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 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
Criticism sections are discouraged by wikipedia style guides. The (extensive) controvery section should be folded into the main text. Ashmoo ( talk) 13:45, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
I removed the reference to the Chomsky interview because it was included in a list of interviews and debates, and it was merely an interview. Its not clear why the interviews and the debates should exist in one single list, as it just makes it vague as to whether or not Molyneux has interviewed or debated each person in the list. A person more familiar with Molyneux's work should take the time to verify who Molyneux has actually interviewed and who he has debated and clearly state as much. I have removed the reference to the chomsky interview so at least the statement is possibly true right now. The entire statement should be removed if no one is willing to determine who Molyneux has debated and who he has interviewed, but I figured I'd wait for someone to correct it before deleting. 74.79.240.188 ( talk) 01:07, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Being called the leader of a therapy cult because of someone else's actions that were not under direction is unfair to say the least. I believe Tom Weed is responsible for his own actions and no one should be made responsible for them. Having watched the video it's clear he was putting forward an opinion/theory and did not tell him to do anything. I think a section on deFOOing is fine but everything currently in it should be removed including the part which mentions the actions of his wife. -- Mralan101 ( talk) 18:57, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
DeFOOing, or at least cutting one's family ties following Molyneux's extremely loose criterions is de facto absolutely unsupported by any professionals -- with the exception of Molyneux's wife who, for this very reason, has been sanctioned by Canadian authorities of her profession. That deFOOing is pseudo-scientific practice and that it is characteristic to cult-like organizations should be mentioned immediately at the deFOOing-section, and not merely at the criticism section. This is normal wiki-standards concerning neutrality. c.f., in Astrology -article the fact that astrology is regarded as a pseudo-science by the scientific community is pointed out right at the beginning of the article, and not merely at the bottom of it in "criticism"-section. Likewise, neutrality demands that the fact that deFOOing is unanimously considered humbug-threrapy and a dangerous doctrine characteristic of cult-like organizations; if the article does not emphasize what is common knowledge within community of genuine specialists, it is biased and non-neutral. -- Raži ( talk) 08:47, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Defoo.org is Molyneux's own webpage, just like freedmanradio.com. It is RS. See WP:BLP. As to the other sources see below. In the context of a mere blogger, these sources are in my opinion completely RS. They are specialist opinions, and are not libelous in nature. At least they should be mentioned in criticism section, but as deFOOing M's way has zero support in scientific community, I stand behind my view that neutrality demands that this be mentioned right at the start. -- Raži ( talk) 02:12, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
The quotation from David Cooperson is from webpage https://www.freedomofmind.com section "group listing". See freedomain radio on their list: https://www.freedomofmind.com/Info/list.php Freedomofmind.com is a cult-information source apparently upheld by Steven A. Hassan ( https://therapists.psychologytoday.com/rms/prof_detail.php?profid=108149&p=10), Steve Guziec and Rachel Bernstein. Specialist opinion: "Steven Hassan is a compelling spokesman on the topic of cult mind control, which encompasses issues of human identity and our innate psychological vulnerability to dissociate. In addition, he educates and challenges us to think about the groups using mind control techniques in our culture, and how to help those affected reclaim their lives. His commitment to this neglected area of human experience is exemplary. At my invitation, Steven has taught psychiatry residents at Brigham and Women's Hospital about these issues for the last 14 years. Knowledge of these issues is crucial for all mental health professionals." -- Mary K. McCarthy, M.D. Harvard Medical School. It is a genuine source, not just " a blog" contrary to what some editors have claimed, and the quotation has the full right to be where it is. -- Raži ( talk) 17:04, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Molyneux is an outspoken Trump supporter and racist now. He doesn't even claim to be a libertarian anymore. This page should be updated accordingly. Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZzeC06hVvA — Preceding unsigned comment added by MinnesotanConfederacy ( talk • contribs) 18:26, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Certainly. I'm actually really surprised there's no mention of the fact that he constantly talks about how third world people have very low IQs and how "race matters". Seems like this should be mentioned on here since he's done dozens of videos about it and often invited on white nationalists such as Jared Taylor on his show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.234.39.69 ( talk) 13:56, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
User:Netholic has removed for a second time a chunk of material discussing Molyneux's deFOOing. User:Raži appears to be the main advocate for including this subject and claims that the sources meet WP:RS, but it's clear there's disagreement, including User:Srich32977.
