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
Line 129: Line 129:


::::::::::::{{u|Ian.thomson}}—you say I am {{tq|"taking the side"}} of the subject of an article. Not really. I am trying to add reliably-sourced and on-topic material to this article. Do you know of any reason this material should be omitted? You are telling me that I am {{tq|"taking the side of obvious racists"}}. WP:TPG#YES tells us to [[WP:TPG#YES|"Comment on content, not on the contributor"]]. [[User:Bus stop|Bus stop]] ([[User talk:Bus stop|talk]]) 03:18, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
::::::::::::{{u|Ian.thomson}}—you say I am {{tq|"taking the side"}} of the subject of an article. Not really. I am trying to add reliably-sourced and on-topic material to this article. Do you know of any reason this material should be omitted? You are telling me that I am {{tq|"taking the side of obvious racists"}}. WP:TPG#YES tells us to [[WP:TPG#YES|"Comment on content, not on the contributor"]]. [[User:Bus stop|Bus stop]] ([[User talk:Bus stop|talk]]) 03:18, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

:::::::::::::You've been banging the drum to add that one, undiscussed sentence for quite a white. About a month ago, the horse died and you continued whacking it with the same stick. A couple weeks ago, the horse had been beaten into a pool of rotting goo with bits of broken bone. You're still at it. The horse flesh has long since rotted away and you are pounding the pulverized bits of horse bone into the sand.
:::::::::::::Yes, you feel that one, cherry-picked sentence tells us everything we need to know about this white supremacist. I think the equally-well sourced quote where he says he doesn't believe all races are the human species. Do you know of any reason this material should be omitted? We've got plenty of other isolated sentences that maybe we should include, like his explanation about how great an all-white country would be. Do you know of any reason this material should be omitted? We've got dozens more, though none of them are the defense of Molyneux you want to add. - <span style="color:#D70270;background-color:white;">Sum</span><span style="color:#734F96;background-color:white;">mer</span><span style="color:#0038A8;background-color:white;">PhD</span><sup>[[User talk:SummerPhDv2.0|v2.0]]</sup> 05:28, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Revision as of 05:28, 15 October 2020

Template:Annual readership


Check your "Reliable Sources"

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]

No point interacting on wikipedia, they merely make appeals to authority rather than arguments. Yes, if some libertarian is considered far right, than the SPLC and liberals who desire state power are definitely far far left. Guilt by association is also implicit throughout but whatever Jon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.233.52.64 (talk) 16:02, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, its called policy.Slatersteven (talk) 16:04, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is "The Guardian" OK?

