![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 |
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.
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.
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)
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)
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.”
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."
Fzimmerman ( talk) 06:32, 26 July 2020 (UTC)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.
"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)
"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)
"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)
"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)
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)
what would outweigh that would be if he started refuting his earlier white nationalist ideasOnly if reliable sources mentioned that, of course. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 06:49, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
"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)
…Why does this article confidently assert that the man is a "white nationalist" and "white supremacist" "known for his promotion of…eugenics" when he clearly states [1] his opinions that "[no] race is 'superior' or 'inferior'" and "Eugenics is a government program that uses force to control people’s reproductive choices and is utterly immoral"? Can some Wikipedia editors read his mind and determine that he is lying when he says these things?
This is reminiscent of the smear campaign that statists have perpetrated against Herbert Spencer, who was in no way a proponent of "social Darwinism".
GreenWeasel11 ( talk) 01:52, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
all supposed "reliable sources" are anti-purple, and reliable sources are defined as sources who have a reputation of actually checking sources, then people who have a reputation of actually checking sources have a tendency to disagree with the purple ideology. This happens when the purple ideology is based on lies, and it is a desirable outcome. Because, you know, Wikipedia is not supposed to give truth and untruth the same weight.
Unfortunately it is stated as fact that he is a "white supremacists", eliding over the actual facts. The author here is saying that because he interviews avowed white supremacists he is one. Obviously this is worse than inaccuracy. The is calculated subversion of the truth. For some reason this subversion always occurs to the left, i.e., denigrating conservatives. This would be like saying Wikipedia is a white supremacist site because it reports on similar sites. He actually said his opinions that "[no] race is 'superior' or 'inferior'" and "Eugenics is a government program that uses force to control people’s reproductive choices and is utterly immoral"?
As others have said here, can some Wikipedia editors read his mind and determine that he is lying when he says these things?
"This is reminiscent of the smear campaign that statists have perpetrated against Herbert Spencer, who was in no way a proponent of "social Darwinism"." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:579:E128:D00:81A5:4994:7714:6EB0 ( talk) 00:22, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Stefan Molyneux has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Article claims Stefan Molyneux is a white nationalist and white supremacist. Sources point to mainstream media sources that describe the bans, but point to no evidence of these claims. Sources should provide proof and evidence of these claims, otherwise it is disinformation. I suggest these blanket politically charged terms be removed. Voxpiratica ( talk) 07:39, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
He is known for being an anarchist siding toward anarcho-capitalism. He is not at all known for white supremacism but I notice in the charge toward a surveillance state with medical procedures violating the Nuremberg Code (instituted because of real right-wing extremists in the form of the Third Reich), that many people decrying violations of ancient liberties for all mankind described in the Universal Declaration, have been falsely accused of being right-wing extremists by those who have no problems with death clinics in Holland, surveillance apparatus in the UK or the general destruction of human rights.
I'm not even a Stefan Molyneux fan as his philosophy is not fully thought out but I and anyone who has ever given ear to him could in no way, shape or form see him as a white supremacists. Infact the white supremacists would consider him a loonie liberal who is too soft. This whole article to the extent I've read it appears like a very blatant attempt at character assasination. He has been in strong opposition to the surveillance state, the censorship and the misportrayal of stories on the mainstream media as this extremely authoritarian right wing extremist regime has been constructed all around us now exactly mimicking the Third Reich without swastkas and better technology. There is no way he is a white supremacist but he is a staunch capitalist which would be a more accurate criticism to make. This article is extremely false. To call it misleading would be an understatement. My opinion is that its substantial parts were written by the real white supremacists accusing anything that's a threat to their covert ideology of being what they truly are. That they are creating surveillance state can no longer be regarded as a theory. We live in the very proof of the conspiracy.
Stefan Molyneux is a captalist who will exploit workers in the anarchy he hopes for but he is no white supremacist which is associated with white nationalism and the power of the state. He is vociferously against the states existence. There are real criticisms that could be laid against him but this article isnt even critical of him. Its just character assasination no doubt by the real nazis proud of the supreme power of the surveillance state.