Can we get some references outside of Molyneux and his obvious opponents to write something better? Molyneux's own website is a primary source, but can be used to establish that he advocates certain views. Those views cannot go completely unanswered in a balanced article. Are these views a notable aspect of Molyneux's body of work (I admit I listened to quite a few of his podcasts without ever encountering the concept of deFOOing and first came across it here)? As a YouTube and podcast personality, I suppose it's not too surprising that there is not a lot of mainstream coverage. —jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 21:57, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Comments by topic-banned editor |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
In this edit, I improved the Ann Coulter reference (replacing primary source with secondary news), added another notable guest with a solid news ref, and removed an WP:OR interpretation of a primary sourced ref. I was reverted on technicality, so I ask that editors interested in improving this article please restore that edit. I feel these are uncontroversial, clear improvements. -- Netoholic @ 20:21, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
|
Ann Coulter has Infobox philosopher when she's more of a pundit. Why does this page not have Infobox philosopher? Stoodpointt ( talk) 23:02, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Also there's an old photo of him when he was young when he had blonde hair. I've only seen it on YouTube videos so it's not a good copy but this would be a good pic to get. Even if it can't be uploaded, it would be good to link to. Stoodpointt ( talk) 23:02, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Comments about and by Topic Banned editor |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The user is topic-banned [1]. The user has been repeatedly warned that he/she is topic-banned [2], yet the user persists in editing this article [3]. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 09:14, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
|
The article states that 20 out of 50k FDR members have disassociated from their parents, or 0.04%. If you look at statistics of child abuse, that would be way more than 0.04%, so the number sounds reasonable. It's ridiculous to compare this to a cult like Scientology, which tries to get 100% of its members to disassociate from their unbeliever families, while Wikipedia is reluctant to call Scientology a cult. Also there's a big difference between disassociating from an abusive parent in rare cases versus routinely disassociating from one's entire family (including siblings, aunts and uncles, etc). Scientology advocates the latter, Molyneux advocates the former.
There are structural problems in journalists' incentives that make it unlikely for any RS to ever bother to publish a debunking of the cult claim, even if is false (which it is): 1. Cassandras get more attention than Polyannas. If it bleeds it leads. The story "this guy you never heard of is a cult leader bogeyman" is sexier and more interesting than "this guy you never heard of is not really cult leader". 2. Journalists don't want to appear to be defending a guy that almost all journalists are politically opposed to. 3. Journalists are eager to believe dirt on a guy that almost all journalists are politically opposed to.
"Subtle" distinctions like the difference between cutting ties with a specific abusive family member (as any reasonable person might do) vs. cutting ties with one's entire family (as cults do) are unlikely to be thought about in the rush to find dirt on someone that almost all journalists already hate for political and ideological reasons. [1]
The problem with wikipedia is that it eschews reason and evidence: instead it just does a he-said-she-said in which the only people who are allowed to say anything are journalists and academics, both of which groups are overwhelmingly left wing. These journalists & academics are not required to provide valid arguments or evidence to back up their claims -- membership in the caste alone is sufficient to get their views parroted by wikipedia. Plus, even the subset of journalists and academics who aren't left wing are often discounted as non-RS without any real evidence of their being any less reliable than NYT or Chomsky. Jwray ( talk) 03:00, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
References
"While it may be appropriate to recommend family separation in cases of abuse, the Member did not obtain a sufficient history to ascertain whether the advice was warranted in the circumstances discussed in the podcasts."
This was deleted in a revert because "This was one paragraph among many without any indication of specific significance in a WP:PRIMARY document. Find secondary sources establishing the importance of this point."
Quoting a primary source is allegedly forbidden as OR unless a secondary source does the same quotation. But almost every article about a book does the same kind of OR via either quoting or paraphrasing the primary source. The salience of the quote is obvious. I could easily get a job as a journalist somewhere and publish the same thing, in which case wikipedia would rubberstamp it, but why not save myself the trouble? Any moron can and does get a job as a journalist. Wikipedia should do more than mindlessly regurgitate whatever journalists say. Jwray ( talk) 05:21, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Stefan Molyneux has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
On the fifth sentence underneath Stefan Molyneux#Background, could somebody capitalize the "t" in YouTube, so that it says, "In one of his YouTube videos..."?
173.73.227.128 ( talk) 14:28, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Stefan Molyneux has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Could somebody add Stefan's wife (Christina Papadopoulos) and his daughter (Isabella Molyneux) too by adding "| spouse = Christina Papadopoulos" and "| children = 1" into the infobox?
173.73.227.128 ( talk) 02:28, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
My reason for this is because Molyneux grew up in London, England. Irish-Canadian imply's that he was raised in Ireland when he wasn't. Pc Retro ( talk) 23:23, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
It appears that the page explaining what a Dispute Resolution Organisation (DRO) has been deleted and/or redirected here.
Imho, this wasn't necessary as the idea was also brought up under another name by David D. Friedman. See POLICE, COURTS, AND LAWS---ON THE MARKET. -- JamesPoulson ( talk) 18:26, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Is the fact that he supported a presidental candidate notable enough for the lede? Especially since it is never mentioned in the main article. I would be WP:BOLD, but I have the feeling that this article is attracts a lot of strong opinions and don't want to step into the middle. Ashmoo ( talk) 10:43, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
I have added some information on Molyneux's view on race and intelligence, a commonly discussed topic on his show. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] However, some users are removing this valid information. Discuss here before removing it as it is an important topic that differentiates Molyneux from most sociopolitical commenters. Wadaad ( talk) 23:35, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Sixteen years later, Stefan Molyneux of Freedomain Radio interviews Jon Entine about this seminal book in understanding the genetics of human differences., which does not support the statement you have added (aforelinked). So again, please read WP:RS and WP:BLP. Saturnalia0 ( talk) 00:23, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
References
There is an edit that is being thrown back and forth again regarding Stefan's public statement about being part of the alt-right, as some media websites have defined him as.
