Talk:Stefan Molyneux/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Neutrality of article

This article about Stefan Molyneux looks far from neutral.

I am not a fan of the character but the article is at best frivolous and defamatory.

I will ask moderation to delete this article and get a vote .

--Jsmaster (talk) 16:42, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

We don't delete articles simply because we don't like them. But which parts are "frivolous and defamatory"? That's a serious accusation, and this article looks well-sourced and neutral to me. – bradv🍁 16:47, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Jsmaster is partially correct though; As it stands, the article is nothing less than slander and defamation. It shouldn't be deleted, but it should be altered to a neutral tone. 66.115.87.148 (talk) 18:42, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't see anything "slanderous" in the article, but if you have something supported by reliable sources you should pitch it here. Neutrality requires us to include factual information found in reliable sources, even if that factual information reflects poorly on the subject. Nblund ^talk 18:50, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

It requires us to provide factual manner with a WP:NPOV which this does not. Please present the facts in a neutral manner. Mike Young (talk) 16:11, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

You misunderstood the nature of the beast here. Wikipedia stopped being about neutrality when it allowed yellow journalism as a primary source, many media outlets cut and paste each others work and don't care about journalism - so once someone makes a single claim it will spread, soon you'll have thousands of sources repeating the same thing. Whether the thing is true or not doesn't matter to Wikipedia what matters to them is if there is a primary source for it. This turned off most editors and academics who walked away about a decade ago leaving only political zealots and activists who saw their opportunity to weaponize something that will get into children's classrooms. Nothing you do or say will change anything as their long march through the institutions is complete. This is why alternative media is invaluable to the sum of human knowledge, not with the institutes of power and the totalitarians, but with the rebels and free thinkers of the dark web. 121.210.33.50 (talk) 02:23, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree that this article is not neutral, and perhaps even defamatory, in its current state. It's true that many people have called Molyneux a white supremacist - and the article should acknowledge that - but it's also true that he has consistently denied being a white supremacist (see here, for example), and the article should note that as well. Personally, I don't think he is a white supremacist, if I understand his beliefs correctly. White supremacy is defined in its article as the "belief that white people are superior to people of other races and therefore should be dominant over them." Molyneux believes that different races have different average IQs, which is certainly a racist view by definition, but he hasn't said that high IQs are exclusive to white people (here he is saying "East Asians have the highest IQs as a race"), and I don't think he's ever advocated some races dominating others, whatever exactly that means. If an article about a person directly contradicts things that this person has consistently stated, that seems both non-neutral and a likely violation of WP:BLP. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:57, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

"Asians also have high IQs" is a pretty standard-issue white supremacist talking point. White supremacists almost never describe themselves as such, but we don't need to take his word for it, we look to secondary sources for those descriptions. Nblund ^talk 16:24, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Is that true? I'm not familiar with white supremacist talking points. How could someone who thinks East Asians are, on average, smarter than white people also think that "white people are superior to people of other races"? Anyway, even if every secondary source called him that, the article should also make clear that he doesn't see himself that way, something that I think is lacking from the article at the moment. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:15, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes. The "model minority" myth is less about accepting Asians as equal citizens in a multicultural democracy, and more of a way to dismiss claims of racial discrimination and demands for civil rights protections from other minority groups. The tweet you linked doesn't appear to contain a direct denial of white supremacism from Molyneux. If there are secondary sources where he disputes those characterizations, that's worth mentioning, but it shouldn't be given equal weight to the views of other sources. Nblund ^talk 17:39, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Great - you found an article quoting other people who, like Molyneux, think that East Asians are on average smarter than whites. How could any of them be white supremacists? Wouldn't they have to be... Asian supremacists? As for him directly coming out and saying it, I looked around a little and found this video, where he spends a few minutes explaining how he's neither a white supremacist nor a white nationalist, starting at the linked-at time. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:32, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, and if you don't believe people like Jared Taylor are white supremacists, then you simply don't believe white supremacists exist. There's no inherent contradiction between Molyneux (and every other white nationalist) saying "Asians have higher IQs" while at the same time advocating for white political and social dominance in the societies in which they live. Regardless of whether or not you're persuaded by him, we have to go with reliable sources, and Molyneux isn't one. As for his youtube page: I think we need to find a secondary source here. Nblund ^talk 19:02, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I stand corrected on white supremacy. Though, given that white supremacy seems to be distinct from a belief in white racial superiority, that makes the evidence for Molyneux being a white supremacist even skimpier. Anyway, I think he can indeed be used as a reliable source on his own views - see WP:BLPSELFPUB. Korny O'Near (talk) 20:21, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Whites dominating white-created societies is white nationalism, not white supremacy. Otherwise, we could use that same logic to say that Israel is a Jewish supremacist country, China is a Chinese supremacist country, Mexico is a Mexican supremacist country, etc.

Molyneux also repeatedly points out that Ashkenazi Jews have the highest average IQs of any race. Why would an alleged white supremacist want to highlight that? 66.115.87.148 (talk) 23:05, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Because they are white? Eastern Europeans are, you know. Doug Weller talk 07:00, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

White dominance in a multicultural country (like the one Molyneux lives in) means white supremacy. Nblund ^talk 16:02, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm really iffy on the youtube source, but if it is cited solely for the limited purpose of saying "Molyneux says he is not a white supremacist" then that might be okay. WP:BLPSELFPUB allows us to cite self-published claims provided that they aren't controversial or unduly self-serving - I'm pretty sure this is both. The New York Times has him describing himself as an "anarcho-capitalist", which seems reasonable to add. Nblund ^talk 16:02, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

I think a sentence or two on his tepid response to the description would be appropriate, for both BLP and context. Anything more would need better sources. It's not to hard to find people in Molyneux's sphere who are openly white supremacist/nationalist/whatever,[1] so it's vaguely interesting that Molyneux bothers to push back. Grayfell (talk) 22:05, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Nblund - "controversial" is not part of the guidelines. As for "self-serving" - I don't think defending oneself from charges of white supremacy counts as self-serving.

Grayfell - in the video, Molyneux argues (persuasively, in my opinion) that, as an anarcho-capitalist, he is against all violence, governmental and otherwise, which would prohibit the kind of racial domination implied by white supremacy. I don't know how his argument could have been less "tepid" - should he have shouted it? Korny O'Near (talk) 14:17, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

"Self serving" probably includes his efforts to recast his views as just "basic facts". I think its fair to use that source to say "he denies that he is a white supremacist or white nationalist", but probably nothing more. "Anarcho-capitalism" is a nod toward Murray Rothbard. Rothbard opposed basically all civil rights protections, and tried to align the libertarian movement with David Duke. So...no its not actually much of a denial. Nblund ^talk 14:44, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

To me, "self-serving" implies boasting falsely about oneself - which I don't think applies here. And if you want to show that Molyneux is a white supremacist, instead of doing this tenuous guilt-by-association, maybe it would help if you could define what "white supremacy" means? It can't be the belief that whites are superior to all other races, because he doesn't believe that. And it can't be the desire for whites to dominate all other races, because he doesn't believe in that either. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:14, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, Rothbard praised things that he agreed with, regardless of whether they were said by a racist moron or an economically illiterate socialist. I don't see your point. Also, in order to be a white nationalist you must first be a nationalist, which is quite difficult for an anarchist... Pelirojopajaro (talk) 15:25, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

This is outside the scope of the talk page. The sources call him a white supremacist. You haven't provided any reliable source that disputes it. He denies it, but his denials require an implausible suspension of disbelief. He believes that we should roll back all civil rights protections, prohibit non-white immigration, and structure public policy around the assumption that black people are intellectually and culturally inferior to whites. Call it what you like. Reliable sources call it white supremacy, and we follow suit. Nblund ^talk 15:41, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, you brought up Rothbard, not me. Anyway, I am well aware of the RS issue. I'm not going to die on this hill, but clearly there's a bigger problem with Wikipedia since this discussion comes up here on a ~weekly basis. Generally, Molyneux's followers like him for his views on things other than race (my own irrelevant original research), so it is disappointing that this is such a large focus for this page and the reliable sources. I'm not sure what the solution is, but I see the same cycle over and over again on this and a handful of other pages that are on my watchlist. Maybe the next angry youtuber to come along will read this and choose to think of a solution instead of ranting like I seem to be doing now. Pelirojopajaro (talk) 16:37, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Stefan Molyneaux has not advocated for any of those positions (roll back civil rights, prohibit non white immigration, or structure public policy around the inferiority of blacks), there is no evidence for any of these claims. Molyneaux is a Libertarian who has invited on his channel thinkers from both sides of the debate on race and intelligence, including Eric Turkheimer and James Flynn. A source that makes claims about an individual without providing supporting evidence should not be used in an encyclopedia no matter how much you as an individual believe it to be a “reliable source”. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmann101 (talk • contribs) 16:17, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I just rewrote the intro a little, to be more (in my opinion) neutral and straightforward. During that rewriting, in which I matched up sources with specific labels given to Molyneux ("alt-right", "far-right", etc.), I found something very interesting, which is: none of the sources for this article seem to actually call him a white supremacist! The closest they seem to come is saying that he "amplifies" white supremacists by having interviewed some on his podcast. Now, I'm not denying that he has been called a white supremacist, but the places that have called him that don't seem to be cited here. I left the "white supremacist" label in the intro, but now with a "citation needed" tag.

