Talk:Stefan Molyneux/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 12

Here's all the evidence required for Wikipedia to tell the world you're a cult leader:

Roose, Kevin (2019-06-08). "The Making of a YouTube Radical". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.149.246.103 (talk) 04:28, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Whipple, Tom (January 10, 2009). "The mother and son torn apart by web 'cult' that destroys families". The Times. Retrieved October 19, 201.

Ha, Tu Thanh (December 12, 2008). "How a cyberphilosopher convinced followers to cut off family". The Globe and Mail.

"Trapped In A Cult?". Channel 5.

Collins, Ben (5 February 2016). "Meet the 'Cult' Leader Stumping for Donald Trump". The Daily Beast.

Turns out they only need a handful of clickbait articles (which were written by their colleagues at the NYT, dailybeast, and the globally trusted and respected "channel 5") to permanently prove you're evil

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.149.246.103 (talk) 04:29, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia goes by reliable sources, same as always. Grayfell (talk) 10:10, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Let's examine that reliability. The very first reference on SM's wiki is to the SPLC's page on Molyneux. I listened to the podcasts which make up the very first 2 accusations on that page: both accusations are misrepresentations.

The first SPLC quote is “I don’t view humanity as a single species...”. Here it is in context: "The conscience short-circuits, and is no longer available for recovery, when you have done an evil for which there is no restitution. There is no restitution possible for the rape of a child. [..] And where restitution is impossible, forgiveness is impossible. And where forgiveness is impossible, the incarceration of the human virus is the right thing to do. I don't.. view humanity as.. a.. single species. Right? I.. don't view.. view dogs as a single species. I mean.. they kind of are: but not rabid dogs. [..] ..because there are human predators, and human victims, and human heroes, and human villains - we're a whole ecosystem of ethics. [..] Humans are in no way all equal. This is part of the endless danger of the Soul: that inside the sociopath there is some tender, god-created essence.. [..]" (very minor excisions made, he is rather verbose)

The second SPLC quote is “The whole breeding arena of the species needs to be cleaned the fuck up!” In context: "We must have a tribe that can stand together and accept the mind-rending horror of the inhumanity of the planet. I can't do it alone. You can't do it alone. [..] a tribe that can sustain each other while swallowing the wretched horror of mankind's self-hatred, for the infliction of false ethics, particularly on children. [..] And if enough people can get together [..] then we can build what will be, in effect, a new species [..] that can communicate, that can *love*. That have empathy, that have curiosity [..] But we are along way from that. Those people: very few of them can be made - most of them will need to be bred. And they need to be bred in a environment uncontaminated by the endless bullshit of the old world. Right? The whole breeding arena of the species needs to be cleaned the fuck up! I don't allow crazy people around my daughter, and more than I allow people with juicy sores and spots to give her a sweaty bear hug! No! My breeding arena is pretty fucking tidy! That's why I say: if you have crazy, nutty people, hey, you can choose to have them in *your* life, but you don't have that choice when you have kids. Clean up the breeding pen! Cleeeean up the breeding pen! [..] And we are a hell of a long way from breeding our kids in a sane environment. We are at least 2 generations away from a tribe committed enough to reality to absorb the collective horror [..] as we transition to something that would generally be called Supermen, and Superwomen. And you could be one of those people."

So I think 'Oddball' or 'Crank' would be fair descriptors in the lede, rather than 'white supremacist'. Wikipedia is itself an unreliable source with such bias and clickbait within its sources.Cheesusfreak (talk) 13:59, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an unreliable source as it has no editorial control. We are very clear on that. @Cheesusfreak: I see no clickbait, which source are you referring to? Doug Weller talk 15:45, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

More or less much of it. Politico, Channel 5.. Read the titles of the articles. Who would write about Molyneaux unless for sensation? Oxford University Philosophy Dept? It puts him at a severe disadvantage here. He’s a bogeyman goldmine for text miners and fascist-adjacency detectives, as per Becca Lewis, also one of the sourcesCheesusfreak (talk).

Additional sources on deFOOing

• https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/controversial-podcaster-listened-in-on-therapist-wife-and-clients-lawsuit-alleges/article22158708/
• https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/toronto/therapist-who-told-podcast-listeners-to-shun-their-families-reprimanded/article4846791/
• https://members.cpo.on.ca/public_register/show/19048?section=discipline

Some good information here about how Molyneux's views are received by professional psychology. The first one is already cited but only for residence, none of it's other information is present in the article. Particularly noteworthy is this quote from the College of Psychologists of Ontario, saying to Molyneux's wife that her "statements in support of deFOOing are not supported by current professional literature or consistent with the standards" of the college. As it stands the Family-of-origin (FOO) relationships subsection could use a more balanced perspective, and someone might as well add Molyneux's spouse (Christina Papadopoulos) to the infobox since apparently she was newsworthy. Have fun! Wk7sn (talk) 03:59, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

She was previously mentioned in the article but another editor removed that info some time ago, which I happen to agree with, as she is not the subject of this article. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 09:54, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

That really has nothing to do with this. Wk7sn (talk) 03:25, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Is he really de facto a facist, right-wing, far-right, white supremacist, and/or white nationalist?

Are there any videos where he says it himself and/or says that he supports what those labels mean? 201.226.235.99 (talk) 21:05, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

He's actually the exact opposite of those things - he's an anarcho-capitalist. This article is a disgrace to wikipedia, there isn't even any mention of that primary fact about him. There are countless direct sources of him denying all of those slanders. When will wikipedia be purged of it's dishonest leftist editors? They need to be stripped of their editing privileges. 24.212.221.226 (talk) 21:33, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

+1. The labeling of him as "racist" and "white supremacist" in the header of the Wikipedia article of all places is pure libel and is unsubstantiated by his actual views. Sources can be cited which *claim* he is those things, but they should be attributed properly rather than made as sweeping claims of truth. A CNN editor calling you a white supremacist and actually being a white supremacist are two totally different things. The claim ought to be removed from the expository sequence in any case and given attribution pointing to those making this claim rather than being made as a point-blank statement of farcical fact. Pygosceles (talk) 23:22, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't reddit, and this isn't a vote. Replying to an old comment while ignoring later comments is not likely to lead to any productive changes. Your comments do not add anything which has not already been said on this talk page. If you have something new to say based on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, I suggest doing so at bottom of the section, or starting a new section. Grayfell (talk) 01:49, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a platform for original research. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia goes by reliable sources. Molyneux's prolific self-published ouput is not a reliable source, so his opinions of himself are only relevant to the extent they are contextualized by reliable source. In this case, that also means independent sources. If you know of a reliable source which defines him as an anarcho-capitalist, let's see it. Again, samples of his own work are not reliable, for multiple reasons. Grayfell (talk) 21:43, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

• "Stefan Molyneux is a popular libertarian broadcaster" https://mises.org/library/molyneux-problem
• "Stefan Molyneux is a Canadian vlogger, ... author and ... philosopher who began broadcasting his opinions online via his Freedomain Radio (FDR) website in 2004 ... to amplify his views on anarcho-capitalist ideology, atheism, philosophy, anti-statism" https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/stefan-molyneux
• "Stefan Molyneux is a popular Canadian American anarcho-capitalist pundit, historian and commentator on YouTube" https://www.conservapedia.com/Stefan_Molyneux Dennisne (talk) 22:59, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

This is slightly better than nothing.

• The Mises.org source has been discussed before. It is a relatively weak source, since it is an opinion (a book review) from 2012, from a non-mainstream source. A lot has happened since 2012, so this would be best if attributed to David Gordon in 2012, for a book review. In context. A sampling the good bits of a review which says "It would be cruel to arouse false expectations, so I had better say at once that Molyneux does not succeed in his noble goal. He fails, and fails miserably. His arguments are often preposterously bad." would be cherry-picking, as well.
• The number of ellipses in the SPLC quote is comicall. How far did you have to wander, and how much context did you have to cut-out to highlight this perspective? The source says, as its main summary:

A glance at Stefan Molyneux’s subscriber count (650,000+) on YouTube suggests that he is a charismatic, persuasive and influential individual. A skilled propagandist and an effective communicator within the racist “alt-right” and pro-Trump ranks, his promotion of scientific racism and eugenics to a large and growing audience is a serious concern. Molyneux has been delivering “race realist” propaganda, based on pseudo-scientific sources, to his audience on an ongoing basis for over two years, and thus has encouraged thousands of people to adopt his belief in biological determinism, social Darwinism and non-white racial inferiority. Molyneux puts considerable effort into cloaking the practical implications of these beliefs across his media platforms.[1]

This source does not treat his views on anarcho-capitalism as more important than his views on race and gender.

• Conservapedia is not a reliable source for multiple reasons (such as WP:UGC and others). It is irrelevant.

Grayfell (talk) 23:26, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

David Gordon is a well respected philosopher and historian, and the SPLC itself (biased though it is) admitted that he holds an anarcho-capitalist position. You haven't refuted any of these points, you just arbitrarily choose to ignore the points and sources you don't like. I'm going to report you as I was advised to do a while ago. WP:ANI. Wikipedia deserves better. Dennisne (talk) 01:02, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

On your talk page, it appears you were explicitly advised not to do that, but regardless, you will need to report based on specific policies, not just vague dislike of what you think my ideology is.