The video in question is this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKCYmgvlar0
In that video Stefan goes over this subject and argues why he thinks he is not part of the alt-right movement. It is a public video made by himself expressing his own opinion on the matter, it is completely relevant to the subject and important information, as it is a statement made by the very person being talked about in the wiki page.
I also would like to point out that his videos are being used as "proper reference" for other lines of the encyclopedia. In the Background section, a video of his is used as reference: "In one of his YouTube videos entitled 'The True Costs of War', Molyneux stated that his mother was born 'in Berlin in 1937 to a pretty Jewish clan' and lived there with her family until the Allied fire-bombing of Dresden in 1944.[13]"
As that source is not being contested, I would like to know exactly what is the difference between that "approved" source and the one being removed repeatedly, it seems like some kind of double standard to me. I think it doesn't make any sense that a video publicized by someone expressing their thoughts on what the media labels them as can't be "reliable source", as we're not even saying that he is or not part of the movement, just merely pointing out he made a public statement about it.
17:38, 25 August 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HJBC ( talk • contribs)
That doesn't answer anything I inquired though. HJBC ( talk) 20:17, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
"...a news article saying Molyneux said something is more accurate than a video that shows him saying that?"Yes. It's counter-intuitive, but that's correct. Encyclopedias are tertiary sources, so we mainly summarize secondary sources. Rather than rely on Wikipedia editors to dig through his content, we rely on reliable sources, instead. He says a lot. A ridiculous amount, in fact, but he is not a generally reliable source. Wikipedia editors choosing which things he's said to highlight and which to ignore would risk cherry-picking. In order for his opinion to be included, it needs to be contextualized somehow. The default way is with WP:SECONDARY sources. Since this is specifically about him, we could include his perspective as a response to the multiple sources calling him alt-right. This would be compliant with WP:BLP. It would have to be short and sweet, though, unless reliable sources also comment on that response. In that case we go with what those sources say. His perspective, while it can be included, does not automatically override reliable sources, however. Grayfell ( talk) 21:46, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Charles Manson said he is going to live forever, so it might be time to create category:immortalsThat's why there is WP:SELFPUB. Molyneux is not saying the sky is red, he is saying he refuses an ideological label on himself. Saturnalia0 ( talk) 23:56, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
... he has been described as alt-right by Politico and The Washington Post, and right-wing by CNN.[2][3][4][1][5] Molyneux refuses the label, classifying himself as X.Italic is the text not already present in the article. That seems perfectly reasonable to me. Anyone disagrees? If so, why? That is assuming he actually refuses the label and classifies himself as something else on the video, which I haven't checked. Saturnalia0 ( talk) 23:39, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
"If he refuses to acknowledge the label, it should be noted as a response"Well, that's exactly what was tried to be added, like I already mentioned multiple times. The issue here is that a source for that response is being deemed as invalid, so those of you contesting this can come into agreement that it is valid to add to the text that he denies that label as long as there is no youtube link to that statement? Doesn't make much sense to me, but alright, that would be still acceptable.
"Maybe yes, but this fellow does thousands of videos and who knows whether they're consistent or what?"That's not an argument, that's your own assumption on the subject at hand, because you just admitted to not watch his content (which is perfectly fine, but doesn't give you any room to declare them as concise or not). We can't say someone is X or Y when we don't actually know that ourselves, regardless of personal opinion. This is not a matter of analyzing his whole life works, it's just a matter that he claimed to not be alt-right in response to claims that propose the opposite and I cannot possibly see what is wrong with that being added to the text.
"Ironically, he admits that it would be unreasonable to ask journalists to read all of his books to determine his position, but he does nothing to address this problem"I don't see your point. What can he even do regarding to that? Physically force journalists, that clearly dislike his opinions that go against their own bias, to listen and read his content properly?
