Talk:Stefan Molyneux/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Stefan Molyneux

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re-write the article

This article is a disgrace to Wikipedia, it needs a complete re-write from a neutral point of view and with inclusion of alternate views about the accusations made about this person in the sources used. This is a living and noteworthy person so editors may not hide behind "sources" when they include libelous claims about the person. Whenever such claims are being made about a person we must also present the opposing view to the readers. If an opposing view is excluded from the article it destroys the neutral point of view that Wikipedia demands that all articles adhere to. Re-write. Britcom 15:58, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

If you have reliable sources containing "alternate views about the accusations", feel free to put them here for further discussion. Neutral point of view does not mean creating a false balance, though. Cheers ⌘ _hugarheimur 18:39, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not one of the regular editors of this article, those who are need to re-write this article, it's not up to par with other comparable living person articles on Wikipedia. In fact, I can't see how any reasonable person could call it neutral, it's libelous the way it's written. I'm sure there must be plenty of material available on the subject that disagrees with the sources given, the editors need to look for it and include it in the article. Britcom 22:18, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not present "neutral" articles on anything. Wikipedia reports what independent reliable sources say about a subject. If those sources report that the subject is a white nationalist who uses pseudoscience to promote scientific racism (as is the case here), that's what Wikipedia says. Wikipedia neutrally reports what the sources say.

That you feel there "must be plenty of material...that disagrees" is immaterial. To pursue this further you will need to show those sources and demonstrate that they are independent reliable sources. Is there "material" that says Molyneux is a serious social scientist, working to better the lives of his listeners? Probably -- everyone has supporters, friends and relatives and its hard to imagine a theory that absolutely no one would believe. That said, reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy say Molyneux is a far-right, white nationalist Canadian podcaster and YouTuber who is known for his promotion of scientific racism and white supremacist views. - SummerPhD^v2.0 22:39, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I am not going to argue with the editors of this page. Read the rules and follow the rules. Here are the rules: WP:BLP If you don't like the rules you can argue with the Admins about it. I'll give you all three(3) days to make some progress before I take any further action. Britcom 01:26, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Everything on the page is verifiable, neutrally reports the content of the sources and cites reliable sources. If you disagree, you will need to be more specific.

If you feel you have been specfic enough, there is no reason to wait three days. In fact, BLP says you should not. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:34, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

@Britcom: There is absolutely no need to wait three days to take action, nothing is going to change over these three days. I hope that you can make good improvements to the article. Nikolaih^☎️📖 01:47, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree with op, this page is awful. The fact a source considers it far-right to discuss race/IQ and other controversial issues just shows they shouldn't be used as valid citations. He has stated several times he is interested in both environmental and genetic factors and to completely ignore either would be rediculous. He has also never supported these far-right ideologies, again because sources claim a person is such with circumstancial evidence, take statements out of context and due to the fact he talks about controversial topics which makes him an easy target. Harry-Oscar 1812 (talk) 11:54, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Our articles must reflect the weight of mainstream reliable sources. We've had lots of discussion about the lead, and there is no consensus to remove the central facts concerning his statements and views. They are straightforward description, per our cited sources. I have reinstated the consensus text. SPECIFICO talk 12:27, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

• It doesn't matter what you think he is saying in his videos, or what I think he is saying in his videos. I've seen enough of his videos to be confident that he is not being taken out of context in the slightest... but again, it doesn't matter what I think. All that matters is reliable sources. It is perfectly possible for people to discuss these issues without being made into "targets". These topics are not taboo, he's just sloppy and incorrect in how he discusses them. He is frequently challenged when he says incorrect things, especially when those things have such nasty real-world consequences as white supremacy. Grayfell (talk) 22:36, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
• Britcom you've indicated above, and here, that you feel that this article is in breach of the WP:BLP policy; you're also suggesting that it is libelous. These are serious claim - can you be specific? Which assertions do you think breach BLP, which are libelous? Thanks GirthSummit _(blether) 13:06, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Let's drill down on these problems in detail. BLP Problem #1:

"Stefan Basil Molyneux (/stəˈfæn ˈmɒlɪnjuː/; born September 24, 1966) is a far-right, white nationalist[2]"  → Note: ″Collins, Ben (April 16, 2019). "Notre Dame Cathedral fire spurs Islamophobic conspiracy theories on social media". NBC News. Archived from the original on April 16, 2019.″

In this Collins reference Molyneux is only mentioned in these two paragraphs:

White nationalist YouTube agitators including Stefan Molyneux and Faith Goldy, who are both verified on Twitter, pushed conspiracy theories about Muslims related to the fire that racked up tens of thousands of retweets. Goldy was banned by Facebook earlier this month in a purge of white nationalist accounts. Molyneux, who lives in Canada and had no first-hand information about the fire, implored the public not to trust any officials regarding a cause of the fire. Goldy and Molyneux’s tweets are still visible.

Molyneux’s talking point was later pushed by more mainstream parts of the conservative media ecosystem. Talk radio host Glenn Beck claimed on his show that “if this was started by Islamists, I don't think you'll find out about it” and compared the fire to the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Is this story really a reliable source for wikipedia to make the statement that Molyneux "is a far-right, white nationalist"? It does not appear to be. In fact, in the second paragraph the story seems to contradict its own assumption by the author in the first paragraph. He makes the case that Molyneux may not be "far right" but instead may be more "mainstream ... conservative". Also, in the previous paragraph the author notes how Goldy was banned from Facebook for being "white nationalist", but Molyneux was not mentioned as being banned. This leads one to beleive that Collins initial statement about Molyneux being a "white nationalist" might have been sarcasm or at least an indicator that Collins was not being fully serious. If he was being serious, why would he contradict himself? Certainly Collins did not say that Molyneux was "far-right" so we can rule that one out. If we examine the story even further, there does not seem to be any indication of "white nationalist" behavior attributed to Molyneux. What then is the basis for Collins saying that Molyneux is a "white nationalist"? Where does he get that notion from, again, if he is actually being serious? If we examine the tweets that Collins referred to, we also do not see any basis for the claim that Molyneux is a "white nationalist". See link here: [[2]] So, why then are we using that story as the only reference for the very dangerous claim in a BLP that Molyneux is, in fact, unquestionably a "far-right white nationalist"? Can we really say that is absolutely true based on this reference alone? Should we? Why is it so necessary that we make such a definitive statement like that? Even the author of the referenced story seems to have some doubts about his own statement. Should we not also express some doubt about it? Britcom 06:17, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Per the NBC source: White nationalist YouTube agitators including Stefan Molyneux and Faith Goldy, who are both verified on Twitter, pushed conspiracy theories about Muslims related to the fire that racked up tens of thousands of retweets. It is not saying he is a white nationalist because he pushed the conspiracy theory, it is saying he is a white nationalist. It is not saying the tweet was white nationalist, it's saying that Molyneux is a white nationalist who tweeted something. Likewise, the article doesn't say that Glen Beck isn't a white nationalist, it only says that he is more mainstream than Molyneux and Goldy. That's it. It is not relevant to this article precisely how much more mainstream some other talking head is.

Further, we do not interpret sources in the way you are suggesting. We do not demand that sources must cite their sources (which must then cite sources, etc.) Sources say something, and we reflect that. Considering that Molyneux is known for promoting scientific racism and white supremacist views, this is not an extraordinary claim, so this is sufficient. If you have a problem with NBC News, perhaps you can contact them seeking a retraction or correction, but to be honest, I suspect that would be an even bigger waste of time than this is. Grayfell (talk) 06:44, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

There is a blatant conflict of interest when it comes to articles like this in that mainstream news sources are cited in regards to an alternative news figure. Of course mainstream outlets will insult Molyneux and attempt to portray him in a negative light, he's their competition. If Wikipedia were a serious source of information and not simply a sock puppet for mainstream news outlets and corporations, this article and others like it would take this conflict of interest into consideration. Apparently those who maintain this article haven't. Edit5001 (talk) 07:53, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Even if that were true, it ignores the possibility that Molyneux might be totally unqualified to be a "news source". If the mainstream media's supposed competition frequently states incorrect or misleading things as facts, having a "conflict of interest" with the mainstream media wouldn't actually matter that much, would it? We cannot ignore WP:RS just because Molyneux says things which are deeply unpopular. Grayfell (talk) 08:09, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

By that reasoning, mainstream news sources should insult each other and portray each other in a negative light. It does not seem that they do that. From which business sector do you get your ideas about how to handle your competition? Hip hop? --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:22, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Remember when Edit5001 was topic banned from editing articles relating to race? Pepperidge Farm remembers. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:26, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

It is important for editors to understand the difference between "interpreting" stories and being sure that they are understanding what the author wrote in context before they are used as sources. The reason this is important is because sources may use sarcasm or irony or drama when they write something that they mean the complete opposite of for the entertainment effect it has on the reader. It is like a kind of code that must be parsed before the meaning can be understood. I believe that is what we have here in the above mentioned sentence, a dramatic statement that the editors here are failing to understand, and that it means the opposite of what is written, and by using it as a source the editors have misunderstood the meaning because they took it literally when it was not meant to be taken literally. There are clues in the text that the statement was to be understood as dramatic and not as literal. When one is relying only on one source to support one's edit, this sort of thing is bound to happen. So, other sources are needed to insure that BLP rules are followed, or the statement should be removed. Britcom 06:30, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Collins is being "sarcastic" in calling Molyneux a "white nationalist"? Wow. That's one hell of a gag. I mean, it's not like a joke about injecting Clorox, it's an actionable claim by the source. Remember, if he is not a white nationalist and the source knows it will harm his reputation, all that's needed is to demonstrate that rational people would believe it's true.