Anyway, you have not proposed any specific changes to the article, and have presented three sources. One of those is already cited and supports the specific point in dispute, one of which was previously cited but was removed (by another editor) as gossip, and the third is not usable. If you want to propose a specific change to the article, do so. Start with good sources and summarize appropriately. Grayfell (talk) 02:00, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

The specific change that I proposed was that he is an anarcho-capitalist. I provided respectable websites, 2 of which were unimpeachable. One of which was a respected and distinguished philosopher and historian. Even his biased enemies (the SPLC) confirm that he's a voluntaryist/anarcho-capitalist/anarchist. You predictably chose to ignore these facts and instead focused on your propaganda and irrelevant other issues discussed in those links. You are a biased unfit editor. I could also provide direct quotes on youtube from a jewish anarchist presidential candidate (Adam Kokesh), a harvard graduate and Columbia Ph.D. historian (Tom Woods), a jewish New York author and columnist (Michael Malice), an anarcho-capitalist lawyer (Stephan Kinsella), a jewish libertarian comedian (Dave Smith), etc etc etc -- all of who admire Molyneux and confirm at the very least that he's a principled voluntaryist / anarchist / anarcho-capitalist. Molyneux has also written many books about his anarchist beliefs, namely Practical Anarchy, Everyday Anarchy and Universally Preferable Behavior. The fact that there is no mention of any of this in this article is a blatant disgraceful admission that the authors and moderators of this article are dishonest propagandists who should be banned from Wikipedia. Dennisne (talk) 16:02, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Far from "unimpeachable", your sources are pretty terrible, honestly. The bulk of reliable sources describe the subject precisely as the article currently has it, as a far-right, white nationalist cult leader. Cherry-picking a minor historian, the Conservapedia, and complaining about the reputable SPLC isn't a convincing argument. Zaathras (talk) 17:42, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

David Gordon is a professional and well-respected Philosopher and Historian. The SPLC is also unimpeachable, not because it's unbiased (it is), but because even *it* agrees that Molyneux is a voluntaryist / anarcho-capitalist. Ie. you can't simultaneously use it to slander Molyneux and also discredit it when it mentions things that go against the leftist narrative (that Molyneux is a fascist - which is diametrically opposite to anarchism). I have also provided countless other highly reputable people that you are dishonestly ignoring (presidential candidates, phd historian, authors, lawyers, comedians). Dennisne (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:06, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Here's something interesting: reference #2's (splcenter.org) first two "In his own words" quotes seem to have been completely taken out of context according to this video (concise explanation is in video description section). The third quote's source got removed supposedly because of violating YouTube's hate speech policy (so, no proof that he actually said that). I then googled "stefan molyneux hate speech" (without the quotes), and none of the results seem to link to that verbatim from Stefan. The first two results are from his personal Twitter account, for example. 190.218.1.153 (talk) 03:36, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

What is your point, exactly? As has already been explained, Wikipedia favors context from reliable, independent sources. You may dispute that it is reliable, but the SPLC is undeniably independent of Molyneux, and is frequently cited as a topic expert on issues of extremism by other reliable sources. The SPLC source is cited once in the body of the article, with attribution, and the article does not mention any of these specific quotes.

Sources are not themselves required to cite public sources for every item they document, as this would be an impossible standard. If you have some specific reason to doubt the quote from the removed video, based on reliable sources, you would have to explain that reason.

As has already been explained, his own videos are not reliable, regardless of how concise they are.

Google results are both inconsistent from user to user, and also misleading for a variety of reasons. We are not interested in these results or the raw quantity of hits, we are interested in summarizing reliable sources.

Again, what is the actual proposal, here? How would the article be changed? This isn't a forum for discussing ideas, this is a platform for discussing how to improve the article. Grayfell (talk) 05:11, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

@Grayfell, Dennisne, Zaathras

1) Dennisne comment "You are a biased unfit editor" - WP:PA Very inappropriate.

2) The one source Dennisne and Grayfell both agree on is the SPLC ( Dennisene states: "The SPLC is also unimpeachable, not because it's unbiased (it is), but because..." - Dennisne comment from above). I think Zaathras would agree to this also. On the SPLC article, it states: From roughly 2013/2014 to the present, the content of Molyneux’s output has become politically extreme, shifting from the Ayn Rand libertarian right (and from supporting Ron Paul in 2008) to the ethno-nationalist far-right, supporting Donald Trump ... By far the most disturbing aspect of his move to the far-right [2] - "shifting from ...libertarian right" to "ethno-nationalist far-right"

The SPLC article goes into detail about his "eugenics", "biological determinism", "white supremacy". It documents his association and collaboration with individuals and organizations that are "far-right", "neo-Nazi", involved with Holocaust denial, the KKK, and other undeniably racist and white supremacist individuals and organizations. Describing him as "right-wing", "far-right", "white supremacist" is an accurate representation from the source.

It describes him as an "ethno-nationalist", White Nationalist is describing him accurately frm the source.

Extremists often pull from multiple, sometimes seemingly opposite or contradictory philosophies to create an ideology. He might use ideas from "anarcho-capitalism", but that does not make him an anarcho-capitalist, any more than Hilter using ideas from socialism made him a socialist or Lenin using ideas from capitalism make him a capitalist. Additionally, just because someone calls themselves something or uses a label does not make it accurate. Hitler may have called himself a humanitarian and Lenin may have thought he was an advocate for the working class - this doesn't make it true. The preponderance of reliable sources documenting something is what matters, not the opinion of an editor or subject.. The SPLC documents what he has done and said, his associations and the causes he supports. It documents pretty clearly that his "anarcho-capitalism" is a means to an end, not the end itself.

SPLC article : [3] Since the one source everyone agrees is 'unimpeachable" and meets the standards of WP:RS is the SPLC and it clearly documents him as a racist, far-right, white supremacist/nationalist, neo-Nazi, these labels are appropriate.

Most of the of the other "sources" mentioned above do not meet WP:RS / WP:QUESTIONABLE

A separate issue would be is he also (in addition to the above) an "anarcho-capitalist"? what does "anarcho-capitalist" mean to Molyneux? and for what purpose does he use ideas from "anarcho-capitalist" ideology?

  // Timothy::talk  19:57, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

@Grayfell, Dennisne, Zaathras And I will second Grayfell's question: "Again, what is the actual proposal, here? How would the article be changed?" and add What currently used sources in the article do you find inaccurate or not meeting WP:RS?   // Timothy::talk  20:05, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

The proposal is to include the basic fact that Molyneux is a voluntaryist / anarcho-capitalist / libertarian. All 3 of these terms apply and can be cited. The SPLC and Mises both acknowledge that he is a "libertarian" for example. The article dishonestly deleted that word when they were quoting the SPLC. There are countless other sources (lawyers, phd historians and economists, comedians, authors) who can attest to this. Grayfell (and whoever wrote the article) are deliberately hiding this information. (They also are deliberately hiding the information that Molyneux has written many books about anarchism, and still stands by them ... Practical Anarchy, Everyday Anarchy, UPB.)

Timothy was editorializing by suggesting that political alliances necessarily mean a shift in fundamental position. Wikipedia is not the place to editorialize. Dennisne (talk) 21:28, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

How about leaving out any labels, and simply saying "Stefan Molyneux is a Canadian podcaster and YouTuber who often speaks on philosophical and political topics." A section in the article could cover what the media says about him. 66.115.87.148 (talk) 21:30, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Sure, if that principle is applied consistently. Ie. if the meaningless and inaccurate leftist labels are also removed, such "white nationalist" and "white supremacist" - he is neither of those things, nor does the SPLC support that editorializing. But seeing as that's unlikely (until the SPLC finally gets sued for defamation and more publically exposed), the next best option is to provide more accurate labels to at least provide balance. Dennisne (talk) 21:45, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

The SPLC very clear does support this, and summarizing multiple sources is not editorializing. He often speaks on a lot of things which could be describes in many ways, but the purpose of a Wikipedia article is to inform readers. Avoiding clear language would be euphemistic, and "Canadian", "podcaster", and "YouTuber" are arguably also labels, aren't they? When you say "avoid labels", I think you mean avoid unflattering labels, but Wikipedia is not a platform for public relations. Many sources, not just the SPLC, support this. Grayfell (talk) 21:50, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

False - the SPLC never said he was a white nationalist/supremacist/etc. That was the editorialized leftist propaganda by whoever wrote the wikipedia article. Like I explained, an alliance with statists does not mean actually being a statist. That is a creative leap.

I agree that Wikipedia should inform readers, which is why the complete omission of his unchanged voluntaryist political beliefs and his substantial body of work that he still supports (his books about anarchism) is quite damning. Whoever wrote this article went out of their way to bias the information presented to readers. The fact that you aren't even aware of this either shows that you are unqualified to edit this article, or you are unfit to be an editor here due to your leftist bias. Dennisne (talk) 22:12, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

The SPLC spends a great deal of time documenting and discussing his views on race, and its position seems perfectly clear to me.

He has a large body of self-published work, but this is not treated by Wikipedia as "substantial" without reliable, independent sources. The only arguably reliable source I found, the last time I looked, was the Gordon source and Gordon's subsequent follow-up. That source, whether we use it here or not, doesn't grant him legitimacy as an academic, or as a libertarian. This is not my position, this is my understanding of Gordon's position. As I've said several times in the past, if you know of any reliable, independent sources which discuss his self-published books, I would like to know about them. Grayfell (talk) 22:28, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Dennisne has been temporarily blocked. I have expanded the section on his views to include the SPLC's comments on the shift from anarcho-capitalism, etc. to the alt-right. Since the source rhetorically asks "Yet how much of an ideological shift was this in actuality?" and uses this to discuss Murray Rothbard's racism, this not a an easy point to summarize. Still, I don't think it's controversial to note that his content became significantly more focused on race than it had been previously, and it seems like this point would be helpful context. Grayfell (talk) 23:51, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Grayfell I have a headache...   // Timothy::talk  00:18, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

The funny thing is, I always get far, far more grief from comments made on talk pages than I do from making actual edits to articles. I've only made a few substantial edits to this article over the past couple of years. Most of my activity here has been reverts to the status quo or formatting stuff.