"He rambles about how loyalty to Trump as a human being isn't the same as loyalty to Trump's ideas, how the war in Afghanistan has been going on too long, and about WWII and the USSR, and fixed-winged aircraft, and the opium trade, and the troop surge, and immigration policy in Mexico, Saudi Arabia, and China, and how beautiful the internet is, and on and on... none of this has anything to do with being far-right or alt-right as the terms are commonly used by reliable sources."I beg your pardon? Those topics are strictly related to how mainstream media has been talking about the subject, and labeling people. As an example of a trendy label, it was not long ago that CNN, mainstream and "reliable" media source, said an Indian man with dark skin and posters saying "Black Lives DO matter" near him was a white supremacist in Boston, which actually ended up mobilizing people to go to the streets to protest against a rally that was not even expressing ideas those protesters entirely disagree, they were just too angry because the news said a "far-right" rally was going on, right after Charlottesville, since they are used to associating "far right" with fascism or some other infamous word. And I will not even mention that whole shameful display of "reliability" by mainstream media when trolls on 4chan made some terrible fan fiction about Donald Trump having adventures in Russia with prostitutes and that was published. (some websites at least had the decency to apologize for that)
I also think it's fairly obvious that ..., they are having to interpret what is being said and that is not the job of Wikipedia editors. Wikipedia editors shouldn't be interpreting anything we should be reporting what is said. For it to be included he needs to say that he doesn't consider himself alt-right or something to that effect. There can be no interpretation of what he is saying. Your last example is good,
someone being accused of a crime and denying that accusation, saying they are innocent. That isn't what the video does, it leaves it up to the person watching it to determine what he means. ~ GB fan 11:08, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
"they are having to interpret what is being said and that is not the job of Wikipedia editors."But that's not really the case, if we were interpreting his whole video we would have to point out his points, but all we add is a line saying he denies it. Even though it's not just a 5 seconds long video saying "I'm not 'far-right'", his video is very clearly showing that he does not consider himself "far-right", as he even laughs about the idea while arguing about it. Would a line saying simply "Molyneux released videos regarding to that description" be fit?
"Adding it to the lede seems undue without much better sources"I still don't agree with this definition of a "much better source" being something that mentions X exists instead of X itself, especially when it is about something 100% objective with no room for interpretation like numbers indicating how many subscribers someone currently have, but I won't make a case out of that. From what I understand, you are saying that it's fair for the subscribers number to be included briefly in "Career", right? Especially because it's directly relevant to the current information there saying he funds his efforts directly from donations, and I believe YouTube's subscriber counter is a reliable and unbiased enough source. If that's the case, then I think we all can agree on something now.
References
I have attempted to add the fact that Molyneux has 650,000 subscribers on YouTube. The content has been deleted three times.
The number of subscribers is easily verifiable at his YouTube home page. [1] WikiFan11427 ( talk) 22:31, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
References
Greyfell, Could you please explain to me the logic behind your revert edit that is backed by "They are not required or expected to meet that standard."? I thought references had to be reliable and not just blatant opinions without any real source attached to them. Does that make possible to use very biased and unreliable websites like Infowars as reference then? HJBC ( talk) 21:02, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
All of his books appear to be self published. Including amazon links to them pretty much turns this page into an advertisement for his products. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 22:18, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
I think there is a strong argument that he is a White Nationalist. He has created a lot of content on the supposed "racial differences of populations," and it is a reoccurring theme in his works that whiteness is inherent in "Western Civilization." He has made many videos with those on the alt-right, and with many open White Nationalists, and he generally is in agreement with them. Molyneux also advocates for the cessation of immigration from what he names the third world. He advocates for this due to his argument that they have too low of an IQ to behave in a functional democracy, as well as having incomparable cultures and personalities, which he again links to them being inherent in biology. As one last note, Ryan Faulk, a notable member of the alt-right that advocates for White Separatism, states that "Stefan Molyneux is the most successful White Nationalist currently in popular culture." This seems to be an agreement with most who are on the alt-right or identity sphere. Here are some video examples, (long videos,) but I'd like this to be discussed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4S8CJ-qn_3Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lsa_97KIlc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJ0W5Efp8N0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTdMY9RI-7E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UW_AZafEJ4A&t=3s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2RVIi6M7oM&t=7s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZPsXYo7gpc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zsh_b70NSFQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4x-tYmyJSVo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toTKacDgX_Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4u1J6EEhkyM Again, almost all of these videos take openly White Nationalist positions, as well as advocating for what is Scientific Racism. This is very re-occurring topic for Molyneux, and forms one of the most foundational aspects of his view of civilization, and where it should head. Most of these interviews, are also by people noted as White Nationalist in popular media, many having wiki articles stating that as well. 2601:982:4201:D40:F494:6D96:E8AA:B7A3 ( talk) 19:29, 1 October 2017 (UTC) |
I do not think there are any, as he is almost never mentioned in any noteworthy newspapers, news sites, or magazines. One can only find this being discussed on non-notable websites, blogs, and forums. We'll more than likely just have to wait for some to be published then if that is the criteria, but the evidence is extremely blatant. Is it possible to include a section outlining his views concerning race, nationalism, and IQ, and how it is in major conflict with mainstream scientific opinion? 2601:982:4201:D40:F494:6D96:E8AA:B7A3 ( talk) 19:41, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
apocryphal and racist" statistics when they support a racist narrative, backed up by Chuck Johnson, no less. [4] That's from Newsweek, so it seems at least somewhat substantial. New York Magazine refers to his
...uh, unorthodox views on race, [5] while ThinkProgress calls him
racist and sexist. [6] ThinkProgress isn't a reliable source as far as I know, but it's an indicator that this view of him isn't novel. I am not saying we add these to the article, but it's clear from both his own videos and what limited commentary we have his videos that race is a central preoccupation of his.
