Talk:Stefan Molyneux/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Check your "Reliable Sources"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No point interacting on wikipedia, they merely make appeals to authority rather than arguments. Yes, if some libertarian is considered far right, than the SPLC and liberals who desire state power are definitely far far left. Guilt by association is also implicit throughout but whatever Jon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.233.52.64 (talk) 16:02, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, its called policy.Slatersteven (talk) 16:04, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Is "The Guardian" OK?

I found this in "The Guardian" [1]: "Molyneux said in a statement to the Guardian: 'I have always opposed the idea of racial superiority/inferiority.'" Will this be acceptable to insert into the article? Fzimmerman (talk) 03:26, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

The fuller context is:

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

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

If he indeed said that "an all-white nation WOULD BE a good thing" why did YOU leave that out? In what you quoted above he rather merely observed that he "could have peaceful, free, easy, civilized and safe discussions" in a country that IS (exists) - Poland if I remember correctly. By the way he said the same thing about Hong Kong. (a nearly 100% Asian country) How do you get from his OBSERVATIONS of FACTS to surmising that he is some kind of supremacist dreaming of creating some mono-racial countries? (white and Asian too apparently) You are of course entitled to your insinuations but using them as a base of an "encyclopedia" material is... Idk what to call it but is is nowhere neutral or unbiased. Mike3000 (talk) 14:30, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

We don't RS do.Slatersteven (talk) 14:39, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

When I surveyed the Wikipedia guidelines about "Biographies of living persons" [2] I thought these guidelines were very good, but I didn't think they were reflected in the article about Molyneux. I would say especially the part about "neutrality." In fact, I was shocked when I read the article the first time, as I only knew about him from firsthand experience (i.e. watching some of his videos) and would never have described him in the terms that the current article uses.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It should be noted that this is being discussed here. Bus stop (talk) 03:46, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

This page isn't about detailing how Molyneux describes himself, it's about depicting who he is. He can put on a bad wig and call himself the President for all it matters, that doesn't change the fact that he pushes white supremacist narratives and most independent sources describe him as such. Bravetheif (talk) 10:56, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Bravetheif—from where are you deriving that "This page isn't about detailing how Molyneux describes himself"? Do you find that in WP:RULES? Bus stop (talk) 18:40, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

What is that supposed to mean? Of course this is found in the RULES, pretty much everywhere: WP:V. Mvbaron (talk) 19:05, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You are linking to Wikipedia:Verifiability, Mvbaron, but it is verifiable, according to a reliable source, The Guardian, that Molyneux said "I have always opposed the idea of racial superiority/inferiority." Bus stop (talk) 19:21, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Molyneux saying something about himself is a primary source. "Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies." Where is this single sentence discussed in reliable secondary sources? - SummerPhD^v2.0 19:17, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

SummerPhDv2.0—there is no requirement that the subject of a biography can't be quoted. Bus stop (talk) 19:36, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT. Out of hundreds of hours of the subject speaking, you have selected one sentence that you want to include to emphasize what you believe to be true about the subject. Where are the independent reliable sources discussing this one sentence and what material from a secondary source does it augment? - SummerPhD^v2.0 21:41, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

You are misusing the word emphasis. I am not emphasizing anything. It is a simple statement of fact, reliably sourced, and on-topic: Stefan Molyneux states in The Guardian "I have always opposed the idea of racial superiority/inferiority." It is on-topic because you and others are in agreement that Molyneux endorses "the idea of racial superiority/inferiority". You should not be permitted to have your cake and eat it too. You are saying "Where are the independent reliable sources discussing this one sentence and what material from a secondary source does it augment?" I don't believe policy calls for anything of the sort. If sources "discuss[ed] this one sentence" what could they possibly say? You doing yeoman's work trying to come up with a technical reason this quote from Molyneux needs to be kept out of the article. You write WP:WEIGHT. How would that apply? What you so not seem to understand is that the fundamental subject of this article is not whether Molyneux is a racist. I hope you won't take this as a personal attack but that is your preoccupation. You are entirely consumed with skewering the subject of this article with all manner of racist charges. But the subject, like all people, is multi-faceted. We don't write this article to satisfy your preconceptions of what a person can be. Rather, we go with the facts wherever they take us. You should be glad that The Guardian is providing us with nuance on the question of Molyneux's alleged racism. But instead you are trying to keep that information out of the article. We don't start with a narrative and then find material to fulfill our narrative. That would be one variety or another of creative writing. As an encyclopedia we go where the information-trail leads us. It just so happens Molyneux says "I have always opposed the idea of racial superiority/inferiority." Great. We add that to our article. This isn't a bureaucracy where we concoct reasons to keep entirely on-topic information out of the article, SummerPhDv2.0. Bus stop (talk) 02:05, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

You are selecting ONE SENTENCE out of everything the subject has ever said on record (which is a lot) based on your belief that it counters what ALL of the independent reliable sources say and the sole reason the subject is notable.

WP:WEIGHT says, in part, "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects." This is ONE SENTENCE from a primary source that you have selected based on your belief that it is evidence that ALL of the reliable sources are wrong. At the same time, we could fill hundreds of pages with statements that I believe support the verifiable statement that Molyneux is a white supremacist.