On reflection, I can see how the SPLC edit might seem like I was stirring the pot or something, but that wasn't my intention. At the end of the day, some sources do describe him as libertarian/ancap. The SPLC source is useful because it puts all this into context.

I consider the SPLC more-or-less reliable, but since the site always seems to invite complaints on talk pages, I would be happy to replace it with a different source. That doesn't make the source invalid, though. Nobody is obligated to personally agree with any of these sources or their reasons, but likewise, nobody who reads the article should be caught by surprise about this, either. Grayfell (talk) 02:50, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Just going to chime in on the SPLC and say I don't think it should be given any authority at all as a source. They're are a (clearly) partisan political organization whose sole purpose is to denigrate and smear people on the political right. That's literally all they exist to do. The terms white supremacist, Neo-Nazi, etc are thrown around by them so flippantly they've nearly lost meaning. In my view they're no more a valid source for an encyclopedia than something like a political campaign group (Trump 2020, Bernie 2020, etc). Edit5001 (talk) 02:58, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

The SPLC is used extensively as a source on this encyclopedia and the general consensus among active editors is that the SPLC is reliable for its conclusions about extremist political groups and individuals, with attribution, as is the case here. Despite its occasional errors, there is no other organization that even comes close to the comprehensive research that the SPLC has done on organized extremism, hate and racism in English speaking countries, especially the United States. They have no credible rival and they will continue to be used as long as that consensus exists. The summary information regarding Molyneux cited to the SPLC is well-supported by many other more specific references in the article, and I see no evidence that their overall conclusions in this case are inaccurate. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:13, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Like I said, they always get complaints on the talk page, and so far, I have not found these complaints persuasive. Grayfell (talk) 03:17, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

@Cullen328: I fear that consensus only exists because many editors recognize the SPLC as a good attack dog to smear proponents of political ideas they disagree with. The organization is nakedly partisan and goes well beyond simply "documenting hate groups", the definition of which they have expanded so widely that it includes enormous swaths of political ideas (a group doesn't agree with gay marriage? That group is a hate group according to the SPLC). Edit5001 (talk) 03:24, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

In my view...". Mr. Edit5001, with respect, that essentially invalidates your point. Personal opinions on sources do not matter. Zaathras (talk) 03:19, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

I mean this is far from just my view, there's many other sources expressing similar views: See here and here and here and here. We could go on, but many different sources have problems with the SPLC. Edit5001 (talk) 09:12, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Op-eds are just that; opinions. Not actual journalistic pieces. Zaathras (talk) 14:01, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

This is far into WP:NOTFORUM territory. As is typical, the SPLC was mentioned, and the conversation was derailed to be about something totally unrelated to improving the article. The SPLC is a sprawling organization with decades of history. Highlighting one perspective (whether it's through opinions or not) while ignoring this long, complicated history, is misleading and selective. If you think the SPLC is not credible in general, you likely already know of better places on Wikipedia to discuss it. A handful of specifically-selected opinion articles which do not mention Molyneux cannot be used in this article, and are not relevant to this specific issue.

I can't help myself on one more point though. The line about not agreeing with gay marriage deeply misrepresents the SPLC and the issue of homophobic hate groups. This is a misconception at best and a deception at worst. The lead of List of organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as anti-LGBT hate groups explains this issue specifically. If you want to challenge the SPLC, avoid unsupported talking points and use reliable sources according to due weight instead. However, you should do that elsewhere, please. Grayfell (talk) 23:29, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

You're right that this isn't the best place to discuss the credibility of the SPLC, but I'll just briefly respond to your last point. The way the SPLC operates is that they arbitrarily declare what is and what isn't "settled science" surrounding anything LGBT, and then dismiss all research outside of that as false - even if that research is scientifically sound. The SPLC makes it so that a group cannot really debate against something like gay marriage with scientific research without them labeling them a "hate group". After all, the SPLC has already arbitrarily declared what science is and isn't "acceptable", and the only "acceptable" science to them is that favorable to LGBT causes. Edit5001 (talk) 01:48, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

@Edit5001 Regarding the attack on SPLC credibility as a source "(a group doesn't agree with gay marriage? That group is a hate group according to the SPLC)" - a complete falsehood easily shown to be false. The Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox, Calvary Chapel, Southern Baptist Convention, Latter-Day Saints, Jehovah's Witnesses, Orthodox Jews, the list goes on forever, all major groups that vehemently oppose gay marriage and they are not labeled as anti-LGBT hate groups by the SPLC. Neither is any other Christian, Muslim or Jewish denomination. The SPLC lists individual hate orgs known for being obsessed with and spreading hate against the LGBT community, not groups that oppose gay marriage. Falsehoods like "(a group doesn't agree with gay marriage? That group is a hate group according to the SPLC)" are why no one believes extremist claims about the SPLC. Extremists continually make up falsehoods to try and pass off as "facts". The SPLC is a trusted source because they document the truth - not spread easily dismissed falsehoods like "(a group doesn't agree with gay marriage? That group is a hate group according to the SPLC)". The SPLC tells the truth. That is why they are a reliable source. [4]   // Timothy::talk  04:04, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

@TimothyBlue Of course they don't classify those groups as hate groups, because they're large, well known targets and the SPLC would instantly lose credibility with any reasonable person overnight if they tried it. If they could classify those groups as hate groups and get away with it, they most likely would, because they meet many of the same criteria (and in some cases more than the same!) they use to classify smaller organizations as hate groups. Edit5001 (talk) 04:26, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

There is no science behind being a bigot, it is a choice by individuals to be hateful towards LGBT people. The SPLC, along with many - many many many - other reputable organizations call them out on it. Zaathras (talk) 01:49, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Wrong. The SPLC has been quite clear - you can be opposed to marriage equality without becoming an anti-gay hate group. What marks an anti-gay hate group is the deployment of false and derogatory claims about gay people as a group — for example, declaring that gay people are dangerous to children - with the intent of using those falsehoods to defame the entire group and deny them civil rights under the law. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:29, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

If there's sound scientific research done that shows any group of people (not just gays) is more dangerous to children than another, that shouldn't be automatically dismissed as false. What the SPLC has done is declare there are scientific results that they will under no circumstances accept as valid, regardless of circumstance or the soundness of the research. That's not just bad science on their part, it's the definition of putting feelings over facts. Edit5001 (talk) 03:45, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

There is no such science. That is a fact, and no, it doesn't care about your feelings. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:39, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

The Bell Curve. 66.115.87.148 (talk) 01:02, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for highlighting that you’re probably WP:NOTHERE. I’m assuming you’re referring to the parts of that book that highlight race and intelligence, and are regularly mined by those promoting ideas of “black inferiority“ and “white genocide”. If you’re not, then enlighten us. If you are, then explain why it’s relevant here. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 01:20, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Those ideas come out of neo-nazis and from the left (i.e. racism of low expectations). In reality, the data makes no such conclusions about race. It simply shows that certain races evolved with greater abilities in certain areas. It's the reason you don't see Asian people in the NBA. Maybe there should be affirmative action that says the NBA is racist against Asians? 66.115.87.148 (talk) 20:59, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

@24.212.221.226: I don't want to revive this discussion, but it's interesting to note that you consider being a far-right WN a "slander". According to whom? It's a positive moniker to many. I for one consider him a WN and view him as such. Wikipedia does not shy from calling LGBT films LGBT films, does it? There is no discussion about that - because Wikipedians view LGBT as positive, but call someone a far-right, and there's a huge discussion...

By the way, shouldn't there be no comma in the intro? is a far-right[,?] white nationalist[2] Canadian podcaster--Adûnâi (talk) 16:41, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, are you saying that being a white nationalist is a positive? I'm having a hard time seeing your comparison of white nationalism to LGBT as anything other than inflammatory false equivalence. Instead of explaining it, I would suggesting taking your own advice and letting this discussion die a natural death. Template:reply to doesn't work on IP addresses, and anyone who claims "leftists" should be "purged" is not acting in good faith anyway. Grayfell (talk) 02:03, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Poor sources.

A news article that carelessly labels him as a white-nationalist alt-righter, just because he apparently made "islamophobic" tweets about Note Dame cathedral, without producing any evidence of such tweets, or how they were islamophobic.

Using said news article to introduce his wiki page with "alt-right white nationalist" is ridiculous. If he really is, the what on earth kind of a source is that.

This whole wiki page is a disgrace, made by someone telling lies to themselves, because they don't like a person. And of course it's protected, hey, but the vandalism still remains. Hansel Zweinhander (talk) 08:19, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Business sold or foreclosed?

The article currently states that his business was sold in 2000 but the link points to a sale in 2002 when then business was foreclosed according to the CDNX(now Toronto Stock Exchange). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.5.79.2 (talk) 10:33, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Can you propose a change to the article text based on all available sources? That would be the next step. SPECIFICO talk 16:10, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

There is this statement by Molyneux concerning the deal. Not sure how this fits your point. SPECIFICO talk 20:09, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2020

there is no evidence to suggest stefan is a white supremacist or white nationalist. wikipedia has turned into a far left propaganda platform 216.158.244.243 (talk) 18:43, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Read the talk page. Volunteer Marek 18:48, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 19:23, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

NPOV

There is a lot of discussion about the neutrality of this article above. I have inserted a POV heading. Please try to improve the article. I Please discuss why you think the article is neutral before removing the header. Thank you. Mike Young (talk) 09:13, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Things that will fix the NPOV

The first sentence has to go. The words "Far-right", "White supremacist" and "Scientific racism" are hardly neutral.

