This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Politics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Philosophy Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. YouTube Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject YouTube, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of YouTube and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.YouTubeWikipedia:WikiProject YouTubeTemplate:WikiProject YouTubeYouTube Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject YouTube To-do: A list of articles needing cleanup associated with this project is available. See also the tool's wiki page and the index of WikiProjects. Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : see list. Assess : Apply the assessment scale on Unknown-importance YouTube articles + Unassessed YouTube articles Cleanup : See cleanup listing Maintain : This WikiProject Stubs : Category:Stub-Class YouTube articles Other : Substitute {{WikiProject YouTube/Invite Members}} on user talk pages Check out edit requests on Talk:List of YouTubers Podcasting Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Podcasting, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of notable podcasts and podcast-related information on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PodcastingWikipedia:WikiProject PodcastingTemplate:WikiProject Podcastingpodcasting Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Ireland Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Canada: Ontario Low‑importance Canada portal WikiProject Canada Canada notice board This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Ontario. Cryptocurrency Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cryptocurrency, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cryptocurrency on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CryptocurrencyWikipedia:WikiProject CryptocurrencyTemplate:WikiProject CryptocurrencyWikiProject Cryptocurrency Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Template:Annual readership

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Could this be a more biased biography of a person — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.35.240.92 (talk) 01:58, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not at all related. The view is mentioned in the Views section and the Men's rights activism subsection, where it belongs. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:03, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ask the RS that say it, we we do not.Slatersteven (talk) 10:41, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How is it that the above editor Slatersteven can remove comments from the talk page in addition to controlling the actual wiki article? Why does this one person have so much control over this article? Is it not against the principles of wikipedia?110.174.242.150 (talk) 13:30, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a complaint about my actions take to eitehr my talk page or wp:ani (I would advise against this), this is not the place to discuss it (see wp:talk.Slatersteven (talk) 13:32, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

THis RFC should not have been closed in less than a day after only two users responded.Slatersteven (talk) 09:33, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And not this has been discussed many times, and it has always come down to calling him far-right.Slatersteven (talk) 09:35, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This Rfc absolutely can be closed in less than a day pursuant to Wikipedia's own rules. Please see WP:RFCEND: "The question may be withdrawn by the poster (e.g., if the community's response became obvious very quickly). In this situation, the editor who started the RfC should normally be the person who removes the 'rfc' template." I fully complied with the rules here. Sorry. Now for your final point, I have edited this lede many times, I added the "As of September 2020, Molyneux has been permanently banned or permanently suspended from PayPal, Mailchimp, YouTube, Twitter and SoundCloud, all for violating hate speech policies." If I cannot edit the WP:Lede to remove far-right or add alt-right in the first sentence of the lede, then it's time to start a new RFC as far as I am concerned. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 18:45, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Two people offered opinions, that is not enough to establish a consensus, not after less than 6 hours. Hell many users (as I was) were asleep when you launched and closed this. And (as I said below) you had not included the RFC template, thus it was improperly launched anyway.Slatersteven (talk) 18:50, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Slatersteven Thankfully consensus is not needed to end an RFC. Again, WP:RFCEND says: "The question may be withdrawn by the poster (e.g., if the community's response became obvious very quickly). In this situation, the editor who started the RfC should normally be the person who removes the 'rfc' template." The community response became very obvious, so I ended it which is all that is needed. Consensus is not needed to end an RFC, sorry. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 19:00, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not calling him not far-right. What about this? OPTION 3 Stefan Basil Molyneux (...) is an Irish-born Canadian far-right <MOVE NYT AND CNN SOURCES HERE> white nationalist and white supremacist podcaster, blogger, and banned YouTuber, who promotes conspiracy theories, scientific racism, eugenics, and racist views. (...) Molyneux is described as a leading figure of the alt-right movement by Politico and The Washington Post. <REMOVE ", and as far-right by The New York Times."> Mvbaron (talk) 09:40, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If we must have sources to stop this fine it won't though (and it is already sourced elsewhere in the article, the lede should not really have sources). As I said this has been hashed out many times and keeps getting raised.Slatersteven (talk) 09:43, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also this RFC failed to include the TRFC tag, and so was incorrectly launched, per WP:RFCST.Slatersteven (talk) 11:13, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Slatersteven If you want a 'rfc|bio' let me know so I can start it. Either way, just like I had to fight to get "As of September 2020, Molyneux has been permanently banned or permanently suspended from PayPal, Mailchimp, YouTube, Twitter and SoundCloud, all for violating hate speech policies." added to this Lede, I am ready for another round with the "far-right" label. Now do you want to start the RFC or shall I? GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 18:48, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What? policy requires that you put that in, you did not, its not what I want. If you want to launch (a properly launched) RFC go ahead. I think the consensus is clear from all the talk page sections in archives (and above) about this that there is no consensus for your suggested change.Slatersteven (talk) 10:34, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Slatersteven On the contrary, I think there is no consensus or logic established for your stance. Mvbaron Suggestion 2 was the best option shown in our controversy. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 21:30, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wish people would bother to check the archives. This had been discussed multiple times. Hell look at the edit history, whenever Far-right is removed it is added back [[1]] [[2]]. Now if we really need an RFC about this fine. But lets not pretend there is no consensus to call him far-right. Now get consensus to change it.Slatersteven (talk) 09:24, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree completely with Steven. Forgive me for not checking this page in the blink of an open and shut RfC eye. SPECIFICO talk 13:54, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]