Talk:Stefan Molyneux/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

BLPN discussion

FYI. Fyddlestix (talk) 19:19, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I've already placed a notification of that discussion here. Bus stop (talk) 20:27, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

SPLC Article

New feature length article from the Southern Poverty Law Center has just been published online. Among other things, the SPLC describes Molyneux as "alt-right," "white supremacist," and "alleged cult leader." The article mostly talks about Molyneux's involvement in pro-Trump circles, his advocacy of Human Biodiversity or more commonly referred to as "Scientific Racism," and his earlier advocacy of cutting off all contact from parents and friends who aren't anarchists. Does this article deserve any mention on this page? 2601:982:4200:A6C:7547:1AC1:9C34:39C7 (talk) 06:00, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

References

• It's hypocritical that Wikipedia has all these rules against using sources on WP:BLP that are from pure-attack sources. Yet when it comes to the ADL and SPLC -- which are purely websites that make nothing but attack articles -- Wikipedia uses them as sources like the very word of God. It's like using Encyclopedia Dramatica as a source for articles, except the ADL and SPLC are even more vicious in their attacks. Stoodpointt (talk) 04:09, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

• I think it's legitimate to mention the splc after a third party source has mentioned it (which I haven't found yet). I do think there is already enough for us to start coverage of his views on race and iq. It is inappropriate that we have categorized him under "Scientific Racism", but haven't actually mentioned this in the article. According to the Guardian, Molyneux is "one of the most popular promoters of the alt-right’s new scientific racism".[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thivierr (talk • contribs) 16:31, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

• That Guardian article is a good resource. The SPLC article could also be used as a source within this article, but I'm not sure what would be gained by merely mentioning its existence. Unless, as Thivierr says, there is a reliable third-party source providing context for it. Grayfell (talk) 23:15, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Daily Beast - Reliable Source?

Just wondering if Daily Beast should be considered as a reliable source, especially as the only use we have for it in this article is within the cult accusations. --Truther2012 (talk) 21:32, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Not surprisingly, it appears it's come up dozens of times at WP:RSN, but as always, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. What, exactly, is your reason for questioning it here, in this article? Grayfell (talk) 22:10, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

In this article it is only being used as a reference for the borderline slanderous cult accusation for a living person. A website that is "focused on politics and pop culture" maybe good for that type of low brow rumour mill, but hardly reliable and definitely not neutral. My proposal to either get a better source or remove the paragraph in question. --Truther2012 (talk) 19:43, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Merely labeling it a "low brow rumour mill" doesn't actually make it an unreliable source. The general idea conveyed by the source is reinforced with many more which are already cited. The main purpose here is to provide attributed commentary from a recognized expert, Steven Hassan. This seems completely appropriate to me, weighed against all the other sources which call Freedomain Radio a cult. Grayfell (talk) 20:29, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. If it were the only source it might be a little too much to use, but as it is re-enforced by three other sources its fine. GimliDotNet (talk) 20:44, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Reliable source?

"In 2017, Molyneux interviewed James Damore, the Google employee who was fired after writing and distributing the Google's Ideological Echo Chamber memo." Source listed is The Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/aug/09/james-damore-google-memo-youtube-interviews. Damore did not distribute the memo. He posted it internally as a reply. It was distributed by employees who got their feelings hurt by reading biological facts. The source is also wrong on several other points and quite biased - "James Damore, the engineer fired this week for his criticism of diversity..." Damore did not "criticize diversity," but Google's way of trying to accomplish it. "James Damore went from an unknown software engineer at Google to widespread internet notoriety..." Not notorious except among SJWs. "Damore – who argued in his memo that “biological” differences between men and women contribute to the gender gap in the tech industry..." Sexual dimorphism is an actual thing, except for SJWs, who insist that sex is a social construct. Placing biological in quotation marks shows science denial - men and women are biologically different, humans are a sexually dimorphic species. Writer of the article is either an activist posing as a journalist or painfully politically illiterate, given that he labels anyone who does not agree with SJW views as alt-right, which is ridiculous. Given the widespread activism in mainstream media, perhaps it's time to reconsider reliability of sources. Accuracy is important for an encyclopedia. Nikolaneberemed (talk) 13:25, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I removed the "distribute" part, since that's not in the source. It was actually true he distributed it, even though it was ultimately distributed more widely than he may have intended. But, that's not really an issue to address in the article. The rest of what you're complaining about is irrelevant, and this talk page isn't the place to pursue such a debate, or vent on these issues. This talk page is a place to discuss content of this article, and not a generalized rant about mainstream media. --Rob (talk) 03:14, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Don't expect a response. The user has a history of pushing alt right views in talk pages but not actually continuing the discussion. They just like their little rants. GimliDotNet (talk) 04:55, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Lauren Southern "Alt-Right" Reference

The reversion of the description of Lauren Southern's character as "Alt-Right", should not be undone. The current description "Canadian political activist, internet personality and journalist..." is contextually not the same as "Alt-Right...", and is blatantly different than her character description on her own Wikipedia Page - Lauren Southern. This breaks Wikipedia's Biographies of Living Persons Policy - (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Non-article_space). It is not a problem to shorten the sentence to one adjective, however it breaks the BLP policy to use a description that is blatantly characterizing her inaccurately. If you want to characterize her as "Alt-Right", you need to provide evidence, as her page states: Lauren is a Canadian political activist, internet personality, and journalist. She has been described as far-right and alt-right, though she claimed she is not alt-right, in a video that was part of an argument with the YouTuber Thunderf00t. This is as close as an accusation as can be made on her own page, and to say she is "Alt-Right" here is exactly mischaracterization. Her Wikipage is a reliable sources. The corroborating characterization must remain, or be shortened to within the same context as the original. Zinxochai (talk) 22:29, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Grayfell please undo your revision, as it is breaks Wikipedia's Biographies of Living Persons Policy as contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices should be removed, deleted, or oversighted, as appropriate. - (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Non-article_space). Zinxochai (talk) 22:56, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Bibliography?

Usually, there is a bibliography section on pages of pundits/intellectuals/talking heads/etc. I can help contribute, but I don't think I know how to make a new section on the page. Bzzzing (talk) 12:11, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Such sections may be common elsewhere, but these section still need to be supported by reliable sources for context and significance (per WP:V). Before any such section could be added, his publishing history should first be established and explained according to reliable sources. Since he's a self-published author, his own books are basically useless for this, and the mere existence of self-published books by a blogger is unremarkable. With that in mind, what reliable, third-party sources comment on his books? The only one I'm aware of is this infamously harsh review by David Gordon, which is already used in the article.

I know The Art of the Argument has had plenty of blog posts written about it, but if there are reliable sources, I haven't found them yet. Adding a bibliography section based on a single review would be undue, so if you know of additional sources about any of his books, I would like to see them. Grayfell (talk) 05:44, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

This seems like pretty obvious bias. I'm honestly not a fan of Molyneux, but he is culturally significant... and when I see someone who is this "anti" someone who is obviously well-known... it sends up red flags. Your mention of the "harsh" review is another one. Of course it was harsh... it's a terrible book, but that is irrelevant. What metrics does Wikipedia use for "significance"? The heuristic that self-publishing equals insignificant is no longer accurate, this has been talked about in a number of other wikipedia debates, and is fairly obvious if you simply look at the publishing field. But "obvious" is not good enough... as I said, aside from self-published books, what metrics would you consider valid? Number of books sold? Number of search engine results?

