Talk:Stefan Molyneux/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Stop putting labels on people

Even if I generally agree on some of those judgments and believe that Stefan is practically a cult leader who scams young men it is a bad idea to label people. And this could even result in a slander lawsuit, if you accuse someone of being a white supremacist or far-right activist. How people or journalists describe someone is irrelevant. It is not valid proof. use more neutral language. Describe what he is preaching rather than putting arbitrary labels — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.57.231.248 (talk) 00:48, 10 July 2020 (UTC) — 78.57.231.248 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I moved this section to the bottom. I don't think you made one, but I would like to remind everyone that legal threats are not allowed. Thanks  Darth Flappy ^«Talk» 01:03, 10 July 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.

People read Wikipedia to find out about various topics: Did the Ford Pinto have a problem with explosions? How many millions of people did the Nazis murder during WWII? Is Kraft Dinner popular in any one country? Who is Stefan Molyneux? (Yes. Roughly million Jews and several million others. Yes, Canada. He's a Canadian far-right, white nationalist podcaster and former YouTuber who is known for his promotion of conspiracy theories, scientific racism, eugenics and white supremacist views.

We can't tell people basic information from independent reliable sources without saying what the sources say. Sometimes they say things that you might think are nice. Sometimes you might think they aren't so nice. One thing holds true: so long as they are verifiable and [[WP:NPOV|neutral summaries of what the sources say, those "labels" are neither arbitrary, irrelevant, nor actionable. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:41, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

SummerPhD—sentences should be constructed along the lines of "according to the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) Molyneux amplifies scientific racism, eugenics and white supremacism". That tells the reader who is making the claim. Bus stop (talk) 04:15, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

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. Here's the new lede: "Stephan Molyneux is a Canadian podcaster. SPLC says he is a propagandist for the racist alt-right. 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. 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 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 says he is often compared to a cult leader. The Daily Beast says his podcast is often compared to a cult." - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:42, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

No, it's good as it is. I affirm SummerPHDv2.0 statement. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 17:58, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Then take it up with the RS we use. We reflct what source say, if they did not say it neither could we.Slatersteven (talk) 09:35, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Philosopher in the lead, yet again

Back in 2014, there was this: RfC - Should Stefan Molyneux be described as a "philosopher" in the lede?. Consensus was "no". This has come up a few times since, as well. The David Gordon source has also been discussed several times. It's an opinion source which is on the weak side.

From this, his self description doesn't seem important enough for the lead. Rather than say "he call himself a Philosopher, but X says he isn't", I think we should cut this from the lead and provide necessary context in the body. I also don't think "anarcho-Capitalist" is treated by sources as a defining trait, but perhaps that's a separate issue. Grayfell (talk) 20:42, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm almost tempted to argue that his claims to being a philosopher are WP:FRINGE as there's a dearth of reliable sources on the matter and the only one shown thus far is negative -- not to mention that his philosophy comes across as an after-the-fact attempt to justify his racist nationalism, rather than a good-faith skeptical examination of his own thoughts that accidentally reinforces broader social norms. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:06, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Grayfell, most sources seem to characterise him as a white supremacist troll, not as a philosopher. Guy (help!) 11:15, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Grayfell (talk) 20:30, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