Regardless of how this pans out, I do find it interesting that no one here seems willing or able to offer a definition of white supremacy that encompasses Molyneux's views. I know we're just editors, etc., but it's still interesting. Korny O'Near (talk) 20:58, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

The article says he's promoted white supremacy, which is also what the sources say. Anarcho-capitalist is his self-description, it is not the description of the New York Times. Nblund ^talk 21:16, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, it's true that none of the text specifically calls him a white supremacist - although the article does put him in the "White supremacists" category, which I assume you agree is an error. But I don't see any sources that say he promotes white supremacy either - they note that he has interviewed white supremacists, but that's not the same thing. I could be wrong, though. What sources are you referring to? Korny O'Near (talk) 21:26, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

The SPLC uses the term "amplifies". I don't think there's any way you could read that and think the SPLC was characterizing him as a disinterested interviewer, so I'm really not sure what you're asking me for. The category could go, but I'd wait to hear from others first. Nblund ^talk 21:39, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Even talking the SPLC as a reliable source (doubtful - it's an advocacy organization), "amplifies" is not the same as "promotes". For example, when a newspaper publishes an op-ed by someone, they're amplifying that person's views, but not promoting them. But I, too, am curious to hear what others think. Korny O'Near (talk) 21:57, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

The SPLC source is only saying Molyneux provides people with a place to speak. That is what amplifies "scientific racism," eugenics and white supremacism to a massive new audience means to me. He interviews people and in so doing he "amplifies" their views. And the Southern Poverty Law Center is an advocacy group, they are a biased and opinionated.[2] Bus stop (talk) 23:21, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Even assuming that tortured reading is correct, other sources also describe him promoting white supremacy and scientific racism. Nblund ^talk 00:12, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't see anything tortured about that reading, but in any case, you did, in fact, find one media source, The Daily Dot, which I assume is a reliable source, that calls him a "white supremacist". So, some sources have called him alt-right, some have called him a white nationalist, and at least one source calls him a white supremacist. That's why I like the version of the intro I came up with, which lists the labels he has been given, with citations for each, instead of picking sides and declaring that he definitively is far-right, a promoter of white supremacy, etc. No single one of these labels is supported by a majority of sources - certainly not "white supremacist", which is supported by one source, nor "promoter of white supremacy", which is promoted by (as far as I know) zero. Korny O'Near (talk) 00:28, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

"A skilled propagandist and an effective communicator within the racist 'alt-right' and pro-Trump ranks, his promotion of scientific racism and eugenics to a large and growing audience is a serious concern. Molyneux has been delivering “race realist” propaganda, based on pseudo-scientific sources, to his audience on an ongoing basis for over two years, and thus has encouraged thousands of people to adopt his belief in biological determinism, social Darwinism and non-white racial inferiority. Molyneux puts considerable effort into cloaking the practical implications of these beliefs across his media platforms." [3] -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 15:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Right. The source for this is the Southern Poverty Law Center, and, as stated in the WP:RSP page that Bus Stop linked to above, their statements can be cited but have to be attributed - so a sentence that cites them would have to say "The SPLC states that Molyneux kicks puppies", rather than "Molyneux kicks puppies". Also, this text doesn't mention white supremacy. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:16, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

If you don't think part of the cited text is about white supremacy then you are wasting everyone's time here; I won't comment further. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 17:17, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Nblund stated above that white supremacy is not about racial superiority, it's about racial dominance. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:43, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

No I didn't. Your proposed edit replaced well-sourced characterizations with a label (anarcho-libertarian) that no source has ever used to describe him. That won't work. Nblund ^talk 17:59, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

You described it before as "White dominance in a multicultural country". As for "anarcho-capitalist" (the actual label), here's The Guardian saying it (though they put it in scare quotes), and here are Techdirt and The Spinoff, though I'm not sure which of those are reliable sources. But I'm also fine with going with "self-described anarcho-capitalist", if that's more acceptable. That's not the label I'm concerned about. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:23, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, they use scare quotes. So does tech-dirt. So does the NYT source you cited. The Spinoff says it is a self description. No source has used those words to describe him in their own voice. You're presenting an offer to refrain from mis-characterizing sources as though it is a compromise.Nblund ^talk 18:45, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

This is an unexpected rabbit-hole to go down... Techdirt uses scare quotes in the headline but not in the body of the article, but fine, "self-described" it is. Korny O'Near (talk) 19:01, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

This version is unacceptable for multiple reasons. For one, using two obscure and lengthy self-serving sources to fill half of the first paragraph with pseudointellectial trivia is not neutral or appropriate. Downplaying the entire reason he is notable enough to have an article is also wildly inappropriate, and this also used WP:WEASEL words to undermine reliable sources. False equivelence between his self description and "the media's" description is tactical and non-neutral, and appears to be whitewashing. "former software entrepreneur" in the very first sentence? Who cares about that crap? Was he a paperboy as a child, as well? Give me a break. Grayfell (talk) 20:35, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Seconded. His self-aggrandizing Youtube comments do not take precedence over the consistent characterizations that appear in reliable sources. They are barely acceptable for even for his self description. He's certainly not known for arguing that "different races have different average IQs", he's known for advancing scientific racism. Regardless of what you personally believe, I can't see how any plausible reading of the sources could lead you to think that this was a reasonable summation of how he is described.Nblund ^talk 00:58, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

What are these "consistent characterizations"? Of the sources currently cited, zero call him a white supremacist (ironically, there's one in my version of the text), and two call him a white nationalist. In all of these cases, he's mentioned only in passing, in a list of people. So these characterizations are extremely inconsistent, I would say. As for his YouTube comments explaining why he's not a white supremacist or white nationalist, I see nothing obscure or self-aggrandizing about his argument. Let me quote it: "The idea that I would support massive government violence to create some kind of purified ethno-state would go against everything that I have stood for in terms of the non-aggression principle and a stateless society." This seems quite clear to me: white supremacy and nationalism require using force of some kind to uphold that state of things, and Molyneux does not believe in using force of any kind. It seems easy to follow, relevant, and, well, correct. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:12, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

The entry also doesn't call him a white supremacist. Far right, alt-right, white nationalist are all supported by multiple reliable sources. Anarcho-capitalist is supported by zero reliable sources. Whether or not it seems correct to you doesn't really matter here. Nblund ^talk 17:47, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

The article says (twice) that he's "known for his promotion of white supremacist views", both times with no reliable source backing up that statement. "White nationalist" is supported by either one or two reliable sources, depending on whether you think Mother Jones is reliable (here it's called reliable but biased). Presenting both of these as fact seems extremely biased. You're right that whether I think his argument is correct doesn't matter - but it passes the conditions of WP:BLPSELFPUB, and that's all that matters. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:22, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

As I said above: it might pass BLPSELFPUB for a bare minimum statement that he denies these characterizations, but the broader claims that his ideology immunizes him from being called a white nationalist is self-serving and obviously conflicts with what sources say about him. Moreover, even if it is reliable, it is clearly undue to give it equal or greater weight than the characterizations that appear in reliable sources.

In addition to NBC and Mother Jones, Molyneux is described as a white nationalist by the Daily Dot, The New Republic, Forward, and Huffington Post. Lest you think this is confined to left-leaning outlets, editorials in Reason and the The National Review offer the same characterization. "Far right" and "alt-right" are probably the more consistent descriptors, but the AP (and other journalistic guidelines) see "alt-right" as essentially a synonym for white nationalism. I haven't seen any source that supports the claim that he is known for simply saying that different racial groups have different average IQs.