PS The articles cited dont even mention Stefan Molyneux. They're just links that mention the right wing. They contain the same amount of proof Barrack Obama is a white supremacist. This being locked in such a false state highlights moderator incompetency or perhaps even bitterness ... let me guess she voted to remain in the Fourth Reich and oppressed free speech aired is hate crime right?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.192.6 ( talk) 23:14, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
How is he "best known for his promotion of conspiracy theories, scientific racism, eugenics, and racist views" when most of his work is on peaceful parenting? what evidence is that he is best known for those things as opposed to be someones very biased opinion of Stefan's work? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.6.40.247 ( talk) 04:19, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
That didnt answer my question at all. Phrase "best known" is 100% subjective and certainly not within wikipedia guidelines. Some biased writers could publish whatever they want about him (or anyone else), but if he had 100mil+ views on youtube about other stuff, including peaceful parenting, then he is verifiably better known for peaceful parenting than what those "reliable" sources quote him on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.6.40.247 ( talk) 00:05, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The bias and outright libel in this article is laughable. I challenge anyone to compare this article to the one for Hitler. Wikipedia describes literal Nazis, and people who murdered millions of people, in more charitable terms than it does for modern day political conservatives, whom the authors of this article clearly know nothing about. This site is becoming a parody of itself. I used to donate heavily to Wikipedia. I will no longer fund outright propaganda trash like this. I think the admins deserve most of the blame for this, as they auto-revert any corrections to these articles, and then ban anyone challenging their own reversions. Play whatever games you want. I hope you enjoy funding the site by yourself.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.188.173.189 ( talk • contribs) 18:55, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Stefan Molyneux has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I'll begin by quoting a from Wikipedia Rules and Guidelines,
"Misinformation on Wikipedia misleads readers, causing them to make errors with real consequences, including hurt feelings, public embarrassment,[1] reprints of books,[2] lost points on school assignments, and other costs. Some hoaxes about living people may be defamatory, which could expose Wikipedia to legal consequences (see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons)"
The Wikipedia article on Stefan Molyneux is objectively false. All of the sources referenced regarding the accusations against him are, at best gross exaggerations and at best outright lies. To verify I have poured over Stefan's work to verify the claims of the cited articles and none of them are accurate. There is no indication in any of Stefan's work to indicate he is a white supremacist or white nationalist. There is also no evidence that he promotes scientific racism, or racism of any kind. Whasty1991 ( talk) 09:26, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Re "Molyneux describes himself as being a philosopher"
"Mr. Molyneux holds a Masters Degree in History from the University of Toronto; his graduate thesis focused on the History of Philosophy, detailing the relationship between the metaphysical arguments and the political ethics of major Western philosophers such as Plato, Kant, Locke and Hegel." https://www.freedomain.com/about-stefan-molyneux/
- bit more than a self-description...? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.115.97.158 ( talk) 14:47, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
That YouTube clip doesn’t say he now believes white nationalism. Theknightswhosay ( talk) 09:45, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Collapsed per
WP:FORUM
|
---|
The intro is slanderous and doesn't cite any reliable sources. Plainly put it's BS. How about writing that "in the opinion of such and such the person is X, Y and Z but in the opinion of such and such the person is A, B and C". Here's what the man himself has to say about such slander https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9L0dPKpfHRA . If Big Tech policies and mainstream media are anything to go by, in this day and age there're more racists and white supremacists than there have ever been in history. The fact that so many people suddenly turn out to be racists, far right, white supremacists should raise questions as to validity of the claims which deem them such. One could accuse anyone of myriad other things and yet the main accusations are those listed above, why is that? That's simply because they stem from political bias of the slanderers, highlight things which are at the core of their ideology. And nothing else. This page /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_reliable_source asserts that WIKI isn't a reliable source. And in the case of this article i'm in complete agreement with the assertion. LXNDR ( talk) 08:05, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Do we use people’s own words to characterize their views? Surely not! Theknightswhosay ( talk) 09:40, 29 May 2021 (UTC) Anything that isn’t consistently lying on behalf of the left isn’t considered a reliable source here anymore. Theknightswhosay ( talk) 09:42, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
|
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This is a broad problem that Wikipedia is having: The mainstream media has become so tendentious in its reporting, it is no longer helpful to simply use a cite in which an article from a news source which contains an adjective and have it be at all valid. Stefan Molyneux is a good case in point. I've watched his videos, when they were on You Tube, quite a number. I am not a fan, I agree with some things he says, not with others. Sometimes interesting, sometimes not so much. At no point, however, would I ever call him a White Supremacist or even vaguely racist. He is provocative but not in any way the article outrightly states. It is a poorly written and, almost to the point of being parody, sourced article. One sees this from the the outset when it uses the Southern Poverty Law Center as an authority; that's a problem right there since they have long ago simply used their once respectable name to slander people with whom they disagree politically.
