Talk:Stefan Molyneux: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →

SummerPhDv2.0 (talk | contribs)

2 user groups
78,669 edits
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
Line 159: Line 159:
The first sentence has to go. The words "Far-right", "White supremacist" and "Scientific racism" are hardly neutral.
The first sentence has to go. The words "Far-right", "White supremacist" and "Scientific racism" are hardly neutral.


The article should talk about what he believes, rather than what cherry-picked sources say about him. I see nothing about the "non-aggression principle, peaceful parenting, anti-circumcision etc.
The article should talk about what he believes, rather than what cherry-picked sources say about him. I see nothing about the "non-aggression principle, peaceful parenting, anti-circumcision etc. {{unsigned|Mike Young|04:34, January 17, 2020‎}}

Revision as of 12:23, 17 January 2020


Business sold or foreclosed?

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

Can you propose a change to the article text based on all available sources? That would be the next step. SPECIFICO talk 16:10, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is this statement by Molyneux concerning the deal. Not sure how this fits your point. SPECIFICO talk 20:09, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

He's actually the exact opposite of those things - he's an anarcho-capitalist. This article is a disgrace to wikipedia, there isn't even any mention of that primary fact about him. There are countless direct sources of him denying all of those slanders. When will wikipedia be purged of it's dishonest leftist editors? They need to be stripped of their editing privileges. 24.212.221.226 (talk) 21:33, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
+1. The labeling of him as "racist" and "white supremacist" in the header of the Wikipedia article of all places is pure libel and is unsubstantiated by his actual views. Sources can be cited which *claim* he is those things, but they should be attributed properly rather than made as sweeping claims of truth. A CNN editor calling you a white supremacist and actually being a white supremacist are two totally different things. The claim ought to be removed from the expository sequence in any case and given attribution pointing to those making this claim rather than being made as a point-blank statement of farcical fact. Pygosceles (talk) 23:22, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia isn't reddit, and this isn't a vote. Replying to an old comment while ignoring later comments is not likely to lead to any productive changes. Your comments do not add anything which has not already been said on this talk page. If you have something new to say based on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, I suggest doing so at bottom of the section, or starting a new section. Grayfell (talk) 01:49, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia isn't a platform for original research. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia goes by reliable sources. Molyneux's prolific self-published ouput is not a reliable source, so his opinions of himself are only relevant to the extent they are contextualized by reliable source. In this case, that also means independent sources. If you know of a reliable source which defines him as an anarcho-capitalist, let's see it. Again, samples of his own work are not reliable, for multiple reasons. Grayfell (talk) 21:43, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is slightly better than nothing.
  • The Mises.org source has been discussed before. It is a relatively weak source, since it is an opinion (a book review) from 2012, from a non-mainstream source. A lot has happened since 2012, so this would be best if attributed to David Gordon in 2012, for a book review. In context. A sampling the good bits of a review which says "It would be cruel to arouse false expectations, so I had better say at once that Molyneux does not succeed in his noble goal. He fails, and fails miserably. His arguments are often preposterously bad." would be cherry-picking, as well.
  • The number of ellipses in the SPLC quote is comicall. How far did you have to wander, and how much context did you have to cut-out to highlight this perspective? The source says, as its main summary:
A glance at Stefan Molyneux’s subscriber count (650,000+) on YouTube suggests that he is a charismatic, persuasive and influential individual. A skilled propagandist and an effective communicator within the racist “alt-right” and pro-Trump ranks, his promotion of scientific racism and eugenics to a large and growing audience is a serious concern. Molyneux has been delivering “race realist” propaganda, based on pseudo-scientific sources, to his audience on an ongoing basis for over two years, and thus has encouraged thousands of people to adopt his belief in biological determinism, social Darwinism and non-white racial inferiority. Molyneux puts considerable effort into cloaking the practical implications of these beliefs across his media platforms.[1]
This source does not treat his views on anarcho-capitalism as more important than his views on race and gender.
  • Conservapedia is not a reliable source for multiple reasons (such as WP:UGC and others). It is irrelevant.
Grayfell (talk) 23:26, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