So why might rational people believe that Molyneux is a white nationalist? Well, remember reliable sources say he's a propagandist for the racist alt-right, promotes scientific racism, promotes eugenics, promotes white supremacist conspiracy theories, his podcast frequently gives a platform to white nationalists, he promotes racist conspiracy theories, is fixated on "race realism" -- a favored topic of white nationalists, he promotes white nationalists, and he has a perverse fixation on race and IQ. Frankly, with all of that, it's easy to see why people would believe he's a white nationalist.[3] Actually, what's hard to imagine is anyone thinking that a source is being sarcastic when calling him a white nationalist.

No, the source is not being sarcastic in calling Molyneux a white nationalist. They are reporting that Molyneux is a white nationalist. - SummerPhD^v2.0 07:09, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

You are going off topic SummerPHDv2.0 with your straw man argument. Stick to facts and not fallacies. Do you have any facts to present? If not, then don't interrupt this discussion. Britcom 23:59, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

By all means then let us stick to the topic without moving goalposts. Where is the evidence of "sarcasm", or even irony? Newimpartial (talk) 00:03, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

The topic is whether or not a source is being "sarcastic" in calling him a "white nationalist". It is perfectly relevant that he is also said to be a propagandist for the racist alt-right who promotes scientific racism, promotes eugenics, promotes white supremacist conspiracy theories, has a podcast that frequently gives a platform to white nationalists, he promotes racist conspiracy theories, is fixated on "race realism" -- a favored topic of white nationalists, he promotes white nationalists, and has a perverse fixation on race and IQ.

Maybe every source in the article is being sarcastic? (That is sarcasm.) - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:04, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Whether or not Collins is being sarcastic the claim should be attributed to Collins, and attribution should not be "buried" in a citation. The sentence might read "According to Collins..." Bus stop (talk) 01:40, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Let's not jump ahead SummerPhDv2.0, One problematic statement at a time.

The source author does not describe Molyneux as "far-right" so there is no source for that statement. It should be deleted.

There is not a second source to corroborate the first source for the statement that Molyneux is a "white nationalist" and Molyneux has not himself claimed to be a white nationalist as far as I know, so that statement becomes problematic for BLP and if we add to it the fact that the source author may have been using a dramatic writing style with his use of the term "white nationalist", then that compounds the problematic nature of using the source to identify a matter-of-fact statement that Molyneux "is" a white nationalist. That's quite a serous allegation to make. Bus stop is right, I agree that it would be better to not make the definitive statement as if it is a fact. The fact of it has not been established, it is only Collins' opinion (if that is what he really meant) and should be treated as only one writer's opinion. The question remains open as to whether or not Collins is correct in his opinion, or if he was even serious abouthemt what he wrote. Let's change that now so it doesn't create liability problems for wikipedia and we can continue to discuss it here.

I would refer Newimpartial to my previous answers, but I would add that normally when a writer characterizes a person in a way that casts in a negative light, he will go on to justify his characterization, but Collins doesn't do this, in fact he doesn't attribute any misdeeds to Molyneux at all. That is a clear indicator that the characterization was not serious, but dramatic in nature. Britcom 06:10, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Britcom, the statement I would add that normally when a writer characterizes a person in a way that casts in a negative light, he will go on to justify his characterization, but Collins doesn't do this, in fact he doesn't attribute any misdeeds to Molyneux at all. That is a clear indicator that the characterization was not serious, but dramatic in nature itself lacks supporting evidence of any kind. For this to be a plausible interpretation requires at least two suppositions: (1) the description of Molyneux as a white nationalist was "negative" rather than neutrally descriptive, which has not been established and (2) that the characterization was unsupported in the text because the writer was being "dramatic", as opposed to the interpretation suggested by Occam's razor, namely that the fact that Molyneux is a white nationalist is not in question, so no support is needed by the journalist. Newimpartial (talk) 13:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Britcom: You seem to have dropped the "'white nationalist' is sarcasm" claim to go in a new direction. Now you have a bunch of new claims. One by one and briefly:

* That one source does not say far-right so it must go? SPLC uses both "alt-right" and "far right", CNN says "far right", Politico Magazine and The Washington Post say "alt-right", 'The New York Times says "right wing".

* There is no second source for "white nationalist"? Wikipedia does not require two sources. This is a new criterion you've created. That said, Data & Society Research Institute says he promotes white supremecist conspiracy theories, CNN says he gives a platform to white nationalists, The New York Times says he is "fixated" on a white nationalist theory and that he promotes white nationalists.

* We don't have a direct quote from Molyneux saying he is a white nationalist? Wikipedia does not require one. This is a new criterion you have created.

* The previously "sarcastic" label is now "a dramatic writing style"? Again, in the United States where Wikipedia is based, this would be actionable were it no true. Additionally, it it fully in-line with multiple sources saying Molyneux is a propagandist for the racist alt-right who promotes scientific racism, promotes eugenics, promotes white supremacist conspiracy theories, has a podcast that frequently gives a platform to white nationalists, he promotes racist conspiracy theories, is fixated on "race realism" -- a favored topic of white nationalists, he promotes white nationalists, and has a perverse fixation on race and IQ.

* Oh, wait, "if that is what he really meant" and "if he was even serious"? This "it's sarcasm" line is flatly absurd. Take it to the BLP noticeboard.

* It's a "liability problems for wikipedia"? Take it to the BLP noticeboard if you think it is a liability problem. No need to wait. You might also want to run your "sarcasm" theory through the noticeboard while you are there.

* "Normally" a writer will "justify his characterization"; Collins does not do this? Wikipedia does not require that writers "justify", defend, provide evidence or otherwise prove what they say. This is a new criterion you have created. When reliable sources say something, it is verifiable. That is the standard and Wikipedia's policy.

Sorry this was so long, but you've thrown a lot of things against the wall here. SummerPhD^v2.0 - 15:17, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Newimpartial and Anon, Nonsense. I haven't dropped anything. You apparently didn't read my previous comments closely enough. Also, don't jump ahead, we will get to those other statements and their sources soon enough, we are only discussing the first one now.

So you agree, the only source given for that first statement doesn't include the words "far-right".

I am not creating new criteria for wikipedia, I am explaining how journalists use the English language. English Wikipedia assumes that editors can understand English. You can't understand the rules of wikipedia if you don't understand English. Drama, Irony, and Sarcasm are all part of the English language, they aren't "theories". People who don't understand how they work can misunderstand what English speakers are saying.

The truth is that multiple source are expected. WP:THREESOURCES

Don't worry, I am sure this will be on the BLPN soon enough. Britcom 20:05, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

There are multiple sources saying Molyneux is far-right. You stated that because ONE does not it should be removed. That is simply absurd.

Yes, I understand English. There is nothing to indicate this is sarcasm and plenty to indicate it is not. Next.

WP:THREESOURCES is an essay. It has no weight. More to the point, from my apparently feeble grasp of English, it has nothing to do with the topic here. Given your implication that the rest of us aren't "getting" English, it's perhaps a touch ironic that you didn't get that. - SummerPhD^v2.0 20:46, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

{od}Britcom, you have variously invoked "Drama, Irony and Sarcasm" (complete with Victorian capitals) as tools of the English-language journalist, without giving the slightest evidence that you know what any of these terms mean, much less how any of them might apply to any of the hermeneutic issues at hand. Do you? If so, what do you mean my invoking each of them and in what way do any of them apply? At the moment you simply seem to be apparating random goalposts of no particular relevance. Newimpartial (talk) 21:36, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I know from past experience that it's futile to try and use examples of Molyneux's behavior to point out why sources describe him the way they do. There are many examples which would lead reliable sources to describe him as white nationalist, white supremacist, far-right, etc. This is easily understood by reviewing both primary and secondary sources. Nobody is obligated to interpret his words and actions in the most obsequious way possible, because that's just lazy PR. The possibility that there is some other interpretation to Molyneux's scientific racism is vanishingly small, and therefor irrelevant... but that's not the point of these discussions. There are no goalposts. Scoring goals is not how this game is played. This is not football, or even golf. The rules are made up and the points don't matter. Grayfell (talk) 22:37, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• Guys, I think we can stop, knowing that Britcom was just being sarcastic. That's how that works, right? Why else would someone try to normalize far-right white supremacism, making variations of the same dismissed argument over and over, ignoring sources and arguments that don't help him, no matter how many people get involved?