The SPLC describes him as "espousing" white supremacist talking points about "white genocide". The Columbia Journalism Review, and this widely cited report from Data and Society also describe him as a prominent advocate of that white supremacist conspiracy theory. Nblund ^talk 19:37, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Ah - there are indeed more sources calling him a white nationalist. (Not all of the sources you listed actually call him that, but certainly some do.) As for "white supremacist" - the SPLC is not a reliable source. I don't know if the other two are, but neither of them actually calls Molyneux a white supremacist, so it doesn't matter. To infer that from their words would be synthesis. As for including Molyneux's own views: to prevent two sentences about his views from being included, in the article about him, because it would constitute "undue weight" is laughable. Korny O'Near (talk) 20:24, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

The SPLC is a reliable source. I didn't claim that they called him a white supremacist. I said they described him as someone who promotes white supremacist talking points. Laugh all you'd like, but this is common sense: we don't give equal weight to fringe ideas, even in articles about fringe figures. Nblund ^talk 20:58, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Okay, yes, the SPLC is reliable, but, as already noted here, they're considered "reliable but biased", meaning that their views can be included but have to be attributed to them. And what's the fringe idea here - that Stefan Molyneux does not promote white supremacism? Given the sourcing we've discussed, I'd say the fringe idea is that he does. Korny O'Near (talk) 21:17, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

You're talking in circles. Other sources say the same thing. Molyneux's definitions of white supremacy/white nationalism, and his comments about the "racial hierarchy" in IQ are both WP:EXCEPTIONAL and self serving claims. If they were important enough to warrant discussion in the lead, we wouldn't need to cite his youtube page to find them. Nblund ^talk 14:50, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree that it would be better if there were reliable media sources describing these views, but I think that's mostly just due to the lack of media attention Molyneux has gotten. As noted previously, even in the sources used as citations for calling him "alt-right", "far-right" etc., Molyneux is usually just included in a list of such people. I'm not sure if any of the sources mentioned so far have devoted more than two sentences to him specifically. But I see nothing fringe or exceptional about the self-description we're talking about. If the article said "Different races have different average IQs", and cited one of Molyneux's videos, that would of course be a fringe view. But for the article to say "Molyneux believes that different races have different average IQs" - or, more relevantly, "Molyneux believes that, as an anarcho-capitalist, he cannot be a white supremacist", would just be a straightforward description of facts. It offers important information about Molyneux (the purpose of this article, after all), and seems logically consistent. As for "self serving" - what's self-serving about someone explaining their views? How could he have conveyed this information in a way that you wouldn't consider self-serving? Korny O'Near (talk) 16:35, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

There are dozens of sources that describe his views. None of those sources describe Molyneux the way that he prefers to describe himself, but that's obviously not an accident or an oversight. Multiple editors have explained the problem here at length - its time to drop the stick. Nblund ^talk 16:53, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Really, dozens of sources? Please list one that actually describes his views in any detail. And feel free to explain "self serving", while you're at it. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:13, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 2

I've reverted this change. I'd suggest making incremental changes to the article rather than rewriting whole sections. In particular, this version uses overuses weasel words to downplay the consensus of the reliable sources, and it completely removes any mention of Molyneux's role in promoting far-right theories. – bradv🍁 15:43, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't think you mean "weasel words" (defined there as "words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated") - you sort of mean the opposite, but I think it's appropriate because no one source has called him "far-right", "alt-right", etc. etc., and he doesn't call himself any of those. Also, what is the mention that was there before, that my version removed? As far as I know, my changes didn't remove any information. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:36, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

I meant "weasel words" in the way it's used in the wikilinked policy page - "some people call him a white supremacist". And the section that said that he "is known for his promotion of white supremacist views" was removed entirely. Now I see that my revert has been undone, so further discussion here is required. – bradv🍁 04:56, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I still think you used "weasel words" in the opposite sense of what's intended, but it doesn't really matter. So, it looks like the term "white supremacy" is the big sticking point here, which is strange. Let's review the facts:

• In the wording of the article that you prefer, "white supremacy" or variations are used five times: two to say that he "promotes white supremacist views", two to say that he's had white supremacists like Jared Taylor on his show, and one in the ungrammatical section name "Alt-right, racism and white supremacy".
• The only citation that seems to match "promotes white supremacist views" in any way is this report by the Southern Poverty Law Center, which says that he "amplifies" such views - presumably in reference to the set of controversial people he's had on his show whom they list. "Amplify" is not the same as "promote" - and in any case, the SPLC is here considered reliable but biased, which means that any statement that comes from them can't simply be repeated but has to be attributed to them.
• There is one known source that actually calls Molyneux a white supremacist: that's this Daily Dot article. (Ironically, it's only cited in my version of the wording, not yours.) However, the Daily Dot is "considered generally reliable for Internet culture", i.e. not this, which means that maybe it shouldn't be getting cited at all.
• Molyneux has repeatedly denied being a white supremacist, and in this video makes what I think is a compelling case that he can't be: he doesn't believe in the use of force, which means that he couldn't support one race trying to dominate another.
• This is a more minor point, but it should be noted that the second mention of Jared Taylor, the sentence "He has hosted white supremacists on his show, such as Jared Taylor", is referenced with a New York Times article that doesn't call Taylor a white supremacist, and doesn't say he was on Molyneux's show.

So, we have statements tying Molyneux to white supremacy, which contradict what he has said, and are not backed up by anything. This seems like an obvious case of a WP:BLP violation. To quote from that policy, "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." Korny O'Near (talk) 22:21, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

White supremacy is not necessarily the main sticking point here - multiple editors have pointed to multiple issues with your edits to the lead, and your changes haven't meaningfully addressed them. You're still trying to heavily cite his youtube videos while downplaying the descriptions from reliable sources, and you're still trying to characterize "scientific racism" as "believing that there are differences in average IQs". Neither is acceptable. You also seem to have forgotten the additional sourcing I pointed to above which supports the "white supremacy" claim. You don't like the answer you're getting, but that doesn't mean you can just keep slowly edit warring. Nblund ^talk 22:41, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, let's try to see if we can at least get resolution on the "white supremacy" thing. Can everyone agree that this article should not say that Molyneux promotes white supremacist views? I don't know why you linked to that "additional sourcing", because as far as I know, none of those sources you mentioned - other than the Daily Dot one, which I already covered - connects Molyneux to white supremacy. Korny O'Near (talk) 00:46, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Quoting the relevant portions:

• Data and Society ...Molyneux openly promotes scientific racism, advocates for the men’s rights movement, critiques initiatives devoted to gender equity, and promotes white supremacist conspiracy theories focused on “White Genocide” and “The Great Replacement.”
• CJR ...white supremacists across the world have been raising a false alarm about [white genocide] for more than a decade...In 2017, Stefan Molyneux aired an interview with Simon Roche, a leading proponent of the South African farmer hoax.

Our own entry on White Genocide provides additional sourcing and support for the characterization of "white genocide" as a white supremacist meme. Nblund ^talk 01:05, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't know what "Data and Society" is, but I doubt it's a reliable source. As to the CJR one - we already know that he's had all sorts of controversial people on his show, and that he has various unconventional beliefs. Does any of this equate to "promoting white supremacist views"? You just have to find a reliable source that says so - otherwise, it's pure synthesis. Korny O'Near (talk) 01:55, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

You doubt it's reliable, but his own youtube videos are compelling? That and 4.50$ will get you a tall soy latte.

We have a mountain of sources which support the label "white supremacist" using slightly different, non-contradictory wording. If instead, he were described as a "white nationalist", per many, many sources, IPs and editors here will say he cannot be a white nationalist because he's not a "nationalist" according to their own OR. Somehow being an ancap is a free-pass to avoid all scrutiny, I guess. If the article instead says he's a "white supremacist", that's challenged too, because of his own pseudo-philosophical canard about the NAP. The NAP, by the way, is fully compatible with white supremacy as a social issue, which is just one of the many, many reasons it's not taken seriously by most real philosophers... But that, also is OR. By stooping to his level and playing this game, every factual description of his beliefs must be burred in the body, and any summary of those facts must be undermined by weasel words and evasive waffle based on his own youtube blather. Humoring these euphemisms damages the article to make his racist pseudoscience more appealing. This is not acceptible. Articles should summarize in simple, direct language. Plenty of sources are available which explain his position that non-white people are inherently or biologically inferior to white people. He actively promotes and collaborates with many white racists and pseudo-scientists to promote a shared fable about white racialism. It's absurd to pretend that there is not connection between this behavior and "white supremacy" as a simple term.