This really surprised me, that Wikipedia would keep an article like this up after such a large number of people have pointed out its various inadequacies. My specific point is that the sources used to ostensibly support the adjectives used to describe this commentator do not provide any substantive evidence; they simply print various descriptive words, which are then repeated here. I've now seen this in article after article on Wikipedia and it seems to be a persistent and pernicious problem - and a growing one. This entire article should be rewritten with actual statements or examples which support the extreme nature of the vilification set forth here. This is not a factual, not even fact-oriented, article. It reads like it was written by someone who dislikes the guy and doesn't care to disguise the hostility -- which is exactly what harms Wikipedia the most. I fear for Wiki's reputation as a neutral encyclopedia-style source, and have read and helped edit articles in small ways for many years now, so that is disconcerting to say the least.
Wikipedia is in danger of losing something quite special, and that is its ability to stay above the political harshness that is besetting the broader culture, this article is an egregious example of it. I really don't care too much about Stefan Molyneux, but I do care about Wiki -- and this is not a credit to its reputation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sychonic ( talk • contribs) 23:27, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
I attempted to add a publications section listing a few of Molyneaux's notable published Titles and Documentaries, similar to what appears on the pages of other published authors. Within a day the entire section was deleted. The reason given was: "see WP:SELFSOURCE and WP:PLOT for why we didn't include this already". However, all points listed at those links are irrelevant.
Furthermore, on other author's pages, a list of published works on an author's page is included as standard, as it is relevant information that improves the encyclopedia. For example: Noam Chomsky, Sam Harris, Dave Rubin, Ben Shapiro.
Clearly a "Publications" section should be included for Molyneaux just as it is for other authors.
Mherzl ( talk) 03:25, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
notable published Titles and Documentaries. Notable in Wikipedia jargon means independently notable. All of the other authors you mention have had their works discussed in at least some depth by reliable, independent sources.
The distinction between corporate-published and self-published is not material to whether the works should be listed. For example, Michael Malice's "The Anarchist Handbook", is a self-published work which yet still appears in the
publications section of Malice's Wikipedia page. Any ambiguity about which kind of publishing was used can be resolved by adding a single word, not by removing the entire publications section.
Independent sources are easy to find via a simple search query. The books are listed on goodreads, and the documentaries on imdb.
Mherzl ( talk) 05:52, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
The distinction between corporate-published and self-published is not relevant in this context because the article's statement concerns the works themselves. Please review the Acceptable use of self-published works section of Wikipedia’s policies regarding identifying and using self-published works. Note point 3, I will quote it here:
"A self-published work may be used as a source when the statement concerns the source itself. For example, for the statement 'The organization purchased full-page advertisements in major newspapers advocating gun control,' the advertisement(s) in question could be cited as sources, even though advertisements are self-published."
The "published works" section states that Molyneaux has written and published these works. Since their existence is evidence of that, an independent source beyond the works themselves is not required to verify that fact.
The list of an author's published works is relevant information which should be included on the author's page. That's why it is included for other authors, such as all other authors mentioned prior in this discussion, whether their works were corporate-published or self-published. Furthermore, the publications section also represents the author's point-of-view, and thus its inclusion is required per Wikipedia's neutrality principle.
Quoting from the "Neutral point of view" page: "This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus."
Mherzl ( talk) 01:12, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
relevant" simply because you tell us it is "
relevant". Relevance is decided by consensus, and that ultimately is based on reliable, independent sources. It is not enough for this to be WP:VERIFIABLE, it also has to be WP:DUE.
unduly self-serving- ie. WP:DUE means that listing anything here carries an implication of "these are noteworthy books this person has written, and significant things they have done"; and we cannot rely on the person themselves for that assertion. But even beyond that, WP:SELFSOURCE merely allows the usage of such sources for trivial biographical details; it doesn't mandate them. You still have to illustrate that eg. a particular publication passes WP:DUE to cover it, and I don't see how a self-published work can be due when there's no secondary coverage of it. -- Aquillion ( talk) 06:54, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject.