In all seriousness, though, @Britcom: Here is a clip from this video (start at 52m50s) where Molyneux says he is no longer skeptical of white nationalism or Identitarianism and argues that white nationalism works. That may not be explicit self-identification, but it makes no difference -- he is saying that white nationalism works while also saying that it's wrong to call it out, out of some belief that there's an organized leftist plot targetting 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.

If this is not sufficient proof for you, you either lack some capability required to edit articles in this topic or your real goal is to whitewash the article in a way that normalizes far-right white nationalism. If, however, you did not mean to normalize white supremacism, we don't expect you to show any shame here but you damn well better learn from it and not disruptively waste people's time like this in the future.

As you said, If you don't like the rules you can argue with the Admins about it -- and I am an admin. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:59, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• Ok, I'm gonna leave this up in case we need the links to throw at Nazis to confirm that they're just trolling, but I've just WP:NOTHEREed BritCom after looking over his history. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:40, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Not having been pinged, and a couple of days having elapsed between my question above and BritCom's response, this discussion had dropped off my radar - I wasn't intentionally ignoring it. For the record, I'm not seeing any glaring BLP breaches based on the above discussion, and I don't see any merit in the argument that we should assume that sources are being sarcastic, overly dramatic or whatever. As always, anyone can start a thread at BLPN or RSN if they have concerns, but I doubt that things would be seen differently in either of those venues. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:14, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Infobox color

Is there some reason why we have red bands on the infobox? To me, it has the appearance of a mugshot of a dangerous criminal's "wanted" poster or something? Why wouldn't we just use a neutral black or omit the bands? SPECIFICO talk 12:32, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

It's part of the Youtuber infobox, Template:Infobox_YouTube_personality. I agree it looks rather...whatever. Part of the problem is the nature of the photo. With a more "natural" photo, it's not as bad (see PewDiePie (sorry in advance)).

Other than some desire to have it be "different", I can't really see a solid reason for the banding, with the color choices likely coming from YouTube's current logo. IMO, the infobox should be neither brand specific nor tied to current branding. Not something we can sove here, of course. - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:20, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I've tried to start a discussion at Template_talk:Infobox_YouTube_personality#Why_is_this_specific_to_YouTube?u. That said, I'm thinking it's a bit of a backwater and might not attract much discussion. I'm not sure which working groups to tag. - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:37, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I've commented on the infobox's talk page, I think that is the best place to talk about it.  Darth Flappy ^«Talk» 14:07, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO and SummerPhDv2.0:?  Darth Flappy ^«Talk» 17:31, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Quote on spine of Forbes

A quote of his appeared on the spine of the September 7, 2015 issue of Forbes: "Conformity to the present is invisibility to the future." It's pretty notable, isn't it? This was before his Wikipedia article called him a racist, but still included cult criticism. 70.122.40.201 (talk) 19:00, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Huh. Odd, but not necessarily encyclopedically significant. Do any sources which are independent of both Forbes and Molyneux mention this? Grayfell (talk) 20:06, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I got nothing. I suppose it's not too surprising since Molyneux presents himself as a libertarian philosopher, and Forbes is a capitalist magazine. 70.122.40.201 (talk) 20:42, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

References

Add that he authored "Universally Preferable Behavior"

He is an author of the philosophy book entitled Universally Preferable Behavior. Rutterbrian (talk) 00:24, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

A quick search shows a few dozen "books" published in 2017. All of them are listed either without a publisher or under vanity press. (I'm assuming they are simply transcripts of his podcasts and youtube clips.)

In any case, I have yet to run across an independent reliable source that so much as mentions them, so I can't imagine what we'd say. - SummerPhD^v2.0 06:57, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Molyneux' books are not transcripts of his podcasts and YouTube clips. --Cgt (talk) 11:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@SummerPhDv2.0: I'm aware of the book, it has been mentioned in reliable sources. Of course, nothing good has been said about it in an RS to my knowledge: the book is laughably bad. Here's a good source by a notable subject matter expert, David Gordon (philosopher). The best thing about this source is that The Mises Institute is a libertarian/pseudo-anarcho-capitalist thinktank, so if anyone should be praising it, it should be them. I think that this is worthy of inclusion, as it shows that Molyneux is a philosopher in name only. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 18:29, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

They aren't transcripts? The number I saw dated 2017 makes Stephen King look like a slacker.

I would think that showing one libertarian/pseudo-anarcho-capitalist thinktank doesn't like it would show that one libertarian/pseudo-anarcho-capitalist thinktank doesn't like it. Would we typically cite the Mises Institute re a vanity press book on philosophy? Why this one as opposed to any/all of the others? - SummerPhD^v2.0 21:12, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't think all of them are transcripts, but its likely that many are.

This has come up before. I've looked for sources, and the Gordon one is the closest to being reliable. Gordon's review has been in the article on the past, but has been removed. Since the only arguably reliable source we have is directly telling us that his book isn't worth taking seriously, it's probably not all that important to the article either way.

Some of the handful of blog posts about the books are from academics (such as this popular post) but that's not necessarily enough, especially for a BLP. Grayfell (talk) 21:56, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

References

Does how good or bad the book is help determine whether or not he authored it? Rutterbrian (talk) 04:02, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

No. Whether or not independent reliable sources had anything to say about it determines whether Wikipedia says anything about it. Like everyone else in the world, Molyneux has done lots of things in his life. Most of them aren't worth mentioning. self-published transcripts of a podcast are simply far less likely to be a meaningful part of his notability.

For example, Stan and Jan Berenstain wrote a lot of books, most of them about a family of anthropomorphic bears who are wholesome in a very conservative, mainline Protestant kinda way. The articles about them (and various articles about the series of books, individual titles, spin-off TV show, etc.) talk about them a lot, because that's what the sources talk about. A few of the sources mention their earlier books -- a series of bawdy titles apparently aimed at heterosexual teenage boys. So, the article about them mentions them, but that's about it.

What independent reliable sources cover, Wikipedia covers. What they ignore, Wikipedia ignores. - SummerPhD^v2.0 05:19, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• As I've said several times, I am interested in any reliable sources which discuss his books. For that matter, any reliable sources which aren't already in the article, and which are more than passing mentions, can be posted to this talk page. Grayfell (talk) 08:20, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2020

Please keep the wiki page to factual information and not editor opinion Accurate Pickles (talk) 00:53, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 00:54, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Naomi Seibt note

"In February 2020, climate change denier Naomi Seibt said Molyneux's YouTube material was one of her inspirations." Is this really important enough for inclusion? It doesn't seem like Naomi Seibt is all that famous.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Byelf2007 (talk • contribs) 01:35, June 30, 2020 (UTC)

It seems to be relevant context for both to me. I think of it like an influential song: Had I never heard of "Funky Drummer" (or Robert Johnson or...), seeing who/what it influenced would tell me a lot about it that I might not otherwise get. Without the influences, we have a youtuber, a funk song and a blues guitarist. With influences, we see those same things influencing others associated with the far-right or every aspect of pop music since. (Of course Molyneux is nowhere near the influence that "Funky Drummer" or Johnson is...) - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:20, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 June 2020

Hi - The statement in the content says Molyneux "view humanity as a single species" - yet the quote reference does not provide this data at all; please provide real references or remove. 94.11.106.229 (talk) 12:40, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I have.Slatersteven (talk) 12:44, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Please see actual wording in this audio: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gy5cuUSvtCM The article linked (and the article in common) infers he is discussing eugenics, rather that is not what he's conveying. He's practically talking about how he doesn't consider people who a rabid criminals in the same class as the rest of society. Current working in conflating his comments with pre-determined notion of racism. Both examples sighted are biased; importantly the Law centre specifically adds race-defining-words inserting them into his quote; effectively putting words into his mouth. Solution: Please remove linking to Eugenics and/or clarify what he's saying in context.

Solution, read wp:or. We go with what RS say, not how we interpenetrate a video. To illustrate if I wan to say "People who a rabid criminals in the same class as the rest of society" I would say "part of our society" not "part of our race". That is why we do not allow OR.Slatersteven (talk) 13:16, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2020

"is a far-right, white nationalist Canadian podcaster and YouTuber" - INCORRECT.

"is a Canadian anarcho-capitalist philosopher, writer, podcaster and YouTuber" - CORRECT.

