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.

Template:Annual readership

with all those doubtful name calling, ideologically engaged sentences and judgements, significant effort to put described person in bad shade. The article contains very little informational value and very big judgmental side - there is very little information of actual views of the person, instead a lot of quotes from random ( actually not so random, because all picked opinions are strictly negative ) people how they evaluate those views ,and how they categorize described person (without presenting what he even said himself) - which is clearly a try to devaluate described person by appealing to authorities. This article is so far away from neutral POV policy it makes me speechless. It's a shame.

B.Informata — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:F41:38DB:CEED:646E:C50B:F69B:EF28 (talk) 04:35, 19 July 2020 (UTC) — 2A00:F41:38DB:CEED:646E:C50B:F69B:EF28 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Sorry you are so unhappy. If you have independent reliable sources discussing the harmonious side of Molyneux. Feel free to list them here.

Until then, all we have are independent reliable sources saying he is a far-right, white nationalist and white supremacist podcaster and former YouTuber who is best known for his promotion of conspiracy theories, scientific racism, eugenics and white supremacist views, which we neutrally report, per WP:NPOV. - SummerPhD^v2.0 05:17, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Except that is the Soviet Union the media was state controlled, we base this article in non state independent media. So if you have independent third party non state RS that contradict our claims, please provide them.Slatersteven (talk) 10:52, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at some of the sources. The first source from NBC News calls him a "white nationalist", but gives absolutely zero proof or sources of this. The second source from the Independent calls him a "white nationalist who has been accused of promoting scientific racism". First of all, the Independent doesn't give any proof or sources of this white nationalist label either. Second of all, the Independent literally reads "who has been accused of". Anybody could make an article on the internet saying "Person XYZ has been accused of [insert horrible crime here]" and it would be 100% legal because anybody can accuse anybody of anything.

For the third source... it's the SPLC which shouldn't be used as a source as the first section in the Talk Page clearly lays out and explains. For the fourth source, Columbia Journalism Review; all it does is once again resort to name-calling without giving any proof or sources. In conclusion, the first four "sources" fail to provide any substance or proof of the claims. It's unfortunate that mindless churnalism is now acceptable as a source these days. --Barren Tundra (talk) 17:45, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sources do not have to give proof, that is why they are RS.Slatersteven (talk) 17:47, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

STEFAN MOLYNEUX vs. WHITE SUPREMACY — Preceding unsigned comment added by LadyLirazel (talk) 09:10, 20 July 2020 (UTC)— LadyLirazel (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Yes, we know he claims he is not, I claim you ow me £5,000, is that true?Slatersteven (talk) 09:29, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See 9:12 to 10:08. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:02, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He, in this video, provides justification for not being a white supremacist, by referencing many of his past statements, putting them into context. --LadyLirazel (talk) 11:07, 20 July 2020 (UTC)— LadyLirazel (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

And? He would be an RS for him saying it is not true. But wp:rs is clear he is not an RS for it not being true.Slatersteven (talk) 11:21, 20 July 2020 (UTC),[reply]

He would be a reliable source for saying he said it, but he is not an independent reliable source. We don't clutter an article with a selection of things dependent sources say about a subject, otherwise every article about a car or cheeseburger would be clogged with so much marketing garbage from the companies making them that there would be no real content. I'm sure Molyneux says LOTS of things about himself, but those things are simply not relevant -- unless the statements are discussed in independent reliable sources (or provide basic, uncontroversial biographical info under WP:PSTS). - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:19, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And his points are an attempt to distract from the things he's said that really only make sense in a certain context. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:55, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And so how do you deal with the case where "independent sources" are only voicing their opinions as opposed to something substantive? To use your analogy, at some point in the past, a rumor went around that Wendy's Burgers had worms in them, and so you can just imagine the hysteria of mutiple "independent sources" all claiming the same, not based on fact, but based on fear. It turned out that the rumor was false, but damage had been done to Wendy's reputation at the time.

Of course, they have long since recovered.

