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.

I thought people were over exaggerating, but now I see that they were right, this article is horribly misleading and one sided. It does not tell a neutral story, and the fact that you can't edit it is rather telling. I've watched Stefan Molyneaux for a long time. I know him well, too, and from what I know all he does is take a philosophical stance on things, and will not say what people want to hear sometimes. So then this… He mentioned how, online his reputation has really taken a hit from disingenuous people here at wikipedia. I thought it may have been overblown but… wow Why is this allowed? Only recently become a member, but, thinking of moving on already, if this is the way you treat the responsibility of giving people accurate information.

It's very scary that it's allowed that people twist a person's online reputation for political reasons. Very unprofessional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blimp-hq (talk • contribs) 02:55, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An acceptable Wikipedia biography should accurately and neutrally summarize the full range of reliable sources discussing the person. You need to point out specific errors, propose specific new language, or bring forth new reliable sources that discuss Molyneux in a different way. Generalized assertions of bias are not productive. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:11, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Blimp-hq: it can be edited. All you need is an account, which you have, and to have been here 4 days and made 10 edits. Doug Weller talk 11:24, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The entry resembled more of a one sided hit piece than an encyclopedia. It was full of one sided smears using citations of only secondary sources. I have made some adjustments to try to bring more balance and including what was most lacking: primary source citations. Here is a detailed description of the changes I have made.

1) Removed the description of him as “far-right” and “white nationalist” because the citations to support this are not primary sources and they do not cite any primary sources where he asserts this. Instead I replaced the descriptions with Libertarian YouTuber and podcaster as these are descriptions he uses himself and there are primary sources provided to support those descriptions.

2) Added some additional things that he is known for, in addition to “scientific racism”. Along with the primary sources that describe his views on those topics.

3) Changed the language to make it clearer that the assertion that he promotes “scientific racism and white supremacist views” is an opinion by the SPLC and other groups rather than a view he specifically claims to hold.

4) I left the part that says he is described as a leading figure of the alt-right movement. Though there are no primary sources to support that he uses this label. So I added a second sentence saying that Stefan Molyneux responded saying that he does not identify as “Right Wing”, preferring the label “Anarcho-Capitalist”, with the citation for that response.

5) Moved the opinion of Tom Clements that his “fixation” on a topic is “perverse” from the introduction to a specific section about criticism. The opinion of one person that someone’s interest in a topic is “perverse” is inappropriate for an encyclopedia entry, especially the introductory paragraph. I would say to delete this altogether but as a compromise it could be moved to a more specific section on criticisms / opinions. If anyone feels these are not fair or balanced edits then please do not simply reverse them all out but contact me and let’s try to have a discussion and come to a compromise to make this page more balanced. I have focused on the introductory paragraph but I can see that the section on his “views” bizarrely has zero citations to any primary sources where he himself discusses his views. So this section obviously needs work too. But let’s first work towards getting the introduction right before working towards the section on views. Thank you. Gmann101 (talk) 14:42, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You need to provide reliable sources for your changes. Molyneux himself is not a reliable source for anything other than wholly non-controversial claims about himself (WP:ABOUTSELF). We certainly can't claim he is "known for his promotion of secular ethics" by citing his own videos - that provides no evidence at all for how others see him. I would encourage you to read through some of the previous discussion on this page. Virtually everything you're complaining about here has been discussed, and there's no reason to think that the consensus has changed. Nblund ^talk 14:50, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Molyneux is not a reliable source for his own views? You are nuts if you think that. He is known for his promotion of secular ethics as he has made many videos on that topic. I provided one video as a citation. You shouldn't be using any secondary sources at all to describe his views. And you certainly should not be relying 100% on secondary sources made by political opponents of his views that are deliberately mischaracterizing them.

