the charge that Molyneux is a racist certainly may have merit. Vox Day also holds to some racist views as he calls black women who date white men "mudsharks".

However, I did some additional research and Vox Day indicated that Singaporeans have the highest average IQ in the world.[23] As I noted above, Molyneux believes East Asians and Ashkenazi Jews are smarter than white non-Ashkazi Jews.

Therefore, neither Molyneux nor Day can be credibly called white supremacists given their statement about East Asians/Singaporeans and intelligence, but the charge of them being racists can certainly be argued for.Knox490 (talk) 13:13, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Knox490 Please do not edit your comments after someone has responded to them as it inappropriately changes the meaning of other people's comments. - SummerPhD^v2.0 20:33, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

You are absolutely, verifiably wrong. Molyneux can be called a white supremacist. We know this because independent reliable sources regularly and repeatedly specifically identify him as a white supremacist/white nationalist. That you disagree with those sources is completely irrelevant here. Molyneux is verifiably a white supremacist/white nationalist, so that's what Wikipedia says.

If you would like to argue the finer points of various flavors of racism and data that you feel support them, you are free to do so on a blog, youtube, Facebook and various other social media platforms. You are not free to discuss it here. The horse is quite dead. The rotting pool of horse flash and bones you are beating will not be going anywhere. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:50, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Knox490, despite your edit here, we do credibly say Molyneux is a white nationalist/white supremacist. It is very well sourced to multiple independent reliable sources that regularly and repeatedly describe Molyneux as a white nationalist/white supremacist. It is verifiable.

This is a dead horse. Put down the stick next to the rotting pile of horse meat and bones. It will not run. - SummerPhD^v2.0 20:33, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Molyneux has stated "I have always opposed the idea of racial superiority/inferiority." Molyneux has stated "I’ve always been skeptical of the ideas of white nationalism, of identitarianism, and white identity. However, I am an empiricist, and I could not help but notice that I could have peaceful, free, easy, civilized and safe discussions in what is, essentially, an all-white country." Please weigh in at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Stefan Molyneux about this and several other issues raised about the problematic nature of this article. Bus stop (talk) 04:33, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

As has been explained to you repeatedly, zero independent reliable sources have seen any reason to discuss his claims that he is not a white nationalist/white supremacist when every reliable source saying anything about him in the past five years specifically identifies him as such. All of the independent reliable sources say he is a white supremacist/white nationalist. None of the sources say he says he isn't a white supremacist/white nationalist. I know you don't like this, but not hearing it is a problem. - SummerPhD^v2.0 05:41, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Please refrain from telling me what I like/dislike. This in response to "I know you don't like this". At the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Stefan Molyneux I have raised the question of including the words of Molyneux on his alleged racism. Bus stop (talk) 06:19, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

SummerPhD, I have repeatedly pointed out to you that mainstream press and their pundits are distrusted by a very large percentage of the public and they have made many embarrassing mistakes, pushed crazy conspiracy theories and are overly partisan (Trump/Russia collusion, Hillary Clinton was going to win the election, Brexit was not going to pass, etc.).

Furthermore, there have been notable causes of these so-called reliable mainstream news sources engaging in fraud. For example, consider this article "ABC News Apologizes for Airing Fake Syria Bombing Video".[24]

Business Insider published a news article entitled "Journalists drink too much, are bad at managing emotions, and operate at a lower level than average, according to a new study" which stated: "Journalists’ brains show a lower-than-average level of executive functioning, according to a new study, which means they have a below-average ability to regulate their emotions, suppress biases, solve complex problems, switch between tasks, and show creative and flexible thinking. The study, led by Tara Swart, a neuroscientist and leadership coach, analysed 40 journalists from newspapers, magazines, broadcast, and online platforms over seven months. The participants took part in tests related to their lifestyle, health, and behaviour."[25]

Today's journalists are not paragons of reliability/objectivity. It's very refreshing that Wikipedia has the "Ignore all rules" rule so that actual evidence can be used to determine matters instead of mainstream news journalists.Knox490 (talk) 03:50, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• @Knox490: That you can't spell my name correctly suggests problems reading on your part -- that or a subtle attempt at trolling which would leave you with little room to complain about civility. You have long since gone past the being tendentious, and the IAR page you cite is not so you can ignore credible sources that call Molyneux a white supremacist, it's not so you can defend white supremacists, it's not so you can ignore when your arguments are shot down and just rephrase them, it's so we can point out that you're tendentiously defending white supremacists beyond any reasonable policy-based point but are instead wiki-lawyering just to try to win. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:29, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Ian.thomson, when you make a big deal about putting an extra p in your name and make a snide remark about my reading comprehension, you are committing the style over substance logical fallacy and engaging in a ad hominemen logical fallacy.[26]