How many of these "independent sources" point to anything substantive? Have you even bothered watching the video yourself? Stefan basically points to his own past posts and statements, which any "independent source" would be expected to do the same!!!--LadyLirazel (talk) 16:32, 20 July 2020 (UTC)— LadyLirazel (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

If enough RS say something is true, we have to assume they have all checked, that is why they are RS (see wp:rs).Slatersteven (talk) 16:38, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LadyLirazel: Independent reliable sources did not regularly and repeatedly say any such thing about Wendy's burgers. Independent reliable sources do regularly and repeatedly define Molyneux as a white nationalist/white supremacist. These are not randomly circulating rumors, it's why Molyneux is notable. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:51, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SummerPhDv2.0—on the issue of whether or not Molyneux is racist, his own opinion on that question warrants inclusion. You compare to "a car or cheeseburger" but that is far afield. Racism being a highly abstract concept, the reader should be afforded a glimpse of many facets pertaining to that underlying question. I think you are simplifying to a harmful degree. You seem to be endeavoring to put a person into a small, enclosed compartment, but abstract concepts don't lend themselves to succinct definitions. I am not saying the question is not legitimate. But we best address that question by providing the reader with a multitude of responses to the question of the alleged racism of Molyneux. One such response would be the response provided by Molyneux. This is an important question in this article that should not be given short shrift. Bus stop (talk) 17:30, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EVERY source we cite within the past five years defines Molyneux as being a white supremacist/white nationalist/etc. It's what he's notable for. That you feel it is "negative" and should be screened out doesn't change that.

That Molyneux wants to say he isn't a white supremacist, is a philosopher, has a world-class stamp collection or whatever are all things that independent reliable sources have taken absolutely no notice of. Wikipedia is not in the habit of scouring primary sources to find something for the subject to say about themselves. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:58, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You aren't explaining—why wouldn't we report that "Molyneux wants to say he isn't a white supremacist"? Is that somehow not valid for inclusion? Bus stop (talk) 05:16, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why aren't we "explaining" everything Donald Trump says about himself or everything Ford said about the Pinto? Two reasons: First, you would be selecting material from thousands of "pages" (hundreds of hours of podcasts/videos) to include. (Pick a world leader you don't know very well. With very little effort, you can make them sound like the next Pol Pot or the kindest human who ever lived.) Next, you would be interpreting that primary source.

How -- objectively -- will we select what to include? Given that the material is not in any independent sources, how is it not the poster child for WP:WEIGHT issues? - SummerPhD^v2.0 06:42, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We link to one source for "he has however denied this", its not hard.Slatersteven (talk) 07:50, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"How -- objectively -- will we select what to include?" By topic, SummerPhDv2.0. We "select" based on whether the comment or assertion is on topic. Does the comment reflect his reaction to being called a "white supremacist"? If so, that might be a good candidate for inclusion, because it is on topic. Once again, we have to get back to what we are talking about. We are talking about racism. We are talking about allegations of racism. You've been talking about everything but racism. At the WP:BLP/N#Stefan Molyneux you say If independent reliable sources said that Molyneux is a cheese sandwich, Wikipedia would say "Stefan Molyneux is a cheese sandwich." That may be funny but that also changes the subject, in that case to cheese sandwiches. It would be appropriate to include in this article the view(s) of Molyneux on his own alleged racism. Such inclusion has the potential to inform the reader about the subject of the article. We aren't trying to paint a one-dimensional portrait of Molyneux in which he is racist and racist only and irredeemably racist, racist, racist. You are claiming that "EVERY source we cite within the past five years defines Molyneux as being a white supremacist". Is Molyneux only a racist? I don't think our aim is to "define" Molyneux. Racism could be a part of his personality. We should be aiming to introduce nuance concerning these charges of racism and white supremacism. Yet you are arguing that we can't even include his own view on whether or not he is a racist. Bus stop (talk) 12:26, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bus stop, not really, per WP:MANDY. Most racists don't admit to being racists. It's almost as if they know that racism is actually abhorrent. Guy (help!) 12:59, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bus stop: You say "racist" a lot. I don't. Sources do not say he is a racist, they say -- regularly and repeatedly -- that he is a white supremacist/white nationalist. As a result, Wikipedia verifiably says he is a white supremacist. Independent reliable sources do not say he is a white nationalist who says he is not a white nationalist, so Wikipedia does not say that. That you have selected a few lines from hundreds of hours of video and podcasts that you interpret as saying something you feel is relevant -- but that independent reliable sources don't see as relevant -- doesn't seem to be how Wikipedia articles are written. If editors at Donald Trump and/or Barack Obama dug through hundreds of hours of recordings to find primary source material that they feel is relevant -- exactly what you are doing -- those articles would be hundreds of times longer than they are. - SummerPhD^v2.0 19:00, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• For context, Molyneux is now known for "white nationalism" above all else, but Molyneux's presentation of his own views is not consistent, or even coherent, over time. Any attempt to summarize or cite his own works is going to be a mess.