Recommend Grayfell instead edits "rational wiki" to promote his political views and to leave Wikipedia alone in order to enhance this encyclopedia's neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.247.145.89 ( talk) 21:53, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
This article seems to be protected for disingenuous reasons as any entries about Molyneux's background are instantly deleted where the user who reverts will reject such entries for not being "Secondary Sources" yet will keep up entries about Molyneux's theories which are Primary Sources which are in themselves subject to a greater deal of nuance and interpretation by virtue of the fact discussions of politics are more abstract yet entries inserted of Molyneux himself detailing his ethnic/religious/cultural origin are very quickly deleted. So which is it? An article Molyneux writes about political theory can be cited and used to write up an entire section in 'Stateless Society' but his own religious background and upbringing as cited by himself on numerous occasions can not? When the former is morhttp://docs.newsbank.com/s/InfoWeb/aggdocs/AWNB/10E4169AE30BF068/0EB2D3A803A21E8C?s_lang=en-USe subject to change and the latter is grounded in reality and cannot?
Also, this specific user in question, SPECIFICO, wrote this in the article earlier this month:
"Cheap at half the price! Instantly delivered to your Kindle. Philosophy. SPECIFICO talk 00:00, 2 September 2017 (UTC)"
What exactly was meant by this? And is this the calibre of a "Veteran Editor"? I now see it fit to report this user under the suspicion that their edits are motivated by some cause other than neutrality. Rìgh ( talk) 19:41, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
SPECIFICO seems to hold a strange belief that I am a Stefan Molyneux supporter and wish to clear his name from White Nationalism or Racism. That is NOT the case. I care about one thing and one thing alone, proving the TRUTH for Wikipedia. Stefan Molyneux has stated in MULTIPLE podcasts (they have been referenced) from the past and lectures [1] that he was born to a Jewish mother. The user in question has stated that if I produced a secondary source that confirms this alongside the primary ones, the information would be allowed to stay. So I did this in producing an article from Salon. The user in question then REMOVES this and claims that Molyneux never states he is Jewish in the podcasts even though this is DEMONSTRABLY FALSE from actually checking the references and I will provide the EXACT minute and second he states it.
Truth above all. I believe this user has a political agenda, of what kind, I do not know. All I know is that I MYSELF have no political agenda but the facts and the facts are this; Stefan Molyneux was born to a Jewish mother and if he covers this up nowadays for whatever reason then I shall prove this also. Rìgh ( talk) 19:09, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
References
This
edit request to
Stefan Molyneux has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
To include the statement that Stefan Molyneux's Freedman Radio is a cult, is preposterous. Dark Net is not recognized as a body with the authority to pronounce such things, nor was there evidence given, nor was there reason for including it on Stefan's page EXCEPT to slander him and promote a Leftist ideology. 144.208.110.105 ( talk) 23:08, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Stefan Molyneux has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Stefan Molyneux is a libertarian, not part of the alt-right. Also, he was not a big supporter of President Trump's campaign. He has been critical to Trumps actions on numerous occasions, while supporting a few of his actions that are more libertarian in nature, rather than conservative. He is constantly called alt-right, but in reality he is a libertarian. Libertarians have some views that are similar to conservatives on certain issues, but they also have views that are similar to liberal views as well. Eirik929 ( talk) 08:46, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
SPECIFICO I see your revert on the recent addition of Molyneux Jewish ancestry. Salon seems to back his judaism. Salon is generally considered an RS. The anonymous blogger is not alone in being a Jewish person making common cause with racist anti-Semites, however. Many leading figures associated with the alt-right are also Jewish themselves including Ramsey, Cernovich, Breitbart writer Milo Yiannopoulos, libertarian vlogger Stefan Molyneux and publishing entrepreneur Ezra Levant.
. Additionally, I am surprised by your statement regarding extraordinary claims. While that is indeed wikipeia policy, I think this is not an extraordinary claim. Many people are jewish or have jewish ancestry. We generally take their own word for it in biographical articles. In this case we have both Molyneux's own words, and secondary sources stating it in their own voice. To be sure, I don't think this is a super important bit of information, but I think your reasoning for removing it are not correct.