Favoring his own damage-control as compelling demonstrates a non-neutral preference for unreliable sources and boutique definitions. Grayfell (talk) 02:52, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

That's an impressively long way to admit that, yes, there are no reliable sources that corroborate that he promotes white supremacy. You can call it "stooping to his level" or "damaging the article" or whatever you want, but WP:BLP makes it clear: contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced needs to be removed. Korny O'Near (talk) 03:19, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Impressively long... okay, sure. Out of curiosity, how many thousands of bytes have you posted to this talk page, repeating the same points, over and over?

There are already many reliable sources which "corroborate" this specific description. That was the entire point of my comment. Many sources repeatedly emphasize his specific use of racist pseudoscience, and overwhelming belief in the superiority of white people, and specifically his belief that black people are inferior to white people in various ways. It would be non-neutral to call that anything other than white supremacy. Articles which say he is a white supremacist cannot be ignored just because they do not have the magic phrase "Molyneux is a white supremacist". This would be pedantic.

He is only noteworthy for his controversial claims, and cult-like following. He isn't a philosopher, he isn't a therapist, he isn't a good writer. The only reason he has an article is because he says outlandish things which a handful of people take seriously. Our job is to look at the relatively few reliable sources we have about this guy and summarize them in our own words. My summary of those sources is that he is a white supremacist. I have not seen a source which credibly challenges this description, but most, including those already linked and discussed, support it. Grayfell (talk) 08:06, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

"Molyneux has been delivering 'race realist' propaganda, based on pseudo-scientific sources, to his audience on an ongoing basis for over two years, and thus has encouraged thousands of people to adopt his belief in biological determinism, social Darwinism and non-white racial inferiority." [4] -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 12:52, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Grayfell - Is it really your view that white supremacy is the "belief that black people are inferior to white people in various ways"? Because that just sounds like garden-variety racism to me.

Somedifferentstuff - you already posted that same quote, and I have the same response as I did before. Korny O'Near (talk) 13:01, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, you aren't going to get new responses as long as you're asking the same questions. Your previous proposal was a non-starter and you don't appear to have persuaded anyone here - so you should either propose something new, seek another form of dispute resolution, or simply drop it. Nblund ^talk 13:43, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I never asked that question before. Korny O'Near (talk) 14:28, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Data & Society

Sources which cite or positively mention Data & Society, interview Becca Lewis (the study's author) as an expert, or otherwise support that this has a "positive reputation" (per WP:RS) as a reliable source of information on internet extremists:

• Wired
• The Guardian - Specifically mentions Molyneux
• Variety
• NPR
• Columbia Journalism Review
• NBC News - Opinion written by Lewis published by NBC News. Specifically mentions Molyneux.
• Marketplace
• Vox - Specifically mentions Molyneux, with a courtesy link to his SPLC profile
• The New York Times - Specifically mentions Molyneux
• Mother Jones
• Nieman Labs
• Vice
• New York Magazine
• Many more, including non-English sources.

Data & Society as an organization, and this author specifically, are regarded by other reliable outlets as expert resources for youtube extremism. Grayfell (talk) 05:03, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Great research work here - Data & Society does indeed seem to be a reliable source, or at least this study is. Would you agree that, like the SPLC, the views of this study can be cited but need to be attributed? Korny O'Near (talk) 13:23, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

CATDEF and white supremacy

This point kind of got lost in the shuffle, but what do other editors thing about the inclusion of the white supremacist category for this page? Reliable sources sort of disagree on the extent to which white nationalism and white supremacy are distinct, but Molyneux is also characterized as a "bridge" (pg. 38) between the alt-light and the more overly white supremacist elements of the far right, and that distinction may be worth preserving. Nblund ^talk 17:43, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

My inclination is to trim a lot of these as redundant.

Right now, these categories in general are a mess, and there are a lot of redundancies here, specifically. Category:Canadian white supremacists and Category:Canadian white nationalists are both eventual subcategories of Category:White nationalists (does this make sense?) Both also belong to Category:Far-right politics in Canada, which is another redundancy. The article is also in Category:Alt-right writers and Category:Alt-right, and those are both eventual subcats of some regional white nationalism and white supremacy cats, but not the Canadian ones. Grayfell (talk) 19:53, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a real can of worms. Some of those should probably be non-diffusing subcategories. The ADL's categorization treats white nationalism as something closer to a subset of white supremacy. I think that's probably more accurate, but journalistic guidelines basically leave it up to journalists themselves, so the terminology in the press can be all over the place. Just based on the number of sources, the white nationalist and alt-right CATs seem easier to support here. I've removed the white supremacist CAT, but I could be persuaded on this if someone has an argument for keeping. Nblund ^talk 16:11, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't think the white supremacist label should be applied to describe Stefan Molyneux as he holds people of East Asian descent in high regard due to their superior IQ (according to him) cf [5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daloonik (talk • contribs) 20:47, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

As has already been explained in tedious detail, Wikipedia goes by reliable sources. Molyneux's self-published video's are not reliable for statements of fact, only for opinions, and only in limited cases. Grayfell (talk) 21:29, 25 September 2019 (UTC)]

It's an empirical observation from a third party created by watching the video. If the demonstrably biased SPLC is admitted as a credible source then I can't see why an empirical observation of Molyneux' comments in an interview can't be considered a reliable source Daloonik (talk) 14:45, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Because that would be WP:OR. Nblund ^talk 14:57, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Non-neutrality - lack of WP:BLPBALANCE

The article is making a disputed assertion about "white supremacism" as if it were not disputed by the living person himself - who rejects be part of that movement. That is a problem of neutrality in the article. This is my proposal of redaction, more balanced and with the respective references. --Hades7 (talk) 17:14, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I oppose your proposed edit, which gives excessive prominence to the subject's own self-serving self-descriptions and waters down the descriptions supported by the secondary, reliable sources. Neutrality^talk 18:27, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it 121.45.172.20 (talk) 13:38, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Only if you can get consensus from other editors. And you can't violate our WP:BLP policy, our editwarring policy, copyright policy, etc. Doug Weller talk 13:46, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree with your proposal for redaction, it looks much more NPV. Thank you for your time. It is obvious we are not going to get consensus from editors, but it is more NPV Mike Young (talk) 17:28, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

@Mike Young: I'm not sure why you would acknowledge a lack of consensus support for an edit on the talk page and then proceed to revert to a month old version of the article anyway. Your edit here fails on WP:NPOV and WP:V grounds. It lists a number of non-notable or un-sourced characteristics in the lead, and it whitewashes his reputation as an advocate of racist pseudo-science, which is not contested by any reliable source. Nblund ^talk 18:49, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

The reason I reverted was that it seemed so much less WP:NPOV than the version in existence. I looked at the link at the top of the talk page and thought "Somebody's done a lot of good work and made the article somewhat less WP:NPOV - This article is much better than that that is up ". So I reverted. P.S. It is not helpful to describe something as 'racist pseudo-science' as that is not using neutral language. I refer to "homeopathy" as "homeopathy" not as "the pseudo-science of homeopathy" even though I believe it to have no scientific validity. Please learn to use neutral language in your posts. What you should say is "Stephan Molyneux believes that different races have different IQs". This is more accurate. It is up to the reader to decide if believing this automatically qualifies you as a racist, or to follow the link if he wants to know more. Mike Young (talk) 15:55, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Molyneux doesn't merely believe in differences in IQ averages, and that kind of dissembling is exactly what we don't do here. WP:NPOV says that we cover things the way that reliable sources cover them, even if those sources say things that are negative. Wikipedia refers to homeopathy as a pseudo-science because that's what reliable sources call it. Wikipedia refers to Molyneux's crackpottery about genetically-based racial inferiority as scientific racism because that's what reliable sources call it. Neutrality requires us to call things what they are. Nblund ^talk 16:14, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Rules in biographies are to take in consideration the opinion of the subject of the biography. My proposal is not excessive, I think, taking account that in the current version critic's sources are used since the beginning of the article (not very recommendable in a biography of a living person).