Reviews are also an outdated way of determining "significance". We have far more direct means available now... number of Youtube subscribers, for one. But the argument that X or Y isn't a "reliable source" seems to be the standard go-to argument anytime one wants to cover over bias. If we're talking about "significance", then NUMBER of sources seems to be the right metric... but if we were talking about some specific facts... THEN we could quibble about "reliable sources". Molyneux might not have the 'academic' following that other philosophers have (for obvious reasons)... but as far as popular audience goes, there aren't that many living philosophers out there with more . Either way, here is an academic review of Molynuex's UPB (Universally Preferable Behavior):

https://mises.org/library/molyneux-problem

Bzzzing (talk) 14:42, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

You're linking to the very same article I described as "harsh", which appears to be a mistake. If you have a different link, let's see it.

Wikipedia, fundamentally, doesn't treat self-published works as being similar to those published by reliable outlets. There are some significant self-published works, but not many. These exceptions are significant specifically because they are discussed in reliable sources, which are themselves not self-published.

If we added a bibliography based on unreliably primary sources, we would be giving the misleading impression that he is widely known as an author, and also that these books have some encyclopedic significance. Neither of these implications would be neutral, since neither are reliably sourced.

Bibliographies are decided through consensus, so there is plenty of room for discussion. From past experience, these sections are generally limited to people who are commonly defined by reliable sources as "authors". Reliable (third-party) sources seldom emphasize that Molyneux has written books, and even less-often provide any detail of this fact beyond that they are self-published. Since the only usable source I could find which goes into any detail on this is the already-cited review, this doesn't appear to be a defining trait to me. That review specifically characterizes the book (which is already mentioned in the article with context) as insubstantial and poor-quality, which further demonstrates its insignificance. It's not just that the review was harsh, it's more that it was dismissive. It fails to demonstrate any lasting impact or long-term significance of the book. Still, if there are more reviews in reliable outlets, regardless of what they say, that would be a sign of significance. Grayfell (talk) 19:11, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Proposed New Zealand tour

I don't see the point of removing the section about Molyneux and Lauren Southern's proposed New Zealand tour in 2018. Especially since it's been reported in a number sources that the tour is going ahead. Perhaps, maybe having a shortened version of the original text? Any thoughts? I'm unfamiliar with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue weight. And those sources would be mainstream NZ media sources by the way. Andykatib 09:52, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

References

Hasn't he abandoned anarcho-capitalism for fascism and white nationalism?

AHC300 (talk) 19:09, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Abandoned, eh? To avoid WP:OR, this would need a source specifically saying his position has changed. For clarity, we cannot interpret his own work to demonstrate this shift, we need reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 22:50, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

This is just ringing a nasty bell. There is no reason to believe that Mr. Molyneux has abandoned anarcho-capitalism to embrace fascism or racism. I don't think the individual who posted that really believes it. It is just a smear disguised as a question in order to deflect any blow-back. Imagine if someone posted, "Hasn't User:AHC300 given up on romance and now engages in sexual liaisons with watermelons?" It would create a weird suspicion (where there's smoke, there's fire) of something utterly baseless, but it would be hard to unring that bell. If challenged, I could simply claim "I am only asking the question!"92.206.64.99 (talk) 14:10, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

I initially thought this when he regrettably started supporting Trump. He had conversation with Tom Woods which cleared a lot of this up for me: https://tomwoods.com/ep-1246-stefan-molyneux-and-his-critics/ Pelirojopajaro (talk) 09:22, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

So Woods give him an opportunity to say whatever he liked... Yeah, that's just what Molyneux needed. Anyway, as I said, this would need a reliable source specifically saying his position has changed. If a reliable source doesn't explain why comments from Molyneux are significant, they are not treated as significant by Wikipedia. This applies to both obscure softball interviews as well as his countless self-published works. Grayfell (talk) 07:59, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

SPLC

I support adding content from this SPLC source [2], but it has to be attributed to the SPLC. I don't think we can say he is a white supremacist in Wikivoice. Seraphim System ^(talk) 01:53, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

And it should say something to the effect that he "amplifies 'scientific racism,' eugenics and white supremacism to a massive new audience".[3] What does "amplifies" mean? Is he a white supremacist if he provides an outlet from which white supremacists can speak? I think it is not clear that he is a white supremacist. That is a strong charge based on weak sourcing. We should stick closely to what is actually asserted in the source. And this doesn't belong in the lede. The unclarity of the characterization should suggest to us that a nuanced handling of this charge should find its placement in the body of the article only. Bus stop (talk) 05:24, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I have no strong feelings about whether "white supremacist" should be in the lede (I'd like to see some better sourcing first), but this edit was a mess. I'm thoroughly perplexed at how this has been added a total of 8 times so far, by a variety of editors. This is not how we write ledes. Bradv🍁 05:53, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't want to edit war, hence this edit, followed by this edit, but I hope Volunteer Marek will use the Talk page. Bus stop (talk) 05:56, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Somedifferentstuff—concerning this edit and this edit, the lede is not generally the place for information not found in the body of the article. Secondly, I don't think you should be providing internal links to scientific racism, eugenics, and white supremacism due to the fact that those are terms used by the source and we don't know that the "Southern Poverty Law Center" agrees with the information in our three articles on those subjects.

This doesn't even belong in the lede: "According to the SPLC, Molyneux is said to 'amplify' scientific racism, eugenics, and white supremacism." "Amplifying" is a reference to to what any interviewer does. Molyneux is a podcaster and YouTuber. Yes, his guests include white supremacists. In that sense yes, he amplifies white supremacism, scientific racism, and eugenics, or at least the SPLC alleges. But this doesn't belong in the lede because it is simply a consequence of what he does: he is a podcaster and YouTuber. We don't negatively portray people simply for interacting with other people and we don't give prominence of place in the lede of our article on that same basis. A nuanced statement to this effect can be placed in the body of the article. Bus stop (talk) 13:32, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with your analysis and am leaving my edit in place [4] -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 19:55, 5 December 2018 (UTC) ---- Moved to 2nd paragraph of lede. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 20:07, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

In what way do you disagree with my analysis, Somedifferentstuff? Bus stop (talk) 21:11, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:Weight, it's not a problem in the lede (and can be elaborated on in the body). Also, the way you interpret "amplifies" is quite strange; you stated, "Yes, his guests include white supremacists ... it is simply a consequence of what he does." Who do you think organizes who he interviews? Who do you think sets his agenda? Why do you think he mainly does interviews rather than debates? It's calculated; there's a reason why he is not debating a Buddhist monk every other week. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:43, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Somedifferentstuff—it is the "Southern Poverty Law Center" which describes Molyneux as "a libertarian internet commentator and alleged cult leader who amplifies 'scientific racism,' eugenics and white supremacism to a massive new audience." You are saying "the way you interpret 'amplifies' is quite strange". The "Southern Poverty Law Center" is not saying that Molyneux is a white supremacist. The "Southern Poverty Law Center" is literally saying that Molyneux "amplifies" white supremacism. Of course he amplifies white supremacism. That is a consequence of his activities, which are already enumerated in the lede: he is a writer, a speaker, a podcaster, and a YouTuber—and he interviews white supremacists. We try not to engage in guilt by association. Reliable sources should support all such implications. The "strange" word is used by the "Southern Poverty Law Center". Molyneux may associate with white supremacists. But to imply, especially in the lede of a WP:BLP, that the subject is a white supremacist, you need a source explicitly saying that, and preferably 2 or 3 sources explicitly saying that. What does "amplifies" mean? Yes, it is strange. But the strangeness does not originate with me. The strangeness originates with the "Southern Poverty Law Center". Bus stop (talk) 01:38, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I am surprised how poorly you understand the source material and its relevance, but there's nothing I can do about that. And the source never mentions the word "strange"[5] just so we're clear. This will be my last comment here. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 10:30, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, Somedifferentstuff. If you still disagree, let's try to maintain a constructive dialogue. You say "the source never mentions the word "strange" . I'm sorry I wasn't clear. I didn't mean to imply the word "strange" was found in the source. I was referring to your use of the word "strange". You said the way you interpret "amplifies" is quite strange.