[1] https://www.freedomain.com/about-stefan-molyneux/ [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfWWI_6r3ro - The truth about Stefan Molyneux

-

"who is known for his promotion of scientific racism and white supremacist views." - INCORRECT.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEGa6sLexp8 - The Untruth About Stefan Molyneux 1: "I don’t view humanity as a single species...” [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSSK28AEuo8 - The Untruth About Stefan Molyneux 2: "The whole arena of the species needs to be cleaned up!” [3] https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLMNj_r5bccUyYzJ5G1GgvfM59JEpDkteX - Human Intelligence (IQ) | The Experts Interview Series

"who is known for his promotion of reason, evidence, voluntarism, Aristotelian philosophy, stateless society and peaceful parenting." - CORRECT.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmrZ4SiO54E - Everyday Anarchy - The Complete Book from Freedomain Radio [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYmogRO8HzI - Peaceful Parenting Explained [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXMKRJyedmg - An Introduction to Peaceful Parenting :) [4] https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLMNj_r5bccUwZY7RCZnS2e5-vjaA7wSNw - Peaceful Parenting playlist [5] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xbp6umQT58A - The story of your enslavement [6] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vlORHHRX5o - Reason vs. Emotion [7] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZvTXFxPwb0 - Universally Preferable Behavior

ALL sources referenced towards these claims, misinterpret or blatantly lie about Stefan by quoting completely out of context and/or splicing words of his to fit the already pre-concluded narrative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ReasonableAleks (talk • contribs) 13:23, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Every link you give is directly from Stefan himself. Wikipedia articles must rely primarily on independent, published sources, without placing undue attention on the subject's own views. See WP:IS. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 15:05, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I've changed it anyway. Please correct me if I've done anything wrong Spacejunkjim (talk) 15:51, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Please read the key policies WP:RS and WP:BLP and seek consensus here before making dramatic, POV edits that rely unduly on primary sources from the subject of a BLP. Newimpartial (talk) 16:12, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Please don't make such radical changes without a consensus on the talk page. Your changed radically change the core point of this page. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 05:54, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: All 53 citations describe a similar picture of the guy being "a far-right, white nationalist Canadian podcaster and YouTuber" and those citations point to common reliable sources that are the norm for this website. Indeed, those sources are known for there neutrality throughout history (even before Wikipedia). Your description is extremely biased, romanticized, and filled with mental gymnastics to justify his "perceived behavior" noted on this page. Also, pretty much every source you cite is the dude's own Youtube videos. Youtube videos are awful to use as sources, to begin with, but Youtube videos from the guy's Youtube channel? It's not like his Youtube video is only one of your proposed sources, it's the overwhelming majority of your proposed sources. Not only is that awful from the most basic writing sense, but it clearly violates WP:RELIABLE, WP:NEUTRAL and WP:BLP. The dude is exactly as those 53 sources perceive him as, and the behavior of his cult members is exactly why this page will remain locked forever. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 05:54, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

NBC, the daily beast, NYT, and SPLC are independent, reliable, and neutral sources? Is this a joke? Toast and Friends (talk) 22:34, 29 June 2020 (UTC)— Toast and Friends (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Per WP:RS/P, "There is consensus that NBC News is generally reliable for news.", "The Daily Beast is considered generally reliable for news.", "Most editors consider The New York Times generally reliable.", "The Southern Poverty Law Center is considered generally reliable on topics related to hate groups and extremism in the United States." - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:07, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Southern Poverty Law Center is not reliable. It's been exposed numerous times. I was alerted to it in Joe Rogan w/Sam Harris & Maajid Nawaz. Doing a cursor glance at other such disputes of SPLC you can easily find numerous other such mischaracterizations. Rutrerbrian^Rutterbrian 17:37, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Not by us.Slatersteven (talk) 17:42, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

References

I may have messed up talk

Hi, I might have messed up the talkpage a bit. I was trying to revert these [4] [5] [6] edits, but due to other edits, I couldn't use undo. Please have a look the history and make sure I didn't mess up anything. Thanks!  Darth Flappy ^«Talk» 19:21, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Misinformation, manipulations and hypocrisy has led to Stefan's deplatforming