There is no consensus here at all. I see many other people that have complained about the obvious bias, with no adequate response to any of those concerns. If your concern is that I left the word "known for". Then we can remove that term and just replace it with "who promotes". Gmann101 (talk) 15:23, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, he's not a reliable source for anything controversial or exceptional. The WP:BESTSOURCES are the secondary sources with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. The description in the lead is based on those reliable, independent sources. What you're suggesting is that we should remove statements from high-quality sources, and replace them with self-serving descriptions from a low-quality source. That's not going to happen. Nblund ^talk 15:31, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Explain how a person cannot be a reliable source for their own views? They are the only reliable source for their views. Whether those secondary sources are reliable and have a history of fact checking is entirely your subjective opinion. Stefan Molyneux is the only primary source for his own views. There is no reason to rely on a secondary source for his views, and if you cannot find a single citation from his own mouth that supports a claim about his views then the claim is obviously false. There is nothing controversial about his promotion of the things I included (the non aggression principle, peaceful parenting, etc.), in that no one denies that he promotes those things, so why did you remove those changes? As a compromise I was willing to include both the allegations others have made about him and his views as he himself expresses them. Otherwise you are refusing his right to face his accuser. That is the change I made. So if you want to remove my changes then please go through each change and explain why it should be removed.Gmann101 (talk) 15:41, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I already linked you to the policy page that explains why we don't use self-published sources for self-serving or controversial claims that are contradicted by other sources. The WP:BURDEN for achieving consensus is on you. You clearly haven't achieved it here. Nblund ^talk 15:45, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The sources that support the version you provided make many allegations without providing evidence. The only source that actually provides any evidence for things that Stefan Molyneux has said is the SPLC source. But even that one makes allegations without any evidence to support it. For example it makes the claim that he is "Alt Right" without providing any evidence that he has ever claimed that title. All of the other sources used do not provide any evidence and therefore they should really be removed. But I am not even calling for the removal of those sources, rather I am attempting to add more nuance to the entry. And I am willing to work with you so that we can come up with an article that is not so one sided. As a new starting point I will go back in and restore the edits that could not be reasonably classed as controversial or disputed. And we can work forward from there.Gmann101 (talk) 16:06, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All of your edit has been contested. Don't restore any of it until there's a consensus. There's nothing "nuanced" about whitewashing his promotion of scientific racism and adopting his dissembling self-descriptions as if they are factual. If you really want to try to hammer out a new lead on the talk page, propose it here, but what you're pushing is fundamentally inconsistent with the core policies of Wikipedia. Nblund ^talk 16:13, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The rule about self-published sources cannot possibly apply to the evidence about the views that someone has expressed, because the only possible way to ascertain what someone has said is by relying on what they have said as a source. Furthermore any secondary source that makes a claim about a primary source without providing a citation to that primary source should not be considered reliable. In this case the only secondary source concerning the views of Mr. Molyneux that provides a primary citation is the SPLC source, therefore that should really be the only citation used, other than Molyneaux himself describing his own views.Gmann101 (talk) 16:42, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK lets go through the numbered points I made 1 by 1 and you can deal with each one in a detailed way:

1) Removed the description of him as “far-right” and “white nationalist” because the citations to support this are not primary sources and they do not cite any primary sources where he asserts this. Instead I replaced the descriptions with Libertarian YouTuber and podcaster as these are descriptions he uses himself and there are primary sources provided to support those descriptions.