As the SPLC profile documents, the signs were always there, but when sources first noticed him around 2008 he was known for "cult-like" views of family. For a long time, he was grouped with the men's rights movement, and the few sources that paid any attention mostly commented on his views of women (which are remarkably strange). I think it's unfortunate that more recent sources have not covered this aspect, as I think it would be very useful to be able to explain to readers how white nationalism, anarcho-capitalism, and misogyny are connected. Oh well. Since he lost his important social media accounts, sources have largely ignored just about everything about him, especially his efforts at public relations. We follow sources.

Any discussion of this as an update would needs to start with updated reliable sources, but there really aren't that many out there. Grayfell (talk) 00:28, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't want to do it myself, but I affirm Grayfell's most recent update in keeping the quality of this page unblemished. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 03:55, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

--LadyLirazel (talk) 10:26, 22 July 2020 (UTC) I have followed Stefan Molyneux for over 10 years, have listened to hundreds of hours of his videos and podcasts, and when I say that he is not a "white supremacist" or "white nationalist", that should carry some weight. Of all your cited sources here, how many of them have done the same? Or did they all take one statement he said out of context and have overblown it? Or well, 100 Frenchman says so, so it's gotta be so.[reply]

It's kinda like if someone were to say to you, "So when did you stop beating your wife?", and now you are left holding the bag defending yourself, with everyone saying "this wife-beater is not owning up to his wrong!!!" How is that any different from how this page treats Stefan? Perhaps if the ad-honimen attacks that are on this page were replaced with actual evidence, actual quotes, and the like, allow the readers to decide for themselves? What a concept!

Because they are RS which means they tend to check facts. And no your OR carries no weight, any more than any other users.Slatersteven (talk) 10:30, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

--LadyLirazel (talk) 19:06, 22 July 2020 (UTC) It would be interesting to see what "facts" they are "checking", as they run counter to what I know of Stefan. And that's the entire problem, isin't it. Objectivity. I've been over the science myself regarding average IQ difference among different ethnic groups, etc. The data and findings are very real, but difficult for many to swallow. Stefan is just the messenger. Perhaps what I say "carries no weight", but only because no one knows me here. So when did you stop beating your wife? See how inflamatory that sounds? Or, there are not many Chinese men tall enough to play in American Basketball. This is a factual statement. It does not mean that I -- or anyone else who states this fact -- is an "American Supremacist". There are basic biological difference among ethnic groups driven by evolution over time. And as much as we might hate it, the same forces of evolution has made a difference in cognitive ability ON AVERAGE. Our ancestors who never ventured out of Africa were not under the same selective pressures as those who migrated northwards and had to face different climates, had to learn how to plan to feed themselves and stay worm during the winter months, etc. Evolution is a fact. It does not matter whether we like it or not. It does not make me a "white supremacist" for pointing out the facts of evolution anymore than it makes Stefan Moleyneux one.[reply]

I have checked out the first three citations. Two of which slams Stefan Molyneux as a "White nationalist" without offering any evidence. One accuses him of "scientific racism", whatever that's supposed to be, again without offering any supporting evidence. Reliable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LadyLirazel (talk • contribs) 19:19, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Read wp:or and wp:v.Slatersteven (talk) 19:41, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again and again and again: Reliable soures do not have to prove anything, ever. That they do not offer "proof" is immaterial. - SummerPhD^v2.0 06:21, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Its time to close this.Slatersteven (talk) 09:43, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Slatersteven, Agree. The horse is dead. Guy (help!) 09:51, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know Stefan Molyneux has some ardent fans, so the article is hard to police.