This page is not encyclopedic

WP:NLT, WP:NOTFORUM venting, TL:DR, etc.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I reviewed several of this page's sources for entries regarding personal criticisms, starting with Cites 32, 33, 7, 2, and 41. A single actual quote was verified among these five articles, in paragraph 4 of "Career." To whit; if the rape culture as described by Molyneux is actual historical fact (is it?), then why is it racist to claim that the invaders sought to stop these practices? True, it's likely a mischaracterization of the invaders' goals, but consequential results cannot be discarded merely because they are notionally unpalatable. If the rape culture was not historically as described then the citation given is woefully inadequate to elucidate the reader on the historical context of the quotation. Note that I remain ambivalent about this quote specifically because I am completely in the dark about its factual accuracy and therefore cannot determine if its content is legitimately racist. Quote-dropping and then deriving otherwise unsubstantiated claims from that quote is antithetical to the purpose of Wikipedia. Cite 41 is particularly egregious: it isn't racist to state a fact about a correlation between brain size and intelligence. It's only racist if that proven fact is then used to incite white supremacist claims such as supposed genetic superiority. In fact, the data suggests the opposite: blacks have larger brains than whites at the high end but also smaller brains at the low end. Reversion to the mean is not bigotry; it's math! Cite 7 makes similar claims of Molyneux but produces no actual quotes. It simultaneously casts Molyneux in a poor light by juxtaposing him with works like the Pinker paper. The Pinker paper is undeniably racist and, interestingly, does show a proper example of genetic supremacist claims. Ironically, Cite 7 when taken in its entirety discredits the white supremacist narrative levied against Stefan Molyneux. I then proceeded to cites 42, 43, and 44, and again was greeted with opinion pieces stating Stefan Molyneux's alleged white supremacist views as fact. Again, without any actual quotes or references to his supposed claims. I then backtracked to cites 22 and 40. These were once more opinion pieces, once again without quote or reference. Cite 45? Same. Cite 46 shows a criticism of white fragility. This is demonstrably the opposite of white supremacy in that it touts a declining culture rather than one viewed as superior. True, perhaps he could've relayed that other collapsing cultures face the same stereotypes, but how does that omission turn his criticism of white fragility into white supremacy? It doesn't. Cite 4 is very interesting because it repeatedly inserts bracketed words without which the plausible interpretation of the quote is quite different. An example: "You cannot run a high IQ [white] society with low IQ [non-white] people…these [non-white] immigrants are going to fail...and they're not just going to fail a little, they are going to fail hard…they're not staying on welfare because they’re lazy...they’re doing what is economically the best option for them...you are importing a gene set that is incompatible with success in a free-market economy." The shown bracketing turns a quote about I.Q. and immigrants into a racist statement. Without the brackets there exist zero mention of race. One has to wonder if without the bracketed words - brackets inferring the word was either corrected or inserted into the original quote - whether the original quotation was even referring to race. Cite 4 also listed non-racist quotes and then used surrounding context to cast them as racist. For example, the quote "Speech at International Conference on Men’s Issues, St. Clair Shores, Michigan, June 26 - 28, 2014" was undeniably misogynist but not at all related to white supremacy. It glanced over that particular quote with a one-word mention: anti-feminism. If the article is about white nationalism; what is that doing there? That is not white supremacy, it's another attempt to cast shade at Stefan Molyneux's character. This discrepancy lies alongside unsubstantiated claims of cultism, eugenicism, and the false proposition that non-rejection is equivalent to endorsement. Cite 27 is prima facie absurd; as shown at (http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/books/UPB/Universally_Preferable_Behaviour_UPB_by_Stefan_Molyneux_PDF.pdf) the page 66 in question is quite literally prefaced by the words "To take an absurd example..." Yes, this tripe is actually used as Cite 27. Who cited this nonsense and why was it allowed? Everyone involved should be banned or otherwise penalized. Cite 9 should be a valid cite for Stefan Molyneux's hosting of Jared Taylor, an unabashed white supremacist, however it too does not produce any quotes. It merely states that Stefan Molyneux said something negative about rap culture and the reader is expected to believe that he related this to a certain police shooting. Which police shooting? That isn't specified, either. Given the lack of veracity displayed by prior non-quote quotes, what am I supposed to think? That this one happens to be valid? There's