Here the sources used to express that the assertions of political labels by some media are disputed by the person labeled (remember that in biographies of living persons self-sources are also as important as secondary sources about the same statement):

• Stefan Molyneux: An Open Letter to Corporate Reporters - Description: Stefan Molyneux responds to a variety of media queries regarding "right wing extremism," "white nationalism," "white supremacy" and other common topics.
• Post by Molyneux: ‪"It’s boring to rebut, but I have never claimed to be a “white nationalist.”‬ ‪I have ALWAYS championed the nonaggression principle (NAP), which forbids the initiation of the use of force against others.‬ ‪The creation of an ethnostate violates the NAP.‬ ‪QED."‬

--Hades7 (talk) 22:51, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

What matters is the reliability of sources, not their political positioning. The subject of the BLP is not a reliable source on themselves, per BLP policy. Newimpartial (talk) 23:08, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

A disputed statement is being presented by this article as if it is not disputed, that is non neutrality. Also, this article beging with critics and hostile tone instead a balanced description. The subject of a BLP is a valid source about themselves: Wikipedia:BLPSPS --Hades7 (talk) 23:22, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

@Hades7: They're a valid source about themselves, but they're not the only valid source about themselves. The vast majority of our reliable sources describe Molyneux as a white supremacist, so that's what we describe him as. If you found more sources which contest this label, we could have a more informed discussion. PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:06, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

That's not the point, the point is that the article is exposing as non disputed something disputed by the person of the biography. His own opinion have been hidden. That make this article non neutral, at least in the fragments related to the political label. Also, media articles are no specialized articles in political theory, that sources are not authorities in the matter. Media articles are relevant sources but shouldn't been taken as specialized sources. --Hades7 (talk) 22:36, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Most of the dissenting views on the characterization presented here are derived from the source himself and fringe viewpoints. As per WP:FRINGE, fringe viewpoints should not be included at all. If you have a dissenting view that is not from a fringe source, I recommend sharing it in this talk page. Anaglyphic (talk) 00:55, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Our articles are based on Reliable Source evaluation and description of the facts. If nobody believes a denial, is it still a denial? SPECIFICO talk 22:48, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

If a smear is repeated often enough so that a majority come to believe it, does that automatically make the smear true? - JGabbard (talk) 23:45, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

The sources quoted for this article are opinion pieces, that provide no evidence for their claims. And the logic here seems to be, that if enough opinion pieces repeat the same smear it becomes fact. MoMoBig (talk) 10:14, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Why does this article differ so drastically from the other languages articles about this person? Swedish, Danish, Norwegian and Finnish are all about the same. Also what are these sources? Southern Poverty Law Center, Columbia Journalism Review, MotherJones, Springer international publishing. If you don't have any journals to go by at least use reputable news sources. Moerttn (talk) 03:28, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're talking about. The vast majority of the sources for this English article are RS newspapers and broadcast news networks. Newimpartial (talk) 03:49, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

All of the sources you listed are considered reliable by the community as per WP:RSP. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by the use of "journals," as it is not really common for the academic community to comment on whether or not a public figure is far-right or not. Opinion pieces from reliable sources are allowed on Wikipedia. Anaglyphic (talk) 00:55, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Springer publishing is a reputable academic publisher, why do you query it? And Columbia Journalism Review is pretty much gold standard, with the editor-in-chief for Reuters, Stephen J. Adler as its chairman. Doug Weller talk 14:07, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Didn't query it; Moerttn did. I was attesting to the listed sources' reliability. Anaglyphic (talk) 00:50, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

It could be argued that Molyneux is a white nationalist, but he certainly does not fit the definition of white supremacist. It's quite alarming that he can be branded as such on Wikipedia simply because the media labels him that. The claim of him being "far-right" is also in error, because his beliefs are clearly Libertarian/Classical Liberal/Anarcho-Capitalist in nature. He has never once advocated for the authoritarianism or fascism that tends to accompany the far-right. 66.115.87.148 (talk) 01:45, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, the claims made about him in the header of this article are so over the top, that it becomes funny. Doesn't reflect well on english language wikipedia. JRB-Europe (talk) 17:06, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

When articles use simple, direct language, proposals to soften those article are often framed as appeals to Wikipedia's reputation. This is fundamentally flawed. Changing content based on how it "reflected" on Wikipedia would be a form of censorship. Using simple, direct language is exactly what an encyclopedia should be doing. Using euphemisms, or downplaying reliable sources because they are "over the top", would be political correctness. Molyneux's claims are over-the-top, so the article reflects that.

As White nationalism explains, the term was coined by white supremacists as a euphemism for white supremacy. If he certainly does not fit the definition of white supremacist it is because that boutique definition was reinvented by white supremacists solely to make their ideology more appealing. Since Wikipedia isn't a platform for public relations, we will go by independent definitions of the term instead. Per multiple reliable sources, Molyneux's statements and actions promote white supremacist views. Grayfell (talk) 22:25, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

White nationalism is merely the same ideology represented by practically any other race on the planet. The Chinese want a homeland, the Arabs want a homeland, the Jews want a homeland, etc. Molyneux merely defends a homeland (namely Europe) for the white races. The fact that Wikipedia is this insanely biased shows that it is beyond hope. It has fallen under the same Cultural Marxist control as every other outlet of mainstream journalism. It really is a shame, because Jimbo Wales once envisioned an encyclopedia in which truth and accuracy would prevail. Unfortunately, here in 2019, it has become nothing more than Globalist propaganda. 66.115.87.148 (talk) 03:48, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Number one rule of the WP:BLP is NPOV. Any source that simply labels a person with a derogatory term (like "white supremacist") without providing any background cannot possibly be considered reliable regardless where it was published and MUST be discarded. I am in favour of a much shorter NEUTRAL and FACTUAL narrative. Truther2012 (talk) 16:47, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

That's not what WP:NPOV says. It says that we should accurately reflect the views of reliable sources. Reliable sources indicate that he has promoted white supremacist views. Whether or not you believe "white supremacist" is derogatory really depends on your opinion of white supremacists. Nblund ^talk 18:19, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Yeah. Like the IP says. No reason to censor being a white supremecist. SPECIFICO talk 20:37, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Bias tag

Before you decide to remove the tag, don't do it. I think the discussion above is more than sufficient to prove this point. Nikolaiho^☎️📖 00:21, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Template:Autobiography is for when it appears that a person wrote an article about themselves, which is why the tag is called "autobiography". Since that is not the case, I have removed the template. If you have any specific, actionable suggestions for how to improve the article based on reliable sources (which means independent sources) propose them. Merely expressing your dislike of the article isn't a suggestion, it's just complaining. Improvement templates (such as Template:Bias) are not intended to be badges of shame, they are intended to indicate obvious changes, or to prompt a discussion. The article's talk page is active enough that this needs to be obvious or specific, or it needs to be discussed beforehand. Vague complaints about "leftists" do not belong here at all. Grayfell (talk) 00:37, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Where did I make vague complaints about leftists? Oh you mean the comment above, I believe I am entitled to voice that opinion on a talk page. And apologies for using the inappropriate tag, I am new to tagging. Nikolaiho^☎️📖 15:19, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

People are saying Wikipedia is corrupt, political reasons influence articles.

I thought people were over exaggerating, but now I see that they were right, this article is horribly misleading and one sided. It does not tell a neutral story, and the fact that you can't edit it is rather telling. I've watched Stefan Molyneaux for a long time. I know him well, too, and from what I know all he does is take a philosophical stance on things, and will not say what people want to hear sometimes. So then this… He mentioned how, online his reputation has really taken a hit from disingenuous people here at wikipedia. I thought it may have been overblown but… wow Why is this allowed? Only recently become a member, but, thinking of moving on already, if this is the way you treat the responsibility of giving people accurate information.

It's very scary that it's allowed that people twist a person's online reputation for political reasons. Very unprofessional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blimp-hq (talk • contribs) 02:55, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

An acceptable Wikipedia biography should accurately and neutrally summarize the full range of reliable sources discussing the person. You need to point out specific errors, propose specific new language, or bring forth new reliable sources that discuss Molyneux in a different way. Generalized assertions of bias are not productive. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:11, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

@Blimp-hq: it can be edited. All you need is an account, which you have, and to have been here 4 days and made 10 edits. Doug Weller talk 11:24, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Lead changes

The entry resembled more of a one sided hit piece than an encyclopedia. It was full of one sided smears using citations of only secondary sources. I have made some adjustments to try to bring more balance and including what was most lacking: primary source citations. Here is a detailed description of the changes I have made.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stefan_Molyneux&action=edit&section=4 1) Removed the description of him as “far-right” and “white nationalist” because the citations to support this are not primary sources and they do not cite any primary sources where he asserts this. Instead I replaced the descriptions with Libertarian YouTuber and podcaster as these are descriptions he uses himself and there are primary sources provided to support those descriptions.