You believe something that ZERO independent sources even discuss (and is the exact opposite of what they all say). There is absolutely no indication it is a significant viewpoint. - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:36, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

@Bus_stop Like Mvbaron said, the quote breaks WP:V. We can verify he said the quote, we cannot verify that the contents of the quote are true. Similarly the quote breaks WP:IS. The Guardian is independent, but Molyneux is not. I'd also argue Molyneux more generally fails WP:RS, and he is, of course, a WP:PRIMARY source about himself. Bravetheif (talk) 04:44, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Bravetheif—you say "We can verify he said the quote, we cannot verify that the contents of the quote are true." I don't understand that. What do you mean by that? Sounds paradoxical to me. Bus stop (talk) 16:19, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I am a small green furry things from alpha centuri. Now you can verify I have just claimed it, not that I am in fact a small green furry things from alpha centuri.Slatersteven (talk) 16:24, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I am Donald J Trump, 45th and current president of the United States. I am also a lizard person. You can absolutely verify that I said the preceding statements, you cannot verify that the statements are true. Bravetheif (talk) 16:41, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven, Bravetheif—racism is an abstract concept. Racism has no objective existence. Opinions (reliably-sourced opinions) are all we have ascertaining to the existence or nonexistence of racism. You are arguing to keep an opinion you disagree with out of the article. Bus stop (talk) 17:33, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Stefan Molyneux is not a reliable character reference for Stefan Molyneux. Arguing we should just trust him because "racism is an abstract concept" is utterly farcical. There may be no black/white definition on what is and isn't racism, but it still exists. Regardless of what Molyneux says, many of the views he holds are commonly understood to be racist (for example, his insistence that race and IQ share a strong link). It's funny you bring up opinions, because you seem to be trying really hard to include this guy's opinion in the article. I think it should be excluded because it's not a reliable source, so I'd be interested to hear why you're so insistent that it should be included. Do you agree with it or is it simply for balance? Shall we also add how much of a animal lover Hitler was to his page for the sake of balance? Bravetheif (talk) 18:27, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Bravetheif—you've got to stay on topic. I never claimed he was a "character reference for Stefan Molyneux" and I never said we should "just trust him". Please do not "respond" to things I did not say. It makes it sound as if I presented those arguments, which I never did. You are preternaturally concerned with whether Molyneux is or is not a racist. This is not an article addressing solely the question of whether Molyneux is a racist or not. This is a biography. Other aspects of a person's life are taken up in a biography. If he adored canines and had a kennel with 18 of them, we could include that in the article. We are not only concerned with whether he is racist or not. That is merely your preoccupation. Even if I were to concede that the most foolproof test had been administered and the results came back unequivocally that Molyneux was racist beyond a shadow of doubt—we still would include in the article that Molyneux said "I have always opposed the idea of racial superiority/inferiority." That is because this is a biography. You are attempting to reduce a biography to answering a question of your choosing. But a biography in an encyclopedia should not be limited in that way. We explore the whole person. If he disagrees with some of the often-repeated points that others say about him, we should include that because it is clearly on-topic. It is much more on-topic than would be a kennel of dogs, which could also warrant inclusion in this article. Bus stop (talk) 19:35, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

No, we are not attempting to "{answer} a question of (our) choosing." You are do that. Is Molyneux a racist/white nationalist/white supremacist/whatever.

We are attempting to summarize what independent reliable sources have to say about a subject. They say nothing about the one sentence you are obsessed with. They say Stefan Molyneyx is a white supremacist (far-right, obsessed with racist conspiracy theories, etc.). That's what Wikipedia does. - SummerPhD^v2.0 20:50, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Bus stop You're not claiming he's a character reference for himself, but you are using him as one. You have had this repeatedly explained to you, and I do not appreciate your attempts to play dumb. I also do not appreciate your insinuation that I and the other editors are attempting to exclude this quote because of our personal opinion on Molyneux. Regardless of my opinion on the guy, using Molyneux as a source in this manner fails multiple policies that have already been stated for you. This article is also a summary of the person, not a comprehensive biography. Including Molyneux's quote would provide little value to the body of the article; as in, someone looking to learn about Molyneux would likely not find it useful to learn that he disagrees with the common description of him. It's not strong evidence contradicting the other sources and it has little value otherwise. Bravetheif (talk) 04:07, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

wp:rs, I shall say that again wp:rs. Any argument that tries to use wp:primary as if equal to wp:rs is a violation of wp:fringe. But wp:blp means if a person denies an accusation we must mention the fact.Slatersteven (talk) 12:02, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

No. Your interpretation of one sentence does not give you carte blanche to add whatever you think might defend the subject to whatever you think he needs to be defended from. Molyneux is verifiably a white supremecist. It's what he's notable for. - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:29, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

"Molyneux is verifiably a white supremecist." He is known for bearing labels that others have put on him? Then put that in the "criticism" section. Furthermore, "It's what he's notable for." and "Molyneux has been described as a cult leader" are weasel words. State the facts about the person. If there is a critical reaction, it can go in the criticism section. Attempts to interpret the behavior of an individual, especially a living one, and especially a controversial live human, do not belong in the lead. One more human (talk) 06:01, 27 September 2020 (UTC)— One more human (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Every reliable source identifies Molyneux as a white supremacist/white nationalist. Were he talking about gardening tips, none of the sources would be covering him. The lead section of an article does three things: Explains what/who the subject is, makes clear why they are notable and summarizes the article. It is impossible to state why he notable or summarize the article without stating that he is a white nationalist. He is controversial. It is not controversial that he is a white nationalist. None of the sources debate this, argue he isn't or question it in any way. They all state, without equivocation, that he is a white supremacist. It is verifiable, central to his notability, a major part of the article and, as a result, belongs in the lead. - SummerPhD^v2.0 06:50, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