no quote! Keep count with me: that's fourteen citations asserting views of white supremacy and one asserting his supposed intellectual inferiority. Fifteen citations without a single quote or transcript attributed to Stefan Molyneux that unequivocally demonstrate his purported views. Cite 27 wasn't just groundlessly accusatory; it was demonstrably false. Every single one of these cites unilaterally put forth third-party opinions and are scarcely grounded in reality. I've never pursued Stefan Molyneux's works prior to today nor do I care about his personal politics. This Wikipedia page is simply a travesty and I hope some administrator has half a mind to pursue integrity and purge the majority of this document for all of the hate and vitriol it contains. This is an utterly disgusting news aggregate hitpiece being presented as fact - and I am absolutely done reading it. 2601:346:C280:58DF:A5B8:94CD:EA6E:1BFC (talk) 09:01, 13 July 2020 (UTC) Bye. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 09:22, 13 July 2020 (UTC) We go with what RS say, we do not analyse it.Slatersteven (talk) 09:42, 13 July 2020 (UTC) I see. I suppose I'll look out for Wikipedia's impending replacement if this standard holds true. What encyclopedia ever regurgitated completely unsubstantiated information? This is a bad joke. 2601:346:C280:58DF:A5B8:94CD:EA6E:1BFC (talk) 09:52, 13 July 2020 (UTC) Please do, and please read wp:not.Slatersteven (talk) 09:55, 13 July 2020 (UTC) Oh, thank you. I appreciate the support. I thought you were disagreeing with me. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_bureaucracy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.199.87.182 (talk) 18:45, 13 July 2020 (UTC) As you say we are not a soapbox, and that applies to talk pages. So what you think of RS is irrelevant.Slatersteven (talk) 19:12, 13 July 2020 (UTC) Okay, I guess you weren't. It's not what I think of RS, whatever RS is. The guidelines you linked say that pages of living individuals must be given careful citation scrutiny. I reviewed some of the Cites and found that most merely claimed Stefan Molyneux was a white supremacist without any verifiable claims attributed to Stefan Molyneux himself. This means these citations are opinions and not verified fact. Stefan Molyneux's Wikipedia page presents these mostly baseless accusations as fact despite the utter lack of verifiable and demonstrable white supremacist quotations. With that in mind, Section 230 is currently under review by the Department of Justice. Should section 230's third-party protections for defamatory speech be stripped or curtailed I can virtually guarantee Wikipedia will be hit with a civil suit over this page. Depending on the result of Section 230 reform and how they consider the responsibility of moderators or content contributors, you personally may be civilly liable. I wasn't joking or being factitious when I said Wikipedia would be replaced if these are your standards. Do understand that Stefan Molyneux was a big time Youtube personality meaning his civil claims could reach over a million US dollars. However, I just realized - if Wikipedia passes the buck to you for defending what is currently only alleged defamation... Well, heh. Regardless, I am not soapboxing or whatever you think I am doing. I am trying to request proper encyclopedic rigor. If that has failed then I have nothing to more to contribute to this discussion. 2601:346:C280:58DF:AD6F:AE3C:6D88:2370 (talk) 21:52, 13 July 2020 (UTC) "I can virtually guarantee Wikipedia will be hit with a civil suit over this page." Your "guarantee" of legal action is a legal threat to suppress undesirable speech. Legal threats are against Wikipedia's policies. Grayfell (talk) 22:35, 13 July 2020 (UTC) (edit conflict)When it comes to fringe beliefs like pseudoscience or white supremacism, the subject is often not going to explicitly identify as such. In these areas, we regularly follow professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources run by institutions that are quite able to determine that their statements will not result in a successful (or even failed but costly) libel case. So don't try to present laws to us to suggest that we'll be sued if you don't get your way again. Here is a clip from this video (start at 52m50s) where Molyneux says he is no longer skeptical of white nationalism or Identitarianism and argues that white nationalism works. That may not be explicit self-identification, but it makes no difference -- he is saying that white nationalism works while also saying that it's wrong to call it out, out of some belief that there's an organized leftist plot targeting white men. Here is another video where he accuses everyone else of trying to pull down "white civilization" and attacking the "white race" because they're jealous of white people's achievements. The kindest thing you can say is that he is only favorable toward white supremacism even if he doesn't explicitly identify with it. And no, white nationalism and white supremacism aren't different things, we don't play with that Nazified political correctness. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:39, 13 July 2020 (UTC) References