The article should talk about what he believes, rather than what cherry-picked sources say about him. I see nothing about the "non-aggression principle, peaceful parenting, anti-circumcision etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike Young (talk • contribs) 04:34, January 17, 2020 (UTC)

You are misunderstanding what WP:NPOV calls for. NPOV states that we are to summarize "fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without editorial bias" what independent reliable sources say about a subject.

In the present case, Molyneux is not notable because he is a youtuber or podcaster. Millions of people are. He is notable -- according to independent reliable sources -- as a far-right, white nationalist podcaster and YouTuber who promotes scientific racism and white supremacist views.

So, when NBC News describes someone as a mycologist, we say they are a mycologist. If NBC says they are an actor, a truck driver or a bottle cap director, that's what we say. NBC says Molyneux is a "white nationalist YouTube agitator".[[5] Others describe him as a "libertarian internet commentator and alleged cult leader who amplifies 'scientific racism,' eugenics and white supremacism"[6], "(youtuber) who promotes topics like scientific racism"[7], "a talk show host who promotes scientific racism"[8], "promoter of the alt-right’s new scientific racism"[9], "Trump's troll army...alt-right online philosopher"[10], "far-right podcast that frequently gave a platform to white nationalists and whose host has argued that some races are less intelligent than others"[11], etc.

Independent reliable sources do describe him as promoting a non-aggression principle, peaceful parenting, anti-circumcision, etc. That is not what he is notable for, according to independent reliable sources. - SummerPhD^v2.0 12:47, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for those comments. I will look at them and comment in the next day or so. I welcome additional comments below. However, we have not yet had a discussion about why you think this is a neutral article so please give others a chance to comment and do not remove the NPOV before a concensus has been reached. Mike Young (talk) 22:37, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

You are mistaken about how this works. The burden is on you to explain why this is a POV issues, based on policies or reliable sources. So far, you have not done that. Improvement templates are for specific, actionable changes, but your proposals do not have consensus, and are not acceptable for multiple reasons. It is not enough that you dislike the outcome of a discussion, you will need to to this work first. Do not attempt to use templates as "badges of shame". Grayfell (talk) 22:51, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I believe the main conflict between editors was whether the sources were indeed independent reliable sources. Many argue that they are not reliable, or that the sources altogether hold a biased view such as the SPLC. Nikolaiho^☎️📖 00:50, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

As has already been discussed countless times, the SPLC's supposed bias is not particularly relevant to how reliable it is. Neither is its lack its of popularity among those who it categorizes. Instead of rehashing this again, look at what's already been discussed and if bring it up at a noticeboard, if you think you have something new to say.

Don't worry about what "many argue". Argue for yourself. If you have a specific reason to challenge the reliability of individual sources used in this article, do so. Grayfell (talk) 01:01, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

The "many (who) argue they are not reliable" should review what a reliable source is, then check WP:RS/P. That you/they do not like what SPLC &ct say does not speak to whether or not they are reliable. - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:19, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Jeez Greyfell, I am not sure if you intended it to sound this way but your response to me appeared very hostile. See, I don't mind how SummerPhD responded but I always come across your comments and feel so much aggression towards others. Just saying. Not trying to criticize you as a person or anything. Nikolaiho^☎️📖 20:48, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

LGBT Person wiki article, we can't call this lgbt person this, they prefer to be called this other thing. Right Ring Person wiki article, We don't care how they describe themselves we can only use biased sources that dislike this person. 2605:A000:1E02:E1C4:E53A:F4EA:B80:F536 (talk) 06:23, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Very good point. Nikolaiho^☎️📖 19:42, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

It is not a good point. It only makes sense if you don't know, or intentionally ignore, the difference between political opinions and personal identity, and context always matters. We are not a platform for public relations. When a person says they are Christian, we accept that they are Christian. When a person says they are straight, we accept that they are straight. When a person says that they are white, we accept that they are white. We don't ignore context, and we don't always mention these things in articles, but we tend to accept them unless we have some reason to the contrary.

So, as just one example, when Molyneux spends a couple weeks in Poland talking with white nationalists and attending white nationalist rallies, and then says that white nationalism is a good thing, we call him a white nationalist. Grayfell (talk) 02:44, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

He didn't say white nationalism is a good thing, and even if he had (which he didn't), that still wouldn't be enough to define him as a white nationalist. Just like praising the virtues of vegetarianism does not by itself make one a vegetarian. Korny O'Near (talk) 05:01, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

What a silly comparison. Political ideologies are not diets, and when sources say that people lie about their diets, Wikipedia can reflect that. Sources have reviewed the many times Molyneux has endorsed fringe ideologies and have come to the obvious conclusion. Whether we call this white nationalism or white supremacy is not particularly important, because reliable sources have summarized what Molyneux refuses to. Likewise, it doesn't really matter that Molyneux uses pseudo-intellectual language to obfuscate this nonsense. Grayfell (talk) 06:08, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

That was a quick reversal on whether we should believe what he says. Korny O'Near (talk) 14:49, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2020

The information contained in Stefan Molyneux's wiki page that he is a white supremacist is the most ridiculous thing i've read in a long time. I challenge you to point out anything he has said or position he has taken that could remotely be considered "white nationalist" or "white supremacist". The simply fact of the matter is that he uses philosphy, reason, and evidence to challenge many of the long standing uber liberal views on society, to have conversations and further the discussion. Wikipedia should be ashamed of having this kind of outright lies on their site.

TlCottrell (talk) 18:44, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Wikipedia goes by reliable sources, not original research or first-hand familiarity. Grayfell (talk) 21:39, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

There are dozens of reliable sources describing Stefan as a white supremacist. If you want to learn about the things he said that could be considered "white supremacist", I encourage you to take a look at those sources, which thoroughly explain it. I'm sure that Wikipedia editors can forgive you for describing this as an "outright lie", since we understand that not everyone may have reviewed the sources and checked what experts say on the matter.
Now, you may disagree with those sources, but your opinion does not matter here. If you are confused by any of this, please consult Wikipedia guidelines. BeŻet (talk) 13:11, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Dear Sr or Madam - you say "dozens of reliable sources"(by which you mean leftist "mainstream" sources) call Mr Molyneux a "white surpemacist" - yet you produce no actual evidence that he is one - you do not cite anything that he has said or done. If "dozens" of people called you a murderer would this make you a murderer? The cult of "reliable sources", rather than producing actual factual evidence, is called in philosophy "the argument from authority fallacy" - it is one of the best known fallacies. Saying, for example, "the New York Times and Harvard university say X" is no argument (no argument at all) that X is true. Even saying "Aristotle said X" is no argument (no argument at all) that X is true. I remember the case of the late Antony Flew - a man I knew (I have never met Mr Molyneux). The wikipedia article on the late Professor Flew contained things that were just not true - but I was told that I was not allowed to correct them as my knowledge was "original research" (so my actually having met the man and having read his works was a BAD thing which meant my contribution was inferior to people who had not met him and had not read his works), so the "reliable sources" (people who had never met Professor Flew and had never read his works either) were allowed to "downright lie" (present false information even after being shown it was false) - but I was not allowed to correct the factually false information of the "reliable sources". I would remind you, Sir or Madam, that, for example, according to the "reliable sources" the high tax, high government spending and high regulation policies followed in California are excellent - yet people are leaving California in droves. It appears their (boo-hiss) "personal research" is more reliable than the claims of your academic and mainstream media "reliable sources"2A02:C7D:B41D:C800:487A:E896:D358:1375 (talk) 17:51, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

What independent reliable sources say is verifiable; that's Wikipedia. What you say it original research; that's your blog. What a subject says about itself is advertising; that's their website/Facebook page/blog. - SummerPhD^v2.0 18:43, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

I've already referred you to the sources provided in the article, which are not "leftist mainstream sources". If you are incapable of reading them, one of hundreds examples are: he said "blacks" are collectively less intelligent, that immigrants are less intelligent and shouldn't mix with "high IQ" people, that black crime rates are due to genetics, he believes in the white genocide conspiracy theory, which is literally a white supremacist ideology. There are plenty of other dreadful and disgusting things he said, and therefore, unsurprisingly, as demonstrated, there are dozens of reliable sources explaining why he's a white supremacist. We didn't decide ourselves as editors whether he is a white supremacist, dozens of reliable sources did. Since there is no problem with the article, this point is moot. BeŻet (talk) 22:57, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Stefan Molyneux denies that he is a "white nationalist" or that he believes that white people have higher intelligence than all other races.

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

---

Mr Molyneux has always denied being a supporter of "white nationalism", and he has never claimed that white people have, on average, higher intelligence than all other races. I think his interest in IQ is misguided (personally I believe that all an IQ test measures is the ability to do IQ tests - so I reject the idea that low I.Q. is the reason why some areas of the world are poorer than other areas), but his opinions are certainly not what this article presents as his opinions. Also the article violates the basic rules of fairness, by overwhelmingly citing the enemies of Mr Molyneux, there is no attempt to cite friendly and unfriendly sources equally - and I am told that Mr Molyneux has even been "locked out" of his own Wikepedia page, thus giving him no chance to defend himself. Wikipeia claims to be "fair" and also claims that "anyone can edit" - this article casts serous doubts on both of those claims2A02:C7D:B41D:C800:487A:E896:D358:1375 (talk) 17:18, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia reports what independent reliable sources say about a subject. That you do not like what independent reliable sources say and do not understand what qualifies as an independent reliable source does not change this.

Wikipedia does not prove truth, it verifiably.

Wikipedia does not give equal weight to both sides. Wikipedia reports all significant viewpoints.

Wikipedia does not allow subjects (politicians, car manufacturers, etc.) to define themselves. Independent reliable sources use common language.