On the other hand, with so many newspapers and press outlets closing and laying off staff since the development of the internet, the quality of reporters' reporting has gone down and around the world and people trust the press less and less. Maybe press outlets don't pay like they used to and can't attract top talent.

Pew Research indicates "Press Accuracy Rating Hits Two Decade Low".[1]

Wikipedia should take this into account as far as what so-called reliable sources indicate.

The Independent reporter made a mistake when he indicated that Stefan Molyneux is a white supremacist. Molyneux claims that Ashkenazi Jews and East Asians have higher IQs than non-Jewish whites.[2].Knox490 (talk) 21:10, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When Wikipedia cites Far Left groups like the SPLC as impartial 'Reliable Sources', you lose any credibility you may have.

The vast majority of Stefan's you-tube posts are completely benign - mostly dealing with helping people with their personal problems, promotion of the family unit, and promotion of the 'non-aggression principle'.

Stefan has never called for violence. He expresses opinions - some of which are uncomfortable for some sensitive people. Everyone has a right to an opinion in a free society. It's up to those who disagree to confront him with facts and reason, not subject him to this Orwellian cancel culture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.102.33.174 (talk) 23:39, 23 July 2020 (UTC) — 59.102.33.174 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

If you think the SLPC is unreliable, you're trapped in a far-right echo chamber and not worth paying attention to. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:09, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For that matter, anyone who thinks the SPLC is "Far Left" loses any credibility they might have.

He was ostensibly blocked form Twitter for platform manipulation, meaning sock puppetry. Presumably his opinions didn't help, but he was cheating at a stupid game on someone else's play-field. "He expresses opinions - some of which are uncomfortable for some sensitive people." How euphemistic. Scientific racism is "uncomfortable" for many valid reasons, and ignoring or downplaying those reasons is disingenuous. Social media platforms are not obligated to host his "uncomfortable" rantings, and Wikipedia is absolutely not obligated to parrot his opinions for PR reasons.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which documents other sources. Wikipedia did not "cancel" Molyneux. We cannot change how other sources cover his behavior. Orwell (a fierce proponent of democratic socialism) wrote about people being killed, imprisoned, and tortured. Comparing that to a blogger's website inconveniences is so far from accurate that it's honestly pretty funny, in a grim sort of way. As for the NAP, it's morally vapid to actual philosophers, even the Libertarian ones. Grayfell (talk) 02:22, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, "free speech" doesn't mean that Molyneux is entitled to a platform on non-public property that doesn't belong to him (which would include Twitter and Wikipedia). Ian.thomson (talk) 04:51, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I found this in "The Guardian" [3]: "Molyneux said in a statement to the Guardian: 'I have always opposed the idea of racial superiority/inferiority.'" Will this be acceptable to insert into the article? Fzimmerman (talk) 03:26, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The fuller context is:

Molyneux has been described as an "alleged cult leader who amplifies scientific racism, eugenics and white supremacism" by the Southern Poverty Law Center, which monitors extremism and white supremacy.
Molyneux said in a statement to the Guardian: “I have always opposed the idea of racial superiority/inferiority.”
In 2019, Molyneaux said: “I’ve always been skeptical of the ideas of white nationalism, of identitarianism, and white identity. However, I am an empiricist, and I could not help but notice that I could have peaceful, free, easy, civilized and safe discussions in what is, essentially, an all-white country.”

So, uh, did you want to leave out the bit where he says an all-white nation would be a good thing? Ian.thomson (talk) 04:48, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I wouldn't care if that were left in. But if it is inserted, I'd also like to include the part right after it where the young lady being interviewed also addresses her understanding of this:

Seibt defended that comment, saying it was out of context. "He is not devaluing other races, not at all, he's just describing his experience in western countries, and I agree with that … it's not that we are better in any way in western countries, and that’s not the point that Molyneux is trying to make–it's just that we still have freedom of speech in these countries, and we're very happy that's the case."