Useless whining by fans of a white supremacist
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Just as many times proven before, far left being afraid of intellectual, logical confrontation tries to silence anyone that does not agree with it. Even though Stefan is neither a white surpemacist, nor far right, he is being described as one, and shunned. "Politico" and "The Washington Post" are not respectable and reliable sources of information. I hereby implore, for the previously mentnioned description to be removed and corrected. Dehumanizing someone just because he's not politically correct is the most vile and toxic thing you can do, which sadly happens more often than not. As a radical centrist, I in most cases do not agree with Stefan, but still, he has a RIGHT to his own opinion. And he has a RIGHT to offend someone, especially if that person is being offended by truth itself. The majority of the population of far left ideologists consider their actions appropriate, they think they're doing good, but in reality censorship and false accusations of your political and ideological opponents only lead to further antagonization of the society. Troughout the history similar tendencies DID HAPPEN. It never ended peacefully. As a progressing society, we're supposed to learn from the mistakes of our precedessors, not to repeat them, as if they never existed. This horrendous abomination of an article is a prime example of how you can manipulate and misinform people to suit your own agenda. Wikipedia is supposed to be a free encyclopedia, an objective source of information, not a tool to propagade your political views. Yet here we are, where people with editorial priviledges are clearly biased, and straight out quote lies and base the article on them. If you want to claim that Stefan is racist, quote HIM, not media. Compare the quote and its context to the definition of racism. If you want to claim that Stefan is a white supremacist, quote HIM, not media. Compare the quote and its context to the definition of white supremacy. If you want to claim that Stefan is far right, quote HIM, not media. Compare the quote and its context to the definitions of various poilitcal views. The way you are doing your business here, on this wiki now, is repugnant, and the feeling it gives off is rancid and disgusting. The only cult I see here is the one you belong to. The always expanding cult of neomarxism, the far left, with their neverending crusade to censorship anyone else besides themselves, for without it, far left dies rather quickly of natural causes, namely from overdose of dignity and logical thinking. If you want to prove me wrong, do your work diligently. Seek out archives of his podcasts. Seek out quotes. Listen to the man, and redo the article fairly and objectively. But, most importantly, stop censoring people. Censorship and ostracizing will lead to social unrest. If you think the man's wrong, prove him wrong. If you think the man's views are faulty, rebute them in a discussion with facts and logic. NOT CENSORSHIP, as these are the ways of the communists, the most dehumanizing political system to exist in modern times. Let the fact that communism has killed over 100 years more than 100 million people seep into your mind, as you clearly are adopting some of its most vile ways to deal with people that think differently than you do. 84.40.215.51 (talk) 07:29, 30 June 2020 (UTC)— 84.40.215.51 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 100% agree with you The crimson king 420 (talk) 08:09, 30 June 2020 (UTC)— The crimson king 420 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. "If you want to claim that Stefan is a white supremacist, quote HIM, not media. Compare the quote and its context to the definition of white supremacy." Agreed. I was surprised to see how biased this article is. I followed all the references for "white nationalism" and "white supremacy" but they were mostly news articles and other peoples' interpretations of his views. I suppose Wikipedia has decided that it's more objective/neutral not to directly cite the person in question? This seems completely backwards to me. If you want to show that someone believes in an idea, you can just provide a direct quote in which they purport that idea. It's a stretch to classify him as a white supremacist when he has said "IQ data places whites in the middle of intelligence, not the top." Also, this page has no mention of the non-aggression principle or universally preferable behaviour, which are central to his beliefs. On the other hand, his views on IQ are peripheral. This article only focuses on his less palatable views. Willmcpherson2 (talk) 09:24, 30 June 2020 (UTC)— Willmcpherson2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Wikipedia writes from the mainstream POV. It is part of our Policy and Guidelines. We wont change that, and people like this will be described from that POV, or as I understand it, accurately. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 09:40, 30 June 2020 (UTC) Wikipedia reports what independent reliable sources say about a subject. The Washington Post, Politico, etc. are reliable sources. They report that Molyneux is a white supremacist (etc.), so we report it. We also report that he has been deplatformed for hate speech. Those are simple facts. We aren't going to censor what the reliable sources say because you don't like what they say. - SummerPhDv2.0 16:26, 30 June 2020 (UTC) This, we say what RS say. Moreover very few if any one admits to being something, if they did courts would have an easier time.Slatersteven (talk) 16:35, 30 June 2020 (UTC) Neutrality Even when information is cited to reliable sources, you must present it with a neutral point of view (NPOV). Articles should be based on thorough research of sources. All articles must adhere to NPOV, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view. Tiny-minority views need not be included, except in articles devoted to them. If there is disagreement between sources, use in-text attribution: "John Smith argues X, while Paul Jones maintains Y," followed by an inline citation. Sources themselves do not need to maintain a neutral point of view. Indeed, many reliable sources are not neutral. Our job as editors is simply to summarize what the reliable sources say. It's a quote from the guidelines. This article in no way, shape or form follows the NPOV requirements. The sources were not fact-checked in the slightest. The conclusion is NOT neutral. This article should either be remade from scratch, or completely scrapped. It's not even the case of one's opinion anymore. You're lying about someone, deliberately. It's unlawful.84.40.209.207 (talk) 18:28, 30 June 2020 (UTC)— 84.40.215.51 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. What RS contest he is not far right?Slatersteven (talk) 18:31, 30 June 2020 (UTC) Don't you even see what kind of a mental gymnastics and loophole thinking made from double standards you're performing? He was censored because he was speaking things the mainstream, left/far left media you deem as "RS" didn't like. And what your "RS" don't like, they usually call racist, mysoginist or hate speech, for convenience. So let's follow your and your RS's thinking, step by step: >>RS: Guy X has WRONG OPINIONS, they should be censored, because free speech and freedom of thought is violence and it's dangerous for individuals to use their brains >>Guy X gets censored, anyone defending him gets shunned and also censored >>You, self proclaimed liberals from the wikipedia: we won't censor RS, our RS (even though clearly biased) say that he's a white supremacist so it means that he is How ironic is it that you call FACT CHECKING your sorces a "CENSORSHIP", when what you're doing now along with those sources is exactly that. CENSORSHIP. What contests the claims of him being far right are his actions and his political views. The proof is in the source material. His exact words. His podcasts and videos. They should be the main, reliable source here, not opinions of some biased media of your choice. Especially when you want to judge the man and write an article summarizing him, his views and his life. You can't do it legitimately and fairly when the only thing you're doing here is quoting opinions of unrelated people instead of the man himself. The Policy and Guidelines in which you try to find support for your political bias and unprofessional way of creating articles, clearly states that all, often biased sources, such as the ones used in this particular article, need to be fact checked, and proper research needs to be done in order to write an article from a NPOV. But you just don't care. That's not what you want, you don't want truth to be conveyed. You simply want to silence a man you disagree with. Just like a typical "liberal", drunk on power and influence, absolutely confident that he can not possibly be ever incorrect. You're a part of the reason why we're entering a truly dystopian phase of modern civilization. Thought police, abuse of power, censorship. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to convey someone's opinions on a given subject, but straight facts. And the facts are that you simply took mainstream media's opinion of Stefan, and put it in the article as if it was the truth, without any research whatsoever. Whoever made this article or helped editing it should permamently lose his editorial rights for violating basic rules for article creation, which was already quoted above (NPOV). 84.40.209.207 (talk) 19:35, 30 June 2020 (UTC)— 84.40.215.51 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. It seems you made an account for the sole purpose of yelling that we attacked your (presumed) cult leader. You've made no other Wikipedia edits outside of ranting about how awful we are to your cult master, whining about liberals (relevance?), censorship, (relevance?) and somehow claiming this is defamation (which it's not as defamation requires false information that is knowingly false, since everything in this page true it doesn't legally apply) despite it being a run of a mill Wikipedia page that reflects a consensus of media sources. All the while not even remotely making a decent argument. You claim this doesn't qualify with WP:NPOV, but then urge us to use sources directly from the subject himself? Youtube is already a bad source as WP:YTREF tells us, but videos from the guy himself violates WP:CONFLICT for obvious reasons. Listen, I'm sorry you've been (presumably) indoctrinated, but this page is perfect. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 10:58, 7 July 2020 (UTC) I have a few comments about what you said, but I think I will condence this down a bit: Do you have a particular item that was "censored", or any other change, that you want to talk about? Keep in mind that WP:PRIMARY says Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. Thanks!  Darth Flappy «Talk» 20:32, 30 June 2020 (UTC) Wikipedia does not fact-check reliable sources. If independent reliable sources say something, it is verifiable and Wikipedia reports it, with prominence decided by WP:WEIGHT. If The New York Times and a dozen other reliable sources say Times Square is in New York City, Joe Blow is a white supremacist or the Earth is spherical, we do not debate whether any of those things are "true" or what the relevant facts are. We verifiably state that Times Square is in NYC, Blow is a white supremacist and the Earth is round. If Joe Blow says he's a "race realist" (or whatever) or the Des Moines Penny Shopper says the Earth is flat, we ignore them. If a significant number of independent reliable sources say something different, WP:WEIGHT kicks in. We do not send teams to investigate the location of Times Square, analyze Blows blog/youtube videos/books or demand that the NYT provide evidence that the Earth is not flat. - SummerPhDv2.0 22:47, 30 June 2020 (UTC) I agree with DarthFlappy. Wikipedia does not engage in WP:OR to decide what someone's views mean. That's actually a major violation of WP:BLP, something I fight as a regular at WP:BLP/N. Therefore it's completely inappropriate to suggest editors analyse what someone has said and decide whether they are a white supremacist. For clarity, editors are of course free to do whatever they want in their personal lives, but when it comes to this article we should be relying on reliable secondary source interpretation, not editor's interpretation. Nil Einne (talk) 05:41, 2 July 2020 (UTC) I've never seen a more biased wiki biography ever before in my whole life. We should be ashamed of this. How can wikipedia do this and be proud of it? This is so slanted and biased. It looks like it was written by his worst enemies. Every single negative article on him is quoted. Hardly any quotes from the man himself. What is the hell has happened to wikipedia? You guys were never this bad. Even G.W.Bush's article was never this biased even back when he was president. You guys make him sound worse than Hitler. I'm ashamed I was ever an editor. This website has gone all the way left. Shame on you.Capsela (talk) 06:27, 3 July 2020 (UTC) Wikipedia neutrally and without bias reports what independent reliable sources say about a subject. Such sources say that Stefan Molyneux is "a Canadian far-right, white nationalist podcaster and former YouTuber who is known for his promotion of conspiracy theories, scientific racism, eugenics and white supremacist views." I assume you are bothered by either the "Canadian" or "YouTuber" parts, but that's what the sources say. - SummerPhDv2.0 16:29, 3 July 2020 (UTC) So provide some positive ones that dispute the claim.Slatersteven (talk) 16:34, 3 July 2020 (UTC) Capsela - It is embarrassing as you said but after much thought, I've realized there is nothing that can be done to fix this. This phenomenon extends much beyond Wikipedia. The extreme progressive left has a monopoly on institutions and academia, and Wikipedia is not an exception. Furthermore, any neutral sounding policy such as "use reliable sources" does not provide any solution against bias since those "secondary reliable sources" themselves are written by the same extreme left. The only fix to this would be on a much bigger scale than Wikipedia. Nikolaih☎️📖 20:22, 3 July 2020 (UTC) Relevance to this page? GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 11:06, 7 July 2020 (UTC) This isn't bias at all, everything listed is a fact. We should be proud of such a high-quality article. You forgot to capitalize the "W" in Wikipedia in your third sentence. Your fourth sentence is redundant and merely reiterates what the first sentence wrongly claimed. It was written by qualified editors and reflects the media's views. Of course, we barely quote the man, it's not at all relevant to the quality of the page. You forgot to capitalize the "W" in Wikipedia in the fifth sentence. We never accused him of a massacre like Hitler did, that's absurd. If you're ashamed to be an editor, then maybe it might be in your best interest to quit. This website is perfect. See ya! GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 11:06, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Being a white nationalist vs. being called a white nationalist

The article begins with: "Stefan Basil Molyneux (/stəˈfæn ˈmɒlɪnjuː/; born September 24, 1966) is a Canadian far-right, white nationalist[2]"... The source provided, an article titled "Notre Dame Cathedral fire spurs Islamophobic conspiracy theories on social media", by Ben Collins, does indeed refer to Stefan Molyneux, lumped in a sentence with Faith Goldy, as a white nationalist. Quote from source: "White nationalist YouTube agitators including Stefan Molyneux and Faith Goldy".

1. The text in the article is not supported by the source provided. The correct and neutral way to phrase it would be something like: "Stefan Molyneux, called a white nationalist by Ben Collins in an article regarding the Notre Dame Cathedral fire coverage[2]".
2. If passing remarks by Ben Collins are indeed the definitive source of Stefan Molyneux' biography he should also be described as a "YouTube agitator". A phrase I didn't find in the entire article, let alone the first sentence.
3. If the source is correctly used it could also be used in the article about Faith Goldy. Yet the first sentence of that WP article currently contains ..."whose views have been described as far-right or alt-right,[a] white nationalist"... Which reads as weasel-words, but is appreciably better than the phrasing in this article, as it at least doesn't present an unsubstantiated label as fact, but hints at it being a matter of opinion.
4. In general, it seems that biographies of living people involved in politics in some capacity would benefit from restraint in the opening sentences. For example, Stefan Molyneux is indeed a Canadian and a podcaster. The way he would describe his views and the way his opponents would, perhaps predictably, pigeonhole them as pejoratively as possible in news articles should be presented in separate sections and phrased in a way that clearly indicates that those are personal opinions.