Anyone can edit so long as they follow some basic rules. - SummerPhD^v2.0 18:40, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

It's completely irrelevant what Molyneux thinks he is, we are reporting what independent, reliable sources describe him as. BeŻet (talk) 22:58, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Claiming that what he says is irrelevant is completely nonsensical when you are reporting on what he says, if a "reputable source" claims he says something, when there's primary evidence that he doesn't (I.E. multiple videos of Molyneux himself saying the opposite) that source should cease to be considered reputable. 80.233.52.40 (talk) 17:49, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

IP, please sign your comments using four tildes so that conversation is easier to follow. That isn’t how sourcing works. A person may claim to be a chupacabra, and this might even be true, but since people are rarely a reliable source about themselves due to inherent bias, we follow what reliable sources say. And the reliability of those sources is predicated on their reputation for fact checking and generally factual reporting. This isn’t just journalistic sources, either. Academics with an expertise in this area have scrutinized what he says, and have characterized it as classical white nationalism. We of course report his denial of this, but the characterization is based on everything BUT self-reporting. White nationalists rarely self-identify, and may not even see themselves as such. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 14:22, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I believe there's only one "academic" who has gone through his videos and she's a PhD student, for the record. Pelirojopajaro (talk) 14:30, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Let me try to explain this again. It doesn't matter what Molyneux describes himself as. It doesn't matter if he denies being a "white nationalist". We have mentioned in the article that he denies that, but we describe him as what reputable sources describe him as. If he said in a video that he is not bald, while reputable sources saying that he is, then we can't ignore those sources simply because he said the opposite. Sources have looked at his views and concluded that he is a white supremacist. BeŻet (talk) 17:03, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

You can explain as many times as you want and that doesn't make it right, the comparison you made is just retarded, being a "chupacabra" is a fact that can be verified by a third party, OPINIONS AND BELIEFS ARE NOT, if he says he likes red and some other source says he doesn't, there's no reason to believe the other source is more relevant then his own statement no matter how "reputable" it is. 80.233.52.40 (talk) 17:49, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

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

Reference changes

References 2,4,6,7 should be removed as they are links to articles that don't reach the standards of a reference. (They reference events and statements with out supporting evidence) if they did I would suggest using those link instead.

Reference 3 should be changed to his SPLC page (https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/stefan-molyneux) rather than just a link to the wiki page for SPLC once again this is NOT a reference Sntelmo (talk) 21:25, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

No, these are fine. See WP:RS. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, and as such we do not expect every source to provide supporting evidence. We summarize what reliable source say, and we would need a specific reason to doubt any specific claims made by those sources.

Reference 3 does link to his SPLC profile:

• "Stefan Molyneux". Southern Poverty Law Center. Archived from the original on March 24, 2019.

The link is his name. Even if it didn't, "references" do not always have to be links, as offline sources are also valid. Grayfell (talk) 21:44, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia does NOT demand that sources provide proof or evidence. Instead, we demand that the sources are reliable (see the link for an explanation of what makes a reliable source).

The sources you are asking to remove absolutely qualify as reliable. NBC News, Columbia Journalism Review, The Guardian and Palgrave Macmillan? If, after reading Wikipedia's criteria, you still doubt any one of them, feel free to take that question to the Reliable sources noticeboard. I assure you the answer will be swift and unequivocal.

I am unsure what problems you are having with cite #3. For me, the original like points to his profile on the SPLC site and the "archive" link points to an archived copy of the same page. Both clearly state that he is a Canadian podcaster and YouTuber who is known for his promotion of scientific racism and white supremacist views. - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:15, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

SPLC is not a reliable source. They regularly label groups they disagree with as "hate groups" CheckThatSpelling (talk) 00:45, 3 April 2020 (UTC)— CheckThatSpelling (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Is there a particular reason you added that to this totally unrelated section? - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:00, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Glad this page has become less biased

Not sure when it changed but this page was more biased than it is now until very recently. It amounted to a character assassination and a one sided opinion of his views out forward by his political opponents. There has been a lot of popular media lambasting of him that has had a platform on Wikipedia. Moderated now but still negatively biased as per media. Stephan states his own views very clearly and supporters these with research and data. LiquidElk76 (talk) 06:40, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

How biased was it before that falsely calling him a "far-right, white nationalist" today qualifies as less biased? CheckThatSpelling (talk) 00:41, 3 April 2020 (UTC)— CheckThatSpelling (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Wikipedia's policy, WP:NPOV, does not suggest that we not call things what they are. Additionally, we do not take a position whether "far-right" or "white nationalist" are good or bad. Instead, we are to fairly represent what independent reliable sources have to say about a subject.

That Molyneux is a far-right, white nationalist Canadian podcaster and YouTuber who is known for his promotion of scientific racism and white supremacist views, a leading figure of the alt-right movement, a far-right activist, has "a perverse fixation on race and IQ" and has been described as a cult leader, using cult indoctrination is sourced to NBC News, the SPLC, Columbia Journalism Review, the Data and Society Research Institute, The Guardian, Palgrave Macmillan, Politico, The Washington Post, CNN, The New York Times, The Independent, The Times, The Globe and Mail, etc.

If you feel we do not accurately report what the sources say, please explain.

If you feel the sources do not meet the criteria outlined at WP:IRS, please explain (espve ecially since many of them are covered at WP:IRS/P.

If you have independent reliable sources that we have missed describing him as a swell guy who wants all of the children of the world to join hands and sing in peace and harmony, please present it here. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:16, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Does anyone have a single source that actually shows evidence of him being Alt Right or a white nationalist?

Obviously I like him, that's why I'm defending him. But that doesn't mean I have my head in the sand. If you have evidence that he is racist, I'll accept it. That being said, I looked through the sources for the claims in the first paragraph of this article and they don't hold up to scrutiny. For example, the SPLC's article on him uses as an example a sentence he uttered on his podcast: “I don’t view humanity as a single species...” Now that seems inflammatory and racist, until you look at the context, which the SPLC cites and apparently they didn't listen to (or they did and they're hoping you don't). In the show, he's referring to the difference between evil psychopaths and the rest of us, not to people of difference races. That's just one example. Does anyone have an example that does show that he's racist?

I've been a listener of his for a while and haven't encountered a single piece of evidence that he's a racist or wants a white ethno-state. In fact, his beliefs contradict those accusations. First, he is an anarchist, which is about as far as you can get from supporting an ethno-state (because that would require a lot of government intervention). There are instances of him supporting border controls, but that's only because a welfare state exists -- as Milton Friedman said, "you can’t have open borders and a welfare state." Agree or disagree with him, if we assume that's true, then supporting border as a defensive measure while the welfare state exists is not supporting borders as an ultimate ideal. Molyneux is for the elimination of political borders as long as the government isn't intervening in other ways. Here's an analogy: if a slave get to vote on an overseer and one would beat him more and he votes for the one that beats him less, is the slave supporting slavery? Second, the claims of racism come mostly from calling him a supporter of "scientific racism," a term which is normally put in quotes to mock those who allegedly try to mask their racism with fancy scientific terms. Molyneux draws from conclusions from The Bell Curve and other scientists who show that the average IQ is significantly different for each race. And what IQ tests show is that white people are not the most intelligent, so he's not much of a white supremacist if he believes that whites aren't the most intelligent, that should be your first clue that the label is just slander. But, you might say, maybe putting whites somewhere in the middle of the IQ spectrum is just a ploy to make the racism more believable and as long as the blacks and mexicans are under whites that's good enough. Now we're entering pretty speculative territory, which would be cut by Occam's Razor unless you have great evidence. But, you might still say, even if he honestly believes that whites are somewhere in the middle of the IQ spectrum, isn't that sill racist against the races that fall under the middle? Let's define racism: it's the believing that one race is superior to another. Ask yourself: if you are smarter than one of your friends, does that make you superior to them? If you answered yes, then you're wrong because intelligence doesn't determine a human's value, it's only one factor of who we are. If you answered no, then it doesn't make sense to call Molyneux a racist based on him mentioning IQ research. But, you might insist, even if that's all true, why does he talk about IQ if not to denigrate other races? Because if societies operate on the wrong hypothesis that every race has the same average IQ, then large differences in economic success will lack the explanatory power of differences in IQ and the odds that the economic differences will be blamed on racism in the workplace will be much higher. The reason not many other people out there talk about IQ research is because so many people fail to understand that intelligence doesn't determine the value of a human and will try to destroy the career of anyone who talks about it. And this article is a perfect example of that misunderstanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CheckThatSpelling (talk • contribs) 01:59, 3 April 2020 (UTC) — CheckThatSpelling (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Wikipedia does not examine evidence then decide if the Earth is flat or spherical, whether or not NASA landed astronauts on the Moon, whether or not Nazis murdered 6 million Jews during the Holocaust or whether or not Molyneux is a far-right, white nationalist. Wikipedia reports what independent reliable sources say about the subjects (spherical, yes, yes and yes).

If you would like to debate any of those questions, challenge the data, point to shadows in photos, etc., you are on the wrong site. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:21, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Whether Molyneux is what he's called in the article is not comparable to whether the moon landing is real, flat earth conspiracies are true, or whether the holocaust happened. The latter are commonly known and easily verifiable, the former is not. In your above comment, you've violated (unprovoked) Wikipedia's rules against personal attacks by comparing me to people who try to disprove the moon landing by "point[ing] to shadows in photos." Read the code of ethics again and come back when you're ready to apologize.