I am glad to see that some of the points I have raised now appear to be understood. For example, I hope it is sufficiently clear that self-sourcing is in fact valid for self-referenced material. In case anyone was still doubting that, please notice the work that Grayfell, in attempt to demonstrate his opposing claim, has removed from Malice's published works section. He has removed an actual Amazon bestseller, claiming that it "is extremely obscure per WorldCat". Perhaps he doesn't realize "The Anarchist's Handbook" was #1 nonfiction, and #3 overall, on Amazon's bestseller list. That work should not have been removed from Malice's published works section. And similarly, the self-published works should not have been removed here.
Verifiability has been demonstrated, now consider whether the works are sufficiently relevant for inclusion: The most salient works written by an author are sufficiently relevant for inclusion on that author's page. Full stop. If an author is sufficiently notable to have a page written about him, then his most salient works are sufficiently notable for inclusion upon it. In other words: if Molyneaux's most salient published works are not sufficiently notable for inclusion, then Molyneaux himself is insufficiently notable and the entire page must be deleted. Publications are some of the more obvious information to include about any author.
So both reliability and relevance have each been demonstrated. Now consider how the NPOV principle is relevant here. As MPAnts quoted, the NPOV policy states: "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." Given that the subject of the page is Molyneaux himself, his own works are clearly some of the most reliable published material relevant to the subject of the page. Thus, not only *should* the works be included per Wikipedia's norms, they actually *must* be included per Wikipedia's NPOV principle. Currently material published by others about Molyneaux have undue weight, and the NPOV principle demands representation of his own works. Since the NPOV principle is violated by the removal of the publications section, consensus is irrelevant; the publications simply must be included. Mherzl ( talk) 01:45, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
the most salient works written by an author are sufficiently relevant for inclusion on that author's page", this is, to borrow a phrase, "not an argument". This claim has not been supported, nor is it self-evident, since multiple editors here have disputed this claim. Further, how "salient" something is would be demonstrated by reliable, independent sources. You, as an editor, are not a reliable source for what is and is not "salient". Likewise, per WP:SOAP, Moyneux himself is not a usable source for what is and is not "salient".
his own works are clearly some of the most reliable published material relevant to the subject of the page", as several editors have tried to explain to you, this isn't how Wikipedia works. Saying something is "clear" doesn't make it clear. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a public relations platform. Again, as has already been explained here, Wikipedia articles strongly favor WP:RS. Your comments about consensus and neutrality are simply incorrect. This is not more neutral merely because you proclaim it to be more neutral. Your opinions about neutrality are not a justification for edit warring. Grayfell ( talk) 03:25, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Stefan Molyneux has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
You need to remove "far right, White supremacist", this is pure nonsense. Your site is just full of left wing extremist rhetoric. 72.138.200.245 ( talk) 02:32, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi! Re the claim "Molyneux is also an active voice in the climate change denial movement]" I consulted the reference ("The Nature and Nuance of Climate Change Skepticism in the United States") because the transition from "denial" to "skepticism" caught my attention. My surprise was, however, that Molyneux isn't named anywhere in the cited article. Per WP guidelines a better source is needed to justify the claim. Thanks in advance to those who can edit the article & will do so with due sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.245.191.151 ( talk • contribs) 10:43, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
OK, can we have a quote or a better source? Slatersteven ( talk) 09:49, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
I think we can close this, the IP raised (even if badly) a valid concern, and it has now been dealt with. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:57, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Around the time the film came out, [the interviewee] began exploring the issue of climate change. Via YouTube and other online sources, he discovered the voices of those involved in the climate denial movement such as Alex Jones, Stefan Molyneux, and Christopher Monckton. Mark believes that the United Nations is orchestrating the “hoax” of climate change. He contends: [...].
This was back when Wikipedia still had the pretense of NPOV and didn't go fishing for the craziest 1% of journalists to quote every snarl word they can find to put in the lead section: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Stefan_Molyneux&oldid=722173038
These journalists calling him a "white nationalist" are the journalistic equivalent of fringe-theories in science articles. It is impossible for an anarcho-capitalist to be any sort of nationalist. 2600:8801:20C:7500:30FE:3AF6:2A52:6B3 ( talk) 05:44, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 |
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.