I've made this edit. It gives the reader a much more extensive quote from the SPLC, but it places it in the body of the article. According to the SPLC, Molyneux "amplifies" the mentioned racist qualities. The SPLC is not saying that Molyneux embodies these racist qualities. Bus stop (talk) 14:21, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Discussion on Reddit

This Wiki page has been the source of discussion among a popular anti alt right subreddit on Reddit. This may or MAY NOT be the source of current and future attempts at vandalism and/or edit warring. Thank you for your time. Ndunc1 (talk) 06:29, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Ndunc1, it would be helpful if you provided a link to the Reddit page you're referring to. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 19:52, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

[6] [7] [8] [9] [10][11]Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:25, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Snooganssnoogans, it's a good heads up. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:48, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Yep that's the reddit post, sorry for not doing that sooner, it didn't occur to me for some reason. Ndunc1 (talk) 23:26, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Is this article compliant with WP:NPOV?

This is not a forum for generalized discussions about the subject or Wikipedia, but a place to discuss changes to this article. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:26, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

When I read this article the only word I'm able to think of is defamation. How much are you guys paid for writing this stuff. 80.213.77.249 (talk) 01:09, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia covers topics from a neutral point of view based on how they are reported in reliable sources. I'm not sure what you could see here as defamation, as everything looks properly sourced to me. And no one is getting paid - Wikipedia is written by volunteers. Bradv🍁 01:15, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

I only suspect that there is someone who get paid for writing this stuff. However if one thing is certain, it is that the main stream media is not always a reliable source. There are many journalists who use their position of power to defame people they don't like. This is the case with Stefan Molyneux. 80.213.77.249 (talk) 01:20, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Please provide your evidence for that statement. Bradv🍁 01:21, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes Wikipedia is meant for defamation. Practically every article about a right-of-center political figure is chock full of defamation. If you try to remove any of it the admins will block you, so it's pretty clear that defamation is part of Wikipedia's goal. 2601:3CA:4100:5610:9D14:EE02:CCF6:D21F (talk) 08:29, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps more constructive to this article would be to change the section heading rather than closing this section. Therefore I've "un-hatted" this section. Of course I am someone who clearly feels this article unfairly portrays Molyneux negatively. I think that there are several slightly complex reasons for this. That is why I have raised a question about this article at the WP:BLP/N.

MjolnirPants—I hope you don't mind my un-hatting this but I think "hatting" can wait for at least a little while. My apologies. Bus stop (talk) 14:12, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm sure your nonspecific whinings about neutrality will be a great boon to the improvement of this article. If I don't see a specific point made here by the time I leave work today, I'm closing this section again and will request admin intervention for any edit warring over it. See WP:TPG. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:44, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

MjolnirPants—to me it is entirely obvious that Radio New Zealand is not referring to our article White genocide conspiracy theory. That is an article of our creation. Yet the link to WGCT is spliced into a quote from Radio New Zealand. WGCT is not an article on a concisely-defined topic. It is more like a rambling essay containing everything but the kitchen sink. Our careless linking to it within a quote from Radio New Zealand has the effect of implying that Radio New Zealand supports the content of our WGCT article. I think far preferable would be to link to the WGCT article from the "See also" section of this article. I'm trying to be specific as you are referring to my nonspecific whinings. Bus stop (talk) 15:39, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

to me it is entirely obvious that Radio New Zealand is not referring to our article White genocide conspiracy theory You've already failed to convince anyone of that argument at BLPN. If you're just planning on using this thread to continue to repeat your already-refuted argument, then you're accomplishing nothing but facilitating further disruption on this page. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:51, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

On this Talk page and at the BLP/N you've linked to many Molyneux YouTube videos. I'm not arguing about what Molyneux may have said. You seem to think for instance that when you link to Molyneux talking about race relations in South Africa that you somehow support an argument that an internal link in a quote is justifiable. Bus stop (talk) 17:58, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Again, since you don't seem to be grasping it: If you're just using this thread to repeat your vacuous and evidence-free assertions, then you're accomplishing nothing except encouraging more disruptive drive-by IP edits to this talk page. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:27, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

White genocide conspiracy theory

Jwray From what I can glean from your edit summary, you A) don't believe we have adequate sourcing to say Molyneux belives in the white genocide conspiracy theory, B) think he does, C) think it isn't a conspiracy theory and is just 'some facts about demographic changes'. Is this accurate? PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:06, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

It's a strawman, and there are plenty of sources out there to explain that it's a strawman.Jwray (talk) 03:20, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

@Jwray: Do we have adequate sourcing for the content? What are your sources for it being a strawman? PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:42, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

PeterTheFourth—I think Jwray is correct: "an unsubstantiated accusation by the kiwi equivalent of TMZ does not meet the high bar for BLP." All that the source, Radio New Zealand, says in support of the assertion under discussion—that "Molyneux believes in the White genocide conspiracy theory"—is "Mr Molyneux subscribes to a conspiracy theory about a white genocide". That is a flimsy source for a serious accusation. Have no other sources noted this? Bus stop (talk) 03:59, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

@Bus stop: Stating the Radio New Zealand is the 'kiwi equivalent of TMZ' is farcical. We have a high quality source stating it, which is enough to include it. PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:30, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

The source is merely saying that "Mr Molyneux subscribes to a conspiracy theory about a white genocide and claims that violence is caused by how women treat children." What "conspiracy theory about a white genocide"? We are internally linking to this article, the first sentence of which says "The white genocide conspiracy theory is a neo-Nazi, alt-right, white nationalist/supremacist conspiracy theory,[1] which contends that any one of mass immigration, racial integration, miscegenation, low fertility rates, abortion, governmental land-confiscation from whites, organised violence[2] or eliminationism are being promoted in either predominantly white countries, or supposedly white-founded countries, to deliberately replace, remove, or liquidate white populations,[3] dismantle white collective power,[4] turn the countries minority-white, and hence cause white people to become extinct through forced assimilation[2] or violent genocide.[5]" Yes, that is one sentence. And we are going to pin all that on Mr Molyneux? WP:BLP requires good sourcing. Radio New Zealand may not be the "kiwi equivalent of TMZ" but it is just one source, and it devotes all of a half a sentence to this claim. Bus stop (talk) 04:53, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Just because the article does not continually repeat the phrase, it does not mean that it only 'devotes all of a half a sentence to it'. Suggesting as such is highly disingenuous. Here is the full context. Mr Molyneux subscribes to a conspiracy theory about a white genocide and claims that violence is caused by how women treat children. Such views prompted Auckland Council to ban them from speaking at its venues. But Immigration Minister Ian Lees-Galloway said they were still entitled to work here. PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:47, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Molyneux in particular never says whites are going extinct, never describes it as a genocide, and never describes it as a conspiracy. It's hard to source a negative though. The WGCS article is inherently strawmanny by agglomerating a lot of disparate beliefs under one heading. I would say less than a third of the people who are concerned about white demographic decline would consider it to be leading towards the extinction of whites, and less than a third of the latter would consider it a deliberate act by an organized group, i.e. a genocide conspiracy. But certain politically-motivated liars among "reliable" media will call anyone who's concerned about white demographic decline or SA farm murders a "white genocide conspiracy theorist", painting with a very broad brush. I can find primary sources where he disavows aspects of the WGCS that are implicitly attributed to him here.Jwray (talk) 05:51, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