Remove Southern Poverty Law Center as a source.

Southern Poverty Law Center is not reliable. It's been exposed numerous times. I was alerted to it by Maajid Nawaz.

− They are a group of lawyers and that type of work is fine for a court. If we want to use SPLC as a source. Wiki should be citing the court case results not the accusers website. "This hate label shuts down debate. ... It creates enmity towards people that are just on the other side of an issue from you,” says ADF senior counsel Jeremy Tedesco. “That’s not something we need in our culture."

SPLC is about ideology not objective societal improvements. "...hate, like so much in American life, has become highly ideological. In this climate, seeking widespread credibility for a hate list — with its inherently blunt methodology — seems at once quaint, noble and, possibly, futile."

Doing a cursor glance at other such disputes of SPLC you can easily find numerous other such mischaracterizations. Rutter33^Rutter33 17:37, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

This is a common, but incorrect understanding of WP:RS. The SPLC is a reliable source that draws on lawyers, academics, and journalists. There are literally thousands of reliable sources which cite the SPLC, and dozens which cite the SPLC in relation to Molyneux. These independent sources demonstrate that the outlet has a positive reputation for accuracy and fact-checking (per WP:RS). The SPLC has also issued retractions and apologies, such as with the unrelated Nawaz incident. This is another sign of reliability. Further, the SPLC has been discussed countless times on Wikipedia at WP:RSN and many, many other pages elsewhere. To describe this as a dead horse would be an understatement.

Talk:Stefan Molyneux is not the place to discuss the SPLC further, and any discussion of how the SPLC is used for the article must be based on sources which discuss Molyneux specifically.

Again, this talk page is for discussing improvements to the Stefan Molyneux article. Grayfell (talk) 22:04, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

The SPLC has also issued retractions and apologies, such as with the unrelated Nawaz incident Weeeelll... Nawaz did complain for years, and then he sued them, and then they finally apologized when they had no other option left. This apology is not really a good justification for "a positive reputation for accuracy and fact-checking". Please do not use it as such. (Those people are lawyers. Lawyers have no concept of truthfulness, only of convincing judges and of winning and losing lawsuits. If I have to guess why they have a positive reputation for accuracy and fact-checking, it's probably because they employed a few non-lawyers for that.)

So, if Molyneux wants a change of the status quo, he needs to sue the SPLC and win. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:59, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that everyone defamed by the SPLC has to sue to disprove the slander rather than a grouping having been proven to defame people repeatedly up until losing court cases for that reason getting removed from the reliable sources list, where they clearly do not belong? TheFIST (talk) 10:30, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that is what we are saying. If he was defamed there needs to be evidence what they said (about him, and no one else) was not true. Either in a court or some reputable source saying its not true.Slatersteven (talk) 10:33, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I mention the Maajid Nawaz incident because the OP mentioned it. It absolutely doesn't matter here, in this situation, and this talk page isn't a good place to discuss this for the billionth time. We don't need to discuss this every single time it gets mentioned on any talk page. The SPLC is prolific, and is cited by countless reliable sources for its expertise in hate groups and extremism. It is not flawless, and nobody ever said that it was. If you want to hold them to an impossible standard (or use this incident as an excuse to demonstrate your personal dislike of lawyers) you're not alone, but it still doesn't matter. Grayfell (talk) 20:27, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Rutterbrian, I like the fact that you use a Dominionist pressure group that advocates allowing churches to use their tax exempt status to support right-wing politicians, as a source for removing the single most cited authority on hate groups. Guy (help!) 22:34, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Collapsed under Talk Page Guidelines. WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA violations

You guys are fucked up. I don't personally care for Molyneux, but I'm sick of your pompous bullshit. Your reliable sources are all left-leaning. You wouldn't even pay attention to a conservative source if it was in front of your nose -- thus why people don't trust Wikipedia anymore. You're all a bunch of basement dwelling tyrants. SPLC is the leading authority on "hate" because they've made it their job to slander people for profit and push a Marxist agenda. They are an ideologically driven organization, as are most of the MSM these days (on both sides!) There are very few objective sources today -- the news media is biased, academics are biased, and the government and corporations are biased. Your goal of objectivity is a pipe dream yet you consider yourselves fair arbiters of the truth. Just admit that you are the new-age propagandists and the "useful idiots" of our time, without all the elaborate displays of faux-scholarship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:62a0:1590:7da0:d040:c54f:f04f (talk) 19:32, 7 July 2020 (UTC)— 2600:1700:62a0:1590:7da0:d040:c54f:f04f (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

References

Bibliography

Why is his bibliography completely absent? He's written several books about his philosophy which aren't even mentioned in this article.

Several of his written works date from after his extremist conversion as alleged by the SPLC. Surely those books, their existence and contents, are relevant material to understand his views? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phillycheesetake (talk • contribs) 17:05, 18 July 2020 (UTC) — Phillycheesetake (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Molyneux has an extensive list of books to his name, none of which have attracted much attention. A list within the article must have inclusion criteria: We certainly aren't going to list, for example, every song on Buckethead's hundreds of albums or all of the tens of thousands of cover versions of the song "Yesterday_".