The inclusion of Molyneux's quote is in furtherance of the biography. The inclusion of Molyneux's quote has nothing to do with whether Molyneux "actually" is or "actually" isn't a racist. That is not my concern—I am not concerned with whether Molyneux "actually" is or "actually" isn't a racist. My concern is to develop the article as a biography. In trying to accomplish that I favor including biographical material. Material that provides a window into a person's heart would tend to be biographical material. We are not saying that he is telling the truth, although he may be speaking his heart honestly. We just want to hear him addressing the question that so many editors have asserted is his reason for notability, namely racism. Bus stop (talk) 03:37, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not here to "provide a window into (the) heart" of this white supremacist. Wikipedia sumarizes what independent reliable sources say about him. If you want to peer in that window, start with his statement where he says other races are not human and how great it would be to live in an all-white country. - SummerPhD^v2.0 12:05, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

If we could peer into his heart, we'd know whether he is or isn't a racist. That leave us with the words out of his mouth. The words out of his mouth are primary sources, which we need non-primary sources to summarize. Reliable sources summarize the majority of as being white nationalist in nature. His occasional denial doesn't really outweigh that, what would outweigh that would be if he started refuting his earlier white nationalist ideas. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:41, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

what would outweigh that would be if he started refuting his earlier white nationalist ideas Only if reliable sources mentioned that, of course. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:49, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Ehh.... Imagine if he came back from a hiatus with the announcement to the effect of "after some soul-searching and research into the history of European colonialism, women's rights, systematic racism in America, and Nazi Germany, I have realized that my work was horrifically, monstrously, and unapologetically racist and fascist. Although I may never atone for the damage I have caused, I have taken down all my past videos and social media posts, and have ordered that my past books cease printing. My career from now on will be refuting everything I have published up to this point, as I try my best to understand and accept critical race theory, antifascism, and feminism." -- and he actually followed through on that by begging prominent leftists to correct his future work because he's terrified of lapsing into old white supremacist mistakes? While that would certainly end up in reliable sources, in some weird hypothetical case that it didn't (say, he did it after everyone stopped paying attention to him anyway), I think it'd be fair to mention. But that's not going to happen and his cultists will fail to understand why that 180 would be necessary for us to mention that he doesn't want to be labelled for what he currently is... so it's a moot point. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:59, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Moot point is right. Yes, reliable sources will say something about it. I just wanted to be consistent. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:36, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Why would this article only include that he is a racist when we have reliably sourced material pertaining to him not being a racist? Bus stop (talk) 04:29, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

This loaded question cannot be answered because it is based on a fundamentally flawed premises. It also ignores what has already been said and side-steps the purpose of this discussion. Molyneux promotes racist views according to multiple reliable sources. His claim to "oppose" a set of racist ideas is disputed by by commons sense and multiple reliable sources, and Wikipedia isn't a platform for public relations anyway. Grayfell (talk) 05:25, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Bus stop, because one set of reliable sources shows him to be a racist and the other set of reliable sources shows him denying being a racist, but no reliable sources show him not to be a racist. This may, of course, be because he's a racist. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:08, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

JzG—that isn't the question. The question isn't whether Molyneux is a racist or not. The question is whether we should include this material or not. The material is "I have always opposed the idea of racial superiority/inferiority." It is undeniably on-topic and of course it is reliably sourced. Bus stop (talk) 20:50, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

You spend a lot of time taking the side of obvious racists. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:13, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

(...Slow clap...) --Guy Macon (talk) 00:20, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Ian.thomson—you say I am "taking the side" of the subject of an article. Not really. I am trying to add reliably-sourced and on-topic material to this article. Do you know of any reason this material should be omitted? You are telling me that I am "taking the side of obvious racists". WP:TPG#YES tells us to "Comment on content, not on the contributor". Bus stop (talk) 03:18, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

You've been banging the drum to add that one, undiscussed sentence for quite a white. About a month ago, the horse died and you continued whacking it with the same stick. A couple weeks ago, the horse had been beaten into a pool of rotting goo with bits of broken bone. You're still at it. The horse flesh has long since rotted away and you are pounding the pulverized bits of horse bone into the sand.

Yes, you feel that one, cherry-picked sentence tells us everything we need to know about this white supremacist. I think the equally-well sourced quote where he says he doesn't believe all races are the human species. Do you know of any reason this material should be omitted? We've got plenty of other isolated sentences that maybe we should include, like his explanation about how great an all-white country would be. Do you know of any reason this material should be omitted? We've got dozens more, though none of them are the defense of Molyneux you want to add. - SummerPhD^v2.0 05:28, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Bus stop, the question actually is whether we should describe him in terms that follow reliable independent sources. Up above are multiple reliable sources that characterise him as a white supremacist, in their leads, as a statement of fact. To water that down based on our own assessment of what he means by his own statements or self-identification is classic WP:OR. The BBC did not see the need to caveat when saying that "Stefan Molyneux is a Canadian white nationalist activist known for his promotion of conspiracy theories," and I would have no problem at all if that was the opening sentence of this article. We also point out his advocacy of "scientific racism". I don't feel the need to call him a racist in wiki-voice, but I also don't see the need to spin some kind of wiki-voice denial of his racism based on parsing the difference between a white nationalist who promotes "scientific racism", and a white supremacist. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:20, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I am confused

…Why does this article confidently assert that the man is a "white nationalist" and "white supremacist" "known for his promotion of…eugenics" when he clearly states his opinions that "[no] race is 'superior' or 'inferior'" and "Eugenics is a government program that uses force to control people’s reproductive choices and is utterly immoral"? Can some Wikipedia editors read his mind and determine that he is lying when he says these things?