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.
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)
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)
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.”
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."
Fzimmerman ( talk) 06:32, 26 July 2020 (UTC)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.
"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)
"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)
"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)
"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)
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)
what would outweigh that would be if he started refuting his earlier white nationalist ideasOnly if reliable sources mentioned that, of course. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 06:49, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
"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)
…Why does this article confidently assert that the man is a "white nationalist" and "white supremacist" "known for his promotion of…eugenics" when he clearly states [1] his opinions that "[no] race is 'superior' or 'inferior'" and "Eugenics is a government program that uses force to control people’s reproductive choices and is utterly immoral"? Can some Wikipedia editors read his mind and determine that he is lying when he says these things?
This is reminiscent of the smear campaign that statists have perpetrated against Herbert Spencer, who was in no way a proponent of "social Darwinism".
GreenWeasel11 ( talk) 01:52, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
all supposed "reliable sources" are anti-purple, and reliable sources are defined as sources who have a reputation of actually checking sources, then people who have a reputation of actually checking sources have a tendency to disagree with the purple ideology. This happens when the purple ideology is based on lies, and it is a desirable outcome. Because, you know, Wikipedia is not supposed to give truth and untruth the same weight.
Unfortunately it is stated as fact that he is a "white supremacists", eliding over the actual facts. The author here is saying that because he interviews avowed white supremacists he is one. Obviously this is worse than inaccuracy. The is calculated subversion of the truth. For some reason this subversion always occurs to the left, i.e., denigrating conservatives. This would be like saying Wikipedia is a white supremacist site because it reports on similar sites. He actually said his opinions that "[no] race is 'superior' or 'inferior'" and "Eugenics is a government program that uses force to control people’s reproductive choices and is utterly immoral"?
As others have said here, can some Wikipedia editors read his mind and determine that he is lying when he says these things?
"This is reminiscent of the smear campaign that statists have perpetrated against Herbert Spencer, who was in no way a proponent of "social Darwinism"." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:579:E128:D00:81A5:4994:7714:6EB0 ( talk) 00:22, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Stefan Molyneux has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Article claims Stefan Molyneux is a white nationalist and white supremacist. Sources point to mainstream media sources that describe the bans, but point to no evidence of these claims. Sources should provide proof and evidence of these claims, otherwise it is disinformation. I suggest these blanket politically charged terms be removed. Voxpiratica ( talk) 07:39, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
He is known for being an anarchist siding toward anarcho-capitalism. He is not at all known for white supremacism but I notice in the charge toward a surveillance state with medical procedures violating the Nuremberg Code (instituted because of real right-wing extremists in the form of the Third Reich), that many people decrying violations of ancient liberties for all mankind described in the Universal Declaration, have been falsely accused of being right-wing extremists by those who have no problems with death clinics in Holland, surveillance apparatus in the UK or the general destruction of human rights.
I'm not even a Stefan Molyneux fan as his philosophy is not fully thought out but I and anyone who has ever given ear to him could in no way, shape or form see him as a white supremacists. Infact the white supremacists would consider him a loonie liberal who is too soft. This whole article to the extent I've read it appears like a very blatant attempt at character assasination. He has been in strong opposition to the surveillance state, the censorship and the misportrayal of stories on the mainstream media as this extremely authoritarian right wing extremist regime has been constructed all around us now exactly mimicking the Third Reich without swastkas and better technology. There is no way he is a white supremacist but he is a staunch capitalist which would be a more accurate criticism to make. This article is extremely false. To call it misleading would be an understatement. My opinion is that its substantial parts were written by the real white supremacists accusing anything that's a threat to their covert ideology of being what they truly are. That they are creating surveillance state can no longer be regarded as a theory. We live in the very proof of the conspiracy.
Stefan Molyneux is a captalist who will exploit workers in the anarchy he hopes for but he is no white supremacist which is associated with white nationalism and the power of the state. He is vociferously against the states existence. There are real criticisms that could be laid against him but this article isnt even critical of him. Its just character assasination no doubt by the real nazis proud of the supreme power of the surveillance state.