I found this in "The Guardian" [1]: "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]
If he indeed said that "an all-white nation WOULD BE a good thing" why did YOU leave that out? In what you quoted above he rather merely observed that he "could have peaceful, free, easy, civilized and safe discussions" in a country that IS (exists) - Poland if I remember correctly. By the way he said the same thing about Hong Kong. (a nearly 100% Asian country) How do you get from his OBSERVATIONS of FACTS to surmising that he is some kind of supremacist dreaming of creating some mono-racial countries? (white and Asian too apparently) You are of course entitled to your insinuations but using them as a base of an "encyclopedia" material is... Idk what to call it but is is nowhere neutral or unbiased. Mike3000 (talk) 14:30, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We don't RS do.Slatersteven (talk) 14:39, 26 August 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" [2] 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]
Grayfell, or perhaps he knows that white supremacism is a hard sell and is going WP:MANDY. Guy (help!) 23:29, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Should we be oversimplifying him? If he said "I have always opposed the idea of racial superiority/inferiority" why wouldn't that warrant inclusion? Bus stop (talk) 01:39, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As has been explained to you repeatedly, zero independent reliable sources have seen any reason to discuss his claims that he is not a white nationalist/white supremacist when every reliable source saying anything about him in the past five years specifically identifies him as such. I know you don't like this, but not hearing it is a problem. - SummerPhDv2.0 05:02, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bus stop, we are not oversimplifying him. We are summarising the sources. They paint a pretty black and white picture. This is not really our problem to fix. Guy (help!) 08:45, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted that this is being discussed here. Bus stop (talk) 03:46, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This page isn't about detailing how Molyneux describes himself, it's about depicting who he is. He can put on a bad wig and call himself the President for all it matters, that doesn't change the fact that he pushes white supremacist narratives and most independent sources describe him as such. Bravetheif (talk) 10:56, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bravetheif—from where are you deriving that "This page isn't about detailing how Molyneux describes himself"? Do you find that in WP:RULES? Bus stop (talk) 18:40, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What is that supposed to mean? Of course this is found in the RULES, pretty much everywhere: WP:V. Mvbaron (talk) 19:05, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) You are linking to Wikipedia:Verifiability, Mvbaron, but it is verifiable, according to a reliable source, The Guardian, that Molyneux said "I have always opposed the idea of racial superiority/inferiority." Bus stop (talk) 19:21, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Molyneux saying something about himself is a primary source. "Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies." Where is this single sentence discussed in reliable secondary sources? - SummerPhDv2.0 19:17, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SummerPhDv2.0—there is no requirement that the subject of a biography can't be quoted. Bus stop (talk) 19:36, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WEIGHT. Out of hundreds of hours of the subject speaking, you have selected one sentence that you want to include to emphasize what you believe to be true about the subject. Where are the independent reliable sources discussing this one sentence and what material from a secondary source does it augment? - SummerPhDv2.0 21:41, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are misusing the word emphasis. I am not emphasizing anything. It is a simple statement of fact, reliably sourced, and on-topic: Stefan Molyneux states in The Guardian "I have always opposed the idea of racial superiority/inferiority." It is on-topic because you and others are in agreement that Molyneux endorses "the idea of racial superiority/inferiority". You should not be permitted to have your cake and eat it too. You are saying "Where are the independent reliable sources discussing this one sentence and what material from a secondary source does it augment?" I don't believe policy calls for anything of the sort. If sources "discuss[ed] this one sentence" what could they possibly say? You doing yeoman's work trying to come up with a technical reason this quote from Molyneux needs to be kept out of the article. You write WP:WEIGHT. How would that apply? What you so not seem to understand is that the fundamental subject of this article is not whether Molyneux is a racist. I hope you won't take this as a personal attack but that is your preoccupation. You are entirely consumed with skewering the subject of this article with all manner of racist charges. But the subject, like all people, is multi-faceted. We don't write this article to satisfy your preconceptions of what a person can be. Rather, we go with the facts wherever they take us. You should be glad that The Guardian is providing us with nuance on the question of Molyneux's alleged racism. But instead you are trying to keep that information out of the article. We don't start with a narrative and then find material to fulfill our narrative. That would be one variety or another of creative writing. As an encyclopedia we go where the information-trail leads us. It just so happens Molyneux says "I have always opposed the idea of racial superiority/inferiority." Great. We add that to our article. This isn't a bureaucracy where we concoct reasons to keep entirely on-topic information out of the article, SummerPhDv2.0. Bus stop (talk) 02:05, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are selecting ONE SENTENCE out of everything the subject has ever said on record (which is a lot) based on your belief that it counters what ALL of the independent reliable sources say and the sole reason the subject is notable.