This is reminiscent of the smear campaign that statists have perpetrated against Herbert Spencer, who was in no way a proponent of "social Darwinism".

GreenWeasel11 (talk) 01:52, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Apparently you cannot use his word as a credible source so other reliable sources have to be cited to state that fact. But, I am an agreeance with you completely. Nikolaih^☎️📖 20:19, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Because RS say he is, and he is not an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 20:21, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

@GreenWeasel11: I'm going to go with a hypothetical example, where "orange" and "purple" are opposing views. Imagine there's someone who occasionally says "I believe (orange position)" but then mostly says stuff that supports purple position. For example, he often says that science supports mixing red and blue instead, that the Romans highly valued purple, and even goes to a country that's pushing anti-orange campaigns and says "wow, I didn't know that purple could be so nice." The only time he voices anything like support for orange is when people ask him why he supports purple, or when he can use it to say things that (given the context of his other statement) really seem to be about purple ("red can be mixed other colors to make the best colors").

Analysis by professional journalists, who are trained to make these statements without being sued, conclude the subject really supports the purple position and is only paying lipservice to the orange position to appease people who find the purple position morally repugnant. They also note that he's only popular among purple supporters, anti-orange activists, and self-proclaimed blue supporters.

The occasional fan (who we'll just pretend is ignorant), on the other hand, keeps quoting those few "I believe (orange position)" statements while ignoring everything else.

Now, in that hypothetical, should we label the subject as orange or purple? Bear in mind that we don't use original research, so we do need to stick to what the professional sources say instead of the occasional fan complaint. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:53, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Correct, I would like to point out that if all these "professional journalists" are orange (which is indeed the truth-the mainstream media is monopolized by left winged political ideologies), then all supposed "reliable sources" are anti-purple. Since Wikipedia only uses secondary reliable sources aka the mainstream media (and in my humble opinion, their definition of what a reliable source is is selectively biased), the results aren't neutral. To add onto that, Wikipedia is dominated by "orange", so that is why you see valid conversations being shutdown as "that's just wrong" (without even referencing the reliable source criteria and whatnot). Look at the above talk page for example and you'll see how anyone with an opposing view will be immediately attacked, deemed racist, stupid, unaware of policy, degraded, and ultimately their opinion burned like a pile of rubbish. As another example, notice how your post was deleted because it "did not adhere to talk page policy" even though it is a perfectly valid point (another example of shutting down conversations before they even start).Nikolaih^☎️📖 05:35, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

If all supposed "reliable sources" are anti-purple, and reliable sources are defined as sources who have a reputation of actually checking sources, then people who have a reputation of actually checking sources have a tendency to disagree with the purple ideology. This happens when the purple ideology is based on lies, and it is a desirable outcome. Because, you know, Wikipedia is not supposed to give truth and untruth the same weight.

If you have a problem with specific sources being categorized as reliable, you can take that up with the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:08, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

If (however) you have an issue with out policies take it up as (say) village pump, or on that policies talk pages.Slatersteven (talk) 11:29, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

References

Balanced view is needed for Wikipedia credibility

Unfortunately it is stated as fact that he is a "white supremacists", eliding over the actual facts. The author here is saying that because he interviews avowed white supremacists he is one. Obviously this is worse than inaccuracy. The is calculated subversion of the truth. For some reason this subversion always occurs to the left, i.e., denigrating conservatives. This would be like saying Wikipedia is a white supremacist site because it reports on similar sites. He actually said his opinions that "[no] race is 'superior' or 'inferior'" and "Eugenics is a government program that uses force to control people’s reproductive choices and is utterly immoral"?

As others have said here, can some Wikipedia editors read his mind and determine that he is lying when he says these things?

"This is reminiscent of the smear campaign that statists have perpetrated against Herbert Spencer, who was in no way a proponent of "social Darwinism"." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:579:E128:D00:81A5:4994:7714:6EB0 (talk) 00:22, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

See WP:FALSEBALANCE. Neutrality is not the average between reliable sources and fascist websites. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:19, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

See wp:undue, yes we are biased towards reliability.Slatersteven (talk) 10:29, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Actually, you are biased towards the left. Anyone with eyes can see that.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikolaih (talk • contribs)

@Nikolaih: It'd be at least as easy to accuse you of being a fan of Molyneux's (which would entail other matters), so do you want this to go down to name calling? Ian.thomson (talk) 21:56, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 November 2020

Article claims Stefan Molyneux is a white nationalist and white supremacist. Sources point to mainstream media sources that describe the bans, but point to no evidence of these claims. Sources should provide proof and evidence of these claims, otherwise it is disinformation. I suggest these blanket politically charged terms be removed. Voxpiratica (talk) 07:39, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

You clearly have not read and understood the article, or the sources, so no, we won't be taking your suggestion. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 07:55, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Profuse disagreement

He is known for being an anarchist siding toward anarcho-capitalism. He is not at all known for white supremacism but I notice in the charge toward a surveillance state with medical procedures violating the Nuremberg Code (instituted because of real right-wing extremists in the form of the Third Reich), that many people decrying violations of ancient liberties for all mankind described in the Universal Declaration, have been falsely accused of being right-wing extremists by those who have no problems with death clinics in Holland, surveillance apparatus in the UK or the general destruction of human rights.