Next, I have clearly said that I believe that "race" is a misnomer from a scientific point of view so the charge that I am defending white supremacist is not credible - especially in light of Molyneux's statement about East Asians having a higher intelligence than whites who are not Ashkenazi Jews. Knox490 (talk) 16:40, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Independent reliable sources regularly and repeatedly identify Molyneux as a white supremacist/white nationalist. As a result, Wikipedia verifiably and neutrally reports the same. If you would like to argue that some other flavor of racism better describes him, feel free to do so on your blog or some other site. It simply does not belong here. - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:22, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

We are most decidedly veering into WP:NOTAFORUM territory here, and I think this discussion has just about run its course. Knox490, if there are specific changes you would like to propose, or a draft you'd like to submit for review, then by all means do so. But this seems to be going nowhere fast. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:58, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Dumuzid, the article certainly might be accurate if it says that Molyneux holds to "scientific racism" (I did not watch his interview with Charles Murray for example), but not if it claims he is a white supremacist (Molyneux's statement about East Asians having a higher intelligence than whites who are not Ashkenazi Jews). The article could also be accurate if it says that Molyneux is racial separatist because this seems to be the case.Knox490 (talk) 16:40, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Knox490, again, what I am looking for are concrete ideas to improve the article. Replace "x" with "y." Remove paragraph "x." That sort of thing. I find 14 examples of "white supremac*". Would your proposal then be that these all be replaced by some form of "scientific racism?" Dumuzid (talk) 16:55, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Knox490: Again and again and again: independent reliable sources regularly and repeatedly identify Molyneux as a white supremacist/white nationalist. As a result, Wikipedia verifiably and neutrally reports the same. If you would like to argue that some other flavor of racism better describes him, feel free to do so on your blog or some other site. It simply does not belong here.

Your inability to hear this is becoming disruptive. - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:22, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Remove the errant "white supremacist" phrase from the lede.

Again, those mainstream news sources are not reliable (I provide ample evidence of the incompetence of today's mainstream news and also pointed out the high degree of mistrust they have among the public) nor did they provide any evidence that Molyneux is a white supremacist (which is not surprising given Molyneux's statement about East Asians having a higher intelligence than whites who are not Ashkenazi Jews). Knox490 (talk) 18:20, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Enough now, can we close this and certain users need to read wp:or wp:rs and wp:v.Slatersteven (talk) 18:26, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven, Wikipedia does have the rule of Ignore all rules. So evidence/reality actually matters in articles.Knox490 (talk) 18:29, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

References

You do not trust the sources. This is irrelevant. The sources meet the criteria outlined at WP:RS (and several of the sources have been repetedly discussed, as outlined at WP:RS/P). This is a dead issue.

The sources do not provide "proof" to your satisfaction. This is irrelevant. Reliable sources do not need to prove anything. This is a dead issue.

We can ignore all rules. This is irrelevant. Discussion here has not identified a reason to ignore one of the pillars of the project. This is a dead issue.

This thread is dead. I rather expect we will soon be discussing WP:ICANTHEARYOU at WP:AN/I. While WP:NONAZIS is only an essay, it is a frequent reason for indefinite blocks here. - SummerPhD^v2.0 19:06, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Knox490 -- you are expecting WP:IAR to do a lot of work for you here. It doesn't function the way you seem to think. You would need consensus for your changes, even with an IAR rationale, and so far I am seeing none. I wouldn't support any proposal you have made, and your broadside against the journalism industry belongs, if anywhere, at WP:RSN. Really, I read it as an attack upon the structure of Wikipedia writ large. While I am not a big fan of official sanctions on Wikipedia, this is certainly tendentious and not productive. I would recommend giving up this effort (at least for now), and focusing on specific changes backed up by agreed-upon reliable sources. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:19, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I do believe in cordiality. I am going to just agree to disagree on this matter and move on. Knox490 (talk) 19:34, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I sincerely appreciate that. And of course, this does not mean your concerns can't be raised again; simply that when it's clear there's no consensus for broad, sweeping change, it's best to give it some time and/or focus on smaller changes. Thank you, and have a nice day. Dumuzid (talk) 20:00, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Check your "Reliable Sources"

When Wikipedia cites Far Left groups like the SPLC as impartial 'Reliable Sources', you lose any credibility you may have.

The vast majority of Stefan's you-tube posts are completely benign - mostly dealing with helping people with their personal problems, promotion of the family unit, and promotion of the 'non-aggression principle'.