IMO, the onus should be on the secondary sources we cite to provide primary source citations to back up their claims, and without that evidence embedded in it the secondary source should be disregarded as a probable baseless smear no matter who the publisher is.Jwray (talk) 05:56, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

'IMO, the onus should be on the secondary sources we cite to provide primary source citations' This is not, and likely never will, be how Wikipedia works. PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:01, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

I've made this edit. I think it slightly improves the situation. Bus stop (talk) 12:14, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

I've made this edit, which I think improves the article. PeterTheFourth (talk) 14:11, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

You've succeeded in removing the context provided by the entire quote. Bus stop (talk) 14:38, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

The version you're inserting does not add more context. It does add a 'Mr', as well as an unrelated bit about Molyneux's bigoted views on women, but these don't provide more information on his bigoted views on race relations. PeterTheFourth (talk) 14:56, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

You are unjustifiably discrediting Molyneux. The source contains a compound sentence. It reads "Mr Molyneux subscribes to a conspiracy theory about a white genocide and claims that violence is caused by how women treat children."[12] I am not arguing for omitting material based on this source but the whole sentence should be quoted. Bus stop (talk) 15:26, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

You happen to believe that the sentence 'sounds silly', and we should provide the full sentence to make the source sound silly. This is disruptive behaviour. We are not in the business of discrediting reliable sources. If you believe the source is unreliable, you should take it to WP:RSN rather than childishly insist on including unrelated content from it in the misguided belief that it will portray the source poorly to the reader. PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:52, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Inclusion of the entire sentence informs the reader of one source's opinion on Molyneux. You are writing in the article "Radio New Zealand reported that Molyneux subscribes to a white genocide conspiracy theory [13]" when the source says "Mr Molyneux subscribes to a conspiracy theory about a white genocide and claims that violence is caused by how women treat children."[14] You are misleading the reader in several ways. We do not know that Radio New Zealand includes all of qualities found in the article White genocide conspiracy theory, the first sentence of which reads "The white genocide conspiracy theory is a neo-Nazi, alt-right, white nationalist/supremacist conspiracy theory,[1] which contends that any one of mass immigration, racial integration, miscegenation, low fertility rates, abortion, governmental land-confiscation from whites, organised violence[2] or eliminationism are being promoted in either predominantly white countries, or supposedly white-founded countries, to deliberately replace, remove, or liquidate white populations,[3] dismantle white collective power,[4] turn the countries minority-white, and hence cause white people to become extinct through forced assimilation[2] or violent genocide.[5]" The Radio New Zealand source is not referring to all of the above, is it? We are here to inform the reader, not to mislead them. The source, Radio New Zealand, says what it says, and it is only one compound sentence long. The citation provided from Radio New Zealand supports that sentence. It does so without piling additional and unknown charges on Molyneux. I am not arguing for omission of information relevant to a reliably sourced assertion. I am only objecting to turning this article into an attack page. Whenever we write an article such as this, we are balancing two interests: inform the reader but don't unnecessarily disparage the subject of the biography. That is accomplished by the various choices we make. I'm trying to dial back some of the disparagement while still allowing an assertion made by a relevant source to illuminate the subject of a biography. That is what we are here for—to tell the reader about the subject of a biography. Bus stop (talk) 01:56, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Writing more won't distract from the fact that your stated intent was to make the source look bad. Step away, or take it to WP:RSN. I get the feeling you won't take it to the reliable sources noticeboard because you agree that the source is reliable. PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:03, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

You are magnifying the disparagement provided by the source. Sources should expand upon assertions. When sources mention something in passing, that assertion is not as well supported as an assertion a source delves into. I don't find this in policy. This is common sense. You are taking one-half of a compound sentence and presenting it in our article as if it were substantially supported. The inclusion of an internal link adds to the illusion of substantiality. We can adequately inform the reader of this opinion with a simple quote and a citation to the source supporting this view. You are magnifying the disparagement provided by the source. Bus stop (talk) 02:14, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Another simple solution to this disagreement is to only include the first half of the compound sentence, thus the article can simply read Radio New Zealand writes that "Molyneux subscribes to a conspiracy theory about a white genocide."[15] Bus stop (talk) 02:21, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Stop saying the source 'mentioned it in passing' - it did not. When you write that a source 'looks borderline illiterate', you are disparaging the source, and I don't believe I can magnify that disparagement more than you yourself have. You don't like the source. Take it to WP:RSN. This is not the correct avenue, and you will not get your way by simply posting over and over again the same arguments on this talk page. WP:DROPTHESTICK. PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:58, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

The source is a reliable source but your suggested text is magnifying disparagement of the subject of the article.

The sentence I am suggesting for inclusion in our article is: Radio New Zealand writes that "Molyneux subscribes to a conspiracy theory about a white genocide."

Do you feel that the above suggested wording is unreasonable in any way? Bus stop (talk) 04:07, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

In the interest of compromise, I've implemented yet another edit to appease your wishes. PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:42, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Your edit is magnifying the negative commentary found in the source. The source merely says that "Molyneux subscribes to a conspiracy theory about a white genocide". You are writing "Radio New Zealand reported that Molyneux subscribes to a conspiracy theory about a white genocide." You are not at liberty to construe the source's import to anything that pleases you. We do not know that all of what is contained in the internally linked-to article is supported by our source, Radio New Zealand. A link to our article on White genocide conspiracy theory is certainly called-for in this article—but not in the midst of telling the reader what Radio New Zealand is telling us about Molyneux. Radio New Zealand is not making clear that the contents of our article on White genocide conspiracy theory is applicable to Molyneux. White genocide conspiracy theory is a complicated article with a litany of complaints. The first sentence of the lede of White genocide conspiracy theory tells us that "The white genocide conspiracy theory is a neo-Nazi, alt-right, white nationalist/supremacist conspiracy theory,[1] which contends that any one of mass immigration, racial integration, miscegenation, low fertility rates, abortion, governmental land-confiscation from whites, organised violence[2] or eliminationism are being promoted in either predominantly white countries, or supposedly white-founded countries, to deliberately replace, remove, or liquidate white populations,[3] dismantle white collective power,[4] turn the countries minority-white, and hence cause white people to become extinct through forced assimilation[2] or violent genocide.[5]" Inclusion of such a link magnifies disparagement of Molyneux. It is entirely uncalled for and unnecessary. Our aim is to inform the reader of what reliable sources say. That is accomplished by writing in our article that "Radio New Zealand writes that "Molyneux subscribes to a conspiracy theory about a white genocide". That is a quote from the source. "BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement." In this instance that is accomplished by simply providing the relevant quote and avoiding the embellishment imparted by the internal link. Bus stop (talk) 16:08, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

In an earlier comment, you wrote 'It makes Radio New Zealand look borderline illiterate'. In this comment, you write 'You are not at liberty to construe the source's import to anything that pleases you.' Pal - the source isn't the one with literacy problems, because that sentence makes absolutely zero sense in English. Further: The source is not commenting, it is reporting - it's not an opinion piece. We shouldn't care if it's negative or positive coverage because it's a reliable source, and I'm having trouble thinking of other ways to tell you this. PeterTheFourth (talk) 19:37, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Three times you link to this post of mine. But I altered that post. No one had responded to that post and I altered it in this edit. You are in essence linking to a post that is not in its finalized version. You do so here, here, and here.