2) Added some additional things that he is known for, in addition to “scientific racism”. Along with the primary sources that describe his views on those topics.

3) Changed the language to make it clearer that the assertion that he promotes “scientific racism and white supremacist views” is an opinion by the SPLC and other groups rather than a view he specifically claims to hold.

4) I left the part that says he is described as a leading figure of the alt-right movement. Though there are no primary sources to support that he uses this label. So I added a second sentence saying that Stefan Molyneux responded saying that he does not identify as “Right Wing”, preferring the label “Anarcho-Capitalist”, with the citation for that response.

5) Moved the opinion of Tom Clements that his “fixation” on a topic is “perverse” from the introduction to a specific section about criticism. The opinion of one person that someone’s interest in a topic is “perverse” is inappropriate for an encyclopedia entry, especially the introductory paragraph. I would say to delete this altogether but as a compromise it could be moved to a more specific section on criticisms / opinions. If anyone feels these are not fair or balanced edits then please do not simply reverse them all out but contact me and let’s try to have a discussion and come to a compromise to make this page more balanced. I have focused on the introductory paragraph but I can see that the section on his “views” bizarrely has zero citations to any primary sources where he himself discusses his views. So this section obviously needs work too. But let’s first work towards getting the introduction right before working towards the section on views. Thank you. Gmann101 (talk) 14:42, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

You need to provide reliable sources for your changes. Molyneux himself is not a reliable source for anything other than wholly non-controversial claims about himself (WP:ABOUTSELF). We certainly can't claim he is "known for his promotion of secular ethics" by citing his own videos - that provides no evidence at all for how others see him. I would encourage you to read through some of the previous discussion on this page. Virtually everything you're complaining about here has been discussed, and there's no reason to think that the consensus has changed. Nblund ^talk 14:50, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Molyneux is not a reliable source for his own views? You are nuts if you think that. He is known for his promotion of secular ethics as he has made many videos on that topic. I provided one video as a citation. You shouldn't be using any secondary sources at all to describe his views. And you certainly should not be relying 100% on secondary sources made by political opponents of his views that are deliberately mischaracterizing them.

There is no consensus here at all. I see many other people that have complained about the obvious bias, with no adequate response to any of those concerns. If your concern is that I left the word "known for". Then we can remove that term and just replace it with "who promotes". Gmann101 (talk) 15:23, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

No, he's not a reliable source for anything controversial or exceptional. The WP:BESTSOURCES are the secondary sources with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. The description in the lead is based on those reliable, independent sources. What you're suggesting is that we should remove statements from high-quality sources, and replace them with self-serving descriptions from a low-quality source. That's not going to happen. Nblund ^talk 15:31, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Explain how a person cannot be a reliable source for their own views? They are the only reliable source for their views. Whether those secondary sources are reliable and have a history of fact checking is entirely your subjective opinion. Stefan Molyneux is the only primary source for his own views. There is no reason to rely on a secondary source for his views, and if you cannot find a single citation from his own mouth that supports a claim about his views then the claim is obviously false. There is nothing controversial about his promotion of the things I included (the non aggression principle, peaceful parenting, etc.), in that no one denies that he promotes those things, so why did you remove those changes? As a compromise I was willing to include both the allegations others have made about him and his views as he himself expresses them. Otherwise you are refusing his right to face his accuser. That is the change I made. So if you want to remove my changes then please go through each change and explain why it should be removed.Gmann101 (talk) 15:41, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I already linked you to the policy page that explains why we don't use self-published sources for self-serving or controversial claims that are contradicted by other sources. The WP:BURDEN for achieving consensus is on you. You clearly haven't achieved it here. Nblund ^talk 15:45, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

The sources that support the version you provided make many allegations without providing evidence. The only source that actually provides any evidence for things that Stefan Molyneux has said is the SPLC source. But even that one makes allegations without any evidence to support it. For example it makes the claim that he is "Alt Right" without providing any evidence that he has ever claimed that title. All of the other sources used do not provide any evidence and therefore they should really be removed. But I am not even calling for the removal of those sources, rather I am attempting to add more nuance to the entry. And I am willing to work with you so that we can come up with an article that is not so one sided. As a new starting point I will go back in and restore the edits that could not be reasonably classed as controversial or disputed. And we can work forward from there.Gmann101 (talk) 16:06, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

All of your edit has been contested. Don't restore any of it until there's a consensus. There's nothing "nuanced" about whitewashing his promotion of scientific racism and adopting his dissembling self-descriptions as if they are factual. If you really want to try to hammer out a new lead on the talk page, propose it here, but what you're pushing is fundamentally inconsistent with the core policies of Wikipedia. Nblund ^talk 16:13, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

The rule about self-published sources cannot possibly apply to the evidence about the views that someone has expressed, because the only possible way to ascertain what someone has said is by relying on what they have said as a source. Furthermore any secondary source that makes a claim about a primary source without providing a citation to that primary source should not be considered reliable. In this case the only secondary source concerning the views of Mr. Molyneux that provides a primary citation is the SPLC source, therefore that should really be the only citation used, other than Molyneaux himself describing his own views.Gmann101 (talk) 16:42, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

OK lets go through the numbered points I made 1 by 1 and you can deal with each one in a detailed way:

1) Removed the description of him as “far-right” and “white nationalist” because the citations to support this are not primary sources and they do not cite any primary sources where he asserts this. Instead I replaced the descriptions with Libertarian YouTuber and podcaster as these are descriptions he uses himself and there are primary sources provided to support those descriptions.

What source do you have that Stefan Molyneux is a "White Nationalist"? Meaning that he advocates for an ethnically pure white nation? What is the evidence used by this source to support that claim? It obviously has to be something specific that he has said that supports the creation of an ethnically pure, white nation. Such an extreme and damaging allegation would require a completely unambiguous and clear claim by Mr. Molyneux, not a vague statement that could be interpreted in a number of ways. Gmann101 (talk) 16:42, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Concur with Gmann101 that secondary sources making scurrilous derogatory allegations about the views of a primary source should not be used unless they contain actual evidence if not direct quotes from the primary source. This is particularly true when the source in question (i.e., SPLC) is hardly an objective source but represents an antagonistic political viewpoint and is an organization whose business and primary task is to smear, defame and impugn other organizations and individuals, be they deserving or not. Doing otherwise may represent a violation of WP:BLP. If it is necessary to vilify and characterize with buzzwords and pejorative labels, then we must have a source with solid facts. - JGabbard (talk) 17:16, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

The entry already cites NBC News and Mother Jones for the statement that he is a white nationalist. Other sources include: The Daily Dot, The New Republic, Forward, Huffington Post, Reason, and The National Review. The SPLC provides a number of direct quotes from Molyneux where he details his views on the advantages of racial homogeneity. No reliable source contests this description. Like most people who have unpopular or discredited viewpoints, he is not forthright about his ideology. But his views are indistinguishable from the views of other white nationalists, and reliable sources take note of this. The argument that "we can't call someone a white nationalist if they dispute it" has been consistently rejected by Wikipedia editors every time it has come up. I've seen this exact same argument dozens of times and I can tell you that it never gains traction because it is simply inconsistent with our policies. The standard is Verifiability,_not_truth. It isn't up to us to decide whether we agree with the descriptions that appear in reliable sources. It is only up to us to say what the reliable sources indicate. We're not going to replace reliably sourced descriptions with Molyneux's Youtube videos. Nblund ^talk 19:05, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

You were asked to provide evidence to support the claim in the citations that he is a "White Nationalist". You have not done so, either out of laziness or because you know such evidence does not exist. You are making the claim that he is a White Nationalist, so the burden of proof lies on you to provide an actual piece of evidence to support that claim. Simply stating that a source you consider reliable says he is without providing evidence is nothing more than an appeal to authority, and a woozle effect. None of the quotes on the SPLC site make any direct advocacy for creating a nation based on a white race. There are quotes about race and IQ and race and crime rates, but nothing about white nationalism. And to top it off you have now added more claims without evidence: that his views are indistinguishable from the views of other white nationalists: citation needed. The statement "we can't call someone a white nationalist if they dispute it" is a complete strawman, the real situation is: "we can't call someone a white nationalist if there is no evidence to support it". If you are not going to provide any evidence that he is a white nationalist then that description should be removed from the article and we should move on to point #2. Gmann101 (talk) 20:05, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