--Bahati (talk) 04:27, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

There are other sources in the body as well.Slatersteven (talk) 09:20, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Bahati, it should probably be "white supremacist" not "white nationalist".

• "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." https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/stefan-molyneux
• "YouTube on Monday terminated channels belonging to high-profile white supremacists Stefan Molyneux, Richard Spencer and David Duke" https://www.forbes.com/sites/mattperez/2020/06/29/youtube-bans-white-supremacists-stefan-molyneux-richard-spencer-david-duke/#44ba7bf65ff1 (Forbes staff, not a contributor blog)
• "On Monday, YouTube announced the bans of many popular white supremacists, including David Duke, Richard Spencer, and Stefan Molyneux." https://www.businessinsider.com/youtube-bans-stefan-molyneux-hate-speech-david-duke-richard-spencer-2020-6?r=US&IR=T

Others do support white nationalist though:

• "Stefan Molyneux is a Canadian white nationalist activist known for his promotion of conspiracy theories. " https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-53230986 (if the BBC says that as a statement of fact then we don't need to ATT at all)
• "Stefan Molyneux, a Canadian white nationalist who has been accused of promoting ‘scientific racism’, also had his account removed." https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/youtube-david-duke-richard-spencer-stefan-molyneux-removed-a9593051.html
• "Channels belonging to Canadian white nationalist activist Stefan Molyneux, US white supremacist Richard Spencer and former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke were among the six taken down." https://www.readingchronicle.co.uk/news/national/18550682.youtube-bans-six-major-white-supremacist-channels/

TechCrunch probably has it closest to simple factual accuracy though:

• "The company deleted six channels: Richard Spencer‘s own channel and the affiliated channel for the National Policy Institute/Radix Journal, far right racist pseudo-science purveyor Stefan Molyneux, white supremacist outlet American Renaissance and affiliated channel AmRenPodcasts and white supremacist and former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke." https://techcrunch.com/2020/06/29/youtube-ban-stefan-molyneux-david-duke-white-nationalism/?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAMkgmS-hVRKlasTen4boYxFvWUjsVTECgkfJwhOZqieAc-iQnv3F3IjghT_t_PIH21N3_Q-BoIWc85osKvxB0MTvm6ZpCjF7dxfeabEL6yJndFCQWur77rZI7IcOL3H3ZkENrVfw39bPKhpQMzsasZC6BcBtUYXcaamdNl89BIO6

I'd be fine with far-right racist pseudoscience promoter, that seems suitably concise. Guy (help!) 09:27, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Any work for me.Slatersteven (talk) 09:32, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Guy, thank you very much for all those examples! They demonstrate some of my points well and the variety of labels used in the news articles is strong evidence that they contain opinion, rather than fact. In other words, they are a source for the respective author's characterization of Stefan Molyneux and/or his output given in passing, not a source for a factual description of his output.

We can't hope for peer reviewed research on the subject, but we can at least make a distinction between a news article dealing specifically with Stefan Molyneux' output, which would hopefully at least reflect original research made, evidence found and rationale applied by the author and a news article about some other topic, which just attaches an unsubstantiated label to his name in passing.

I propose to preface all such labels, used in passing in the source news articles, with "described by some journalists as..." or some similar phrase. This would serve to alert the reader to the fact that the label is substantiated by nothing more than a journalist using it.

I also propose that we use all such labels we come across. Otherwise it seems that we're looking for a source that would support a label, instead of using sources to determine what the labels are. It's not clear on what basis we would pick some, but leave out others.

Bahati (talk) 13:07, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I disagree, We have multiple RS calling him X or Y. None saying he is not X or Y. Thus we can call him or Or/and Y.Slatersteven (talk) 13:14, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven, you say you disagree, but then offer a point I'm not contending as the reason why, so I'm not sure I've made myself clear. My proposition is to say precisely that he is called X or Y, not that he is X or Y as it is phrased currently. If you still disagree I suggest we explore some edge cases. Is it ever warranted to use the phrase "described by some as..."? If it is it seems to me that some kind of epistemological grade of the topic would be at play. As in, we wouldn't use the phrase "the result of adding two and two is described by some as four". But we would comfortably say "the flower in the painting is described by some as pleasingly rendered".

Biographies of living people and particularly fitting their output in a particular, often nebulous, pigeonhole are closer to describing a painting and I think the phrase is warranted. This is further evidenced in sources kindly provided by Guy, which can't seem to settle on the labels. It's obviously not an exact science and the article shouldn't present it as such.

Bahati (talk) 13:51, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I know that and I am saying no we should not, we should say he is X and/or why.Slatersteven (talk) 13:55, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Why though? Bahati (talk) 22:04, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Because RS do, wew refelct the RS.Slatersteven (talk) 09:02, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Bahati, it's quite unusual for heavyweight news sources to come out and state, as fact, that someone is a white supremacist. Normally they would say that X was banned after a series of posts that appeared to endorse white supremacism, or words tot hat effect. Here, they are not hedging.

Defamation law is a thing. A public figure cannot normally bring a defamation suit if an opinion is stated as an opinion. When a publisher puts its name to a statement of fact, though, it creates clear liability, so publishers very rarely state as fact that someone is a racist.

Here, serious mainstream news organisations are stating, as a fact, that he is a white nationalist and a white supremacist.

And thus, so do we. Guy (help!) 09:23, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Bahati, I think you are fishing for agreement where none exists. The clear message from the sources is that he's a racist, a white supremacist and a white nationalist. but since both white supremacism and white nationalism are forms of racism, racist will do. Guy (help!) 15:07, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Exactly and we should not relay messages as fact in the article, we should relay them as what they are. Messages. Although I do think the more appropriate term is characterization. And we should not synthesize. Not only is it against policy, but this is a good example to observe the difference between lynching someone, uttering an unabbreviated slur and discussing statistics. All can fall under the label of racism, but using it would remove significant detail. Bahati (talk) 22:04, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Bahati, The BBC states, as fact, that he is a white nationalist. Thus, we can too. Guy (help!) 23:07, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Guy, they do state it, but I don't see why we would characterize their statement as being made as fact and not as POV? And how do we know their understanding of the label is congruent enough with the WP article to link to it? All those articles contain labels that are unsourced and unexplained, they provide no evidence, definitions or rationale. They are made in passing. I fail to see why we wouldn't consider them as POV and relay them accordingly, especially if we link the labels to WP articles, thus synthesizing what the source authors meant by the labels. Again, we are talking about a biography of a prolific rhetor on controversial subjects and interpretations of his work are bound to be reductive and controversial themselves. We should refrain from presenting them as fact. Bahati (talk) 00:27, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Bahati, you are kidding, right? This is stated as fact by the BBC, one of the world's most respected news organisations, in a context where making a statement of fact would, if untrue, bring considerable legal liability. The BBC's lawyers have approved stating, as fact, that he is a white nationalist. And the same applies to multiple other sources. And not sources like Breitbart: proper, heavyweight sources with a reputation for fact-checking. Guy (help!) 06:43, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

A few years back, there was this movie, which NBC called a science fiction film, Star Wars. One of the stars was a woman, who Variety called young, named Carrie Fisher. It was called her breakthrough role by Bill Shine, who Entertainment Tonight called a well-known Hollywood reporter. Fisher continued to play the role in five more films in what Variety called a financially successful series.

After all, it's just opinion, right? No. Star Wars is a science fiction film. If you doubt it, too bad. It's verifiable, so take it to your blog and gripe about it there. Is Molyneux a white nationalist/white supremacist/garden variety racist or does he prefer some other term someone cooked up as a more palatable alternative? Maybe he wants to argue that the flood of sites deplatforming him and all the sources describing him are wrong. He can complain about that in his blog too. Yes, there are always borderline cases where a minority of sources call something "science fiction" or someone a "far-right, white nationalist podcaster and former YouTuber who is known for his promotion of conspiracy theories, scientific racism, eugenics and white supremacist views". This is not that case. - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:24, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

SummerPhDv2.0, actually, I'm not really comfortable with the description of Star Wars as scifi. To my mind it's fantasy in space - none of the plot revolves around any actual science, it's all magic and defying the laws of physics. That is, of course, my own opinion, which nobody cares about... GirthSummit _(blether) 18:12, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

If only we had some way to decide what to call it without endless debates. Some kind of source we could rely on and use to verify what articles say... - SummerPhD^v2.0 19:53, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

SummerPhDv2.0, what, referring to a reliable source? Genius, let's do that! GirthSummit _(blether) 20:03, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

SummerPhDv2.0, I appreciate the examples and agree that, as discussed above, somewhere along the "epistemological continuum" presenting something as an opinion makes no sense. If you think that labels, often nebulous themselves as per respective WP articles, assigned in passing by journalists are worthy of being presented as fact in a WP article I'd like to understand why. "Labeled by some journalists as..." is verifiable, as in in keeping with policy. "X is Y" is not verifiable, as in confirming that X is indeed Y as a matter of fact, by reading a source in which X was labeled as such by a journalist in a news article.Bahati (talk) 22:04, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

"Labeled by some journalists" is WP:WEASEL wording which casts doubt on reliable sources. Reliable, independent sources describe him in various ways, and we assume that these sources are broadly accurate. That's why the article exists in the first place. This one trait isn't any different, so the use of distancing language is inappropriate editorializing. Further, the overlap between "white nationalist" and "white supremacist" is well documented. Wikipedia articles should not use euphemisms. Instead, we should summarize in simple and direct language. No PR, and no evasive filler. Grayfell (talk) 22:14, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

That's exactly what we should do, distance ourselves from the characterizations in those particular source news articles, reliable as the publisher may be in general. I agree, the article would not need to exist if we didn't include them, but presenting them as fact, rather than POV of the source author is in breach of WP:NPOV. Further, it is not for us to decide if the sources use different labels interchangeably due to overlap, or to express a specific view. We don't even know if the author's understanding of the label is congruent with the WP article on it! Yet we link to it and present it as fact.