You are unnecessarily demonizing Molyneux by writing in the article that: "Radio New Zealand reported that Molyneux subscribes to a conspiracy theory about a white genocide." We do not know, because the source does not tell us, that all of the aspects of an amorphous and poorly defined "conspiracy theory" addressed in our article White genocide conspiracy theory are applicable to Molyneux. Your suggested wording amounts to an unnecessary magnification of the disparagement of Molyneux, above and beyond the actual words found in the source. I am suggesting sticking closely to the wording found in the source. I am also suggesting that our sentence not try to accomplish two things at once by additionally linking to our article on White genocide conspiracy theory at the same time that it is conveying the assertion found in the Radio New Zealand source. I am suggesting an edit simply reading: Radio New Zealand writes that "Molyneux subscribes to a conspiracy theory about a white genocide." Those are the exact words found in the source. This neither downplays nor amplifies the import of the source. By the way, our article White genocide conspiracy theory can certainly be linked-to, elsewhere in the article. But the contents of our White genocide conspiracy theory article are not known to be what Radio New Zealand had in mind. And the subject area "White genocide conspiracy theory" is not so concise or clearly defined that we can safely assume that we know what Radio New Zealand had in mind. So the way forward is to play it safe. Include the quote. Omit the internal link. Let the language of the source speak for itself. Bus stop (talk) 21:13, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

There are three differences you want, as I see them. One, you want the article say that Radio New Zealand writes rather than reported. Two, you want the article to use quote marks. Three, you want the article to not have a hyperlink for white genocide conspiracy theory. You say that 'I am suggesting sticking closely to the wording found in the source'. The current wording is actually identical to that found in the source. You need to stop lying about things which are easily checked if you want to have any sense of credibility. Could you please explain why you want any of the three changes you apparently want? PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:03, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I am arguing for the article to largely consist of a quote, and I do not think we should have a hyperlink as a part of Radio New Zealand's reporting. Our article on "White genocide conspiracy theory" is a sprawling article on all manner of things. Is Radio New Zealand saying that Molyneux is "a neo-Nazi, alt-right, white nationalist/supremacist"? With the hyperlink within the assertion that implication is possible. The article "White genocide conspiracy theory" covers much ground. It is one of the more poorly defined topics for an article. I am not faulting the "White genocide conspiracy theory" article. But it would be in poor taste and possibly misleading to internally link to that article at the same time that we are conveying the import of the Radio New Zealand source. And this is avoidable. Wikipedia can write responsibly about Molyneux. This article does not have to look like a hit piece. We are not trying to sway the reader to our point of view. We do not know that Radio New Zealand has the contents of the "White genocide conspiracy theory" article in mind. Therefore we should write conservatively while still representing everything Radio New Zealand says on this point. We should provide the assertion made by the source. But we should not, in effect, elaborate on that assertion by linking to an article on an amorphous subject containing much damnatory material. Hyperlinking is fine when the hyperlinked subject is well-defined or anodyne. We have to look at the net effect of the hyperlink in this specific instance. Is it merely informative? I will concede that it is informative to some extent. The problem is that it is more than just informative. It piles a lot more fault on Molyneux than we know Radio New Zealand has in mind. We are not here to maximally punish the subject of an article for wrongdoing, even if we feel they have done wrong. It is my contention that we should aim to write conservatively.

Here is the edit I've made to address the concerns that I address above.

PeterTheFourth—I have initiated another discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Stefan Molyneux. Bus stop (talk) 14:31, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

If you have a problem with a source - we don't alter Wikipedia content to make the source seem bad. If you have a problem with an article - we don't alter a different article to not link to it, we fix the problem at the article where the problem is. I genuinely don't understand why you aren't bringing this up at white genocide conspiracy theory if you believe that Molyneux's personal conspiracy theory about white genocide is underrepresented there. What is Molyneux's personal conspiracy theory about white genocide? What is your personal insight that makes linking to it impossible, that you have as yet declined to share? Durova, could you please rein in your mentee? PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:43, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Bus stop "conspiracy about white genocide," "white genocide conspiracy theory," "conspiracy theory about white genocide," or even "white genocide" (generally) are all referring white genocide conspiracy theory. The Data & Society article also refers to SM as a believer in white genocide. Also if you have a problem with SM being characterized as a "a neo-Nazi, alt-right, white nationalist/supremacist" then that's an issue you have with the white genocide conspiracy theory page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pokerplayer513 (talk • contribs) 03:47, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

• "In the last year, YouTuber Stefan Molyneux has done a series of videos warning of collapse and imminent civil war in which he interviewed some of the most prominent names on South Africa’s far-right, including Simon Roche of the rightwing prepper group Suidlanders"
• "...some of the far right’s biggest conspiracy theorists, like Stefan Molyneux, who regularly uses his platform to argue that blacks are genetically inferior intellectually to whites."
• "So why these rumors of an uprising against whites in South Africa now? Trump didn’t start them with his tweet. Tucker Carlson didn’t start them. I’ve been receiving emails for a year or two now from anxious friends abroad about tidbits they’ve read about growing anger towards white people here—mostly in the U.K. tabloid press or on the Twitter feeds of the Canadian right-wing provocateurs Lauren Southern and Stefan Molyneux. Not just from right-wing friends—from left-wing ones, too. "
• "Discussing the film with Southern, Molyneux alleged a conspiracy of silence from the media and NGOs on the non-existent genocide, and plumbed white nationalist fears, saying that “they don’t want to scare the whites in the west with what happens when whites become a minority in a highly aggressive and tribalised world”. "

Seems pretty non-controversial to me. The politico piece even implies that he's one of the original white genocide conspiracy theorists, or at least was an early promoter. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:54, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

None of these sources contains any SM quote sufficient to substantiate the specific allegation of WGCS. Just seems like a bunch of liberal opinion columnists parroting each other. Otherwise reliable sources become unreliable when they're writing politically-charged opinion columns, and derogatory claims about a BLP should require some footnote/quote support instead of a bare assertion by someone in the RS club.Jwray (talk) 02:26, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

None of those sources are opinion pieces, and your own opinion of liberal writers' reliability is not a compelling argument for dismissing them. Given that multiple reliable sources have all made the claim, the only policy-based argument to be made in favor of exclusion is to present a similar number of RSes who contest the claim. So far, I've yet to see a single such source. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:16, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Actually, ALL of your links are opinion pieces, and you can tell just by reading the tendentious, value-judgment-laden headlines. 1. "dangerous myth" 2. "white south africans are doing just fine" 3. the nation magazine consists entirely of leftist-POV opinion and "white supremacist" is almost always a derog strawman not a self-appellation. 4. "disturbing"Jwray (talk) 05:12, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

We are not interested in WP:OR, nor is Wikipedia a platform for disseminating press releases, so we must rely on reliable sources to interpret quotes from "SM". As for your personal opinions about the headlines, this is not how reliability is determined. We don't care if it's "leftist" nor if it's "not a self-appellation". We are interested in editorial oversight, a history of fact checking, and a positive reputation among their peers. The use of value-judgement-laden headlines doesn't make this content any less accurate, and Wikipedia doesn't traffic in false equivalence. Grayfell (talk) 05:36, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Actually, ALL of your links are opinion pieces, and you can tell just by reading the tendentious, value-judgment-laden headlines. Bullshit. Literally everything you said in this comment is unmitigated bullshit. If you can't engage with reality, you have no business editing this project. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:59, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

You're the one incapable of engaging with reality nor identifying blatant opinion pieces nor assuming good faith. Fuck off and educate yourself about media bias.Jwray (talk) 20:25, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

U mad, bro? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:57, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Your assertion that these are not opinion pieces is not compelling, since the Guardian article is in their Comment section which contains only opinion pieces, and the article's author is a columnist for the Guardian according to Linkedin [16]. SPLC does not publish opinion but it is an advocacy organization which has to be attributed in text as per WP:RSP. wumbolo ^^^ 18:11, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

The article has the name of the Guadian's Opinion section name in the URL, but it also has their news section name in the URL and the page clearly displays it in the News section (notice which section is highlighted in the menu bar at the top of the page). It is well within editorial discretion (and a not-uncommon practice) to move columns into the news section when they cover news events, at which point they are subject to the same editorial standards as the rest of the news reporting. Also, the link you provided is not the Guardian's Opinion section, but their "Comments" page which is a collection of quotes and headlines from both their opinion and news sections.