I'm not even a Stefan Molyneux fan as his philosophy is not fully thought out but I and anyone who has ever given ear to him could in no way, shape or form see him as a white supremacists. Infact the white supremacists would consider him a loonie liberal who is too soft. This whole article to the extent I've read it appears like a very blatant attempt at character assasination. He has been in strong opposition to the surveillance state, the censorship and the misportrayal of stories on the mainstream media as this extremely authoritarian right wing extremist regime has been constructed all around us now exactly mimicking the Third Reich without swastkas and better technology. There is no way he is a white supremacist but he is a staunch capitalist which would be a more accurate criticism to make. This article is extremely false. To call it misleading would be an understatement. My opinion is that its substantial parts were written by the real white supremacists accusing anything that's a threat to their covert ideology of being what they truly are. That they are creating surveillance state can no longer be regarded as a theory. We live in the very proof of the conspiracy.

Stefan Molyneux is a captalist who will exploit workers in the anarchy he hopes for but he is no white supremacist which is associated with white nationalism and the power of the state. He is vociferously against the states existence. There are real criticisms that could be laid against him but this article isnt even critical of him. Its just character assasination no doubt by the real nazis proud of the supreme power of the surveillance state.

PS The articles cited dont even mention Stefan Molyneux. They're just links that mention the right wing. They contain the same amount of proof Barrack Obama is a white supremacist. This being locked in such a false state highlights moderator incompetency or perhaps even bitterness ... let me guess she voted to remain in the Fourth Reich and oppressed free speech aired is hate crime right?

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.192.6 (talk) 23:14, 7 February 2021 (UTC) 

Ridiculous intro

How is he "best known for his promotion of conspiracy theories, scientific racism, eugenics, and racist views" when most of his work is on peaceful parenting? what evidence is that he is best known for those things as opposed to be someones very biased opinion of Stefan's work? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.6.40.247 (talk) 04:19, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

As has already been explained on this talk page, Wikipedia summarizes reliable sources. It doesn't necessarily matter how much of his work has been on peaceful parenting, because Wikipedia is explicitly not for promotion. Some sources may mention peaceful parenting, but very few reliable sources, if any, emphasize it. Instead, the article follows reliable sources (which also means independent sources in this case), and those sources have mainly discussed his promotion of scientific racism and similar. Grayfell (talk) 06:51, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

What happens when these "reliable sources" have an agenda? 66.115.83.244 (talk) 04:13, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Depends. If they are still reliable, no problem. If they stop being reliable, you can squeal on them at WP:RSP, and they will be demoted. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:04, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

"Agenda" in this context means hidden agenda, but nothing here seems particularly hidden. Using nefarious language and scare quotes is only persuasive to those who have already prejudged sources as bad, wrong, biased, "ridiculous", etc. Implying that a source is unreliable because it has an agenda is misguided at best. Grayfell (talk) 00:23, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

That didnt answer my question at all. Phrase "best known" is 100% subjective and certainly not within wikipedia guidelines. Some biased writers could publish whatever they want about him (or anyone else), but if he had 100mil+ views on youtube about other stuff, including peaceful parenting, then he is verifiably better known for peaceful parenting than what those "reliable" sources quote him on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.6.40.247 (talk) 00:05, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

As I said, we use reliable sources. Putting "reliable" in scare quotes undermines your argument here, since reliable sources has a discrete meaning. Reliable sources have already explained what he is best known for, and this Wikipedia article summarizes those sources. You are free to disagree with those sources, but that alone doesn't make them unreliable.

Interpreting Youtube view metrics would be original research. Among other problems, they can no longer be verified since his channel has been removed. Therefore, even if he used to be known for "peaceful parenting", this doesn't demonstrate what he is now known for. Even setting that aside, we do not know, and cannot know, if this is because many people "knew" him for these videos, of if his unusually dedicated fans bumped the numbers up while everyone else "knew" him for other reasons. Again, any interpretation of these numbers is original research. Since he was banned from Twitter for platform manipulation, and apparently posted sock comments on his own videos as well, these statistics are essentially tainted and prove nothing, unless of course, a reliable source explains them for us.

Grayfell (talk) 07:33, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Also, all YouTube metrics say is how many people watched him, not why.Slatersteven (talk) 10:12, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Libel

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The bias and outright libel in this article is laughable. I challenge anyone to compare this article to the one for Hitler. Wikipedia describes literal Nazis, and people who murdered millions of people, in more charitable terms than it does for modern day political conservatives, whom the authors of this article clearly know nothing about. This site is becoming a parody of itself. I used to donate heavily to Wikipedia. I will no longer fund outright propaganda trash like this. I think the admins deserve most of the blame for this, as they auto-revert any corrections to these articles, and then ban anyone challenging their own reversions. Play whatever games you want. I hope you enjoy funding the site by yourself.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.188.173.189 (talk • contribs) 18:55, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

“I used to donate to Wikipedia” :D is this some sort of meme? Mvbaron (talk) 19:38, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

PLease read wp:legal.Slatersteven (talk) 09:55, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2020

I'll begin by quoting a from Wikipedia Rules and Guidelines,

"Misinformation on Wikipedia misleads readers, causing them to make errors with real consequences, including hurt feelings, public embarrassment,[1] reprints of books,[2] lost points on school assignments, and other costs. Some hoaxes about living people may be defamatory, which could expose Wikipedia to legal consequences (see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons)"

The Wikipedia article on Stefan Molyneux is objectively false. All of the sources referenced regarding the accusations against him are, at best gross exaggerations and at best outright lies. To verify I have poured over Stefan's work to verify the claims of the cited articles and none of them are accurate. There is no indication in any of Stefan's work to indicate he is a white supremacist or white nationalist. There is also no evidence that he promotes scientific racism, or racism of any kind. Whasty1991 (talk) 09:26, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

PLease read wp:or.Slatersteven (talk) 10:58, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. Plenty of sources in the first sentence. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 13:10, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Here is a clip from one of his videos 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.