WP:WEIGHT says, in part, "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects." This is ONE SENTENCE from a primary source that you have selected based on your belief that it is evidence that ALL of the reliable sources are wrong. At the same time, we could fill hundreds of pages with statements that I believe support the verifiable statement that Molyneux is a white supremacist.
You believe something that ZERO independent sources even discuss (and is the exact opposite of what they all say). There is absolutely no indication it is a significant viewpoint. - SummerPhDv2.0 02:36, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Bus_stop Like Mvbaron said, the quote breaks WP:V. We can verify he said the quote, we cannot verify that the contents of the quote are true. Similarly the quote breaks WP:IS. The Guardian is independent, but Molyneux is not. I'd also argue Molyneux more generally fails WP:RS, and he is, of course, a WP:PRIMARY source about himself. Bravetheif (talk) 04:44, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bravetheif—you say "We can verify he said the quote, we cannot verify that the contents of the quote are true." I don't understand that. What do you mean by that? Sounds paradoxical to me. Bus stop (talk) 16:19, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am a small green furry things from alpha centuri. Now you can verify I have just claimed it, not that I am in fact a small green furry things from alpha centuri.Slatersteven (talk) 16:24, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am Donald J Trump, 45th and current president of the United States. I am also a lizard person. You can absolutely verify that I said the preceding statements, you cannot verify that the statements are true. Bravetheif (talk) 16:41, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Slatersteven, Bravetheif—racism is an abstract concept. Racism has no objective existence. Opinions (reliably-sourced opinions) are all we have ascertaining to the existence or nonexistence of racism. You are arguing to keep an opinion you disagree with out of the article. Bus stop (talk) 17:33, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Stefan Molyneux is not a reliable character reference for Stefan Molyneux. Arguing we should just trust him because "racism is an abstract concept" is utterly farcical. There may be no black/white definition on what is and isn't racism, but it still exists. Regardless of what Molyneux says, many of the views he holds are commonly understood to be racist (for example, his insistence that race and IQ share a strong link). It's funny you bring up opinions, because you seem to be trying really hard to include this guy's opinion in the article. I think it should be excluded because it's not a reliable source, so I'd be interested to hear why you're so insistent that it should be included. Do you agree with it or is it simply for balance? Shall we also add how much of a animal lover Hitler was to his page for the sake of balance? Bravetheif (talk) 18:27, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bravetheif—you've got to stay on topic. I never claimed he was a "character reference for Stefan Molyneux" and I never said we should "just trust him". Please do not "respond" to things I did not say. It makes it sound as if I presented those arguments, which I never did. You are preternaturally concerned with whether Molyneux is or is not a racist. This is not an article addressing solely the question of whether Molyneux is a racist or not. This is a biography. Other aspects of a person's life are taken up in a biography. If he adored canines and had a kennel with 18 of them, we could include that in the article. We are not only concerned with whether he is racist or not. That is merely your preoccupation. Even if I were to concede that the most foolproof test had been administered and the results came back unequivocally that Molyneux was racist beyond a shadow of doubt—we still would include in the article that Molyneux said "I have always opposed the idea of racial superiority/inferiority." That is because this is a biography. You are attempting to reduce a biography to answering a question of your choosing. But a biography in an encyclopedia should not be limited in that way. We explore the whole person. If he disagrees with some of the often-repeated points that others say about him, we should include that because it is clearly on-topic. It is much more on-topic than would be a kennel of dogs, which could also warrant inclusion in this article. Bus stop (talk) 19:35, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, we are not attempting to "{answer} a question of (our) choosing." You are do that. Is Molyneux a racist/white nationalist/white supremacist/whatever.
We are attempting to summarize what independent reliable sources have to say about a subject. They say nothing about the one sentence you are obsessed with. They say Stefan Molyneyx is a white supremacist (far-right, obsessed with racist conspiracy theories, etc.). That's what Wikipedia does. - SummerPhDv2.0 20:50, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bus stop You're not claiming he's a character reference for himself, but you are using him as one. You have had this repeatedly explained to you, and I do not appreciate your attempts to play dumb. I also do not appreciate your insinuation that I and the other editors are attempting to exclude this quote because of our personal opinion on Molyneux. Regardless of my opinion on the guy, using Molyneux as a source in this manner fails multiple policies that have already been stated for you. This article is also a summary of the person, not a comprehensive biography. Including Molyneux's quote would provide little value to the body of the article; as in, someone looking to learn about Molyneux would likely not find it useful to learn that he disagrees with the common description of him. It's not strong evidence contradicting the other sources and it has little value otherwise. Bravetheif (talk) 04:07, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