Why don't we list them all? Wikipedia is not a directory. It exists to document what independent reliable sources say about a subject. That the Juniata Baptist Choir recorded a version of "Yesterday" is trivial in terms of the history of the song. Sources about the song do not mention it, so neither does Wikipedia.

Why don't we list some of them? Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. We don't list a random selection of covers of "Yesterday". For song covers, we use WP:SONGCOVER to decide. (Basically, if the cover version would be notable on its own (without the original) we include it.) Were we to use similar criteria on Moyneux's books, we'd quickly find that none of them qualify. We don't have articles on any of his books because none of his books are notable. None of them are notable because independent sources have nothing substantual to say about them.

If any of his books have gotten substantial press coverage, I certainly haven't seen it. - SummerPhD^v2.0 18:22, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Molyneux has, at a cursory glance, twelve books in current circulation. Considering that the topics addressed in the books are related to those which dominate the article, it seems odd a list of twelve titles is beyond the scope of wikipedia.

Is a book written by the subject of an article not a reliable source of information about the author's views? That hardly seems "indiscriminate", it's actually very discriminating, just as the sources currently in the article are very discriminating. The opening discriptor for instance, links an NBC article in which Stefan is described as a "white nationalist", without qualification. Now, you may be able to cite a better source to support that exact discription, but the exclusion of his entire published works, and the inclusion of regurgitation like that, certainly does agree with your description of wikipedia as discriminate.

I'm not arguing that wikipedia should be an indiscriminate directory, I'm arguing that the inclusion of a brief bibliography containing insight into Molyneux's views on philosophy, history, and politics, among other subjects, is worthy. A couple of the citations even mention that he's an author, but that information is excluded from the article, while other information from those same sources is included, much of it trivial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phillycheesetake (talk • contribs) 20:51, 18 July 2020 (UTC) — Phillycheesetake (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Molyneux's books would be primary sources, which are open to editor interpretation and contextualization, which we don't use. We rely on secondary and tertiary sources. Otherwise, we'd have Molyneux's fans highlighting everything but what independent sources note him for (just as Julius Evola fans like to pretend his writings were purely mystical and never political). Ian.thomson (talk) 21:05, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

We do not use primary sources to state much about a subject, other than basic, undisputed facts: where a company's headquarters are, when a subject married their spouse, etc.

I get about 30 current publications under his name. There are likely others that have gone out of print. (Whether they are currently in print or not is hardly relevant.) That number, though, is likely inflated by him writing a foreword, chapter, etc. for other authors. Why don't we use those as sources? Well, the arguments here are a good example. Looking at who he's written with (Milo Yiannopoulos, Jordan Peterson, Vox Day, etc.) it would be easy to say a few things, if you wanted to. Or we could cherry pick the sources to make him see prescient, ignorant, brilliant, stupid or anything else one might like. Instead, we stick with what independent reliable sources say.

In the present case, they say that Stefan Molyneux is a Canadian 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. - SummerPhD^v2.0 21:17, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Phillycheesetake, feel free to demonstrate significance by referencing coverage in reliable mainstream sources. Guy (help!) 21:32, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I took the trouble of reading your reference to wikipedia not being a directory, as I thought, it contains a sentence which explains in my view, the rather routine appearance of bibliographies on the pages of authors known for other things; "Lists of creative works in a wider context are permitted."

Once again, I'm not asking for the contents of those primary sources to appear on the page (as it does on thousands of pages about a variety of topics, citing books/articles/studies/journals is not uncommon, your assertion that wikipedia doesn't directly reference primary sources is wrong), just that their existence appears on the page. I think I'm correct in my impression that this is fairly routine, I was actually surprised that Molyneux's status as an author wasn't even mentioned, despite it appearing in a number of the sources on which the article is based. I believe it even appeared in previous revision of this article. I'm fairly confident I came upon the knowledge of his books years ago on wikipedia. So certain information about this particular public figure has been totally excised from the article.