PS The articles cited dont even mention Stefan Molyneux. They're just links that mention the right wing. They contain the same amount of proof Barrack Obama is a white supremacist. This being locked in such a false state highlights moderator incompetency or perhaps even bitterness ... let me guess she voted to remain in the Fourth Reich and oppressed free speech aired is hate crime right?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.192.6 ( talk) 23:14, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
How is he "best known for his promotion of conspiracy theories, scientific racism, eugenics, and racist views" when most of his work is on peaceful parenting? what evidence is that he is best known for those things as opposed to be someones very biased opinion of Stefan's work? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.6.40.247 ( talk) 04:19, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
That didnt answer my question at all. Phrase "best known" is 100% subjective and certainly not within wikipedia guidelines. Some biased writers could publish whatever they want about him (or anyone else), but if he had 100mil+ views on youtube about other stuff, including peaceful parenting, then he is verifiably better known for peaceful parenting than what those "reliable" sources quote him on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.6.40.247 ( talk) 00:05, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The bias and outright libel in this article is laughable. I challenge anyone to compare this article to the one for Hitler. Wikipedia describes literal Nazis, and people who murdered millions of people, in more charitable terms than it does for modern day political conservatives, whom the authors of this article clearly know nothing about. This site is becoming a parody of itself. I used to donate heavily to Wikipedia. I will no longer fund outright propaganda trash like this. I think the admins deserve most of the blame for this, as they auto-revert any corrections to these articles, and then ban anyone challenging their own reversions. Play whatever games you want. I hope you enjoy funding the site by yourself.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.188.173.189 ( talk • contribs) 18:55, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Stefan Molyneux has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I'll begin by quoting a from Wikipedia Rules and Guidelines,
"Misinformation on Wikipedia misleads readers, causing them to make errors with real consequences, including hurt feelings, public embarrassment,[1] reprints of books,[2] lost points on school assignments, and other costs. Some hoaxes about living people may be defamatory, which could expose Wikipedia to legal consequences (see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons)"
The Wikipedia article on Stefan Molyneux is objectively false. All of the sources referenced regarding the accusations against him are, at best gross exaggerations and at best outright lies. To verify I have poured over Stefan's work to verify the claims of the cited articles and none of them are accurate. There is no indication in any of Stefan's work to indicate he is a white supremacist or white nationalist. There is also no evidence that he promotes scientific racism, or racism of any kind. Whasty1991 ( talk) 09:26, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Re "Molyneux describes himself as being a philosopher"
"Mr. Molyneux holds a Masters Degree in History from the University of Toronto; his graduate thesis focused on the History of Philosophy, detailing the relationship between the metaphysical arguments and the political ethics of major Western philosophers such as Plato, Kant, Locke and Hegel." https://www.freedomain.com/about-stefan-molyneux/
- bit more than a self-description...? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.115.97.158 ( talk) 14:47, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
That YouTube clip doesn’t say he now believes white nationalism. Theknightswhosay ( talk) 09:45, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Collapsed per
WP:FORUM
|
---|
The intro is slanderous and doesn't cite any reliable sources. Plainly put it's BS. How about writing that "in the opinion of such and such the person is X, Y and Z but in the opinion of such and such the person is A, B and C". Here's what the man himself has to say about such slander https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9L0dPKpfHRA . If Big Tech policies and mainstream media are anything to go by, in this day and age there're more racists and white supremacists than there have ever been in history. The fact that so many people suddenly turn out to be racists, far right, white supremacists should raise questions as to validity of the claims which deem them such. One could accuse anyone of myriad other things and yet the main accusations are those listed above, why is that? That's simply because they stem from political bias of the slanderers, highlight things which are at the core of their ideology. And nothing else. This page /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_reliable_source asserts that WIKI isn't a reliable source. And in the case of this article i'm in complete agreement with the assertion. LXNDR ( talk) 08:05, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Do we use people’s own words to characterize their views? Surely not! Theknightswhosay ( talk) 09:40, 29 May 2021 (UTC) Anything that isn’t consistently lying on behalf of the left isn’t considered a reliable source here anymore. Theknightswhosay ( talk) 09:42, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
|
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This is a broad problem that Wikipedia is having: The mainstream media has become so tendentious in its reporting, it is no longer helpful to simply use a cite in which an article from a news source which contains an adjective and have it be at all valid. Stefan Molyneux is a good case in point. I've watched his videos, when they were on You Tube, quite a number. I am not a fan, I agree with some things he says, not with others. Sometimes interesting, sometimes not so much. At no point, however, would I ever call him a White Supremacist or even vaguely racist. He is provocative but not in any way the article outrightly states. It is a poorly written and, almost to the point of being parody, sourced article. One sees this from the the outset when it uses the Southern Poverty Law Center as an authority; that's a problem right there since they have long ago simply used their once respectable name to slander people with whom they disagree politically.