Though I don't know why I bother at this point, as anyone who doesn't get "Molyneux is a white nationalist" either doesn't understand who Molyneux is, what a white nationalist is, or is lying to themselves or others to support a white nationalist. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:37, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Re "Molyneux describes himself as being a philosopher"

"Mr. Molyneux holds a Masters Degree in History from the University of Toronto; his graduate thesis focused on the History of Philosophy, detailing the relationship between the metaphysical arguments and the political ethics of major Western philosophers such as Plato, Kant, Locke and Hegel." https://www.freedomain.com/about-stefan-molyneux/

- bit more than a self-description...? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.115.97.158 (talk) 14:47, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I doubt that would pass as an RS. Pleae read wp:blp wp:sps and w:rs.Slatersteven (talk) 14:53, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

That YouTube clip doesn’t say he now believes white nationalism. Theknightswhosay (talk) 09:45, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Since when Youtube and the media have become credible sources of people's place on the political spectrum?

Collapsed per WP:FORUM

The intro is slanderous and doesn't cite any reliable sources. Plainly put it's BS. How about writing that "in the opinion of such and such the person is X, Y and Z but in the opinion of such and such the person is A, B and C". Here's what the man himself has to say about such slander https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9L0dPKpfHRA . If Big Tech policies and mainstream media are anything to go by, in this day and age there're more racists and white supremacists than there have ever been in history. The fact that so many people suddenly turn out to be racists, far right, white supremacists should raise questions as to validity of the claims which deem them such. One could accuse anyone of myriad other things and yet the main accusations are those listed above, why is that? That's simply because they stem from political bias of the slanderers, highlight things which are at the core of their ideology. And nothing else. This page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_reliable_source asserts that WIKI isn't a reliable source. And in the case of this article i'm in complete agreement with the assertion. LXNDR (talk) 08:05, 22 February 2021 (UTC) LXNDR, ahem, you're missing quite a couple of points. First, as you say in your header, youtube is indeed not a reliable source for pretty much anything, hence we cannot use it in this article. Second, there are quite a lot of reliable sources in the intro, 25 to be exact... how could you have possibly missed that? Third, wikipedia is not a reliable source to be used for quoting within wikipedia, but we're not doing that, so that point is moot too. Mvbaron (talk) 08:44, 22 February 2021 (UTC) Do we use youtube? Also read wp:legal.Slatersteven (talk) 09:34, 22 February 2021 (UTC) Do we use people’s own words to characterize their views? Surely not! Theknightswhosay (talk) 09:40, 29 May 2021 (UTC) Anything that isn’t consistently lying on behalf of the left isn’t considered a reliable source here anymore. Theknightswhosay (talk) 09:42, 29 May 2021 (UTC) Apart from sources like The Times you mean?Slatersteven (talk) 12:37, 29 May 2021 (UTC) Thank you for that helpful and constructive feedback. I'm sure we will take it into advisement and immediately re-pivot to becoming a clone of Conservapedia, based on it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:13, 29 May 2021 (UTC) No need for the snark.Slatersteven (talk) 16:18, 29 May 2021 (UTC) Slatersteven, Then why did you make a snarky response to him? Also, there's no need for you to reply to me, either, but here we are. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:24, 29 May 2021 (UTC) And wp:forum applies to us all. Snark adds nothing, and undermines the claim we are trying to maintain wp:npov. Indeed I have just has that aimed at me elsewhere here, that this kind of off topic comenetry is allowed when the targets are the right kind. Myt replying to you is not agasiwnt the rules.Slatersteven (talk) 17:09, 29 May 2021 (UTC) And I pointed out he was wrong, by giving him an examlple.Slatersteven (talk) 17:10, 29 May 2021 (UTC) You sarcastically agreed with him that most of the sources we used were "consistently lying on behalf of the left", with the sole exception of The Times. I sarcastically acknowledged his complaints and illustrated the inevitable result of taking such complaints seriously. The only differences were 1) I made it clear that my sarcasm was, in fact sarcasm; and 2) I didn't berate you for yours. Now, the purpose of this page is to discuss changes to this article. Theknight's changes have already been reverted, and I'm not suggesting any. If you want to continue this conversation, feel free to start a thread at ANI. I'll even suggest a title: ==MjolnirPants said something sarcastic and I think he needs to be bent over an admin's knee and spanked for it (please ignore my own sarcasm in that thread)== ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:03, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Use of Hostile Sources to Characterize Stefan Molyneux

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This is a broad problem that Wikipedia is having: The mainstream media has become so tendentious in its reporting, it is no longer helpful to simply use a cite in which an article from a news source which contains an adjective and have it be at all valid. Stefan Molyneux is a good case in point. I've watched his videos, when they were on You Tube, quite a number. I am not a fan, I agree with some things he says, not with others. Sometimes interesting, sometimes not so much. At no point, however, would I ever call him a White Supremacist or even vaguely racist. He is provocative but not in any way the article outrightly states. It is a poorly written and, almost to the point of being parody, sourced article. One sees this from the the outset when it uses the Southern Poverty Law Center as an authority; that's a problem right there since they have long ago simply used their once respectable name to slander people with whom they disagree politically.