ResultingConstant (
talk)
18:51, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
He talks at length about his Christian upbringing and his atheismHm that does make describing him as "Jewish" problematic. Let me see if I can find any more/better sources on this - I agree it should stay out pending this discussion. Fyddlestix ( talk) 19:36, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
After looking into this some, I'm uncomfortable with it: Molyneux has gone on record himself as saying his mother was Jewish. But he's also said that he was raised a Christian. People on the far right appear to have run with the "Jewish mother = Jewish" assumption and characterize him that way regularly (though in places, and via sources, that aren't RS for our purposes) but after looking quite carefully, I don't see where Molyneux has ever said he practices Judaism. I do see videos and blog posts online where he talks about having been raised Christian, though, and where he is quite critical of organized religion in general. So the question really is: what is meant by "Jewish" - it can be used to refer to someone of Jewish ethnicity (which, given Molyneux's own statements about himself, seems like what the Salon writer meant), but in general use it implies that he's a practicing Jew, which (again, based on his own statements) is pretty unlikely. Problem is: outside of the Salon piece I can't find a single RS that talks about his religion or mentions his religious upbringing. So we have the Salon piece on one hand and his own statements (which contradict a simple statement of "Molyneux is Jewish") on the other. IMO, we should either state what Molyneux himself has said (that his mother was Jewish, but he was raised as a Christian), and source it to his own statements, or remain silent on his religion altogether. Otherwise we risk misleading the reader by saying "he's Jewish" when he's not a practicing Jew, and is simply of Jewish ancestry on one side. Given that it's the only RS I can find saying he's Jewish (outside of Stormfront-type fringe stuff) and that his own statements appear to contradict that, hanging an ambiguous statement like "Molyneux is Jewish" on the Salon piece is undue weight on that one source. Fyddlestix ( talk) 05:08, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
We have plenty of biographies of nonobservant Jews in which it is noted in the article that they are Jewish- sure. How many of those people have publicly said that they were raised as Christians, and made a living (in part) off criticizing organized religion in general? How many of those people have never self-identified as "Jewish"? Molyneux, as best as I can tell, never has. He's said that his mothers family was Jewish, but that's not the same thing as saying "I'm Jewish" - there is no One drop rule of Judaism, and given that there's compelling reason to doubt that Molyneux considers himself Jewish or has ever practiced Judaism (ie, his own statements) one article in Salon that characterizes him as a "Jewish" in passing, which is the only RS anyone has found that says that, is simply not enough to apply the label. Sorry, but it's just not. If you're that determined to include this, and if you think it's really that clear cut, do some research and find some RS that support it and we can talk. Fyddlestix ( talk) 18:10, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
A "pretty Jewish clan" is not sufficient to say his mother was Jewish, much less to say that he was Jewish. Why is it only "pretty Jewish"? Using clan instead of family also adds ambiguity. Combine this with the Dresden thing, and I think this surpasses the OR threshold into a genuinely unusual claim being highlighted from extremely thin sources. As with so many of his videos, he almost says something meaningful, but never quite gets there. Lacking either quality source, or a definitive primary source, I say leave it out completely. This isn't the place to discuss issues of Jewish identity beyond what sources say about it. They do not say he's of Jewish ethnicity, nor do they say his mother was religiously Jewish, nor culturally Jewish. We would have to clarify what, exactly, "Jewish" means in the article, and currently proposed sourced do not justify that level of detail. Grayfell ( talk) 22:38, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
SPECIFICO clearly has an agenda. I have provided TWO podcasts where he goes into depth about his Jewish ancestry of BOTH his mother and his grandmother AND their experience in Dresden. I have also provided YouTube evidence of him claiming his mother was born to a "Jewish clan" AND I have provided a Salon (Reliable Source) article as a secondary source to BACK THIS UP after being asked to in a previous attempt at inputting this information.
SPECIFICO is using Original Research and disingenuous arguments to remove this information from the Wikipedia. There are COUNTLESS Wikipedia biographical articles where the sources are PRIMARY and from the OWN MOUTHS of the person in question. These are not put into question but TWO PODCASTS of GREAT LENGTH, a YouTube Lecture and SECONDARY SOURCES are "insufficient". I am entirely convinced that the reasons for these reverts are NOT in good faith and I would like to know why this is the case. And before SPECIFICO claims I am "personalising" the Talk section, no, it is YOU personalising this article by inserting Original Research. Rìgh ( talk) 03:51, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
PODCAST EVIDENCE #2 [2] @ 9:44 "On my mother’s side there is a lot more, I guess Jewish influence a Jewish history, as far as i understand it my grandmother was Jewish. Which I’ve also been told makes me Jewish. So I could give a flying fig about that, since the idea of taking on somebody else’s sort of pre-scripted identity would just feel unbelievably claustrophobic and nightmarish. Of course Spinoza and Jewish Philosophers who have great ideas fantastic lets jaw about it all night, but the idea of taking some preformed cultural identity I view that with complete horror. So although people have said “”oh that makes you Jewish”” I really can’t imagine that could have any interest or relevance to me."
PODCAST EVIDENCE #3 [3] @ 6:39 "For my mother to see most of her family wiped out, because ofcourse she came from … uh her mother was Jewish. And for my mother’s own childhood to be the carnage and brutal series of orphanage rapes that I am absolute positive that it was."