This really surprised me, that Wikipedia would keep an article like this up after such a large number of people have pointed out its various inadequacies. My specific point is that the sources used to ostensibly support the adjectives used to describe this commentator do not provide any substantive evidence; they simply print various descriptive words, which are then repeated here. I've now seen this in article after article on Wikipedia and it seems to be a persistent and pernicious problem - and a growing one. This entire article should be rewritten with actual statements or examples which support the extreme nature of the vilification set forth here. This is not a factual, not even fact-oriented, article. It reads like it was written by someone who dislikes the guy and doesn't care to disguise the hostility -- which is exactly what harms Wikipedia the most. I fear for Wiki's reputation as a neutral encyclopedia-style source, and have read and helped edit articles in small ways for many years now, so that is disconcerting to say the least.
Wikipedia is in danger of losing something quite special, and that is its ability to stay above the political harshness that is besetting the broader culture, this article is an egregious example of it. I really don't care too much about Stefan Molyneux, but I do care about Wiki -- and this is not a credit to its reputation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sychonic ( talk • contribs) 23:27, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
I attempted to add a publications section listing a few of Molyneaux's notable published Titles and Documentaries, similar to what appears on the pages of other published authors. Within a day the entire section was deleted. The reason given was: "see WP:SELFSOURCE and WP:PLOT for why we didn't include this already". However, all points listed at those links are irrelevant.
Furthermore, on other author's pages, a list of published works on an author's page is included as standard, as it is relevant information that improves the encyclopedia. For example: Noam Chomsky, Sam Harris, Dave Rubin, Ben Shapiro.
Clearly a "Publications" section should be included for Molyneaux just as it is for other authors.
Mherzl ( talk) 03:25, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
notable published Titles and Documentaries. Notable in Wikipedia jargon means independently notable. All of the other authors you mention have had their works discussed in at least some depth by reliable, independent sources.
The distinction between corporate-published and self-published is not material to whether the works should be listed. For example, Michael Malice's "The Anarchist Handbook", is a self-published work which yet still appears in the
publications section of Malice's Wikipedia page. Any ambiguity about which kind of publishing was used can be resolved by adding a single word, not by removing the entire publications section.
Independent sources are easy to find via a simple search query. The books are listed on goodreads, and the documentaries on imdb.
Mherzl ( talk) 05:52, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
The distinction between corporate-published and self-published is not relevant in this context because the article's statement concerns the works themselves. Please review the Acceptable use of self-published works section of Wikipedia’s policies regarding identifying and using self-published works. Note point 3, I will quote it here:
"A self-published work may be used as a source when the statement concerns the source itself. For example, for the statement 'The organization purchased full-page advertisements in major newspapers advocating gun control,' the advertisement(s) in question could be cited as sources, even though advertisements are self-published."
The "published works" section states that Molyneaux has written and published these works. Since their existence is evidence of that, an independent source beyond the works themselves is not required to verify that fact.
The list of an author's published works is relevant information which should be included on the author's page. That's why it is included for other authors, such as all other authors mentioned prior in this discussion, whether their works were corporate-published or self-published. Furthermore, the publications section also represents the author's point-of-view, and thus its inclusion is required per Wikipedia's neutrality principle.
Quoting from the "Neutral point of view" page: "This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus."
Mherzl ( talk) 01:12, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
relevant" simply because you tell us it is "
relevant". Relevance is decided by consensus, and that ultimately is based on reliable, independent sources. It is not enough for this to be WP:VERIFIABLE, it also has to be WP:DUE.
unduly self-serving- ie. WP:DUE means that listing anything here carries an implication of "these are noteworthy books this person has written, and significant things they have done"; and we cannot rely on the person themselves for that assertion. But even beyond that, WP:SELFSOURCE merely allows the usage of such sources for trivial biographical details; it doesn't mandate them. You still have to illustrate that eg. a particular publication passes WP:DUE to cover it, and I don't see how a self-published work can be due when there's no secondary coverage of it. -- Aquillion ( talk) 06:54, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject.