Stefan has never called for violence. He expresses opinions - some of which are uncomfortable for some sensitive people. Everyone has a right to an opinion in a free society. It's up to those who disagree to confront him with facts and reason, not subject him to this Orwellian cancel culture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.102.33.174 (talk) 23:39, 23 July 2020 (UTC) — 59.102.33.174 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

If you think the SLPC is unreliable, you're trapped in a far-right echo chamber and not worth paying attention to. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:09, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

For that matter, anyone who thinks the SPLC is "Far Left" loses any credibility they might have.

He was ostensibly blocked form Twitter for platform manipulation, meaning sock puppetry. Presumably his opinions didn't help, but he was cheating at a stupid game on someone else's play-field. "He expresses opinions - some of which are uncomfortable for some sensitive people." How euphemistic. Scientific racism is "uncomfortable" for many valid reasons, and ignoring or downplaying those reasons is disingenuous. Social media platforms are not obligated to host his "uncomfortable" rantings, and Wikipedia is absolutely not obligated to parrot his opinions for PR reasons.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which documents other sources. Wikipedia did not "cancel" Molyneux. We cannot change how other sources cover his behavior. Orwell (a fierce proponent of democratic socialism) wrote about people being killed, imprisoned, and tortured. Comparing that to a blogger's website inconveniences is so far from accurate that it's honestly pretty funny, in a grim sort of way. As for the NAP, it's morally vapid to actual philosophers, even the Libertarian ones. Grayfell (talk) 02:22, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Also, "free speech" doesn't mean that Molyneux is entitled to a platform on non-public property that doesn't belong to him (which would include Twitter and Wikipedia). Ian.thomson (talk) 04:51, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Is "The Guardian" OK?

I found this in "The Guardian" [27]: "Molyneux said in a statement to the Guardian: 'I have always opposed the idea of racial superiority/inferiority.'" Will this be acceptable to insert into the article? Fzimmerman (talk) 03:26, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

The fuller context is:

Molyneux has been described as an "alleged cult leader who amplifies scientific racism, eugenics and white supremacism" by the Southern Poverty Law Center, which monitors extremism and white supremacy.
Molyneux said in a statement to the Guardian: “I have always opposed the idea of racial superiority/inferiority.”
In 2019, Molyneaux said: “I’ve always been skeptical of the ideas of white nationalism, of identitarianism, and white identity. However, I am an empiricist, and I could not help but notice that I could have peaceful, free, easy, civilized and safe discussions in what is, essentially, an all-white country.”

So, uh, did you want to leave out the bit where he says an all-white nation would be a good thing? Ian.thomson (talk) 04:48, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Actually, I wouldn't care if that were left in. But if it is inserted, I'd also like to include the part right after it where the young lady being interviewed also addresses her understanding of this:

Seibt defended that comment, saying it was out of context. "He is not devaluing other races, not at all, he's just describing his experience in western countries, and I agree with that … it's not that we are better in any way in western countries, and that’s not the point that Molyneux is trying to make–it's just that we still have freedom of speech in these countries, and we're very happy that's the case."

I think what she states there sums up what I've thought about Molyneux's views on some of the controverted points.

When I surveyed the Wikipedia guidelines about "Biographies of living persons" [28] I thought these guidelines were very good, but I didn't think they were reflected in the article about Molyneux. I would say especially the part about "neutrality." In fact, I was shocked when I read the article the first time, as I only knew about him from firsthand experience (i.e. watching some of his videos) and would never have described him in the terms that the current article uses.

It seems that every possible thing he's ever taught that could be assigned with an insidious motive, has been so assigned, and any good thought or idea he might have presented is not mentioned. The word "neutral" and the content of the current Wikipedia article present an enormous dissonance to me. I would describe it more as a "character assassination."

Having said all that, I'm not a friend or a close associate of his, and have no hill to die on over this issue. I just got involved because I wanted to add one balancing quote from his own mouth, but didn't realize all the rules about "non-original sources." My own practice is not to rely solely on secondary sources for information about living figures, but to go straight to them for myself and see what they have to say. In the current climate, I've found that to be the only safe way.

Nevertheless, since I'm here, I'll see this out to a conclusion. If we can get one more statement into the bio that makes it a bit less negative, I would be happy. I appreciate this line from the "Biographies of living persons" guidelines:

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment.