And your complaints about the SPLC are explicitly denounced in the very first sentence of the summary: The Southern Poverty Law Center is considered generally reliable on far-right politics. The only attribution that is directed by that summary is the labeling of hate groups, which you might note we're not discussing here. You should probably read those pages before you link to them in the future. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:30, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

The full quote is "The organization's views, especially when labeling hate groups, should be properly attributed per WP:RSOPINION." The SPLC label Molyneux an extremist and that would be covered by this. What the Guardian's menu bar highlights is meaningless here (as you explain their sections), they have articles from other opinion sections marked that way, see e.g. [17] and [18]. That an opinion piece is under editorial discretion, i.e. WP:RSOPINION, does not change the fact that it is still an opinion piece. wumbolo ^^^ 20:00, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

That's not the full quote, nor is "Molyneux promotes this CS" a statement of anyone's views. It's a statement of fact, as evidence by multiple reliable sources making it (including a Vice source used in the WGCS article which has not been linked here), the complete lack of reliable sources refuting it, and the multiple videos Molyneux posted to YouTube promoting the fucking conspiracy theory.

The quote I provided from the source, which was explicitly offered to support the claim that Molyneux subscribes to this CS says absolutely nothing about him being an "extremist" and no-one has suggested we describe him as one in any case so your arguments to that effect are worthless straw men.

As for the Guardian piece: It's not meaningless because -as I already pointed out- the news section is still represented in the URL of the page. Neither of the two examples you provided do that, and both of the examples you provided are clearly marked as opinion at the top, unlike the source I offered. Even if they were perfectly analogous, it would only show that the practice is -again, exactly as I already said- not uncommon.

And at the end of the day, none of your nitpicking will change the fact that none of the rest are even arguably opinion pieces. So the only thing you stand to gain by continuing to belabor this point is causing a disruption to this page. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:21, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Data & Society

In this edit, Bus_stop removed a source because he claimed 'The source doesn't even mention Molyneux'. If one were to actually read the source, here, and perform the most basic of searches on a browser (try ctrl+f), you will find the sentence 'These guests include Stefan Molyneux, a talk show host who promotes scientific racism, and Lauren Southern, a Canadian citizen journalist who has since been barred from entering England because of her vehement anti-Islam and anti-immigration activism.' on the end of the first paragraph of page 12. I am finding that misreading of sources is a common problem displayed by Bus Stop. Accordingly, I have reinserted the source. PeterTheFourth (talk) 19:43, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

I stand corrected. I failed to download the PDF as instructed to do so at that source. Thanks for catching my error! Bus stop (talk) 19:52, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Whipple source overweighted

My recent rewrite of the FOO and Cult accusations sections was reverted. I think my edit summary did a fine job of explaining the issues with the former/current phrasing:

whipple source overweighted: reduce; merged FOO claims in with FOO views, but can be paraphrased further; [it is] non-neutral to break cult accusations to [its] own section if the claim is solely discussed in light of his views on family disassociation

What, exactly, is objectionable about the edit? We avoid "controversy" sections and this should be no different. We can easily and fairly present the cult claims in context of his FOO views. czar 21:52, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Your changes didn't entirely make sense. There are 6 different sources used in that section. The first paragraph is quoting Steve Hassan, who was hired to help a family whose kid was a victim, and is separate to the Tom Bell/Whipple deFooing. The quote there is discussing cult behavior, which is broader than just the topic of deFooing. Per WP:Weight the material belongs in the article, and the cult stuff doesn't only deal with Foo so it can't be incorporated there. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 03:13, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

What aspects of "cult accusations" are not sufficiently covered within the topic of Molyneux's views on "deFOOing"? We don't use sections dedicated to negative criticisms, such as "cult accusations", for their lack of neutrality. If the crux of the accusations are related to deFOOing, they should be covered in that section. If my edit didn't get 100% of the way there, feel free to use it as a base and restore the appropriate detail, but as I said in my original edit summary, the current level of detail for "accusations" is disproportionate to both the amount of coverage and weight within the article. czar 17:22, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Overt bias

As someone who has no real opinion of this guy but came here to find out more about him, I must say that this article comes across as extremely biased. By over representing accusations and negative comments about this guy it paints him in a completely negative lights, and subtly accuses of him sexist and racism. Providing sources for comments is not enough, since if you only items that cast him in a negative light it paints a negative picture of him.

As an example, if I were writing an article on Hitler and described him as an aspiring artist, animals rights activist and anti-smoking campaigner this would all be true. But if I left out the entire "started WWII" and "committed mass genocide" it wouldn't exactly paint an accurate picture of the man.

In the case of Stefan Molyneux the article comes across as extremely biased, as if you asked a very liberal activist to write the article. More neutral revisions are constantly overwritten by most accusatory and biased versions.

I added the following paragraph; (MarkinBoston)

This article bleeds with bias. It's full of 'people say' claims, and nothing from the man himself. Does he claim to be alt-right? What does he say about the accusation? You won't learn it at Wikipedia - this is a hack job.

MarkinBoston (talk) 19:51, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles fundamentally should be based on reliable sources. If those sources emphasize facts which "paint him in a completely negative light" as you say, so be it. WP:NPOV doesn't mean that the article must present both the "good" and the "bad" in equal measure, because that's false balance. We do not assume that there are only two sides, nor that both sides must be presented with equal weight. If sources are unflattering, the article will reflect that.

As for Godwin's Law, many historians believe that Hitler's animal rights activism was exaggerated or even fabricated for propaganda purposes. This is why, both here and there, we should summarize topics based on reliable, independent sources, not personal preference or original research.

Since Molyneux is extremely prolific (to the point of parody) how would we possibly decide which of his comments belong here and which don't? He isn't a recognized expert on any topic, and by policy we are not a platform for sharing his self-published musings. We cannot, and should not, try and highlight his own opinions based on individual editor opinion. We must rely on reliable, independent sources.

If you know of a source where he specifically addresses the alt-right accusation, this could, potentially, be included as a response. From what I have seen he has avoided giving a concrete answer to this. From what I have seen, he avoids making concrete statements about pretty much everything. You may not agree with my take, but this further demonstrates why independent sources are preferable, even for what he says about himself. If a reliable, independent source doesn't explain his position on a specific topic, generally neither should Wikipedia. Grayfell (talk) 22:25, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree that Wikipedia should be based on reliable sources, but in the context of politics I don't think a partisan source can be considered a "reliable source". For example if you have a conservative group commenting on a liberal personality you can't say that their information is reliable because you already knew that their opinion would be critical. After all, that conservative group's agenda would not be to present unbiased opinions, but rather to present biased opinions that cater to a conservative viewpoint. This is what's going on here. Left-leaning sources are criticizing someone who they feel is conservative or libertarian. Their opinion is not unbiased because there's no chance that these liberal sources would ever endorse conservative/libertarian viewpoints.