Aside: My point about the NBC article describing Molyneux as a "white nationalist" with no verification is still valid. I agree with the view that NBC are mainstream, but the fact remains that the source makes no attempt to support the claim. Wikipedia is not a sounding board for views which mainstream voices express, there's a verification requirement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phillycheesetake (talk • contribs) 22:39, 18 July 2020 (UTC) — Phillycheesetake (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Re "list of creative works in a wider context are permitted": permitted, not required or even recommended. While he is an author, that's not what he's notable for: he's notable for spreading white nationalist views via books, YouTube, etc.
Re justification for calling him a white nationalist: 1) There's plenty of reliable sources cited from institutions known for fact-checking and avoiding libel
2) Here is a clip from this video (start at 52m50s) where Molyneux says he is no longer skeptical of white nationalism or Identitarianism and argues that white nationalism works. That may not be explicit self-identification, but it makes no difference -- he is saying that white nationalism works while also saying that it's wrong to call it out, out of some belief that there's an organized leftist plot targeting white men. Here is another video where he accuses everyone else of trying to pull down "white civilization" and attacking the "white race" because they're jealous of white people's achievements. The kindest thing you can say is that he is only favorable toward white supremacism even if he doesn't explicitly identify with it. And no, white nationalism and white supremacism aren't different things, we don't play with that Nazified political correctness.
Wikipedia's verification is through mainstream voices, it does not give equal validity to fringe positions.Ian.thomson (talk) 22:48, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

"permitted, not required or even recommended" OK, so when this article is unlocked, I'll be permitted to post a bibliography? Good. I doubt I'll remember. "he's notable for spreading white nationalist views via books, YouTube, etc." Books? He is notable for spreading white nationalism with books? OK, please cite the books, that's all I'm asking, for the books to be cited or acknowledged. The resistance to this simple, routine request is astonishing. The clip you cited opens with "I have always been skeptical of the ideas of white nationalism, of identitarianism, and white identity", he then described that the "empiricist" in him noticed how freely he could have discussion in an all-white country. Further into the clip, he rejects the premise that Poles are white nationalists. So at no point does he extoll the virtues of Poland as a product of "white nationalism". The vimeo clip is unavailable.

I'm not asking to play some semantic game about white nationalism/supremacy, I'm asking for a bibliography, and (aside) for assertions made about the subject of the article to be substantiated in the citations on which they are based. If you have a better citation to substitute, please do so. If any belief in, endorsement of white nationalism is demonstrated, put it in the citation next to the claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phillycheesetake (talk • contribs) 23:36, 18 July 2020 (UTC) — Phillycheesetake (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

so when this article is unlocked, I'll be permitted to post a bibliography? Good. I doubt I'll remember. Did you not read the rest of what I said?

The intro summarizes the body of the article. The rest of the article contains plenty of citations, the NBC one is just one among many.

I'm asking for a bibliography And we've explained why it's not necessary and even undesirable. You just didn't listen.

for assertions made about the subject of the article to be substantiated in the citations on which they are based If you can provide reliable sources that call into question the currently cited sources in the article, then by all means do so. Otherwise, the sources are adequate. You can stop trying to mainstream Molyneux. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:31, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Reliable sources absolutely, positively do not need to "prove" anything. If reliable sources say it was 85 degrees in Times Square yesterday, that is verifiable. Reliable sources repeatedly, regularly and almost without exception say that Molyneux is a white nationalist. Molyneux, therefore, is verifiably a white nationalist.

Wikipedia absolutely, positively does not interpret primary sources to say anything about a living person. - SummerPhD^v2.0 05:12, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Ian Thomson, your insinuation about my character is inapporpriate. I've listened to everything you've said, you however are apparently under the impression that either I believe Molyneux is mainstream, or that I'm some alt-right adherent trying to sanitise his views. Neither of these are true, almost every ideological position which Molyneux has advanced for the past 15 years has not been mainstream, so it's complete nonsense to try mainstreaming them. The only point of real contention is the mere mention of his status as an author (I couldn't help but notice you didn't attempt to defend your previous assertion that Molyneux's books contain white nationalism) meets with such resistance.

"Reliable sources absolutely, positively do not need to "prove" anything. If reliable sources say it was 85 degrees in Times Square yesterday, that is verifiable."