This really surprised me, that Wikipedia would keep an article like this up after such a large number of people have pointed out its various inadequacies. My specific point is that the sources used to ostensibly support the adjectives used to describe this commentator do not provide any substantive evidence; they simply print various descriptive words, which are then repeated here. I've now seen this in article after article on Wikipedia and it seems to be a persistent and pernicious problem - and a growing one. This entire article should be rewritten with actual statements or examples which support the extreme nature of the vilification set forth here. This is not a factual, not even fact-oriented, article. It reads like it was written by someone who dislikes the guy and doesn't care to disguise the hostility -- which is exactly what harms Wikipedia the most. I fear for Wiki's reputation as a neutral encyclopedia-style source, and have read and helped edit articles in small ways for many years now, so that is disconcerting to say the least.

Wikipedia is in danger of losing something quite special, and that is its ability to stay above the political harshness that is besetting the broader culture, this article is an egregious example of it. I really don't care too much about Stefan Molyneux, but I do care about Wiki -- and this is not a credit to its reputation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sychonic (talk • contribs) 23:27, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

If you do not agree with what mainstream media are saying, then that is not a problem of Wikipedia. It is your problem.

You listen to Molyneux, and you lack the expertise that would allow you to categorize what you are hearing. Our reliable sources have that expertise.

You do not trust reliable sources? Instead, you want to trust some of the right-wing loons and grifters? Then there is no way to make an encyclopedia you will trust.

If you think that a reliable source is wrong in one specific point, you will have to find another reliable souce that contradicts it. We will definitely not change any articles based of the subjective impressions of some random person, and neither on what some generally unreliable source says. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:34, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

-> Duck test. Just sayin'. TucanHolmes (talk) 17:44, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

There's nothing reliable about the mainstream media, except that it will always be anti-white and anti-male. 12.154.111.184 (talk) 17:39, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Well we say it is, so without a better argument you are not going to change our minds.Slatersteven (talk) 17:41, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

There's no arguing with an agenda. 12.154.111.184 (talk) 04:42, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

sychonic I might agree that sometimes mainstream media organs are biased and/or make statements based on poor sources, mainstream sources like those cited on the article are generally reliable, but no source is always reliable. But in this specific case, they are completely right, many well-intentioned people that don't have extremist views tries to defend him and criticize the treatment given to him by the media and Wikipedia, this is part of his strategy, he tries to pass himself off as a person with views of the traditional right or as an anarcho-capitalist(although this is totally contradictory), but in reality, he is an extremist with extremely racist views, a male supremacist and an anti-muslim.

He tries to demonstrate his most radical ideas only in a soft way to go unnoticed by the vast majority of his audience, as he knows how shocking and unacceptable these ideas are, so instead he concentrates on acceptable things like criticizing identity politics, supporting Trump and defending anarcho-capitalism, denying that he is a racist or extremist and at the same time trying to convey an image of someone charismatic, a "philosopher" who has a high level of knowledge (although he often defends absurd ideas and has very little knowledge about the subjects he talks about), who will tell you the secret truth about the world hidden by the elite, making many people start trusting him a lot and believing in everything he says and, unfortunately, often only the people who reach that point are those who perceive and begin to understand his extremist views, in this way he is able to gradually transform normal people and even people who previously had progressive views into radical far-right extremists.

Even I tried to change the introduction about him on this page once because even though he is an extremist that I hate, it seemed totally unfair to assign such serious adjectives to a person that was not explicitly racist, but my opinion of him totally changed when I carefully read the sources on this page, as well as some youtube videos, what later made me add more sources to the introduction instead. I think everyone should read them before criticizing this article.

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/stefan-molyneux SPLC may be extremely biased, as you can see that in this article they falsely report that Rothbard "railed in support of the apartheid", because he opposed the economic embargo (as he would obviously do since he believed in NAP), stating that he supported voluntary segregation when he explicitly describes his ideology as a way of combating racism on the article that they cite "Free-market capitalism is a marvelous antidote for racism. In a free market, employers who refuse to hire productive black workers are hurting their own profits" and also accused libertarian Mises institute of having "neo-fascist sympathies" because the chairman had given support for 2 mainstream right-wing european party leaders (probably because they supported free-market policies), what I have no words to describe how delusional it is. While I don't have much sympathy for Rothbard and this institute, I have to say that SPLC work on labeling people as extremists is sometimes irresponsible. But this article is mostly good.

These videos also helped me to understand:

Complete evidence Stefan Molyneux is a White nationalistRWW News: Stefan Molyneux Says His Trip to Poland Sold Him on White Nationalism Creepy Stefan Molyneux Busts A Nut Thinking About A White Ethnostate. In some of these videos, SM almost explicitly confesses that he is a white nationalist, isn't it enough to convince you? ​Lucasdmca (talk) 02:26, 31 March 2021 (UTC).