You mentioned that he isn't a recognized expert on any topic and that we're not a platform for sharing his musings. But the entire point of this article is to describe a guy famous for his musings, and claims are being made about his musings. We have a responsibility to make sure that those claims are accurate.

The point was also made that he's never given a concrete answer as to whether he's alt-right. This is incorrect. He himself has claimed that he is not alt-right and has made many posts bashing the alt-right. The only way not to see this is if you don't actually listen to anything the man himself says and you only listen to what other people say about him. As I said before, this entire entire article is written with bias. You don't consider the man's own words about himself as being "reliable information", but you do consider biased third-party opinions about him to be "reliable".

Furthermore, while this is not a conversation about Nazis and I don't want to get too far off into the weeds, I think it's a bit dishonest to try to distance them from positive policies that they actually did have. It seems as if you're trying to distance them from animal rights just so nobody implies guilt by association. I'm not implying any guilt by association since these are two completely separate concepts. People tend to not like nuance and prefer to believe in pure good/evil- they don't want to admit that horrible people can have good traits, or that good people can have horrible traits.

My point in all of this is that a consistent process needs to be followed. We need to be objective and apply the same scrutiny to subjects regardless of how we personally feel about them. It's not helpful to editorialize or impart one's own feelings onto the subject. We see this intensely in the other talk section, with single editors repeatedly taking down sections (such as Molyneux's family heritage) that they don't like. It's clear that those people are trying to ensure that a narrative is pushed rather than maintaining a neutral point of view. 69.253.66.108 (talk) 14:16, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

What? Pokerplayer513 (talk) 20:28, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

What indeed. When an editor decides that a source is partisan, that doesn't invalidate what that source says. It is unrealistic to demand that sources pretend to be "impartial" on all topics. If sources say something about Molyneux, we evaluate them on their own merits as reliable sources, not based on a hypothetical political ideology which may or may not even be relevant.

As I said, I have not seen a source where he gives a concrete answer to this, only ones where he has implied a position. I've watched a few of his videos, but not many, because I don't think he's worth taking seriously. If you know of a work where he makes it plain, and directly says "I am not alt-right because..." please present it here. For videos, please also include a time-stamp, as a courtesy for volunteer editors.

As for Nazis and their puppies, the Nazis wouldn't have (supposedly) used this as propaganda if the German people didn't think animal rights was virtuous. That says as much about German values as it does about the Nazis' willingness to deceive. This has nothing to do with those basic values, and everything to do with context. If the context provided by reliable sources is to consistently describe someone a certain way, the Wikipedia article will reflect this, also. Grayfell (talk) 03:58, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

"white genocide" section

I have tried to re-add what another editor has previously put in, under the "White genocide" section. The text seems to be pretty relevant to the section. It's a small of example of something Molyneux has said on this topic. If the section was larger, filled with other examples, I wouldn't care if this was removed, but given the current situation, it seems worthy of inclusion. I'm baffled by the editor was has reverted me, since there isn't any dispute about what Molyneux said. --Rob (talk) 01:56, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Eight-word section

@Newimpartial: what's the justification for this 8-word section? It goes against MOS:BIO and looks ugly. wumbolo ^^^ 22:12, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

The section has been part of the article since 2018; I trust it will be fleshed out again. Newimpartial (talk) 22:14, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

It used to be longer. I trust that it will get even shorter. wumbolo ^^^ 23:06, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I've put back content that was removed without cause. --Rob (talk) 06:36, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Much more balanced now, thanks. wumbolo ^^^ 09:38, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

""Radio New Zealand" reports..." is obvious WP:WEASEL. There's a ton of sources for this. The quote from SM without context is UNDUE. And, uh, Wumbolo, you're the one who removed it!Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:08, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

That is literally the opposite of WP:WEASEL. I agree that undue quotes should be removed, with or without context. I'm not defending material that used to be in the section, but pointing out that the 8-word section should not exist as such. wumbolo ^^^ 21:18, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Seriously

Hey, User:Wumbolo, this is the guy who said, quote: ""Screaming 'racism' at people because blacks are collectively less intelligent...is insane."".[19] Are you seriously gonna sit there and pretend with a straight face that this guy isn't pushing racism, scientific or otherwise (and yes, sources say he is)? Unless you want to own that statement right there, stop removing or weaseling well sourced material.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:11, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

No. Are you? wumbolo ^^^ 21:26, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

So why are you edit warring over this? Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:39, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

CNN

@Volunteer Marek: here [20] you remove "by CNN" when it is clearly the only citation verifying the preceding labels. Is it a mistake? wumbolo ^^^ 21:20, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

The “See also” section should be deleted

Never saw a “see also” section like this before, is it guilt by association? I think it should be deleted. Isn’t there a Catagory for people like Molyneux? Raquel Baranow (talk) 17:21, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out, it did look strange. Navigation boxes and categories are indeed better than this particular use of the see also section, if needed. —PaleoNeonate – 17:29, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Issues of Scope.

Hi. I came across this entry unintentionally from a google search, and made my user profile after reading the entry. The entry isn't representative of the individual as a whole. I don't think it is useful for learning about the individual, the information provided is very selective, (assuming everything in the current version of the page were true, which I personally doubt). This man is a philosopher primarily, in regard to public presence, far moreso than he is a 'white supremacist promoter', or a 'promoter of scientific racism'. His books are primarily if not exclusively pholosophy books, with eyecatching names, including ones exploring morality, ethics, authoritarianism vs anarchism, etc. He interviews people of different opinions on a variety of subjects to explore complex issues. He advocates for changing ones opinions to align with established facts, rather than say, dogma ( - or the assumption that recognition of statistics is support for them). His general methodology stems from his internal logical consistancy and his high value on the non-aggression principle. He differentiates pride from vanity, and gives away all of his works for free, living off donations. He is a survivor of childhood parental abuse who now is passionate about straightforward accountability, and helps people recognise the factors in play in regard to their own situations, as well as choices and trends of behaviour regarding those involved - Including during the call-in shows. He has often mentioned how therapy helped him, and suggests it to people. He is a proponent of peaceful parenting. I've been listening to him sporadically for several years, and the current page as of writing this is simply not representative of him. It seems more like an attempt to get people to treat and consider him with unconditional negative regard than a wiki entry. ClaustrumAlan (talk) 14:11, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

@ClaustrumAlan: I'm very concerned to hear there are such large issues with this article. Would you please make the changes you believe would fix these issues? Thanks. PeterTheFourth (talk) 14:48, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Using sources that meet WP:VERIFY and WP:RS please. Also read no original research. Doug Weller talk 15:12, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Actually it appears his donations have not necessarily been that large but as some are in Bitcoins he benefited greatly from their rise in value. "Between February 2013 and January 2018, a sum of bitcoins valued at $1,350,816 was withdrawn from Molyneux’s wallet" "over the same period he received just $40,362 in donations, meaning his vast profits were due to the huge rises in the price of bitcoin in 2017."[21] However, he accepts donations in a wide variety of ways so no one knows his income. 15:46, 1 June 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs)