What source do you have that Stefan Molyneux is a "White Nationalist"? Meaning that he advocates for an ethnically pure white nation? What is the evidence used by this source to support that claim? It obviously has to be something specific that he has said that supports the creation of an ethnically pure, white nation. Such an extreme and damaging allegation would require a completely unambiguous and clear claim by Mr. Molyneux, not a vague statement that could be interpreted in a number of ways. Gmann101 (talk) 16:42, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with Gmann101 that secondary sources making scurrilous derogatory allegations about the views of a primary source should not be used unless they contain actual evidence if not direct quotes from the primary source. This is particularly true when the source in question (i.e., SPLC) is hardly an objective source but represents an antagonistic political viewpoint and is an organization whose business and primary task is to smear, defame and impugn other organizations and individuals, be they deserving or not. Doing otherwise may represent a violation of WP:BLP. If it is necessary to vilify and characterize with buzzwords and pejorative labels, then we must have a source with solid facts. - JGabbard (talk) 17:16, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The entry already cites NBC News and Mother Jones for the statement that he is a white nationalist. Other sources include: The Daily Dot, The New Republic, Forward, Huffington Post, Reason, and The National Review. The SPLC provides a number of direct quotes from Molyneux where he details his views on the advantages of racial homogeneity. No reliable source contests this description. Like most people who have unpopular or discredited viewpoints, he is not forthright about his ideology. But his views are indistinguishable from the views of other white nationalists, and reliable sources take note of this. The argument that "we can't call someone a white nationalist if they dispute it" has been consistently rejected by Wikipedia editors every time it has come up. I've seen this exact same argument dozens of times and I can tell you that it never gains traction because it is simply inconsistent with our policies. The standard is Verifiability,_not_truth. It isn't up to us to decide whether we agree with the descriptions that appear in reliable sources. It is only up to us to say what the reliable sources indicate. We're not going to replace reliably sourced descriptions with Molyneux's Youtube videos. Nblund ^talk 19:05, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You were asked to provide evidence to support the claim in the citations that he is a "White Nationalist". You have not done so, either out of laziness or because you know such evidence does not exist. You are making the claim that he is a White Nationalist, so the burden of proof lies on you to provide an actual piece of evidence to support that claim. Simply stating that a source you consider reliable says he is without providing evidence is nothing more than an appeal to authority, and a woozle effect. None of the quotes on the SPLC site make any direct advocacy for creating a nation based on a white race. There are quotes about race and IQ and race and crime rates, but nothing about white nationalism. And to top it off you have now added more claims without evidence: that his views are indistinguishable from the views of other white nationalists: citation needed. The statement "we can't call someone a white nationalist if they dispute it" is a complete strawman, the real situation is: "we can't call someone a white nationalist if there is no evidence to support it". If you are not going to provide any evidence that he is a white nationalist then that description should be removed from the article and we should move on to point #2. Gmann101 (talk) 20:05, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nblund:You have failed to do what User:Gmann101 has asked; provide credible sources which prove the fact that he is indeed a white nationalist, racist, and white supremist. All the sources used are either extremely opinionated and focused solely on disparaging Molyneux or show no evidence for his apparent racism and supremist beliefs. In this case, it is a better idea to not label him as such things. If he isn't (which he is not, I know first hand), imagine how horrible it would be to call him these things. That is why I believe it is best to change the lede and base it on facts that are not disputable (and in fact correct). So please do not revert to the current lede unless you are able to provide real sources supporting your ideas. So maybe you need to gain consensus before restoring since the default should be to avoid publishing hugely debated (and false) information. And sorry, I agree that the references currently used (YouTube videos) are indeed insufficient, but will work on providing proper sources soon which do exist, I checked. But for now, the current lede is outright wrong and has to be removed. Nikolaiho^☎️📖 20:23, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. I know this frustrates editors, but no one on Wikipedia is required to "prove" anything. Wikipedia simply requires that we cite reliable sources. In that sense, Gmann101 is correct that I am making an appeal to authority. That's because WP:V requires us to make appeals to the authority of reliable sources. WP:OR expressly prohibits editors from adding their personal interpretations. If the sources are wrong, we're also going to be wrong. If you want to have the article say something different, you need to provide your own reliable sources that contest that point.Nblund ^talk 