David Gordon is a well respected philosopher and historian, and the SPLC itself (biased though it is) admitted that he holds an anarcho-capitalist position. You haven't refuted any of these points, you just arbitrarily choose to ignore the points and sources you don't like. I'm going to report you as I was advised to do a while ago. WP:ANI. Wikipedia deserves better. Dennisne (talk) 01:02, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
On your talk page, it appears you were explicitly advised not to do that, but regardless, you will need to report based on specific policies, not just vague dislike of what you think my ideology is.
Anyway, you have not proposed any specific changes to the article, and have presented three sources. One of those is already cited and supports the specific point in dispute, one of which was previously cited but was removed (by another editor) as gossip, and the third is not usable. If you want to propose a specific change to the article, do so. Start with good sources and summarize appropriately. Grayfell (talk) 02:00, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The specific change that I proposed was that he is an anarcho-capitalist. I provided respectable websites, 2 of which were unimpeachable. One of which was a respected and distinguished philosopher and historian. Even his biased enemies (the SPLC) confirm that he's a voluntaryist/anarcho-capitalist/anarchist. You predictably chose to ignore these facts and instead focused on your propaganda and irrelevant other issues discussed in those links. You are a biased unfit editor. I could also provide direct quotes on youtube from a jewish anarchist presidential candidate (Adam Kokesh), a harvard graduate and Columbia Ph.D. historian (Tom Woods), a jewish New York author and columnist (Michael Malice), an anarcho-capitalist lawyer (Stephan Kinsella), a jewish libertarian comedian (Dave Smith), etc etc etc -- all of who admire Molyneux and confirm at the very least that he's a principled voluntaryist / anarchist / anarcho-capitalist. Molyneux has also written many books about his anarchist beliefs, namely Practical Anarchy, Everyday Anarchy and Universally Preferable Behavior. The fact that there is no mention of any of this in this article is a blatant disgraceful admission that the authors and moderators of this article are dishonest propagandists who should be banned from Wikipedia. Dennisne (talk) 16:02, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Far from "unimpeachable", your sources are pretty terrible, honestly. The bulk of reliable sources describe the subject precisely as the article currently has it, as a far-right, white nationalist cult leader. Cherry-picking a minor historian, the Conservapedia, and complaining about the reputable SPLC isn't a convincing argument. Zaathras (talk) 17:42, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
David Gordon is a professional and well-respected Philosopher and Historian. The SPLC is also unimpeachable, not because it's unbiased (it is), but because even *it* agrees that Molyneux is a voluntaryist / anarcho-capitalist. Ie. you can't simultaneously use it to slander Molyneux and also discredit it when it mentions things that go against the leftist narrative (that Molyneux is a fascist - which is diametrically opposite to anarchism). I have also provided countless other highly reputable people that you are dishonestly ignoring (presidential candidates, phd historian, authors, lawyers, comedians). Dennisne (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:06, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Here's something interesting: reference #2's (splcenter.org) first two "In his own words" quotes seem to have been completely taken out of context according to this video (concise explanation is in video description section). The third quote's source got removed supposedly because of violating YouTube's hate speech policy (so, no proof that he actually said that). I then googled "stefan molyneux hate speech" (without the quotes), and none of the results seem to link to that verbatim from Stefan. The first two results are from his personal Twitter account, for example. 190.218.1.153 (talk) 03:36, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What is your point, exactly? As has already been explained, Wikipedia favors context from reliable, independent sources. You may dispute that it is reliable, but the SPLC is undeniably independent of Molyneux, and is frequently cited as a topic expert on issues of extremism by other reliable sources. The SPLC source is cited once in the body of the article, with attribution, and the article does not mention any of these specific quotes.
Sources are not themselves required to cite public sources for every item they document, as this would be an impossible standard. If you have some specific reason to doubt the quote from the removed video, based on reliable sources, you would have to explain that reason.
As has already been explained, his own videos are not reliable, regardless of how concise they are.
Google results are both inconsistent from user to user, and also misleading for a variety of reasons. We are not interested in these results or the raw quantity of hits, we are interested in summarizing reliable sources.
Again, what is the actual proposal, here? How would the article be changed? This isn't a forum for discussing ideas, this is a platform for discussing how to improve the article. Grayfell (talk) 05:11, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Grayfell, Dennisne, Zaathras