Fzimmerman (talk) 06:32, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Except that the claim that the quote has been taken out of context is just Seibt's opinion, and Seibt is noted for antisemitic remarks and far-right propaganda -- she's not a reliable source for defending Molyneux. The Guardian piece refers to Molyneux as a white nationalist and it's dishonest to try to sum it up any other way. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:42, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the quote from the Guardian. To clarify, it does NOT refer to Molyneux as a "white nationalist," but rather it says that he was "alleged" to be so, by the Southern Poverty Law Center. I haven't proposed any "summing up". Just quote it as listed. It's from a recognized source. It seems to me like you are afraid it will somehow disturb the narrative of the article. But I thought the point was to write all that can be obtained from the sources, and not to pick and choose to fit a predefined narrative. If you've already planned to write the article to give a certain view, and to leave out anything that might call that view into question, or moderate it a bit, where is the neutrality? Fzimmerman (talk) 08:02, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

There's no way to say this without being blunt: We don't care about any of this, and it was a mistake to post this here. This is not a social networking site. This is not a place to share your personal observations or insight into free speech, or white people, or anything like this. Wikipedia is not a platform for publishing original research, and this talk page is for improving this article and nothing else. Almost none of this comment has anything to do with improving this article.

The headline of the source specifically refers to Molyneux as a white nationalist. The body instead calls him an "alt-right activist", which is yet another source supporting this link to extremism based on scientific racism, regardless of which particular euphemism de jour is used.

Your loaded assumptions about another editor's motives are inappropriate, and further, they demonstrate a misunderstanding of Wikipedia's purpose as an encyclopedia. The project's goal is to summarize reliable sources, and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. An overwhelming number of sources, including the one you are asking about, already give "a certain view". The article should follow that view. Grayfell (talk) 08:27, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I've removed the personal background information. As I said before, I'm new to this "talk" process. I can see why you need strict rules to govern how information is placed in Wikipedia, to avoid chaos. There is a danger, though: if your sources are not neutral, neither will your summary be. The Guardian article at least allowed for those labeled to say something about themselves, so readers can think about it and form their own conclusions, or do their own further research. I'm missing that in the Wikipedia article. Fzimmerman (talk) 09:28, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

It can be argued no source is ever neutral, so we go by (rather) reputation for fact checking. Does the source tell lies as a matter of course. Now if the guardian article contains a rebuttal we can use the guardian as a source for that and include it.Slatersteven (talk) 09:34, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

The way it's included needs to be handled carefully. Since we already have many examples of him promoting an "idea of racial superiority/inferiority", including the very next paragraph of the cited source, this comment is cryptic at best. Perhaps he opposes some specific form of this idea? It doesn't really make any sense. Introducing this statement without any context will only be confusing. Grayfell (talk) 19:20, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Grayfell, or perhaps he knows that white supremacism is a hard sell and is going WP:MANDY. Guy (help!) 23:29, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Should we be oversimplifying him? If he said "I have always opposed the idea of racial superiority/inferiority" why wouldn't that warrant inclusion? Bus stop (talk) 01:39, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

As has been explained to you repeatedly, zero independent reliable sources have seen any reason to discuss his claims that he is not a white nationalist/white supremacist when every reliable source saying anything about him in the past five years specifically identifies him as such. I know you don't like this, but not hearing it is a problem. - SummerPhD^v2.0 05:02, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Bus stop, we are not oversimplifying him. We are summarising the sources. They paint a pretty black and white picture. This is not really our problem to fix. Guy (help!) 08:45, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 August 2020

change "Stefan Basil Molyneux (/stəˈfæn ˈmɒlɪnjuː/; born September 24, 1966) is a Canadian far-right, white nationalist,[2] white supremacist,[3] former YouTuber and podcaster, who is best known for his promotion of conspiracy theories, scientific racism, eugenics and white supremacist views.[4][5][6][7][8]" to Stefan Basil Molyneux (/stəˈfæn ˈmɒlɪnjuː/; born September 24, 1966) is a Canadian anarcho-capitalist, teacher of philosophy, former YouTuber and podcaster, who is best known for his defense of western values and promotion of the Non-Agression Principle.

Molyneux is not a white supremacist. You should be sued for libel. The "sources" are garbage. This page is a lie. It is edited by the "far-left woke" B.S. artist who does not and will not understand that their are other ways to view the world and not everything is "RACIST". You MUST ALLOW FREEDOM OF THOUGHT, or it will be taken. The tides are turning. You create more enemies with these obvious lies. You are part of the problem. You will see for every action there will be an equal and opposite reaction. 68.198.179.94 (talk) 23:09, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

At long last, I feel seen. Dumuzid (talk) 23:13, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: this has been extensively discussed on this talk page in the past. The current wording is well sourced. If you would like to change it, please find specific reliable sources that support your change, and gain consensus for the change before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 23:16, 2 August 2020 (UTC)