Let's examine the claim that independent and reliable sources show him to be an alt right, white nationalist. As I stated above, the claims in the Southern Poverty Law Center article -- which is currently being used as a source -- are contradicted by the primary source material. It is simply attributing to Molyneux a meaning that is not supported by the podcast being referenced. So, even if the SPLC is generally a reliable source, it is not reliable in this case. I won't go down the line for the other sources right now to avoid being tedious, but this should at least be a good starting point from which to open up the conversation about whether the article is using unreliable sources. CheckThatSpelling (talk) 17:21, 3 April 2020 (UTC)— CheckThatSpelling (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I am not comparing you to flat Earthers, Holocaust deniers, etc. and I'm not sure what "code of ethics" you are referring to. I assure you I am quite familiar with WP:NPA.

Independent reliable sources state quite clearly that Molyneux is a far-right, white nationalist. That your interpretation of primary sources is at odds with that is not relevant. That Molyneux may prefer other terms is not relevant. Independent reliable sources are abundantly clear here. - SummerPhD^v2.0 20:33, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

As SummerPhDv2.0 says, we are not interested original research, and any attempt by an individual editor to analyse primary sources is original research.

Because I think it might help explain why sources are so important, I will explain what I think it happening here. Molyneux's videos tend to avoid making bold claims, but instead he presents a parade of isolated facts which have been stripped of context (the pseudoscience of The Bell Curve is one example). His viewers then form the obvious (but false) conclusion from this selective sample, without Molyneux having to spell it out himself. Molyneux gets to look smart for teaching something, and his viewers get to feel smart for thinking that they came to the conclusion on their own. This is superficially similar to the Socratic method, except that Molyneux has the luxury of ignoring his better-educated, more informed critics.

It would be easy to get lost in the weeds with specific examples, such as that Molyneux's views rely on an extremely simplistic form of racialism to make any sense, but this is exactly the point. There is always some esoteric bit of nonsense he can point to as a defense. One of the things that makes reliable sources so reliable is their ability to push back against these rhetorical tricks. Reliable sources ignore the evasion and come to the conclusion that Molyneux's self-published media implies white supremacy, regardless of his purported intentions.

Again (and again, and again) this is why we need to use reliable sources to come to conclusions. Unreliable sources, such as Molyneux himself, are not reliable, not independent, and not useful. Grayfell (talk) 21:51, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

SummerPhDv2.0, it doesn't seem like you're familiar with WP:NPA because you did compare me to moon landing conspiracy theorists. Just look above: "Wikipedia does not examine evidence then decide if the Earth is flat or spherical, whether or not NASA landed astronauts on the Moon [...] If you would like to debate any of those questions, challenge the data, point to shadows in photos." Pointing to shadows in photos is a reference to disputing moon landing photos based on shadows. Why are you doubling down on such an obvious remark?

Anyway, from your link, SummerPhDv2.0, the OR page states, "The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.." I pointed out that the allegations of the SPLC are false based on going to the primary source, which the SPLC claims as evidence for their claim. I'm not arguing that Molyneux is a reliable source. The SPLC used a recording of his as evidence for its claim, so what the recording says, in this case, is the most reliable source for whether that specific claim is true. To give a simple example: if someone says "this recording of my neighbor shows that he plans to steal my furniture," and when you play the recording it's just him singing La Cucaracha, the claim has obviously been shown to be false. Grayfell describes this as "getting lost in the weeds." If listening to the contents of the original recording to determine whether an accusation is true is getting lost in the weeds, then the neighbor in my example can be sent to jail if the accuser has been sufficiently reliable in the past. You see the problem? CheckThatSpelling (talk) 05:18, 5 April 2020 (UTC) — CheckThatSpelling (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Again, you seem to be arguing an independent reliable source is wrong, based on your interpretation of the primary source you believe their statement is based on. The independent reliable source, SPLC (see WP:RS/P), says Molyneux is "A skilled propagandist and an effective communicator within the racist 'alt-right' and pro-Trump ranks, his promotion of scientific racism and eugenics".

You are attempting to compare what one source clearly and directly states with your interpretation of the primary source and deciding that your synthesis (part of WP:OR) strikes down the reliable source.

The independent reliable sources clearly state Molyneux is "known for his promotion of scientific racism and white supremacist views", though I suppose we could include eugenics in that list.

I am not comparing you to Moon landing conspiracy theorists, Holocaust deniers or anyone else. I am saying your methodology -- pointing to your analysis of primary sources to cast doubt on independent reliable sources -- is similar to that used elsewhere. Yes, Moon landing conspiracy theorists point to shadows in NASA photos in an attempt to cast doubt on various independent reliable sources (various academic publishers, assorted national science bodies, etc.). If that were comparing you to Moon landing conspiracy theorists, it would be comparing Molyneux to NASA. I assure you I am doing neither.

Cutting to the chase here: If you wish to dispute that SPLC is a reliable source, the question has been repeatedly discussed and you will not be able to override the consensus here. Please take the issue directly to the Reliable sources noticeboard.

If you are arguing we should dismiss what an independent reliable source directly states based on your interpretation of the primary source, I do not see any way past that conflicting with WP:OR, one of Wikipedia's pillars. If that is your concern, please take the issue directly to Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard.

If your concern is something else, please state it as simply and directly as possible. - SummerPhD^v2.0 05:58, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I understand that formally/logically, you might be comparing my methodology to that of moon landing conspiracy theorists and of course there are some similarities, but you should have known that the example you picked was charged with negative connotations. I can correct someone making a math mistake by telling them, "Like the designers of the Kansas City, Hyatt Regency walkway that collapsed and killed more than a hundred people, you've made an incorrect calculation here." They'd look at me like I'm crazy for making such a charged comparison.

To get back to the meat of the matter, it's not my belief that the primary source I mentioned is what their statement is based on. They link to it next to the statement as evidence. And I'm not arguing we should dismiss what an independent reliable source directly states based on my interpretation of the primary source. Why would I expect you to take my word for it? Maybe this next question will lead the discussion to a conclusion: if we have a situation where an independent, reliable source (deemed so by Wikipedia rules) makes a claim and links to a recording as evidence, and that recording doesn't support the claim, is that a problem by Wikipedia rules? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CheckThatSpelling (talk • contribs) 03:31, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Again, a shortcut here: Several independent reliable sources confirm that Molyneux is far-right, white nationalist, promotes scientific racism and white supremacist views, a far-right activist, has been described as a cult leader, and uses cult indoctrination techniques.

To counter that, you would need to establish

• the sources do not meet the criteria outlined at WP:IRS (note that WP:RS/P discusses several of them)
• the sources do not support the statements
• the descriptors are not a significant aspect of his identity according to the sources.

Arguing that one of the sources is "wrong" or doesn't support its claims is a non-starter. If independent reliable sources said Molyneux was a cheese sandwich, this article would say, "Stefan Molyneux is a cheese sandwich", cite the sources and a discussion on the talk page would begin to figure out whether to link that to Cheese sandwich, Cheese and Sandwich or something else. That the source doesn't show that he is cheese stacked between two pieces of bread would be moot.

Wikipedia does not try to determine "truth". It tries to determine "verifiability". Stefan Molyneux is verifiably a far-right, white nationalist who promotes scientific racism and white supremacist views. - SummerPhD^v2.0 05:52, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

"Arguing that one of the sources is "wrong" or doesn't support its claims is a non-starter. If independent reliable sources said Molyneux was a cheese sandwich, this article would say, "Stefan Molyneux is a cheese sandwich". That the source doesn't show that he is cheese stacked between two pieces of bread would be moot." SummerPhD this is not correct. Please read WP:LIBEL, WP:TRUTHMATTERS, WP:LABEL, WP:ONUS, WP:5P5, and WP:IGNORE before editing any more BLPs. Under many definitions of defamation, such as California's, truth absolutely matters. - 218.214.175.194 (talk) 21:26, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I am quite aware of Wikipedia's policy on the matter, as well as the various essays and such you linked to. Yes, if something is true, it is not libel. No, if something is not true, it does not mean it is libel. Saying Molyneux is a white supremacist does not unjustly harm his reputation. As the sources show, he has the reputation of being a white supremacist, using pseudoscience to support scientific racism, etc. (Similarly, if multiple independent reliable sources said he is a cheese sandwich, this would not harm his reputation.) If you disagree, please pick one of your IP addressed or user names and take the issue to the BLP noticeboard or, if you'd prefer, directly to AN/I. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:08, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

SummerPhDv2.0—from where do you derive that "Saying Molyneux is a white supremacist does not unjustly harm his reputation"? Bus stop (talk) 15:12, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Molyneux's reputation as a white supremacist who promotes scientific racism, promotes white supremacist conspiracy theories and gives a platform to white supremacists is in no way harmed by saying he is a white supremacist. It is verifiable that he believes whites are superior to other races. That is his reputation. If his reputation is harmful to his reputation I'm sure we'll have similar problems describing lots of people with firmly established reputations that you likely consider to be negative. - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:27, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

"Molyneux's reputation [...] is in no way harmed by [Wikipedia] saying he is a white supremacist. [...] That is his reputation. This is your opinion and is disputed by many other editors. It is not an incontrovertible fact. - 218.214.175.194 (talk) 06:41, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Just to point out that that mangled quotation is essentially a violation of the WP:TPG, as it reduces the quoted text to near-incomprehensibility. I didn't write the original, but a more reasonable excerpt would be Molyneux's reputation as a white supremacist ... is in no way harmed by saying he is a white supremacist. In other words. Molyneux's reputation *is* as a white supremacist, not as anything else. You can certainly dispute this characterization as you like, IP, but obfuscating what others are saying so that you can pivot to another topic does not help you make any sort of policy-compliant argument. Newimpartial (talk) 10:21, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

"it reduces the quoted text to near-incomprehensibility." For you Newimpartial, I'm sure it does... I'll explain the quote in simple words. SummerPhDv2.0 thinks that Stefan Molyneux's reputation is not harmed by Wikipedia asserting he is a white supremacist. Why? Because opinion pieces in the New York Times, Guardian, SPLC, CNN, NBC etc. INDEPENDENT RELIABLE SOURCES say that Stefan Molyneux is a white supremacist, and therefore that is his reputation. Other editors (including me and Bus Stop) disagree. - 218.214.175.194 (talk) 18:36, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

You claim that you disagree, sure, but you have not produced any evidence whatever to suggest he has some other reputation. For there to be an editorial dispute, in WP terms, there needs to be supporting evidence on both sides. Newimpartial (talk) 20:03, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

"No, if something is not true, it does not mean it is libel." Where in my comment did I say 'if something is not true it is libel'? Your claims that 'truth' isn't important is what I took issue with. If it's untrue that Stefan Molyneux is a white supremacist, then stating that "Stefan Molyneux is a white supremacist" (in an encyclopaedia not an opinion piece), would harm his reputation. So to say that the truth of the statements in the lede don't matter, is categorically incorrect.