Lucasdmca Thank you for your response. It provided me with substantive, worthwhile points worth considering. It sounds like you agree with me a little bit (start of with the positive), such as that "sometimes mainstream media organs are biased" and that the SPLC is no longer what it once was. Even so, my central point revolves around the too-common experience of reading a Wiki article, and thinking something isn't quite right, and then checking the source. After doing so, even with a "reliable" source, I find it is simply wrong, or the facts of a particular situation have been twisted, or key facts omitted. I'd rather not post particular examples since that would ignite debate over the specifics of those issues and articles, causing a tangential distraction.

As I mentioned, I'm not here to cheerlead for Molyneux, if he has the cult people seem to think, they can do that. I appreciate the links you posted, the videos, and they did explain certain things. I'm afraid the voice overs by their authors were obnoxious in tone and unhelpful in their attempt to explain to me the proper way to think. When considering the clips of his shows, sans narration, I can see what has set people off. I'm not so masochistic as to want to check on the context by watching a lot of Molyneux discourses, as I said, I'm not a follower of his. The most egregious thing I did see was that he broaches the topic of IQ -- that is strictly verboten in today's America. While that particular issue doesn't interest me that much, I know that even bringing it up has caused great harm to those who dare to mention it. That does not help the case for those attacking Molyneux. I read The Bell Curve when it first came out and was absolutely shocked by the scurrilous, unfounded attacks on the authors. Insofar as this is the reason for the extreme aversion to Molyneux, it sets off alarm bells for me, it smacks of the thought police coming to to quash any rational debate because it disrupts their own worldview. Charles Murray, one of the authors, is someone I'm more familiar with, and he's no extremist, and perhaps might even fall into the "anarcho-capitalist" category, though economic libertarian might be a better term for the concept.

These are the folks who advocate a hands-off approach toward governmental controls and action, which usually entail broad policy prescriptions that cannot possibly take into account individual differences and thus suppresses freedom of choice and activity. When a free economy is allowed to work, some social activists see racial disparities as one consequence and respond, knee-jerk, with phrases like "systemic racism". The authors of those videos seem to be among that vocal group. I looked at some of the other videos they posted, and it appears that problems arise with anyone who thinks that "systemic racism" is ill-conceived and misbegotten, and that the very term "systemic racism" is racist itself since by implication it means that most white people are racist. It's hard to miss since they are the ones that have created the system. Further, they should feel guilty about it and support policies of the social activists liking or else they will be tarred with the "r" word -- "racist". One of these videos bashes Ben Shapiro and Dinesh D'Souza for being crypto-racists as well, and they are very garden-variety conservative. It strikes me that this is not a debate that should be able to be shut down because one side starts accusing the other of "racism", since that sort of toxic ad hominem quashing of speech ends up making things worse. It would be a huge loss if this phenomenon produces the phrase "well, you can't trust Wiki, it just toes the ideological line."

The accusation that anyone promotes radically harmful ideas in a "soft way to go unnoticed by the vast majority of his audience" strikes me as a criticism too often used. This entails a person saying something that might sound innocuous but somehow the accuser knows what the speaker really means. The go-to trite phrase in politics and the media is "dog whistle" and is used when one wants to repudiate someone but lacks a substantive way to do so. I will leave it with the assertion that someone should not be vilified in a Wikipedia article because his ideological opponents do not like what he has to say. I find Ta-Nahisi Coates to have voiced remarkably offensive things, but I wouldn't support an article throwing around adjectives from hostile sources in the way I see in this one. He says awful things about white people, as do many others, and most of those characterizations are met with shrugs or silent nodding, some outright applaud (or like Robin DiAngelo, turn it into a business). The difference, of course, is that Coates is a media darling, and that is where my chief concern resides -- the media. Wikipedia as a community should be more careful in simply repeating characterizations from media sources when they have become so compromised. As an example, relying on the New York Times saying someone is an "extremist" is questionable since it has become ideologically extreme itself, as people from its own staff have stated (the woman quitting the editorial board was no right winger, that's sure).Sych (talk) 08:37, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

First of all, please stay on topic. Other people have to read these walls of texts. Secondly, anyone who characterizes the New York Times as ideologically extreme is so far down the drain that I honestly don't know what will convince them that their world view needs to re-enter reality land. Lastly, I have a public service announcement which you might find useful. TucanHolmes (talk) 18:38, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Publications section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 27 July 2021

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

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

Climate change

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think we can say "he has provided a platform for climate change denial."Slatersteven (talk) 12:56, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

5 year old version is better than current version

This was back when Wikipedia still had the pretense of NPOV and didn't go fishing for the craziest 1% of journalists to quote every snarl word they can find to put in the lead section: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stefan_Molyneux&oldid=722173038

These journalists calling him a "white nationalist" are the journalistic equivalent of fringe-theories in science articles. It is impossible for an anarcho-capitalist to be any sort of nationalist.2600:8801:20C:7500:30FE:3AF6:2A52:6B3 (talk) 05:44, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

It isn't impossible for an "anarcho-capitalist to be any sort of nationalist" at all. Also, 5 years ago M might as well not have turned so extreme as he is today. And I don't think any reliable sources call him primarily anarcho-capitalist anymore, they do however call him far-right etc and that is all sourced in the article. -- Mvbaron (talk) 07:09, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Exactly, a person can change in 5 years.Slatersteven (talk) 08:40, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

There's not a goddamned thing reliable about wikipedia considers "reliable sources". I guess if you consider Joseph Stalin's certified Soviet press to be reliable, then maybe, but otherwise.... 12.154.111.184 (talk) 02:28, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

If you wish to question sources take it to wp:rsn.Slatersteven (talk) 09:21, 29 August 2021 (UTC)