PODCAST EVIDENCE #4 [4] @ 32:01 "She was born as I mentioned before 1937 in Berlin, Jewish heritage, not a good place to be. Spend her war years been shunted around, hidden, send to orphanages. You can imagine what was going on in those orphanages, particularly in wartime, was just the worst kind of predation that you can Imagine."
PODCAST EVIDENCE #5 [5] @ 5:13 "My mother was just mad .. like she is just mad and vain and weird. And she also, to me at least, had the additional, not inconsiderable, excuse of having grown up in Nazi Germany as the son of Jewish parents. And she was born in Berlin in 1937 not a good place to have the hallmark childhood so she was shipped to from sort of.. they were in hiding for periods of the war and then she was shipped from orphanages to orphanage during the war and ofcourse complete social breakdown and malignant evil throughout the land. I can only imagine what happened to her in the wee hours with the caregivers who were around. So, she was crazy mad and evil but at least had some pretty sparky starting point to start from so It is something that .. I don’t forgive but I can sort of understand it a little but more."
PODCAST EVIDENCE #6 [6] @ 1:32:27 "I understand that my mother was, you know, had her entire world bombed into oblivion in the 2nd World War. And that she lived in a world that was so terrifying that I don’t think I can even conceive it, right? Her mother was blown apart in the fire bombings of Dresden in 1944. On a bombing raid that one of my uncles on my father’s side was actually piloting in. And she lived in a world that was just blowing up literally blowing up in a way that I can’t even fathom. And what happened to her during the course of that, you know, a girl racing across Germany living in a series of orphanages pulling her own Anne Frank thing from time to time because she came from Jewish parents."
There you go. Now let NO ONE deny that I am providing evidence. Happy now? Or are you going to delete my edits again? Rìgh ( talk) 04:07, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
HOW INTERESTING THAT SPECIFICO REJECTS MY SIX PODCASTS OF EVIDENCE BY CLAIMING NOW THAT MOLYENUX SAYS "he is not Jewish." WHEN IN PREVIOUS REVERTS HE SAID THAT MOLYNEUX'S OPINION DOESN'T MATTER, WHAT MATTERS IS A SECONDARY SOURCE AND WHEN I PROVIDED THAT HE REVERTED MY EDIT. HOW INTERESTING INDEED. Rìgh ( talk) 04:38, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
References
We reflect the weight of mainstream secondary coverage. We don't do contortions. SPECIFICO talk 19:40, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Do any of the LIARS here actually know anything about Jewish history? Jews are an ethno-religious group. If Molyneux doesn't follow the Jewish religion then he is still 50% ethnically Jewish. His statements of people calling him Jewish meaning he is Jewish clearly pertain to an ethnicity. You are all being purposely deceptive and strawmanning the debate. No one is debating whether Molyneux is religiously or culturally Jewish, that is the FALSE DEBATE that YOU ARE HAVING. The fact is this from all the evidence I have shown, Molyneux is at least 50% ethnically Jewish on his mother's side. Molyneux is 50% Jewish in at least ethnic origin. Continue being deceptive and continue to strawman this discussion. I hope the lying weighs heavily on your conscious. Rìgh ( talk) 20:24, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Nope, and humoring what has degraded into openly anti-Semitic conspiracy-monger isn't productive. This would be introducing a separate problem. Nobody is doubting that he's commented on his mother's upbringing, but he's commented on countless things. Why would this one thing get so much attention? We cannot include comments simply because some editors think they are interesting for unspecified reasons. Any quotes from him would require a specific reason, which would generally be supported by a reliable source.
This is why I keep coming back to the issue of Jewish identity. If we're going to imply that he's Jewish, and that's apparently the reason this is being discussed, we need to be able to explain some things to pass the due weight threshold:
A) why is this encyclopedically relevant?
B) what, exactly, do we mean by "Jewish"?