"If you disagree, please pick one of your IP addresses or user names". SummerPhDv2.0, I'm sure you already know this, but on Wikipedia "accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence" are considered to be personal attacks (see WP:NPA). If you or Grayfell have evidence that I use multiple usernames (which is a violation of Wikipedia's policies), please provide it.- 218.214.175.194 (talk) 04:56, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not determine if it is true that Molyneux is a white supremacist who promotes white supremacist conspiracy theories, gives a platform to white supremacists and uses pseudoscientific theories to support white supremacy. Wikipedia determined it is verifiable that Molyneux is a white supremacist who promotes white supremacist conspiracy theories, gives a platform to white supremacists and uses pseudoscientific theories to support white supremacy.

If you feel the sources are not independent reliable sources or do not say what we say they say, please be more specific. If you feel it is somehow not about what the sources plainly say, but rather is a function of the opinions you have decided I have, I cannot help you. The article says what the article says because the independent reliable sources say what they say. - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:27, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

"Wikipedia does not determine if it is true that Molyneux is a white supremacist who promotes white supremacist conspiracy theories." Yes. But in BLPs truth matters. Which is why WP:LABEL clearly spells out that value-laden labels should only be used with in-text attribution, even when those labels are widely used by independent reliable sources. - 218.214.175.194 (talk) 06:41, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

SummerPhD—it is not a hard-and-fast fact that "Molyneux is far-right, white nationalist, promotes scientific racism and white supremacist views". These are the opinions held by the sources used to support those assertions. Shouldn't those opinions be attributed to those sources? It is currently being said in Wikipedia's voice. I'm not sure if that is proper. Bus stop (talk) 06:27, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

To answer that question, I think we would first have to examine the reliable sources stating that Molyneux is not far right, white nationalist or promoting of white supremacist views. Are there any? Newimpartial (talk) 14:39, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Newimpartial—how is it in anyone's interest to convert opinions to assertions? Bus stop (talk) 15:02, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Being "alt right" is an attribution, not simply an opinion. Attributions can be supported and contested. The particular attributions we are talking about, I have never seen contested in reliable sources. Newimpartial (talk) 17:57, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Newimpartial—why would the source of a characterization be relegated to a citation when the the source of a characterization can be plainly stated? Bus stop (talk) 18:15, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

As has already been asked of you multiple times and multiple places, including this talk page, please stop asking these pedantic, loaded questions. This doesn't improve the article at all. Many sources describe Molyneux this way in factual terms. Your attempt at casting doubt on these sources by framing this as an opinion is as disruptive as it is obvious. Grayfell (talk) 19:32, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Bus stop is right. Grayfell see WP:Label. Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist or sexist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution.

So whether or not you are correct that SPLC, Ben Collins (NBC), Zoe Beery (Columbia Journalism Review), Rebecca Lewis (Data & Society), Gavin Evans (The Guardian), Aaron Winter (coauthor of the book 'Online Othering') and Kevin Roose (New York Times), are authoritative sources of information on the views of Stefan Molyneux, is inconsequential.

Based on your respective edit histories, I can see that both you and SummerPhD have very strong opinions on those you deem to be a part of the 'far-right' (like many journalists do), but please remember that BLPs must be written cautiously and with extra care. - 218.214.175.194 (talk) 21:26, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Nothing in this comment is worth responding to in specific detail. If you have an actionable proposal based on reliable sources, which hasn't already been debated to death, you should start a new section. It is disruptive to revive the dying embers of old drama by inserting unhelpful comments in the middle of a thread. This talk page isn't a playground for expressing indignation over how unfairly the mainstream media treat a white nationalist vlogger. Emulating Molyneux's theatrical pretense of neutrality is almost as ineffective on a Wikipedia talk page as it is in a real life discussion. Grayfell (talk) 21:42, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

This page is for discussing improvements to this article, not for discussing your opinions of what you think my or anyone else's opinions of white supremacists might be. If you have concerns with our editing, this is not the forum you are looking for. Take it to either of our talk pages, AN/I or the appropriate forum of your choice.

The independent reliable sources are The New York Times, The Guardian, etc., not the individual authors. If you feel those sources are not independent reliable source, please take the issue to the Reliable sources noticeboard. I'd suggest starting with The New York Times and going from there. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:24, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Grayfell your personal opinions on my 'neutrality' or the 'helpfulness' of my comment, is irrelevant. As clearly explained in WP:LABEL, the pejorative, value-laden labels used in the lede should not be stated using Wikipedia's voice, regardless of whether the sources are reliable or not.

See WP:CONSENSUSLEVEL. Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope.

SummerPhDv2.0 as I already explained above, whether one thinks that opinion pieces from The New York Times or The Guardian, are high-quality reliable sources or not, is inconsequential. - 218.214.175.194 (talk) 04:56, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

But IP, we have no consensus here that 'white supremacist' for example is a 'pejorative' label in the sense meant by LABEL. Certainly there are many social scientists for whom 'white supremacy' reflects an objective social structure rather than a racist fan club or a demonized other. So please don't assume the thing you are trying to prove.

It is not the job of WP editors to re-litigate the labels that are used - uncontested - in Reliable Sources; also, your motivation in doing so reads a good deal more as IDONTLIKEIT than as seeking 'Truth', though the latter form of RIGHTINGGREATWRONGS is not any more compliant with policy than the former. So why are we discussing this again? Newimpartial (talk) 11:48, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Newimpartial WP:LABEL does not uses the word 'pejorative', I did. So whether 'white supremacist' is a 'pejorative' label or not is beside the point, and was not something I was 'trying to prove'.

Re your second point, please don't assume I have bad motives. I don't.-218.214.175.194 (talk) 13:26, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

To equate 'seeking "Truth"' with having 'bad motives' is one of the oddest failures of WP:AGF I have seen. For the record, I do not assume any 'bad motives' on the part of the IP; I am simply arguing that seeking 'Truth' rather than Verifiability is a rather clear WP policy violation.

IP, your earlier comment was As clearly explained in WP:LABEL, the pejorative, value-laden labels used in the lede should not be stated using Wikipedia's voice - you were the one invoking 'pejorative'. The actual text of WP:LABEL is in fact 'value-laden': Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist or sexist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion ... Again I say, 'white supremacy' or 'white supremacist' are terms that have clear denotative meanings in contemporary discourse and are not like 'terrorist' or 'freedom fighter' - the latter being terms that indicate the political positioning of the speaker with respect to the subject, rather than any attribute of the subject him- her- or itself. What is more, the pejorative terms are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject - the guideline does not suggest that they not be used at all. Newimpartial (talk) 15:09, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

• "To equate 'seeking Truth' with having 'bad motives' is one of the oddest failures of WP:AGF I have seen.". Newimpartial instead of accusing me of "One of the oddest failure of WP:AGF you have seen", maybe try rereading your own comment? You did not say I was 'seeking Truth' you said, and I quote, "your motivation in doing so reads a good deal more as IDONTLIKEIT than as seeking 'Truth'". [Edit: I am not 'seeking Truth' and my motive is not 'WP:IDONTLIKEIT', or 'WP:RIGHTINGGREATWRONGS'. My motive is to build a better encyclopaedia.]

• "you were the one invoking 'pejorative'." Yes. I used the word pejorative not WP:LABEL. That's what I said in my last reply to you. If you'd actually read my direct quote of WP:LABEL at the start of this thread, you would already know that.

• "the guideline does not suggest that they not be used at all." Nowhere did I say it does! But WP:LABEL does say that value-laden labels like cult, racist, sexist, extremist, neo-Nazi, fundamentalist, perverted, transphobic, homophobic etc. "are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." - 218.214.175.194 (talk) 06:41, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Enough with the selective quotation, already. What I wrote was, your motivation in doing so reads a good deal more as IDONTLIKEIT than as seeking 'Truth', though the latter form of RIGHTINGGREATWRONGS is not any more compliant with policy than the former. So why are we discussing this again? (emphasis added). In other words, both wrong-righting and Truth-seeking (versus Verifiability) are contrary to policy. I am not inpugning your motives, and your motives in this do not matter, because the path you propose is contrary to policy regardless of motive. For you to reply to this, as you did, with "please don't assume I have bad motives" is an irrelevant pivot, because I have already pointed out that whether you are Truth-seeking or DONTLIKEing is entirely of no consequence - you are proposing a criterion contrary to policy. Period.