@Nblund:You have failed to do what User:Gmann101 has asked; provide credible sources which prove the fact that he is indeed a white nationalist, racist, and white supremist. All the sources used are either extremely opinionated and focused solely on disparaging Molyneux or show no evidence for his apparent racism and supremist beliefs. In this case, it is a better idea to not label him as such things. If he isn't (which he is not, I know first hand), imagine how horrible it would be to call him these things. That is why I believe it is best to change the lede and base it on facts that are not disputable (and in fact correct). So please do not revert to the current lede unless you are able to provide real sources supporting your ideas. So maybe you need to gain consensus before restoring since the default should be to avoid publishing hugely debated (and false) information. And sorry, I agree that the references currently used (YouTube videos) are indeed insufficient, but will work on providing proper sources soon which do exist, I checked. But for now, the current lede is outright wrong and has to be removed. Nikolaiho^☎️📖 20:23, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Yup. I know this frustrates editors, but no one on Wikipedia is required to "prove" anything. Wikipedia simply requires that we cite reliable sources. In that sense, Gmann101 is correct that I am making an appeal to authority. That's because WP:V requires us to make appeals to the authority of reliable sources. WP:OR expressly prohibits editors from adding their personal interpretations. If the sources are wrong, we're also going to be wrong. If you want to have the article say something different, you need to provide your own reliable sources that contest that point.Nblund ^talk 20:29, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Sources are the proof. Sources provide the "evidence". This is what is expected, and what we require. We are a tertiary source, and we summarize reliable, secondary sources. We do not use primary source for promotional content, especially not in the first paragraph. We summarize what reliable sources say, and we do not second-guess those sources without a very good reason. A personal opinion that reliable sources are not good enough isn't a good reason. Grayfell (talk) 20:33, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

• @Grayfell: This sort of rhetoric defending Molyneux is totally unsurprising. They're pushing some nebulous standard of "real" sources when we already have citations from the SPLC, the CJR, The Guardian, NBC News, Mother Jones, a book published by Palgrave Macmillan and edited by two PhD sociologists, and lest we forget: Molyneux's own quotes. If I had to guess, "real sources" are right-wing propaganda outlets like Breitbart, or just whatever happens to downplay Molyneux's racism. Also, "I know first hand" is a pretty blatant admission of bias. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 20:51, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Another thing to consider is there is a huge difference between believing in the science of race and race based differences in average intelligence, and advocating for white nationalism. It seems as if Nblund is conflating the two, and using evidence for the former as evidence for the latter. The former is a scientific position that can be held devoid of any political beliefs, and the latter is an overtly political position. There are both liberals (i.e. Steven Pinker, Sam Harris) and Libertarians (Charles Murray, Stefan Molyneux) that have expressed a belief in race differences in IQ, without necessarily drawing any political conclusions about forming a nation based on racial exclusion or racial prejudice. Gmann101 (talk) 20:42, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Grayfell has just made a classic "appeal to authority" logical fallacy. You should never accept a source uncritically without examining it's content, and verifying there is supporting evidence within.Gmann101 (talk) 20:44, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Gmann101, this is an encyclopedia. Appealing to authority is exactly what we do. – bradv🍁 20:47, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

A source needs to provide evidence for an assertion, otherwise it is not trustworthy. You don't just use a source that provides zero evidence for something. That is extremely dogmatic and goes against everything Wikipedia is meant to stand for. One of the 5 pillars of Wikipedia is to strive for neutrality and avoid advocacy. WP:5P2 The SPLC is a Far left advocacy group and should not be considered a reliable source. Where does Wikipedia list the SPLC as a reliable and unquestionable source? The SPLC has been successfully sued for defamation in the past. The SPLC also labels Charles Murray and Henry Harpending as "White Nationalists", yet the Wikipedia articles on those individuals do not label them as such. So if the SPLC's opinion must be accepted uncritically then why do those articles also not label those people as such? Gmann101 (talk) 13:05, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

It is clear from the talk page and the history that there has never been any consensus on this page. If the only sources available are far left advocacy groups and publications, along with Molyneux himself, and no one else has taken enough interest in him to write about him then perhaps Stefan Molyneux is not noteworthy enough to even have a Wikipedia page in the first place. It seems there is never going to be a consensus that this article is neutral so perhaps it is time to remove it altogether? Gmann101 (talk) 13:32, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

A source needs to provide evidence for an assertion This isn't what our guidelines say. The SPLC is one of several sources offering the same characterization of Molyneux's views. Charles Murray's adherence to white nationalism is a subject of some debate among some noteworthy sources. Molyneux's isn't. Nblund ^talk 14:30, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I can find no far-left advocacy groups in our sources. The SPLC is not far-left and is not described as such in our article on it for good reason. No source is unquestionable, but Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources says "The Southern Poverty Law Center is considered generally reliable on topics related to hate groups and extremism in the United States. As an advocacy group, the SPLC is a biased and opinionated source. The organization's views, especially when labeling hate groups, should be attributed per WP:RSOPINION. Take care to ensure that content from the SPLC constitutes due weight in the article and conforms to the biographies of living persons policy." We attribute it. As for other articles on Wikipedia, you'll have to ask at those articles. Just out of curiousity, how is a publication by Palgrave Studies in Cybercrime and Cybersecurity, published by Palgrave Macmillanusing this author a far-left publication? Doug Weller talk 14:41, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Thank you. So the SPLC source should be attributed as an opinion WP:RSOPINION. I don't think anyone made a claim that the Aaron Winter source was a far left publication. That source does not describe Molyneux as a "White Nationalist" though. Stefan Molyneux is only mentioned in one sentence in that source, on pg. 13. here is the full text of that source as it relates to Stefan Molyneux:

"One TRS 504um poster cited Stefan Molyneux, a Canadian ‘Race Realist’ anti-feminist YouTube vlogger and lecturer who has over 770,000 subscribers and 230 million views of his videos, as ‘a great stepping stone between the Alt-Lite and the Alt-Right’."

Should we change the description of Molyneux to "a Canadian ‘Race Realist’ anti-feminist YouTube vlogger and lecturer". To accurately reflect what the source says? Gmann101 (talk) 17:26, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

If you don't have the full text of the Aaron Winter citation, it can be found here:

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Aaron_Winter3/publication/332601405_Online_Hate_From_the_Far-Right_to_the_%27Alt-Right%27_and_from_the_Margins_to_the_Mainstream/links/5cd29aeb458515712e98cf00/Online-Hate-From-the-Far-Right-to-the-Alt-Right-and-from-the-Margins-to-the-Mainstream.pdf?origin=publication_detail

Gmann101 (talk) 17:31, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

"race realist" is a euphemism for scientific racist. It's the preferred self-description of other white nationalists like Jared Taylor, and Winter is using scare quotes to indicate that skepticism. Rather than using a dubious euphemism, we should simply describe his beliefs directly based on the descriptions offered by multiple reliable sources. "White nationalist" is one of those descriptions. Nblund ^talk 20:02, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Nblund: A scientific term and a political term should not be conflated, which is what you are proposing. The terms are neither congruous nor mutually inclusive. In this case, the inflammatory, politically-charged term should be avoided because it is used disingenuously as a smear. - JGabbard (talk) 12:10, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Race realism is a redirect to Scientific racism. A well known science reporter has investigated the way this, under whichever name, is managing to get into mainstream journals.[6] I'm 100% with Nblund on this. And Gabbard. you seem to misunderstand our policy and guidelines on sources, and you are, ironically, smearing the SPLC. Gmann, people simply are not the most reliable sources for their own views. People lie about themselves all the time (not all people fortunately). Just take a look at the claims of some politicians about themselves. "I am the least racist person in the world." - Ignore who said that, should we ever take such a statement as an accurate portrayal of someone's views? Evil has often tried to disguise itself with sweet sounding phrases. Doug Weller talk 12:34, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Let's try to avoid phrases like "Evil has often tried to disguise itself with sweet sounding phrases". This makes it sound as if we are on some sort of politically charged crusade rather than trying to work on a neutral and objective encyclopedia. If someone thinks the subject of the article is literally "evil", then they probably can't be trusted as a neutral editor / arbiter. I am happy to use the terminology used within the source cited "Race Realist" and "Anti-Feminist". You cannot logically say that the author meant to mean "White Nationalist" when the source clearly does not say that. The Wikipedia guidelines say that when using SPLC as a source, make sure to make it clear this is an opinion held by the SPLC, not a fact. Therefore to please all we could include "Race Realist and Anti-Feminist YouTube vlogger and lecturer who has been described by the SPLC as a White Nationalist". Is that a fair compromise that we could see as a consensus? Gmann101 (talk) 13:14, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

