Template:Calm

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 Template:WikiProject Libertarianism 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 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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating 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 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.

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

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

@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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

This article about Stefan Molyneux looks far from neutral.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quoting the relevant portions:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See here regarding wikipedia's potential legal liability for republishing libel, and tread carefully. https://www.minclaw.com/legal-resource-center/what-is-defamation/am-i-liable-for-republishing-defamatory-statements/ Jwray (talk) 03:37, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to point any issues you have with the article, and cite sources to support your position, or explain how something in the article isn't properly sourced. But, please refrain from making pseudo-legal threats. --Rob (talk) 03:54, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]