What you needed to prove, to have a policy-compliant argument, was that "white supremacist" is a "value-laden" label in the sense of "terrorist or freedom fighter", rather than a descriptive label like "flat earther". So far your only suggestion of an argument to that effect was the suggestion (without evidence) that it is "perjorative". So perhaps you should actually make such an argument rather than offering your usual back-and-forth selective quotations and pivots. If such an argument were to succeed, then and only then would we need to attribute the label to specific Reliable Sources. Newimpartial (talk) 10:21, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

LOL. I made an irrelevant pivot? Tell me, who was the user that originally brought up my motives? Oh that's right, it was you. But you couldn't stop there. Oh no. Instead of spending one line in your next reply apologising for claiming my motive "reads a good deal more as WP:IDONTLIKEIT than as 'seeking Truth'" (neither of which are my motive), you lied.

"What you needed to prove, to have a policy-compliant argument, was that "white supremacist" is a "value-laden" label". [...] If such an argument were to succeed, then and only then would we need to attribute the label to specific Reliable Sources.". Wrong. As per WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE, what you need to prove is that "white-supremacist" (unlike "racist", "sexist", "extremist", "neo-nazi", "homophobic", "transphobic", "cult" and all the other value-laden labels listed in WP:LABEL) is not a value-laden label. If such an argument were to succeed, then and only then would you not need to attribute the label to a Reliable Source.

From WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE: "To ensure that material about living people is written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material." - 218.214.175.194 (talk) 18:36, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Until this post, IP, nobody has suggested that BLPREQUESTRESTORE applies here; it was certainly not raised by the editor opening this section. Why do you believe it is relevant?

Also your claim that I was somehow "lying" in this edit is uncivil, untrue, and a clear violation of the WP:TPG. Please strike through your comment and try to stay focused on the content of the discussion. Thanks. Newimpartial (talk) 20:10, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Don't tell him to strike through his comment just because you don't like it. It doesn't in any way go against TPG. In that case, you wrongly assuming his motive is unacceptable and should be striked through. Nikolaiho^☎️📖 23:59, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion, Nikolaiho, but "you lied" is not an acceptable comment per TPG and CIVIL, especially when attached to a diff in which there is no possibility that I lied. Thanks for making assumptions about my intentions, but I was responding only to their contribution, not to any assumptions about the the contributor. Perhaps you should strike through your comment where you impugn my motive or suggest that I am assuming bad faith, since I have done nothing of the kind. Newimpartial (talk) 01:07, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Molyneux's political views are not really comparable to shape of the Earth or holocaust numbers. The first is a question of empirical science, the second is a question of historical methodology as well as some empirical proof. For that reason, for wikipedia to have any credibility it has to go by peer reviewed academic sources. On the other hand, the sources describing Molyneux as a White supremacist are just journalistic sources, mostly left leaning media outlets (some super left leaning the SPLC). This article here seems to at least go against neutrality, as I don't see any conservative news journals labeling him a White supremacist.

With that said about the article's lack of neutrality, I do think White nationalist is fitting. He has said numerous times immigration from Black and Brown countries is a mistake because these are low IQ countries. And he has also said that he thinks it's largely because of innate genetic differences. Just watch his interview on the Rubin report, and he even made a video praising Poland for how White it was. "White supremacist" though, that's a tough one. When people get the idea of a White supremacist in their minds, they don't view a guy running an internet podcast talking about IQ scores. They think of KKK rallies or terrorist bombings of Black churches. Arch Hades (talk) 21:40, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

"Low IQ countries" requires evidence. So what are his sources, exactly? This mostly stems from Richard Lynn's work in Mankind Quarterly and published via Washington Summit Publishers, which many, many better academics already poked holes before Molyneux got to it. Citing unreliable white supremacists for misleading/false white supremacist talking points doesn't make him less of a white nationalist. Presenting white nationalist ideas with a flimsy veneer of science doesn't make them less wrong, it just makes them pseudoscience, which we already knew.

Ultimately, none of this has much bearing on Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, so it's drifted into WP:NOTFORUM territory. We, as editors, cannot concern ourselves with one editor's personal opinion about how hypothetical people conceptualize white supremacy, much less how that might potentially be incompatible with vlogging. That's just too many layers of WP:OR. The idea that the SPLC is "super left" is both absurd and irrelevant. The only sources viewing them as "super left" are doing so for political reasons, but since a "super left" source can also be reliable, who cares? Expecting "conservative news journalists" to be propped up as a counter-point is WP:GEVAL. If you have actual sources to propose, do so. Impugning sources based on the hypothetical existence of contrary sources, somewhere, based on some undefined ideological purity test, is non-productive. It's just a way of casting aspersions against those sources with some unnecessary steps added to appear "neutral". Grayfell (talk) 23:48, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Grayfell—don't you think the reader might want to know which entity is characterizing Molyneux a white supremacist? The article can say something like "Source A, Source B, and Source C consider Molyneux a white supremacist." Bus stop (talk) 01:43, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

If readers want to know, that's why we cite sources.

The in-line attribution method gets repetative very quickly and, IMO, is often promoted as a "solution" in situations like this to change simple, direct statements -- like "Stefan Molyneux is a far-right, white nationalist Canadian podcaster and YouTuber who is known for his promotion of scientific racism and white supremacist views" -- into a long, droning list:

SPLC says he is a propagandist for the racist alt-right and pro-Trump ranks.

SPLC, Columbia Journalism Review, Data & Society Research Institute, The Guardian, Palgrave Macmillan say he promotes scientific racism.

SPLC says he promotes eugenics.

SPLC says he uses pseudo-scientific sources.

SPLC says he cloaks the practical implications of his beliefs.

Data & Society Research Institute says he advocates for the men's rights movement.

Data & Society Research Institute says he promotes white supremacist conspiracy theories.

Palgrave Macmillan says his lectures are ill-researched and scientifically unsound.

Politico Magazine and The Washington Post say he is alt-right.

CNN says he is far right.

CNN says his podcast is far right and frequently gives a platform to white nationalists.

The New York Times says he promotes racist conspiracy theories.

The New York Times says he is right wing.

The New York Times says he was a men's rights advocate.

The New York Times says he believes feminism is a form of socialism.

The New York Times says he says progressive gender politics hold young men back.

The New York Times says he is fixated on "race realism", a favored topic of white nationalists.

The New York Times says he promotes white nationalists.

The Independent says he has a perverse fixation on race and IQ.

The Times and Channel 5 describe him as a cult leader.

The Globe and Mail and Channel 5 say he encourages people to cut off contact with their families.

The Globe and Mail says he is often compared to a cult leader.

The Daily Beast says his podcast is often compared to a cult.

- SummerPhD^v2.0 03:02, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Grayfell. I'm not really interested in debating or providing evidence about Nationality and IQ. This article isn't about that. I think his sources are just from guys like Lynn, Rushton, Jenson, Murray & Hernstein etc as you say. I believe even Flynn says these are countries which score lower on IQ (as do Black Americans vs White Americans and East Asian Americans), but he maintains a much more environmentalist stance. You are right that from what I can tell, most of the time in his podcast he's just asserting this. Perhaps he's just taking for granted his viewers have read the material he has, I dunno. Anyway, I agree he can be viewed as a White Nationalist. I mean if you oppose immigration from Black and Brown countries then how are you not a White Nationalist or at least your views are very in line with White Nationalist views? If a British person opposes immigration from Ireland or France, we can assume he's a British Nationalist. So if Molyneux does this with only with Black and Brown countries, I'd say we can assume he's a White Nationalist. Not to mention he literally has videos praising Poland for being all White, etc.

I just said the article lacks neutrality. There's not a single conservative source labeling him a White supremacist. The SPLC is very left leaning, New York times, CNN and Buzzfeed, etc are more central or central-left but they are still left leaning. If there was an article on a youtuber and it labeled him a Communist, Marxist, etc (favorite epithets of Molyneux) and the only sources were from Fox News and Breitbart I'd be a little suspicious and would definitely say the article lacked neutrality.Arch Hades (talk) 03:41, 8 April 2020 (UTC) Anyway, that's my two-cents, just though i could give advice in how to improve it. I'm honestly not the biggest fan of Molyneux so if he's a bit misrepresented on here it is not my problem. Arch Hades (talk) 03:49, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

You're right that this isn't the place to debate nationality and IQ (or the white supremacist tendency to use "nationality" as a proxy for "race), so this isn't the place to casually mention misleading information about that topic, either. James Flynn (even Flynn) is an academic who has provided context and nuance, and his work has been challenged by other reputable academics. Cherry-picking one of his positions in support of this fringe perspective is not an excuse to ignore that context. It is also not a justification for getting in the last word.

You cannot misrepresent Flynn's work to imply that Molyneux's pseudoscience has legitimacy. Not even in passing, and not even on a talk page. To quote Flynn: "You have a limited amount of time in your life, and if you look at what every nut says about every issue, you’ll never have time to do anything else."[12][13] This quote was specifically about Molyneux. Still, Flynn is not the polar opposite to Lynn merely because they disagree on IQ. This false dichotomy is frequently taken advantage of by racists. They are not two equal sides of a debate, and we are not obligated to waste time humoring junk science.

The SPLC is not "very left leaning" unless you are getting that description form sources like Breitbart or the op-ed section of Fox News. If that's the case, I am surprised you would concede that Buzzfeed is "more central". Why on Earth you think this is relevant to this discussion is beyond me, however. Bretbart is so unreliable it has been blacklisted from Wikipedia (per WP:BREITBART). We should not attempt to arbitrarily add unreliable "conservative" sources to balance-out reliable "left" ones. As I said, we are not interested in false balance.

Also, as I said, if you have reliable sources, regardless of supposed political ideology, propose them. We've already had more than enough people kvetching about the supposed bias of the SPLC on this talk page, and on dozens of other talk pages. If you have sources, propose them. Grayfell (talk) 23:10, 8 April 2020 (UTC)