@JGabbard, @Gmann101: Race realism redirects to Scientific racism. We're not going to be adopting a self-serving euphemism for racist pseudoscience here. Multiple reliable sources call him a white nationalist, so attributing it in-text to the SPLC is not accurate. Nblund ^talk 15:44, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Ok, change "evil" to "bad", but thinking something is evil doesn't disqualify anyone from editing anymore than thinking something is good. And we are not trying to create a neutral encyclopedia (I think you need to read WP:NPOV, and objectivity has many meanings, some of which you'd probably disagree with. Doug Weller talk 18:48, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

@Nblund Provide these multiple reliable sources that describe him as a "white nationalist". He simply is not a white nationalist, his politics are Libertarian. Gmann101 (talk) 20:30, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Those source are already cited in the article. I've also provided additional sources in the discussion above. Nblund ^talk 23:20, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 October 2019

Dear wikipedia,

This article is horrible far leftist rhetoric ment to smear a good person. It places every bit of information on him out of context (a popular tactic by the far left),which is pretty much the same as what happens in congress and by extension everywhere in the world to anyone who disagrees with the far left ideology . Whoever wrote this has nothing but ill intentions and masks him/herself under the guise of virtue and should be banned for life from wikipedia. I have followed stefan for a long time on social media and in my learned opinion he is a person with a clean conscience (something which the far left sorely lacks) and tries to make the world a better place by exposing the the mainstream media (and by extension the idiocy of the far left) for the frauds they are. Naturally a smear campaign like this follows.

If you want to do the right thing,then delete this flaming pile of garbage article. The western world is in dire need of honest people like Stefan.

Do not let these horrible people rend him asunder. Herrpfick (talk) 11:55, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: If you would like to request that an article be deleted from Wikipedia, please review the deletion policy for information on how to go about making the request. In the meantime, if you have a specific request for an edit to be made to this article, please feel free to make the request in the form "Change X to Y", citing reliable sources to support your request. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 12:53, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

On Making a Decision

1. Is Molyneux primarily a far-right white-nationalist?

No, he is first-and-foremost alt-right. As the sources for this are already present in the article, the case can be made logically:

• The alt-right is, for the most part, an online phenomenon. Molyneux is an internet figure and operates primarily online and within this phenomenon.
• The alt-right, as distinct from other far-right movements, has at it's core strong views against feminism and political correctness. Molyneux is very much involved in these subjects.
• The alt-right, as distinct from other far-right movements, is very much centered on U.S. politics, as is Molyneux.
• The alt-right tries to outwardly appeal to both white-nationalist groups as well libertarians and conservatives, as does Molyneux.

The whole point of this is that he espouses contradictory beliefs: white-nationalist views, anarchist views, capitalist views, conservative views, racial views, liberal views. It is his being alt-right that allows him such contradictions. All other (well sourced) descriptions should be secondary to this.

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/ideology/alt-right

2. Cutting people off from their families?

The terminology comes from pop-psychology under the formulation "family of origin" and "family of choice," used within the context of serious child abuse. In co-opting the term, Molyneux cuts out the latter half as well as the original context. Molyneux starts from the position that it is right to leave abusive environments then intends to persuade his followers that all their parents have been abusive. This is the root of all cult accusations he receives.

As political outrage ever increases, the Molyneux cult has greatly fallen out of attention and as such there is less material on the subject coming from reliable sources. The section is in great need of update and, while it is good to give an outline of Molyneux's terminology, such terminology should be minimized to preserve an unbiased authenticity to the article.

• "FOO" should be maintained as "family of origin"
• "deFOO" should be maintained as "disassociate from family of origin"

Introductory reading for anyone looking to expand upon the cult accusations section: http://www.fdrliberated.com/is-stefan-molyneux-freedomain-radio-responsible-for-suicide/ http://www.fdrliberated.com/forum/index.php?topic=325.0

3. Why are Molyneux's books not mentioned at all?

The article is completely devoid of mention to Molyneux's self-published books. If someone could clear up why that is the case it would be appreciated. Some of his books such as On Truth: The Tyranny of Illusion are rich with his sentiments of family separation as well as various other tidbits of pop-psychology and politics. Wk7sn (talk) 01:20, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

This page is not a platform for persuasion or argument about ideas or people. It is a place to discuss how to improve the article. The way to do this is with reliable sources, with a strong preference for independent sources.

The SPLC source doesn't mention Molyneux, so the first subsection is original research, which is not usable or desirable. We are not interested in your personal interpretation of the facts, we defer to sources. In this case, we are specifically looking for reliable sources about Molyneux.

Neither of the other two sections cite reliable sources. fdrliberated.com is not a reliable source, as it doesn't have a positive reputation for accuracy or fact checking. Since we are not a platform for promotion, we are not interested in listing non-notable works. I have looked for reliable sources on his books in the past, but found nothing. If you know of reliable sources, present them here for discussion, but please be brief as a courtesy to others. Grayfell (talk) 02:46, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I assure you I'm well aware of the rules so let me just clear up some of your misunderstandings:

• I am not making any direct requests for changes. I am introducing a number of important ideas for discussion primarily because I want the decisions to be made by others.
• The first subsection, as is mentioned, rests upon the citations already given within the article. I suggest you read through them as I did. The article at several points uses the labels "far-right," "alt-right" and "white-nationalist," and I am not disputing any of these. I am discussing the presentation of these facts within the introductory paragraph of the article as it seems to be quite controversial (that is, I am discussing the editorial decision of the presentation of these facts). In citing the SPLC, I am presenting an case against this editorial decision for consideration by unbiased others.
• The second subsection, as is mentioned, is lacking in reliable sources and that is in fact my point. The article gives a very flimsy outline of these details, presents information such that it seems outdated and does not fully expand upon the few citations that are available. The section needs to be re-written by someone with a good understanding of the topic, and backed by a wider collection reliable sources (though, as said, they are increasingly hard to come by).
• The links I have attached here are clearly supplementary and are not intended as citations as evidenced by the fact I simply have not included them as citations into the article. I am not editing these things into the article, I am making a post on a talk page about how the article might be improved.

As for the books I am curious as to why there mere existence is left unmentioned. They can be purchased on Amazon, they have ISBN identifiers and yet they are completely unmentioned. While I could add a bibliography section and properly cite my sources, I have no interest in doing so if it's going to be reverted without my understanding why.Wk7sn (talk) 04:12, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

"alt-right" has essentially become a euphemism for white nationalism. It's really not a useful descriptor here. His self-published books aren't mentioned because they really aren't particularly noteworthy. He produces tons of content, listing it all here doesn't serve any encyclopedic purpose, and probably just adds WP:FANCRUFT to the page. Nblund ^talk 18:14, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Alright, thank you for your comment. Of his book, those on family dissociation are easily the most notable, namely his trilogy: On Truth, Universally Preferable Behaviour and Real-Time Relationships. His prior works, especially, are of little significance. Regardless of my other points, I still think it is not correct to concede so heavily to terminology that is not widely accepted. The use of Molyneux's terminology weighs down the article in those instances, especially when read from an outsider's perspective, and serves to mask facts and ideas that should be presented objectively.Wk7sn (talk) 03:21, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

• The article is completely devoid of mention to Molyneux's self-published books. The bolded part is your answer. Anyone can self-publish anything at any time and, therefore, self-published books are not automatically notable unless they've been covered by reliable secondary sources. Even then, we'd have to weigh WP:DUE and whether they're important to his notability, ie. a passing mention wouldn't justify much coverage here. For the rest, we use the terminology used in the sources, so the thing to do would be to collect the sources in the article, see what they say, and then see if you can find equally-reliable (or better) sources that disagree or say other things. --Aquillion (talk) 00:43, 8 November 2019 (UTC)