20:29, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict)Sources are the proof. Sources provide the "evidence". This is what is expected, and what we require. We are a tertiary source, and we summarize reliable, secondary sources. We do not use primary source for promotional content, especially not in the first paragraph. We summarize what reliable sources say, and we do not second-guess those sources without a very good reason. A personal opinion that reliable sources are not good enough isn't a good reason. Grayfell (talk) 20:33, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Grayfell: This sort of rhetoric defending Molyneux is totally unsurprising. They're pushing some nebulous standard of "real" sources when we already have citations from the SPLC, the CJR, The Guardian, NBC News, Mother Jones, a book published by Palgrave Macmillan and edited by two PhD sociologists, and lest we forget: Molyneux's own quotes. If I had to guess, "real sources" are right-wing propaganda outlets like Breitbart, or just whatever happens to downplay Molyneux's racism. Also, "I know first hand" is a pretty blatant admission of bias. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 20:51, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing to consider is there is a huge difference between believing in the science of race and race based differences in average intelligence, and advocating for white nationalism. It seems as if Nblund is conflating the two, and using evidence for the former as evidence for the latter. The former is a scientific position that can be held devoid of any political beliefs, and the latter is an overtly political position. There are both liberals (i.e. Steven Pinker, Sam Harris) and Libertarians (Charles Murray, Stefan Molyneux) that have expressed a belief in race differences in IQ, without necessarily drawing any political conclusions about forming a nation based on racial exclusion or racial prejudice. Gmann101 (talk) 20:42, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Grayfell has just made a classic "appeal to authority" logical fallacy. You should never accept a source uncritically without examining it's content, and verifying there is supporting evidence within.Gmann101 (talk) 20:44, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gmann101, this is an encyclopedia. Appealing to authority is exactly what we do. – bradv🍁 20:47, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A source needs to provide evidence for an assertion, otherwise it is not trustworthy. You don't just use a source that provides zero evidence for something. That is extremely dogmatic and goes against everything Wikipedia is meant to stand for. One of the 5 pillars of Wikipedia is to strive for neutrality and avoid advocacy. WP:5P2 The SPLC is a Far left advocacy group and should not be considered a reliable source. Where does Wikipedia list the SPLC as a reliable and unquestionable source? The SPLC has been successfully sued for defamation in the past. The SPLC also labels Charles Murray and Henry Harpending as "White Nationalists", yet the Wikipedia articles on those individuals do not label them as such. So if the SPLC's opinion must be accepted uncritically then why do those articles also not label those people as such? Gmann101 (talk) 13:05, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is clear from the talk page and the history that there has never been any consensus on this page. If the only sources available are far left advocacy groups and publications, along with Molyneux himself, and no one else has taken enough interest in him to write about him then perhaps Stefan Molyneux is not noteworthy enough to even have a Wikipedia page in the first place. It seems there is never going to be a consensus that this article is neutral so perhaps it is time to remove it altogether? Gmann101 (talk) 13:32, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A source needs to provide evidence for an assertion This isn't what our guidelines say. The SPLC is one of several sources offering the same characterization of Molyneux's views. Charles Murray's adherence to white nationalism is a subject of some debate among some noteworthy sources. Molyneux's isn't. Nblund ^talk 14:30, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I can find no far-left advocacy groups in our sources. The SPLC is not far-left and is not described as such in our article on it for good reason. No source is unquestionable, but Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources says "The Southern Poverty Law Center is considered generally reliable on topics related to hate groups and extremism in the United States. As an advocacy group, the SPLC is a biased and opinionated source. The organization's views, especially when labeling hate groups, should be attributed per WP:RSOPINION. Take care to ensure that content from the SPLC constitutes due weight in the article and conforms to the biographies of living persons policy." We attribute it. As for other articles on Wikipedia, you'll have to ask at those articles. Just out of curiousity, how is a publication by Palgrave Studies in Cybercrime and Cybersecurity, published by Palgrave Macmillanusing this author a far-left publication? Doug Weller talk 14:41, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: Thank you. So the SPLC source should be attributed as an opinion WP:RSOPINION. I don't think anyone made a claim that the Aaron Winter source was a far left publication. That source does not describe Molyneux as a "White Nationalist" though. Stefan Molyneux is only mentioned in one sentence in that source, on pg. 13. here is the full text of that source as it relates to Stefan Molyneux:

"One TRS 504um poster cited Stefan Molyneux, a Canadian ‘Race Realist’ anti-feminist YouTube vlogger and lecturer who has over 770,000 subscribers and 230 million views of his videos, as ‘a great stepping stone between the Alt-Lite and the Alt-Right’."

Should we change the description of Molyneux to "a Canadian ‘Race Realist’ anti-feminist YouTube vlogger and lecturer". To accurately reflect what the source says? Gmann101 (talk) 17:26, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't have the full text of the Aaron Winter citation, it can be found here:

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Aaron_Winter3/publication/332601405_Online_Hate_From_the_Far-Right_to_the_%27Alt-Right%27_and_from_the_Margins_to_the_Mainstream/links/5cd29aeb458515712e98cf00/Online-Hate-From-the-Far-Right-to-the-Alt-Right-and-from-the-Margins-to-the-Mainstream.pdf?origin=publication_detail

Gmann101 (talk) 17:31, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"race realist" is a euphemism for scientific racist. It's the preferred self-description of other white nationalists like Jared Taylor, and Winter is using scare quotes to indicate that skepticism. Rather than using a dubious euphemism, we should simply describe his beliefs directly based on the descriptions offered by multiple reliable sources. "White nationalist" is one of those descriptions. Nblund ^talk 20:02, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nblund: A scientific term and a political term should not be conflated, which is what you are proposing. The terms are neither congruous nor mutually inclusive. In this case, the inflammatory, politically-charged term should be avoided because it is used disingenuously as a smear. - JGabbard (talk) 12:10, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Race realism is a redirect to Scientific racism. A well known science reporter has investigated the way this, under whichever name, is managing to get into mainstream journals.[1] I'm 100% with Nblund on this. And Gabbard. you seem to misunderstand our policy and guidelines on sources, and you are, ironically, smearing the SPLC. Gmann, people simply are not the most reliable sources for their own views. People lie about themselves all the time (not all people fortunately). Just take a look at the claims of some politicians about themselves. "I am the least racist person in the world." - Ignore who said that, should we ever take such a statement as an accurate portrayal of someone's views? Evil has often tried to disguise itself with sweet sounding phrases. Doug Weller talk 12:34, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Let's try to avoid phrases like "Evil has often tried to disguise itself with sweet sounding phrases". This makes it sound as if we are on some sort of politically charged crusade rather than trying to work on a neutral and objective encyclopedia. If someone thinks the subject of the article is literally "evil", then they probably can't be trusted as a neutral editor / arbiter. I am happy to use the terminology used within the source cited "Race Realist" and "Anti-Feminist". You cannot logically say that the author meant to mean "White Nationalist" when the source clearly does not say that. The Wikipedia guidelines say that when using SPLC as a source, make sure to make it clear this is an opinion held by the SPLC, not a fact. Therefore to please all we could include "Race Realist and Anti-Feminist YouTube vlogger and lecturer who has been described by the SPLC as a White Nationalist". Is that a fair compromise that we could see as a consensus? Gmann101 (talk) 13:14, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@JGabbard, @Gmann101: Race realism redirects to Scientific racism. We're not going to be adopting a self-serving euphemism for racist pseudoscience here. Multiple reliable sources call him a white nationalist, so attributing it in-text to the SPLC is not accurate. Nblund ^talk 15:44, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, change "evil" to "bad", but thinking something is evil doesn't disqualify anyone from editing anymore than thinking something is good. And we are not trying to create a neutral encyclopedia (I think you need to read WP:NPOV, and objectivity has many meanings, some of which you'd probably disagree with. Doug Weller talk 18:48, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nblund Provide these multiple reliable sources that describe him as a "white nationalist". He simply is not a white nationalist, his politics are Libertarian. Gmann101 (talk) 20:30, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Those source are already cited in the article. I've also provided additional sources in the discussion above. Nblund ^talk 23:20, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear wikipedia,

This article is horrible far leftist rhetoric ment to smear a good person. It places every bit of information on him out of context (a popular tactic by the far left),which is pretty much the same as what happens in congress and by extension everywhere in the world to anyone who disagrees with the far left ideology . Whoever wrote this has nothing but ill intentions and masks him/herself under the guise of virtue and should be banned for life from wikipedia. I have followed stefan for a long time on social media and in my learned opinion he is a person with a clean conscience (something which the far left sorely lacks) and tries to make the world a better place by exposing the the mainstream media (and by extension the idiocy of the far left) for the frauds they are. Naturally a smear campaign like this follows.

If you want to do the right thing,then delete this flaming pile of garbage article. The western world is in dire need of honest people like Stefan.

Do not let these horrible people rend him asunder. Herrpfick (talk) 11:55, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: If you would like to request that an article be deleted from Wikipedia, please review the deletion policy for information on how to go about making the request. In the meantime, if you have a specific request for an edit to be made to this article, please feel free to make the request in the form "Change X to Y", citing reliable sources to support your request. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 12:53, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1. Is Molyneux primarily a far-right white-nationalist?

No, he is first-and-foremost alt-right. As the sources for this are already present in the article, the case can be made logically:

• The alt-right is, for the most part, an online phenomenon. Molyneux is an internet figure and operates primarily online and within this phenomenon.
• The alt-right, as distinct from other far-right movements, has at it's core strong views against feminism and political correctness. Molyneux is very much involved in these subjects.
• The alt-right, as distinct from other far-right movements, is very much centered on U.S. politics, as is Molyneux.
• The alt-right tries to outwardly appeal to both white-nationalist groups as well libertarians and conservatives, as does Molyneux.