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Grayfell, Dennisne, Zaathras And I will second Grayfell's question: "Again, what is the actual proposal, here? How would the article be changed?" and add What currently used sources in the article do you find inaccurate or not meeting WP:RS?   // Timothy::talk  20:05, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The proposal is to include the basic fact that Molyneux is a voluntaryist / anarcho-capitalist / libertarian. All 3 of these terms apply and can be cited. The SPLC and Mises both acknowledge that he is a "libertarian" for example. The article dishonestly deleted that word when they were quoting the SPLC. There are countless other sources (lawyers, phd historians and economists, comedians, authors) who can attest to this. Grayfell (and whoever wrote the article) are deliberately hiding this information. (They also are deliberately hiding the information that Molyneux has written many books about anarchism, and still stands by them ... Practical Anarchy, Everyday Anarchy, UPB.)
Timothy was editorializing by suggesting that political alliances necessarily mean a shift in fundamental position. Wikipedia is not the place to editorialize. Dennisne (talk) 21:28, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sure, if that principle is applied consistently. Ie. if the meaningless and inaccurate leftist labels are also removed, such "white nationalist" and "white supremacist" - he is neither of those things, nor does the SPLC support that editorializing. But seeing as that's unlikely (until the SPLC finally gets sued for defamation and more publically exposed), the next best option is to provide more accurate labels to at least provide balance. Dennisne (talk) 21:45, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The SPLC very clear does support this, and summarizing multiple sources is not editorializing. He often speaks on a lot of things which could be describes in many ways, but the purpose of a Wikipedia article is to inform readers. Avoiding clear language would be euphemistic, and "Canadian", "podcaster", and "YouTuber" are arguably also labels, aren't they? When you say "avoid labels", I think you mean avoid unflattering labels, but Wikipedia is not a platform for public relations. Many sources, not just the SPLC, support this. Grayfell (talk) 21:50, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
False - the SPLC never said he was a white nationalist/supremacist/etc. That was the editorialized leftist propaganda by whoever wrote the wikipedia article. Like I explained, an alliance with statists does not mean actually being a statist. That is a creative leap.
I agree that Wikipedia should inform readers, which is why the complete omission of his unchanged voluntaryist political beliefs and his substantial body of work that he still supports (his books about anarchism) is quite damning. Whoever wrote this article went out of their way to bias the information presented to readers. The fact that you aren't even aware of this either shows that you are unqualified to edit this article, or you are unfit to be an editor here due to your leftist bias. Dennisne (talk) 22:12, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The SPLC spends a great deal of time documenting and discussing his views on race, and its position seems perfectly clear to me.
He has a large body of self-published work, but this is not treated by Wikipedia as "substantial" without reliable, independent sources. The only arguably reliable source I found, the last time I looked, was the Gordon source and Gordon's subsequent follow-up. That source, whether we use it here or not, doesn't grant him legitimacy as an academic, or as a libertarian. This is not my position, this is my understanding of Gordon's position. As I've said several times in the past, if you know of any reliable, independent sources which discuss his self-published books, I would like to know about them. Grayfell (talk) 22:28, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dennisne has been temporarily blocked. I have expanded the section on his views to include the SPLC's comments on the shift from anarcho-capitalism, etc. to the alt-right. Since the source rhetorically asks "Yet how much of an ideological shift was this in actuality?" and uses this to discuss Murray Rothbard's racism, this not a an easy point to summarize. Still, I don't think it's controversial to note that his content became significantly more focused on race than it had been previously, and it seems like this point would be helpful context. Grayfell (talk) 23:51, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Grayfell I have a headache...   // Timothy::talk  00:18, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The funny thing is, I always get far, far more grief from comments made on talk pages than I do from making actual edits to articles. I've only made a few substantial edits to this article over the past couple of years. Most of my activity here has been reverts to the status quo or formatting stuff.
On reflection, I can see how the SPLC edit might seem like I was stirring the pot or something, but that wasn't my intention. At the end of the day, some sources do describe him as libertarian/ancap. The SPLC source is useful because it puts all this into context.
I consider the SPLC more-or-less reliable, but since the site always seems to invite complaints on talk pages, I would be happy to replace it with a different source. That doesn't make the source invalid, though. Nobody is obligated to personally agree with any of these sources or their reasons, but likewise, nobody who reads the article should be caught by surprise about this, either. Grayfell (talk) 02:50, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just going to chime in on the SPLC and say I don't think it should be given any authority at all as a source. They're are a (clearly) partisan political organization whose sole purpose is to denigrate and smear people on the political right. That's literally all they exist to do. The terms white supremacist, Neo-Nazi, etc are thrown around by them so flippantly they've nearly lost meaning. In my view they're no more a valid source for an encyclopedia than something like a political campaign group (Trump 2020, Bernie 2020, etc). Edit5001 (talk) 02:58, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Like I said, they always get complaints on the talk page, and so far, I have not found these complaints persuasive. Grayfell (talk) 03:17, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Cullen328: I fear that consensus only exists because many editors recognize the SPLC as a good attack dog to smear proponents of political ideas they disagree with. The organization is nakedly partisan and goes well beyond simply "documenting hate groups", the definition of which they have expanded so widely that it includes enormous swaths of political ideas (a group doesn't agree with gay marriage? That group is a hate group according to the SPLC). Edit5001 (talk) 03:24, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]