I am glad to see that some of the points I have raised now appear to be understood. For example, I hope it is sufficiently clear that self-sourcing is in fact valid for self-referenced material. In case anyone was still doubting that, please notice the work that Grayfell, in attempt to demonstrate his opposing claim, has removed from Malice's published works section. He has removed an actual Amazon bestseller, claiming that it "is extremely obscure per WorldCat". Perhaps he doesn't realize "The Anarchist's Handbook" was #1 nonfiction, and #3 overall, on Amazon's bestseller list. That work should not have been removed from Malice's published works section. And similarly, the self-published works should not have been removed here.
Verifiability has been demonstrated, now consider whether the works are sufficiently relevant for inclusion: The most salient works written by an author are sufficiently relevant for inclusion on that author's page. Full stop. If an author is sufficiently notable to have a page written about him, then his most salient works are sufficiently notable for inclusion upon it. In other words: if Molyneaux's most salient published works are not sufficiently notable for inclusion, then Molyneaux himself is insufficiently notable and the entire page must be deleted. Publications are some of the more obvious information to include about any author.
So both reliability and relevance have each been demonstrated. Now consider how the NPOV principle is relevant here. As MPAnts quoted, the NPOV policy states: "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." Given that the subject of the page is Molyneaux himself, his own works are clearly some of the most reliable published material relevant to the subject of the page. Thus, not only *should* the works be included per Wikipedia's norms, they actually *must* be included per Wikipedia's NPOV principle. Currently material published by others about Molyneaux have undue weight, and the NPOV principle demands representation of his own works. Since the NPOV principle is violated by the removal of the publications section, consensus is irrelevant; the publications simply must be included. Mherzl ( talk) 01:45, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
the most salient works written by an author are sufficiently relevant for inclusion on that author's page", this is, to borrow a phrase, "not an argument". This claim has not been supported, nor is it self-evident, since multiple editors here have disputed this claim. Further, how "salient" something is would be demonstrated by reliable, independent sources. You, as an editor, are not a reliable source for what is and is not "salient". Likewise, per WP:SOAP, Moyneux himself is not a usable source for what is and is not "salient".
his own works are clearly some of the most reliable published material relevant to the subject of the page", as several editors have tried to explain to you, this isn't how Wikipedia works. Saying something is "clear" doesn't make it clear. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a public relations platform. Again, as has already been explained here, Wikipedia articles strongly favor WP:RS. Your comments about consensus and neutrality are simply incorrect. This is not more neutral merely because you proclaim it to be more neutral. Your opinions about neutrality are not a justification for edit warring. Grayfell ( talk) 03:25, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Stefan Molyneux has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
You need to remove "far right, White supremacist", this is pure nonsense. Your site is just full of left wing extremist rhetoric. 72.138.200.245 ( talk) 02:32, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi! Re the claim "Molyneux is also an active voice in the climate change denial movement]" I consulted the reference ("The Nature and Nuance of Climate Change Skepticism in the United States") because the transition from "denial" to "skepticism" caught my attention. My surprise was, however, that Molyneux isn't named anywhere in the cited article. Per WP guidelines a better source is needed to justify the claim. Thanks in advance to those who can edit the article & will do so with due sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.245.191.151 ( talk • contribs) 10:43, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
OK, can we have a quote or a better source? Slatersteven ( talk) 09:49, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
I think we can close this, the IP raised (even if badly) a valid concern, and it has now been dealt with. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:57, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Around the time the film came out, [the interviewee] began exploring the issue of climate change. Via YouTube and other online sources, he discovered the voices of those involved in the climate denial movement such as Alex Jones, Stefan Molyneux, and Christopher Monckton. Mark believes that the United Nations is orchestrating the “hoax” of climate change. He contends: [...].
This was back when Wikipedia still had the pretense of NPOV and didn't go fishing for the craziest 1% of journalists to quote every snarl word they can find to put in the lead section: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Stefan_Molyneux&oldid=722173038
These journalists calling him a "white nationalist" are the journalistic equivalent of fringe-theories in science articles. It is impossible for an anarcho-capitalist to be any sort of nationalist. 2600:8801:20C:7500:30FE:3AF6:2A52:6B3 ( talk) 05:44, 17 August 2021 (UTC)