Seems I was wrong in a previous statement, Wikipedia is a sounding board for mainstream outlets and views. If newspapers say you're a white supremacist, and fail to mention your body of work, then you're a white supremacist with no body of work in the eyes of wikipedia. Reading this very site years ago I discovered Molyneux was an author, now I wouldn't. However this is rationalised, it's a failing in wikipedia's editorialising. The product of years of the subject's professional life are ignored so thoroughly that it doesn't even earn a sentence under the "Career" heading. It seems absurd to me that your can't learn, on Wikipedia, that Stefan Molyneux has authored books.

I'm going to drop the topic since I don't expect to make any headway. Thank you SummerPhDv2, it's been valuable to hear from an experienced Wikipedia contributor. I'll learn more about the rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phillycheesetake (talk • contribs) 11:55, 19 July 2020 (UTC) — Phillycheesetake (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Your understanding of the term "sounding board" is not typical of common usage. Generally, it's used to imply something is being used to "test" or try out a new idea before going public. Wikipedia uses independent reliable sources -- published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy which are independent of the subject. Wikipedia does not pour through primary sources in an attempt to prove or disprove that Molyneux is or isn't a white nationalist, HIV does or doesn't cause AIDS, or the Earth is or isn't spherical. Wikipedia reports what independent reliable sources say. It is verifiable that Molyneux is a white nationalist, HIV causes AIDS and the Earth is spherical. Does HIV also change your food preferences? Is the Earth one of five identical planets placed in the universe by aliens? Does Molyneux collect stamps? Independent reliable sources don't discuss any of these, so the answer to all three is: It is not verifiable one way or the other and sources don't seem to think it is significant.

Other projects handle things differently. Metapedia merely lists Molyneux's links that white nationalists have found "helpful". Conservapedia has an extensive article on him that seems to be unaware that he has ever said anything about "race", "white" or "black", sourced entirely from primary sources. Your blog can say whatever you'd like it to say about him -- all his books, his writing with Milo Yiannopoulos, Vox Day, etc. Wikipedia is none of those things. - SummerPhD^v2.0 18:38, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

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)

This page is extremely slanderous and may incur a slander / libel lawsuit

This conversation violates WP:NLT and the creator has since been blocked.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
If you are going to make claims on a living person, you had better be able to make solid citations about that person that would stand up in a court of law. I see nothing here to supports the slanderous / libellous claims of "white supremacist". There is a history of edits to this page, so a perfect and accurate history of whom claimed what, which will be an ample source of information for the discovery. Many "citations", but of all of those citations, how many of them can actually point to something Stefan specifically said or wrote? Of all those who made the libellous claims, how many has spent anytime at all actually watching Stefan Molyneux's videos and listening to his podcasts? You may disagree with Stefan Molyneux, but you still must be factual. If the claim is true, it will stand up in court. If not, well expect to answer to the judge. So my friendly advice to all the editors of this page is that you either provide SOLID citations (not the he said / she said ones here), or expect to be receiving interrogatories soon. Reference specific things that Stefan Molyneux have said or written in his many, many, many videos and the few books he's written to justify your claims, or be expected to be tied up in court for years. Your choice. And if you think you can avoid litigation via jurisdictional issues, think again. You should consult your attorneys now. Either fact-check your claims, or remove them.I Perhaps you are feeling lucky. If so, good luck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LordAlveric (talk • contribs) 04:44, 15 July 2020 (UTC) — LordAlveric (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The independent reliable sources cited regularly and repeatedly say -- in no uncertain terms and without equivocation -- that Molyneux is a a Canadian 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. Next. - SummerPhDv2.0 05:06, 15 July 2020 (UTC) I enjoy many things here. That we "must be factual." Opinion is a thing too, which has some bearing on defamation law. You claim we can't raise jurisdictional issues, but you haven't specified in which jurisdiction this imagined action is taking place or where you imagine we are. I also like the idea that interrogatories are the first move here. I object to your interrogatories already, sir, because they are overbroad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant, imaginary, and frankly, stupid. I would suggest you rethink your approach here (and perhaps your general philosophy of the law). Not least of all, you are in direct contravention of a Wikipedia policy, namely, WP:NLT. As such you have contravened the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of the United States. Just think about THAT for a while. But not too long. The law is a silly thing. Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 05:23, 15 July 2020 (UTC) I would suggest he first try to sue the sources we quote.Slatersteven (talk) 07:36, 15 July 2020 (UTC) Here is a clip from this video (start at 52m50s) where Molyneux says he is no longer skeptical of white nationalism or Identitarianism and argues that white nationalism works. That may not be explicit self-identification, but it makes no difference -- he is saying that white nationalism works while also saying that it's wrong to call it out, out of some belief that there's an organized leftist plot targeting white men. Here is another video where he accuses everyone else of trying to pull down "white civilization" and attacking the "white race" because they're jealous of white people's achievements. The kindest thing you can say is that he is only favorable toward white supremacism even if he doesn't explicitly identify with it. And no, white nationalism and white supremacism aren't different things, we don't play with that Nazified political correctness. I found those clips some time ago in just a few minutes. And that's the sort of video he puts out with the expectation that's what his fans want to hear. Any judge who is not a white supremacist would look at this and dismiss any libel claim as frivolous. If anything, being a white supremacist is what pays Molyneux's bills. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:40, 15 July 2020 (UTC) I've blocked him, that was clearly meant to be chilling. Doug Weller talk 13:39, 15 July 2020 (UTC) Shame it did not work.Slatersteven (talk) 13:40, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Just a few questions about the above