I mentioned weasel words at the beginning, but they are appropriate here since we can't really get into the reasons why biased, agenda driven coverage of a person involved in politics could very well be and often is, in this case glaringly so, malicious and/or incorrect for every article and every label. However many reliable sources we use. In other words, the sources may be reliable, but they still convey a POV, due to the subject matter, and we should relay them as such to maintain NPOV. Bahati (talk) 23:04, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

These are not labels "assigned in passing by journalists". These are basic descriptions used by reliable sources to explain who this "Stefan Molyneux" is. It's the difference between "Star Wars, which included lots of characters in costumes" and "Star Wars, a science fiction film". - SummerPhD^v2.0 22:28, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Those are not mutually exclusive propositions and I maintain both are correct on their face. The point is they are POV presented as fact in a WP article. Your Star Wars analogy doesn't work since the actual difference is "a science fiction film" vs. "described by some as a science fiction film". Even in this form it doesn't work since it's further towards certainty on the "epistemological continuum", probably because it's assigned to a more specific genre of space opera, and due to it regarding categorization of a film. We are discussing a biography of a living person and describing them in pejorative terms as facts requires more certainty than labels assigned in passing by journalists. The article on Joe Biden does not begin with "...war criminal,...", even though he has been labeled as such, in actual articles on the subject, not in passing.Bahati (talk) 23:04, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Again, Molyneux is not labeled a white nationalist/white supremacist/racist in passing by a source. He is regularly and repeatedly identified as such by multiple reliable sources. It is the source of much of his notability. Were he discussing collecting matchbooks rather than racist conspiracy theories, he would not be notable, much as if Star Wars had been made as a Western. What is Star Wars? It's a science fiction film. Who is Stefan Molyneux? He's "a Canadian white nationalist activist known for his promotion of conspiracy theories". That's not "in passing", that's defining who he is and why anyone is saying anything about him. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:21, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

What's the significant difference between being labeled X in passing and being identified as X? We are not discussing conspiracy theories either. And for the last time, hopefully, this is not an article about a film and the issue is not as innocuous as categorizing the film into a genre. This is a biography of a living person, with highly pejorative content and as such it requires special consideration for tone, accuracy and factual correctness. We are not trying to justify using a label in the article by providing sources, we are trying to use sources to formulate the biography. The sources provided can be considered main stream media, of which our subject has been critical, which presents a conflict of interest. The sources use pejorative labels for the subject and provide no way for us to determine if they are fact and if the authors used them in the meaning congruent to what is described in the respective WP articles the labels link to. To maintain NPOV we must present the views from sources currently provided as POV, not fact. Bahati (talk) 04:13, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Ah yes, the "conflict of interest" thing again. This is incorrect for several reasons. For one, Wikipedia is not a platform for public relations. For another, Molyneux is not a reliable source for media criticism (or any thing else, really) and therefore he doesn't have the ability to discredit a reliable source be disagreeing with how that source describes him. In other words, it doesn't matter that you think reliable sources are "his opponents", because they are still reliable. Defining this as a conflict of interest is simplistic and non-helpful. Further, your personal interpretation of sources is WP:OR. Sources are not obligated to provide deep verification to any one individual's satisfaction, as this would be an impossible standard that no article could support. Further still, a factual description is not pejorative merely because some editors find it unflattering, nor would this necessarily matter. The most neutral way to explain that Molyneux is a white nationalist is to say "Molyneux is a white nationalist". More neutral doesn't mean more flattering. Grayfell (talk) 05:25, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't see how WP:SOAP applies to my proposal. I'm not suggesting we include any material from primary sources in the article on Molyneux, I'm suggesting that we consider his output in weighing weather or not a label attached to him by his opponents is fact or POV. It obviously would tip the scales towards the latter. I'm not sure the standard of verification you're describing is applicable here, all I'm noticing is that the we either have sources of fact or sources of author's POV and I'm not seeing any rationale to describe them as the former. I meant pejorative in the sense that it portrays the subject in a negative light. Neither you nor anyone else has provided a rationale as to why we should consider the sources to contain "factual descriptions". Obviously if such a rationale is provided and agreed upon it wouldn't matter if the description is pejorative. Yet again, our task is not to explain that Molyneux is anything, our task is to formulate his biography based on sources. As it stands the sources present a POV and we're presenting that POV as fact. Unacceptable for a biography of a living person, which must pay special attention to NPOV.

Missed a few. Conflict of interest is a perfectly apt description of the situation. I have made no suggestion that my personal interpretation of the sources should be included. It is a fact that the sources label him as X. It is not a fact, as it stands, that the sources claim as a fact that he is X. Bahati (talk) 06:03, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

What is the difference between "labeling s/o as X" and "claiming that s/o is X"? in the context of reliable sources (and actually in general) those two things mean the same. Mvbaron (talk) 06:21, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, that didn't come out right. I meant "sources claim" as in we, the readers of the material, can be reasonably assured that what we're reading is meant to be presented as and is a fact. It's the difference between fact and POV. There is no requirement for a reliable source not to contain falsehoods or POV presented as fact. Bahati (talk) 06:44, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Among other things, your initial comment said that "white nationalist" was not supported by any sources. This is false, as it is directly and indirectly supported by many sources as a factual description. Your follow-up assertion is that this is not a fact, but is merely the sources' opinion. This would shift the burden of proof from sources to editors, so it is not appropriate, nor workable. If we accept that sources are reliable, and you have not put forth any compelling argument to the contrary, then they are reliable for this as well.

Saying this is an opinion is also, in the pedantic sense, incorrect. These are not opinion articles, they are news articles. They are not (all) presenting these descriptions as opinions, they are presenting them as context for readers, which in this particular case, is the same goal we should have as Wikipedia editors. Since the only common thread among these sources is that they run counter to Molyneux's own public relations, second-guessing them is not productive, and repeatedly doing this is disruptive. If there is some other reason to assert that these sources "contain falsehoods or POV presented as fact" you have not made this case at all. Grayfell (talk) 08:26, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, editors should be mindful of what the sources convey - fact or POV. Our goal is not to provide context, this is not an article about our subject being deplatformed, as is for many of the provided sources, this is his biography. What is used as context in the source material cannot necessarily be used as fact in this article. A piece of information appearing in a reliable source doesn't mean it's a fact. It does not follow nor is it required by WP policy. Therefore a source can be reliable while conveying POV and even a dubious fact. While reading those sources no educated reader would conclude that the labels used are presented and sufficiently established as factual. In the sources provided they are, as you say, used for context, or to add color, in passing, with no effort made to convince the reader why they should consider them a factual representation of our subject's beliefs. A reader would need to do further research in order to ascertain if the labels are indeed factual. Since we are those educated readers we should find better researched sources, while in the meantime providing enough distance in our article by factually couching the dubious labels in a suitable phrase. Bahati (talk) 11:23, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I disagree, I think it is abundantly clear he is a racist and white supremacist. That is why we go with what RS say, because what you think an "educated reader" might see I disagree with. As its clear you have failed to get consensus I suggest this is closed now.Slatersteven (talk) 11:38, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

It's "abundantly clear he is a racist and white supremacist" based on what? An educated reader has no way of knowing if a label given in passing in the news articles provided is factual or not without further research. If you know of reliable sources that provide such assurance to the reader please do use them in the article. Bahati (talk) 11:56, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