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

I mean this is far from just my view, there's many other sources expressing similar views: See here and here and here and here. We could go on, but many different sources have problems with the SPLC. Edit5001 (talk) 09:12, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Op-eds are just that; opinions. Not actual journalistic pieces. Zaathras (talk) 14:01, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is far into WP:NOTFORUM territory. As is typical, the SPLC was mentioned, and the conversation was derailed to be about something totally unrelated to improving the article. The SPLC is a sprawling organization with decades of history. Highlighting one perspective (whether it's through opinions or not) while ignoring this long, complicated history, is misleading and selective. If you think the SPLC is not credible in general, you likely already know of better places on Wikipedia to discuss it. A handful of specifically-selected opinion articles which do not mention Molyneux cannot be used in this article, and are not relevant to this specific issue.
I can't help myself on one more point though. The line about not agreeing with gay marriage deeply misrepresents the SPLC and the issue of homophobic hate groups. This is a misconception at best and a deception at worst. The lead of List of organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as anti-LGBT hate groups explains this issue specifically. If you want to challenge the SPLC, avoid unsupported talking points and use reliable sources according to due weight instead. However, you should do that elsewhere, please. Grayfell (talk) 23:29, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're right that this isn't the best place to discuss the credibility of the SPLC, but I'll just briefly respond to your last point. The way the SPLC operates is that they arbitrarily declare what is and what isn't "settled science" surrounding anything LGBT, and then dismiss all research outside of that as false - even if that research is scientifically sound. The SPLC makes it so that a group cannot really debate against something like gay marriage with scientific research without them labeling them a "hate group". After all, the SPLC has already arbitrarily declared what science is and isn't "acceptable", and the only "acceptable" science to them is that favorable to LGBT causes. Edit5001 (talk) 01:48, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Edit5001 Regarding the attack on SPLC credibility as a source "(a group doesn't agree with gay marriage? That group is a hate group according to the SPLC)" - a complete falsehood easily shown to be false. The Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox, Calvary Chapel, Southern Baptist Convention, Latter-Day Saints, Jehovah's Witnesses, Orthodox Jews, the list goes on forever, all major groups that vehemently oppose gay marriage and they are not labeled as anti-LGBT hate groups by the SPLC. Neither is any other Christian, Muslim or Jewish denomination. The SPLC lists individual hate orgs known for being obsessed with and spreading hate against the LGBT community, not groups that oppose gay marriage. Falsehoods like "(a group doesn't agree with gay marriage? That group is a hate group according to the SPLC)" are why no one believes extremist claims about the SPLC. Extremists continually make up falsehoods to try and pass off as "facts". The SPLC is a trusted source because they document the truth - not spread easily dismissed falsehoods like "(a group doesn't agree with gay marriage? That group is a hate group according to the SPLC)". The SPLC tells the truth. That is why they are a reliable source. [4]   // Timothy::talk  04:04, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@TimothyBlue Of course they don't classify those groups as hate groups, because they're large, well known targets and the SPLC would instantly lose credibility with any reasonable person overnight if they tried it. If they could classify those groups as hate groups and get away with it, they most likely would, because they meet many of the same criteria (and in some cases more than the same!) they use to classify smaller organizations as hate groups. Edit5001 (talk) 04:26, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is no science behind being a bigot, it is a choice by individuals to be hateful towards LGBT people. The SPLC, along with many - many many many - other reputable organizations call them out on it. Zaathras (talk) 01:49, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. The SPLC has been quite clear - you can be opposed to marriage equality without becoming an anti-gay hate group. What marks an anti-gay hate group is the deployment of false and derogatory claims about gay people as a group — for example, declaring that gay people are dangerous to children - with the intent of using those falsehoods to defame the entire group and deny them civil rights under the law. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:29, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If there's sound scientific research done that shows any group of people (not just gays) is more dangerous to children than another, that shouldn't be automatically dismissed as false. What the SPLC has done is declare there are scientific results that they will under no circumstances accept as valid, regardless of circumstance or the soundness of the research. That's not just bad science on their part, it's the definition of putting feelings over facts. Edit5001 (talk) 03:45, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such science. That is a fact, and no, it doesn't care about your feelings. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:39, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Bell Curve. 66.115.87.148 (talk) 01:02, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for highlighting that you’re probably WP:NOTHERE. I’m assuming you’re referring to the parts of that book that highlight race and intelligence, and are regularly mined by those promoting ideas of “black inferiority“ and “white genocide”. If you’re not, then enlighten us. If you are, then explain why it’s relevant here. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 01:20, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Those ideas come out of neo-nazis and from the left (i.e. racism of low expectations). In reality, the data makes no such conclusions about race. It simply shows that certain races evolved with greater abilities in certain areas. It's the reason you don't see Asian people in the NBA. Maybe there should be affirmative action that says the NBA is racist against Asians? 66.115.87.148 (talk) 20:59, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@24.212.221.226: I don't want to revive this discussion, but it's interesting to note that you consider being a far-right WN a "slander". According to whom? It's a positive moniker to many. I for one consider him a WN and view him as such. Wikipedia does not shy from calling LGBT films LGBT films, does it? There is no discussion about that - because Wikipedians view LGBT as positive, but call someone a far-right, and there's a huge discussion...
By the way, shouldn't there be no comma in the intro? is a far-right[,?] white nationalist[2] Canadian podcaster--Adûnâi (talk) 16:41, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, are you saying that being a white nationalist is a positive? I'm having a hard time seeing your comparison of white nationalism to LGBT as anything other than inflammatory false equivalence. Instead of explaining it, I would suggesting taking your own advice and letting this discussion die a natural death. Template:reply to doesn't work on IP addresses, and anyone who claims "leftists" should be "purged" is not acting in good faith anyway. Grayfell (talk) 02:03, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Poor sources.

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2020

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

Read the talk page. Volunteer Marek 18:48, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 19:23, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

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

Things that will fix the NPOV

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

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

allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special%3ADiff%2F936217061