WP:NOTFORUM, venting
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I looked at the above section, and I am a bit confused. Example textHere is a clip from this video (start at 52m50s) where Molyneux says he is no longer skeptical of white nationalism or Identitarianism and argues that white nationalism works. I tried clicking the link to the video, but it says it's unavailable. A dead link. Can you provide a working one? I am not sure what "white nationalism" is supposed to be. Seems to me that many cultures in the world are proud of themselves and their own accomplishments and their nations. Koreans, Russians, Japaneese, Germans, Italians, Jews, etc. Is this a bad thing? In America, I think that it is a real tragedy that many have lost touch with their "roots". In most of the world, cutlures define themselves by geography, tradition, and language. Even in Europe, where I currently live, you have the French, Polish, Lavians, Germans, etc., and cultures forged out of hundereds of years of struggle. But America is relatively young as a country and a nation, and the entire "melting pot" idea seems to have seperated everyone from their roots, their traditions, their cultures. All lost and gone. You have the 5 racial categories -- "Black", "White", "Asian", "Hispanic", and "Pacific Islander." I think the aborigional people in the US are also considerd a "race". Those classifications do not make sense to me. Would a Korean want to be lumped in the same class as, say, an Indian? Or a Chinese lumped in with the Laotians? Even in Africa, the Hutus don't want to be lumped in the Tutsis, as that bloody conflict demonstrated some time ago. So now that you have created new "cultures" as a result of the "melting pot" experiment. "Blacks" no longer have any connections to the various cultures and tribes their ancestors came from. "Whites" have lost touch with their specific European origins, etc. So if the "Blacks" want to be proud of themselves as "Blacks", the "Whites" want to be proud of themselves as "Whites", just like the Koreans want to be proud of themselves as Koreans, and the Japanese, etc., what is so wrong about this? Of course, jingoism is bad and should be avoided in any culture / ethnic group / race. And just because you are proud of your own culture does not make you a "supremacist". You never hear talk about the "Japanese supremacists", the "Korean supremacists", etc. Why not? And the truth of the matter is, many of them do consider themselves "supreme" to all the other cultures! It is a conceit. Just like the conceit of parents thinking that their own kids are "the best in the world", "superior" to all the other kids out there. Cannot we let the various cultures have their own conceits, as long as it does not lapse into jingoism?— Preceding unsigned comment added by LadyLirazel (talk • contribs) 04:15, July 18, 2020 (UTC)— LadyLirazel (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Please read wp:not and wp:talk.Slatersteven (talk) 08:47, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 August 2020

This conversation violates WP:NLT, WP:NOTFORUM, and was created by a WP:SPA who is a living violation of WP:COI and WP:CIR. Accordingly, this conversation has been collapsed. Affirmed by two Admins.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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)— 68.198.179.94 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 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) Hey, @Doug Weller:, is this a WP:NLT violation or not? Wanna know cause I want to collapse this discussion. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 18:33, 5 August 2020 (UTC) GreenFrogsGoRibbit, no, it's a WP:BUTTHURTRACIST issue. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:35, 5 August 2020 (UTC) And best collapsed. Doug Weller talk 18:39, 5 August 2020 (UTC) References