I think what she states there sums up what I've thought about Molyneux's views on some of the controverted points.

When I surveyed the Wikipedia guidelines about "Biographies of living persons" [4] I thought these guidelines were very good, but I didn't think they were reflected in the article about Molyneux. I would say especially the part about "neutrality." In fact, I was shocked when I read the article the first time, as I only knew about him from firsthand experience (i.e. watching some of his videos) and would never have described him in the terms that the current article uses.

It seems that every possible thing he's ever taught that could be assigned with an insidious motive, has been so assigned, and any good thought or idea he might have presented is not mentioned. The word "neutral" and the content of the current Wikipedia article present an enormous dissonance to me. I would describe it more as a "character assassination."

Having said all that, I'm not a friend or a close associate of his, and have no hill to die on over this issue. I just got involved because I wanted to add one balancing quote from his own mouth, but didn't realize all the rules about "non-original sources." My own practice is not to rely solely on secondary sources for information about living figures, but to go straight to them for myself and see what they have to say. In the current climate, I've found that to be the only safe way.

Nevertheless, since I'm here, I'll see this out to a conclusion. If we can get one more statement into the bio that makes it a bit less negative, I would be happy. I appreciate this line from the "Biographies of living persons" guidelines:

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment.

Fzimmerman (talk) 06:32, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Except that the claim that the quote has been taken out of context is just Seibt's opinion, and Seibt is noted for antisemitic remarks and far-right propaganda -- she's not a reliable source for defending Molyneux. The Guardian piece refers to Molyneux as a white nationalist and it's dishonest to try to sum it up any other way. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:42, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the quote from the Guardian. To clarify, it does NOT refer to Molyneux as a "white nationalist," but rather it says that he was "alleged" to be so, by the Southern Poverty Law Center. I haven't proposed any "summing up". Just quote it as listed. It's from a recognized source. It seems to me like you are afraid it will somehow disturb the narrative of the article. But I thought the point was to write all that can be obtained from the sources, and not to pick and choose to fit a predefined narrative. If you've already planned to write the article to give a certain view, and to leave out anything that might call that view into question, or moderate it a bit, where is the neutrality? Fzimmerman (talk) 08:02, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's no way to say this without being blunt: We don't care about any of this, and it was a mistake to post this here. This is not a social networking site. This is not a place to share your personal observations or insight into free speech, or white people, or anything like this. Wikipedia is not a platform for publishing original research, and this talk page is for improving this article and nothing else. Almost none of this comment has anything to do with improving this article.

The headline of the source specifically refers to Molyneux as a white nationalist. The body instead calls him an "alt-right activist", which is yet another source supporting this link to extremism based on scientific racism, regardless of which particular euphemism de jour is used.

Your loaded assumptions about another editor's motives are inappropriate, and further, they demonstrate a misunderstanding of Wikipedia's purpose as an encyclopedia. The project's goal is to summarize reliable sources, and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. An overwhelming number of sources, including the one you are asking about, already give "a certain view". The article should follow that view. Grayfell (talk) 08:27, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. I've removed the personal background information. As I said before, I'm new to this "talk" process. I can see why you need strict rules to govern how information is placed in Wikipedia, to avoid chaos. There is a danger, though: if your sources are not neutral, neither will your summary be. The Guardian article at least allowed for those labeled to say something about themselves, so readers can think about it and form their own conclusions, or do their own further research. I'm missing that in the Wikipedia article. Fzimmerman (talk) 09:28, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It can be argued no source is ever neutral, so we go by (rather) reputation for fact checking. Does the source tell lies as a matter of course. Now if the guardian article contains a rebuttal we can use the guardian as a source for that and include it.Slatersteven (talk) 09:34, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The way it's included needs to be handled carefully. Since we already have many examples of him promoting an "idea of racial superiority/inferiority", including the very next paragraph of the cited source, this comment is cryptic at best. Perhaps he opposes some specific form of this idea? It doesn't really make any sense. Introducing this statement without any context will only be confusing. Grayfell (talk) 19:20, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]