There's a simple explanation for why you have a problem with the article. You are judging the subject (Molyneux) soley based on what he has said and written. However, Wikipedia is not interested in what somebody says about themselves, as much as we're interested in what others say about them. If nobody wrote about Molyneux, we wouldn't even have an article about him. We only have an article on him, because he's written about, widely, by reliable sources independent of him. It's those sources that we rely on. If there are some independent reliable sources you can find, that make the article more fair, then please do add to the article, to improve it. But, please keep your opinions as a personal fan, to yourself, as they are quite irrelevant. --Rob (talk) 22:49, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

So basically, if a medium is "relevant" enough they can just baselessly smear someone they don't like, and that counts as "verifiable source", even though it may just be made up bs with nothing to back it up other than the very fact that it's published by this "relevant" medium? Seems like circular logic that doesn't really add any relevant content, but what do I know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:120B:2C4B:BE50:1805:EB05:DD99:B257 (talk) 18:40, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

This is why reliable sources should be used not blogs, we need proper journalism not random opinions. This is also not a WP:FORUM, and this comment does not help to improve the article. —PaleoNeonate – 02:37, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Serious question: How are the “Southern Poverty Law Center” and “NBC News” reliable sources? Obviously they are not considered academic sources by any stretch of the imagination. What is their reliability based on? I haven’t posted that much on Wikipedia since I joined, but I honestly don’t understand what is considered a reliable source. In this case these sources are claiming that Molyneux promotes “white supremacist views”. Now I don’t agree with everything Molyneux says, but I’ve watched a quite lot of his content on youtube and he has never promoted any such thing. He never talks about “white supremacy” or anything even related to it. Seriously. What is going on here?MoMoBig (talk) 18:17, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Evaluating sources is not an exact science, but WP:RSN can be used to evaluate the community consensus. WP:RSP, a summary of sources commonly discussed there, lists SPLC as generally reliable, but recommends that attribution be used instead of Wikipedia's voice. —PaleoNeonate – 23:10, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I will look into the discussion about what is considered a reliable source. But another question: Why is the “promotes white supremacist views” in the very first sentence about Molyneux. Who determines that? I am asking because Molyneux has done thousands of hours of talks and interviews. I’ve listened to a considerable amount of it and the overwhelming majority of his content is totally unrelated to the stuff that is claimed in this wikipedia article. There are plenty of other wikipedia articles, where the first paragraph about a person literally just quotes stuff from that persons own book or website. Why would this not be the case here? MoMoBig (talk) 18:09, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Because it's what he's best known for; external, reliable sources on the topic primarily discuss his positions on race, feminism and social justice. Anaglyphic (talk) 22:22, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

The sources for this article do not provide any explanation why he is supposedly promoting “white supremacist views”. They also do not in any way shape or form elaborate on why and how that would be what he would be “best known for”; except for the fact that they themselves are constantly claiming that about him. So you are basically using references that call him these things and then claim that that is what he is best know for, because that’s what you called him in the first place.

The SPLC for example has fished through thousands of hours of Molyneux’s shows and taken some soundbites (mostly out of context) to paint the guy in this light. In my opinion this is just straight up slender. I also still do not know where it could be disputed whether something is a reliable source or not. The list that I found had NBC(!) listed as a reliable source. Where can I dispute this? Also, the things given as sources for this article are basically opinion pieces. Does that mean, that if some webpage was declared reliable, opinion pieces on it count as facts? MoMoBig (talk) 09:59, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

If you are responding to me, I recommend indenting using a colon. The Southern Poverty Law Centre is clearly not the only source, and is considered generally reliable as per WP:RSP. Reliable sources are "not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective," as per WP:BIASED. Anaglyphic (talk) 00:18, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

So by this reasoning, what “reliable sources” write about a person, even though it is just their subjective opinion, is presented on wikipedia as fact? That puts a lot of importance on what is labeled “reliable source”. This poses the obvious question: Who decides on what is declared a reliable source??MoMoBig (talk) 06:38, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

SPLC is a far-left source, relying on it to write the article completely removes it from reality.

Not going to bother editing (good luck trying to find sources that are "credible", as if the new york times is after they linked phillip de franco to the alt right) but I want to add that I was also shocked when I read this wikipedia article. It is insanely biased, to the point my jaw dropped. It uses really weaselly methods in an attempt to link him to the alt right. Referencing studies that have proved that race affects IQ is not white supremacy, especially since non white races dominate the IQ spectrum. Is he conservative? Probably. A nazi? No. This whole thing is really detestable and makes me lose hope in this website's neutrality. The fact that some random journalist's absolutely uneducated opinion constitutes a reliable source just because it is attached to a big name newspaper blows my mind. 24.194.186.225 (talk) 02:30, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

You may consider the New York Times and the Southern Poverty Law Center unreliable, but Wikipedia disagrees. I suggest you find an argument that is in line with Wikipedia's policies, rather than trying to argue your own personal point-of-view. Anaglyphic (talk) 00:18, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Why is the info box red

Is there some reason for this? DemonDays64 (talk) 16:46, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

It's the default color used by the template {{Infobox YouTube personality}} (and Youtube color). —PaleoNeonate – 00:30, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Far-right

@Menacinghat: the sources are questionable you can then take them to WP:RSN. On the other hand, the WP:LEAD should be a summary of the article and although far-right is found in the titles and sources of various citations, it's currently not in the body itself. Alt-right is, in the body and the lead, which may be enough (and is a subset of far-right)... As such I'll personally let your change stand. —PaleoNeonate – 08:20, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Revised to put SPLC's summary of Molyneux's background up front. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oversoul (talk • contribs) 13:36, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Bias

Why is it that whenever I try to read articles on anti-communist thinkers, the user Grayfell almost always awkardly finds himself in the article's edit history? I guess I (as most people) have given up trying to counter this leftist bias among wikipedia editors (my attempts to fix Gavin's article were rejected), I should at least mention it here in this talk page. No mention of Molyneux's most important works were even mentioned (ie. his secular theory of ethics, his peaceful parenting advocacy which EVERYONE knows him for, and most importantly his anarchism/anarcho-capitalism.) This article is a joke - it mostly mentions the slanders leftists lobbed at him, never the praises. Dennisne (talk) 13:42, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Our job at WP is to follow reliable sources, not OR personal evaluations. If you have sources, please propose them. Newimpartial (talk) 13:58, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

• You've been warned about personal attacks before; focus on the content, not on editors. Regarding what Molyneux is known for, you'd have to provide sources - most of the sources I've seen indicate that he's more famous for advocating scientific racism and white supremacy, as the article says. We determine what is important based on which aspects have gained secondary coverage in high-profile, mainstream reliable sources. (This is especially important with Molyneux because his views are extremely WP:FRINGE.) If you disagree, spend some time reading mainstream coverage of him, then post what you find here. --Aquillion (talk) 20:51, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Who makes the final decision on what sources are so reliable, that their opinion is repeated as fact on wikipedia? Who decides what is considered “fringe”? Seems like a lot of power to make that kind of decision. This is a question I have been asking myself for a while now. MoMoBig (talk) 04:30, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

User:MoMoBig See WP:SOURCES and WP:RSN You can see two (blue) links directly above that would have perhaps avoided you having to ask. And another link further up in response to a question, did you read it? Doug Weller talk 16:53, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I did follow those links and they explain in great detail what should be considered a reliable source. I understand all that. But where can I find the discussions on the specific sources (e.g. NBC)? And who makes the final decision on what is or is not labeled “reliable source”.MoMoBig (talk) 10:35, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

How could you have looked at WP:RSN and be asking that question? And please don't put attacks on editors in section headings. --Doug Weller talk 17:50, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Doug WellerWhat do you mean?? I did not put anything in any section heading???MoMoBig (talk) 19:07, 23 August 2019 (UTC)