That is why we have more than one, such as the SPLC, so our reader can read what he has said.Slatersteven (talk) 12:09, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Bahati, based on reliable independent secondary sources plus his own words. And at this point you need to drop the stick. Guy (help!) 12:53, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Guy, that would be equating a piece of information appearing in a reliable source with it being factual. Which is neither sensible nor policy. The issue of fitting sources to original research, as opposed to using reliable sources to formulate the article, seems to be the running theme. You did raise an interesting point above, about publishing libelous statements that a casual reader might confuse with facts. I'm afraid that's circular reasoning - statement is a fact because the publisher wouldn't want to get sued, because there are laws allowing for legal action over false statements, because statements can be false. As editors I don't see how that would be helpful, let alone relieve us from duty of not presenting POV as fact in a biography of a living person. I do agree this is beginning to look like posthumous equestrian mutilation, but it is indicative of a larger issue on WP which I might raise through the appropriate notice board. Thanks again for the valuable input, especially for all those sources! Bahati (talk) 20:01, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

"Equating a piece of information appearing in a reliable source with it being factual"... if you boil it down, this is just saying "Wikipedia summarizes reliable sources." This is exactly how we "formulate" articles. This is the entire point of the policies you keep linking. Your dislike or distrust of the conclusions made by a source, or by many sources, is irreverent. Grayfell (talk) 21:20, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

We are not discussing conclusions, we are discussing labels made in passing. A source being reliable is just a requirement for the source to be included, it does not give us warrant to treat everything contained in the source as fact, this is clear from policy. No original research doesn't mean no research done or evidence and rationale provided by anyone. We can, as educated readers, asses if the information presented in the sources is meant to be taken as and indeed is fact and phrase our article accordingly. This is clearly not done here, since unsubstantiated statements are relayed as fact, even though the article is a biography of a living person. Please refrain from making further strawmen and let this dead horse rest. Bahati (talk) 22:58, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

As editors, it is simply is not our job to second-guess independent, reliable sources concerning facts about which they do not disagree with other independent RS, and that includes the appropriate use of political labels. In particular, it is not our job to litigate the evidence presented by a source when political labels are used: if labels are consistently misused by a source, that is an issue for the WP:RSN. Newimpartial (talk) 23:48, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Newimpartial, this would be "first-guessing", as in reading a piece of source text and deciding if it should be presented as fact or POV in the article. It's standard practice, mentioned for eg. here. There is no evidence, definitions or rationale given in most of the sources provided, so, given the subject matter and the fact that reliable source policy does not compel us to do so, we should not assume they are statements of fact and should err on the side of NPOV in our article by presenting them as POV. Bahati (talk) 00:57, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Nope. English-language journalism in general maintains a fairly transparent distinction between "news" coverage and "opinion" - in print journalism they are carried on different pages with different banners, and in broadcast journalism they are featured in different programs. We certainly should assess POV in opinion pieces, but not in news coverage, so long as the source is a reliable one. We should no more be involved in hunting for POV in news articles than we should be looking for FRINGE, conspiratorial explanations for the mundane events reported in RS. Editors who repeatedly insist on "evidence" to "back up" the political labels used in RS are generally engaged in civil POV pushing -- present company excepted, of course. Newimpartial (talk) 01:13, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

My initial choice to use "opinion" rather than "POV" is a regrettable one, since it opens up the discussion to the distinctions in news coverage you made, but which are not really relevant for my point. I never argued that the sources provided are opinion pieces. To argue further against your, and seemingly majority, view that a reliable source, a "non-opinion" "news" article, can't contain POV would require expansion beyond the scope of this talk page. Bahati (talk) 01:55, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Bahati, these are not "in passing". Multiple reliable sources open by contextualising Molyneux as a white supremacist or white nationalist. They introduce him by saying "white nationalist Stefan Molyneux". Guy (help!) 23:59, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Guy, they are in passing precisely because they are used in passing by the source to label our subject, as you say provide context, in articles that involve him, but are not about his beliefs. If they were news articles that have our subject's beliefs as their subject, we would expect the labels not to be used in passing, but for articles to contain evidence, definitions and rationale for a conclusion containing a label. Bahati (talk) 00:57, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Funny how let this dead horse rest translates to "let me have the last word". Not all brief, simply language is "in passing", and the Wiktionary link proves absolutely nothing at all of relevance. The above sources are reporting specifically on Youtube's removal of Molyneux's channel. These sources are substantially about this removal, which is undeniably related to the ideological content of his videos, so this is in no way "in passing". Using this source to define Molyneux as "bald" in the lead would be abusing a passing mention. His baldness is factually true, but it is not treated as a defining trait by sources. Him being a white nationalist (or white supremacist) is treated as a defining trait, and so it belongs. Grayfell (talk) 03:43, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Grayfell, you almost make a good point: "These sources are substantially about this removal, which is undeniably related to the ideological content of his videos", excluding the rest of that sentence. We should, as readers, expect the sources to put more weight behind the statements so closely related to their topics, instead of just mentioning them in passing, as if the topic were indeed "Bald YouTubers", not "YouTubers get banned". Just goes to further underline that a reliable source only needs be published by an outlet deemed generally reliable and that the policy, rightfully so, does not require actual text in a reliable source to be truthful, factual, well written, etc. It is up to the editors to decide on the way they present the information found in reliable sources. Bahati (talk) 08:44, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Bahati, you so nearly got the point there, only to fail at the last minute.

When the media covered the ban, they explained who Molyneux is, because the vast majority of their readers will never have heard of him. Outside the noisier corners of the internet, he is an obscure figure.

In order to explain to their readers who he is and why this happened, they opened by explaining that he is a racist, because that is the most important and salient fact about him. And so do we, for exactly the same reason. They, and we, start by answering the question "why should I have heard of this person?" And the answer is: because he's a loud racist. Guy (help!) 09:17, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Hell I have never heard until this, in fact until this was raised here.Slatersteven (talk) 09:22, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Guy, they didn't explain who he is, that's a big point within this section, they attached a label in passing, using a curt apposition. The question and answer rhetoric you give is just a restatement of the issue. For our source the answer to "why should I have heard of this person?" may very well be, and in this case is, an unsubstantiated claim of racism. That in no way warrants, let alone requires, our answer, as editors, to be a copy of their answer. "A person labeled by some journalists as a racist" would be a factually correct answer, in keeping with all applicable policy, including NPOV and, for many reasons stated so far, more appropriate. Bahati (talk) 10:15, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Bahati, I am beginning to wonder if you are competent to comment on this.

Labelling someone with a passing mention would be: "Stefan Molyneux, often described as a racist, was banned from YouTube duer to violations of its terms of service"

The BBC said: "Stefan Molyneux is a Canadian white nationalist activist known for his promotion of conspiracy theories". That's not a label applied in passing, that is a definitional category, right up there with "David Beckham is a footballer". Guy (help!) 10:31, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Bahati continuing to argue that somehow Stefan Molyneux is not objectively a racist.

Guy, your first two examples are characterization made in passing, the difference being that one is made as a reference to another's characterization and the other being made by the author. The use of apposition in both is a good grammatical hint. I insist that the labels are attached in passing is because such statements are unexplained, almost by definition. A property that's lacking in the third example you provided. "David Beckham is a footballer" does read like a definition, the statement is self contained, but is still unexplained. A reader is offered no assurance that the definition is factually correct. I do use "unsubstantiated statement" elsewhere to describe the same issue, so you can take "statement made in passing" to mean the same thing. Bahati (talk) 13:05, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

At this point your insistence looks very much as if it's motivated by a desire to present his racism as an opinion by teh liberalz msm rather than an objective fact. Surces represent it as an objective fact. Lots of sources. So we're sticking with that. I'm going to point out here that you've been told this by a lot of people who have, like you, been here for many years, but most of whom make as many edits in an average day as you have in total in nearly 15 years. Guy (help!) 13:20, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) 6 companies own 90% of the media outlets in the USA. Your "lots of sources" are not statistically orthogonal -- they all represent the same source of variation. Moreover, when a vast majority of academics lean liberal, again, your sources are not independent. I'm sure everyone in the Soviet Union thought their news sources were independent too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:62A0:1590:7DA0:D040:C54F:F04F (talk) 18:41, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Independent does not mean "owned by one person". But it does mean "not owned by a government".Slatersteven (talk) 18:49, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't quite put it like that, but there's certainly a kernel of correctness in what you said! Again, that's out of scope here, I'll make sure to invite you if I decide to raise it at the appropriate venue. If that's all I am assured that my points are understood as I intended them to be, ie. not misrepresented anymore, and that the consensus is that they're rejected. I thank everyone for participating and, again, to Guy for providing the "meat" and especially for seeing it fit to include an actual illustration! Even if it does include an amusingly incorrect caption, which is in and of itself representative of the discussion. Bahati (talk) 13:40, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Time to close this, the OP admits they do not have consensus, and there is no point in poking them.Slatersteven (talk) 13:34, 3 July 2020 (UTC)