wp:rs, I shall say that again wp:rs. Any argument that tries to use wp:primary as if equal to wp:rs is a violation of wp:fringe. But wp:blp means if a person denies an accusation we must mention the fact.Slatersteven (talk) 12:02, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No. Your interpretation of one sentence does not give you carte blanche to add whatever you think might defend the subject to whatever you think he needs to be defended from. Molyneux is verifiably a white supremecist. It's what he's notable for. - SummerPhDv2.0 02:29, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Molyneux is verifiably a white supremecist." He is known for bearing labels that others have put on him? Then put that in the "criticism" section. Furthermore, "It's what he's notable for." and "Molyneux has been described as a cult leader" are weasel words. State the facts about the person. If there is a critical reaction, it can go in the criticism section. Attempts to interpret the behavior of an individual, especially a living one, and especially a controversial live human, do not belong in the lead. One more human (talk) 06:01, 27 September 2020 (UTC)— One more human (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Every reliable source identifies Molyneux as a white supremacist/white nationalist. Were he talking about gardening tips, none of the sources would be covering him. The lead section of an article does three things: Explains what/who the subject is, makes clear why they are notable and summarizes the article. It is impossible to state why he notable or summarize the article without stating that he is a white nationalist. He is controversial. It is not controversial that he is a white nationalist. None of the sources debate this, argue he isn't or question it in any way. They all state, without equivocation, that he is a white supremacist. It is verifiable, central to his notability, a major part of the article and, as a result, belongs in the lead. - SummerPhDv2.0 06:50, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The inclusion of Molyneux's quote is in furtherance of the biography. The inclusion of Molyneux's quote has nothing to do with whether Molyneux "actually" is or "actually" isn't a racist. That is not my concern—I am not concerned with whether Molyneux "actually" is or "actually" isn't a racist. My concern is to develop the article as a biography. In trying to accomplish that I favor including biographical material. Material that provides a window into a person's heart would tend to be biographical material. We are not saying that he is telling the truth, although he may be speaking his heart honestly. We just want to hear him addressing the question that so many editors have asserted is his reason for notability, namely racism. Bus stop (talk) 03:37, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not here to "provide a window into (the) heart" of this white supremacist. Wikipedia sumarizes what independent reliable sources say about him. If you want to peer in that window, start with his statement where he says other races are not human and how great it would be to live in an all-white country. - SummerPhDv2.0 12:05, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If we could peer into his heart, we'd know whether he is or isn't a racist. That leave us with the words out of his mouth. The words out of his mouth are primary sources, which we need non-primary sources to summarize. Reliable sources summarize the majority of as being white nationalist in nature. His occasional denial doesn't really outweigh that, what would outweigh that would be if he started refuting his earlier white nationalist ideas. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:41, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
what would outweigh that would be if he started refuting his earlier white nationalist ideas Only if reliable sources mentioned that, of course. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:49, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ehh.... Imagine if he came back from a hiatus with the announcement to the effect of "after some soul-searching and research into the history of European colonialism, women's rights, systematic racism in America, and Nazi Germany, I have realized that my work was horrifically, monstrously, and unapologetically racist and fascist. Although I may never atone for the damage I have caused, I have taken down all my past videos and social media posts, and have ordered that my past books cease printing. My career from now on will be refuting everything I have published up to this point, as I try my best to understand and accept critical race theory, antifascism, and feminism." -- and he actually followed through on that by begging prominent leftists to correct his future work because he's terrified of lapsing into old white supremacist mistakes? While that would certainly end up in reliable sources, in some weird hypothetical case that it didn't (say, he did it after everyone stopped paying attention to him anyway), I think it'd be fair to mention. But that's not going to happen and his cultists will fail to understand why that 180 would be necessary for us to mention that he doesn't want to be labelled for what he currently is... so it's a moot point. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:59, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Moot point is right. Yes, reliable sources will say something about it. I just wanted to be consistent. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:36, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why would this article only include that he is a racist when we have reliably sourced material pertaining to him not being a racist? Bus stop (talk) 04:29, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This loaded question cannot be answered because it is based on a fundamentally flawed premises. It also ignores what has already been said and side-steps the purpose of this discussion. Molyneux promotes racist views according to multiple reliable sources. His claim to "oppose" a set of racist ideas is disputed by by commons sense and multiple reliable sources, and Wikipedia isn't a platform for public relations anyway. Grayfell (talk) 05:25, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bus stop, because one set of reliable sources shows him to be a racist and the other set of reliable sources shows him denying being a racist, but no reliable sources show him not to be a racist. This may, of course, be because he's a racist. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:08, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
JzG—that isn't the question. The question isn't whether Molyneux is a racist or not. The question is whether we should include this material or not. The material is "I have always opposed the idea of racial superiority/inferiority." It is undeniably on-topic and of course it is reliably sourced. Bus stop (talk) 20:50, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You spend a lot of time taking the side of obvious racists. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:13, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(...Slow clap...) --Guy Macon (talk) 00:20, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ian.thomson—you say I am "taking the side" of the subject of an article. Not really. I am trying to add reliably-sourced and on-topic material to this article. Do you know of any reason this material should be omitted? You are telling me that I am "taking the side of obvious racists". WP:TPG#YES tells us to "Comment on content, not on the contributor". Bus stop (talk) 03:18, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You've been banging the drum to add that one, undiscussed sentence for quite a white. About a month ago, the horse died and you continued whacking it with the same stick. A couple weeks ago, the horse had been beaten into a pool of rotting goo with bits of broken bone. You're still at it. The horse flesh has long since rotted away and you are pounding the pulverized bits of horse bone into the sand.
Yes, you feel that one, cherry-picked sentence tells us everything we need to know about this white supremacist. I think the equally-well sourced quote where he says he doesn't believe all races are the human species. Do you know of any reason this material should be omitted? We've got plenty of other isolated sentences that maybe we should include, like his explanation about how great an all-white country would be. Do you know of any reason this material should be omitted? We've got dozens more, though none of them are the defense of Molyneux you want to add. - SummerPhDv2.0 05:28, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special%3ADiff%2F983604878