The whole point of this is that he espouses contradictory beliefs: white-nationalist views, anarchist views, capitalist views, conservative views, racial views, liberal views. It is his being alt-right that allows him such contradictions. All other (well sourced) descriptions should be secondary to this.

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/ideology/alt-right

2. Cutting people off from their families?

The terminology comes from pop-psychology under the formulation "family of origin" and "family of choice," used within the context of serious child abuse. In co-opting the term, Molyneux cuts out the latter half as well as the original context. Molyneux starts from the position that it is right to leave abusive environments then intends to persuade his followers that all their parents have been abusive. This is the root of all cult accusations he receives.

As political outrage ever increases, the Molyneux cult has greatly fallen out of attention and as such there is less material on the subject coming from reliable sources. The section is in great need of update and, while it is good to give an outline of Molyneux's terminology, such terminology should be minimized to preserve an unbiased authenticity to the article.

• "FOO" should be maintained as "family of origin"
• "deFOO" should be maintained as "disassociate from family of origin"

Introductory reading for anyone looking to expand upon the cult accusations section: http://www.fdrliberated.com/is-stefan-molyneux-freedomain-radio-responsible-for-suicide/ http://www.fdrliberated.com/forum/index.php?topic=325.0

3. Why are Molyneux's books not mentioned at all?

The article is completely devoid of mention to Molyneux's self-published books. If someone could clear up why that is the case it would be appreciated. Some of his books such as On Truth: The Tyranny of Illusion are rich with his sentiments of family separation as well as various other tidbits of pop-psychology and politics. Wk7sn (talk) 01:20, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This page is not a platform for persuasion or argument about ideas or people. It is a place to discuss how to improve the article. The way to do this is with reliable sources, with a strong preference for independent sources.

The SPLC source doesn't mention Molyneux, so the first subsection is original research, which is not usable or desirable. We are not interested in your personal interpretation of the facts, we defer to sources. In this case, we are specifically looking for reliable sources about Molyneux.

Neither of the other two sections cite reliable sources. fdrliberated.com is not a reliable source, as it doesn't have a positive reputation for accuracy or fact checking. Since we are not a platform for promotion, we are not interested in listing non-notable works. I have looked for reliable sources on his books in the past, but found nothing. If you know of reliable sources, present them here for discussion, but please be brief as a courtesy to others. Grayfell (talk) 02:46, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I assure you I'm well aware of the rules so let me just clear up some of your misunderstandings:

• I am not making any direct requests for changes. I am introducing a number of important ideas for discussion primarily because I want the decisions to be made by others.
• The first subsection, as is mentioned, rests upon the citations already given within the article. I suggest you read through them as I did. The article at several points uses the labels "far-right," "alt-right" and "white-nationalist," and I am not disputing any of these. I am discussing the presentation of these facts within the introductory paragraph of the article as it seems to be quite controversial (that is, I am discussing the editorial decision of the presentation of these facts). In citing the SPLC, I am presenting an case against this editorial decision for consideration by unbiased others.
• The second subsection, as is mentioned, is lacking in reliable sources and that is in fact my point. The article gives a very flimsy outline of these details, presents information such that it seems outdated and does not fully expand upon the few citations that are available. The section needs to be re-written by someone with a good understanding of the topic, and backed by a wider collection reliable sources (though, as said, they are increasingly hard to come by).
• The links I have attached here are clearly supplementary and are not intended as citations as evidenced by the fact I simply have not included them as citations into the article. I am not editing these things into the article, I am making a post on a talk page about how the article might be improved.

As for the books I am curious as to why there mere existence is left unmentioned. They can be purchased on Amazon, they have ISBN identifiers and yet they are completely unmentioned. While I could add a bibliography section and properly cite my sources, I have no interest in doing so if it's going to be reverted without my understanding why.Wk7sn (talk) 04:12, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"alt-right" has essentially become a euphemism for white nationalism. It's really not a useful descriptor here. His self-published books aren't mentioned because they really aren't particularly noteworthy. He produces tons of content, listing it all here doesn't serve any encyclopedic purpose, and probably just adds WP:FANCRUFT to the page. Nblund ^talk 18:14, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]