The first is relatively easy, since having Jewish heritage is of interest to many people for anodyne reasons, but the second is much, much harder. The term can mean radically different things in different contexts. Lots of people might have Jewish heritage, so Molyneux having "contemplated" this is not particularly helpful. No reliable source treats Jewishiness as pass/fail, and being "ethnically" Jewish isn't a simple matter. Saying he "is Jewish" is unacceptable, because in many very real senses, he is not Jewish. Saying he's talked about having Jewish ancestors is too vague to be meaningful by itself. The only secondary source we have for this, the Salon article, directly ties this issue to neo-Nazism and anti-Semitism as the main reason it was mentioned, so the BLP issues are clear. The burden of sourcing is high, and the default position must be to just leave it out completely. We cannot spread anti-Semitic conspiracy mongering without a good reason, so we need to be able to explain this in a way which is proportional to reliable sources. So far, I have not seen any proposal that meets this requirement. Grayfell ( talk) 04:04, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
The information that "Molyneux was born in Ireland and raised mainly in London before moving to Canada at age 11" was probably provided by Molyneux himself. Your only objection to including a paraphrased quote from Molyneux such as "According to Molyneux his mother was born in Berlin in 1937 to a 'pretty Jewish clan'" is that it contains the word "Jewish". Isn't that correct? The question that we are discussing here on this Talk page, and the reason the article is presently "protected", has just about nothing to do with the concept of being "Jewish". If we were saying "According to Molyneux his father was a shoemaker born in Pittsburgh in 1937 to a traveling circus", there would be no issue. But it just so happens that the facts presented by Molyneux involve a Jewish mother and all hell breaks loose on this Talk page. How do we know she was Jewish? Was it by religion or ethnicity or culture? Was she practicing? The suggested sentence begins with According to... This doesn't have to be verified. The reader is immediately alerted that this may be just the narrative that the subject of the biography wants to put forth. Molyneux a multitude of times tells whatever audience that his mother was Jewish and survived the war as a little girl in war-torn Europe. Whether it is true or not doesn't matter as concerns whether we should or shouldn't pass this perhaps-true piece of autobiographical information along to the reader. We are allowed a degree of latitude in writing a biography, even if it is about a living person. The negativity here is hard to bear. With your interest in the concept of being Jewish you should be working on articles such as Who is a Jew? or Jewish identity or other articles with similarly arcane subject matter. I haven't the foggiest idea if Molyneux's mother is "really" Jewish. But in a biography you have the latitude to include significant even if quirky positions maintained by the subject of the biography. Molyneux repeats this narrative numerous times. As long as we are introducing this material with "according to" I cannot understand why there would be any objection to its inclusion. Bus stop ( talk) 23:52, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
BS said he's done. Somebody feel free to archive this nonsense. SPECIFICO talk 03:04, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
This is what the higher up people on Wikipedia do. If they don't want you to include a piece of information, they will debate strawmen and actually create false debates over definitions and even on multiple occasions as seen throughout this talk page, they will even ignore the evidence you provided and say something else, like the multiple people that have claimed "oh he's only 1/4" when in actual fact he is 1/2. They will also ignore the fact that Jews are an ethno-religious people (something which is confirmed on the very first line of the Wikipedia page on Jews) and claim "What does it mean to be Jewish?", "Molyneux has also said that being Jewish is uncomfortable for him" completely ignoring the fact that Jews are an ethno-religious people so if he doesn't consider himself Jewish religiously, he is still ethnically Jewish, and in fact, calling someone just 'Jewish' in their Wikipedia page is ok for this as the difference between the two is recognised in the Wikipedia page on Jews. The fact the higher-up people in this website won't even allow an entry of "Molyneux's grandparents on his mother's side were Jewish but he has expressed x about that" only creates a highly suspicious group of individuals like myself. I wonder if anyone had read my previous attempts to enter this information, only to be told "You need a Reliable Secondary Source" and when I did the second time, it was again removed and strawman debates were had and false debates were had like "What does it mean to be Jewish?" The person in question, SPECIFICO, told me in an earlier attempt at including this information from primary sources that "Molyneux's opinion doesn't matter" (Go to the first section of the talk page) so when I include a Secondary source, the user in question, SPECIFICO, removes it and claims "Molyneux says he doesn't identify himself as Jewish". This is clearly a contradiction to anyone that doesn't have an agenda. I was banned from Wikipedia for 24 hours because of my attempts to input the truth. I will continue on this mission. I have no agenda. I am not an anti-semite or a philo-semite. I am not pro-Molyneux or anti-Molyneux. I am a Wikipedia editor and a Wikipedia editor should be neutral. Rìgh ( talk) 19:51, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
No-I mean yes, you're partly wrong about my concern, so I'm going to correct you. I don't know, but I don't think it's bogus. For information like this I normally take someone at their word, which is common practice on Wikipedia, as we both know. Regardless of how strongly I disagree with his views, we would need a good reason to think he was inherently untrustworthy for his family history, and I don't know of such a reason.
No, my problem is something else. I dispute that this is, in the form you have proposed, basic biographical information. The direct quote is worse than a simple summary would be, and a simple summary would be barely justifiable under normal circumstances. Molyneux is incredibly prolific, to the point of absurdity, and as far as I know, only the tiniest sliver of his output has any outside editorial oversight. When we highlight one of his quotes taken at random, we are giving him a platform to spread information about himself. We are ALSO doing something else, which is even worse. We are highlighting some of his off-hand comments to reinforce an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory, as demonstrated by the youtube uploader's history. The problem is not that Molyneux isn't being truthful, it's that we do not automatically include passing quotes just because they answer a question that no reliable source seems to be asking. These are two separate, but important, problems.
If we were going to explain this, we would need context other than "she was probably kinda Jewish". We're introducing incomplete information based on incomplete, de-contextualized comments plucked from youtube. We don't currently mention anything at all about Molyneux's mother, and we do not have sources to even attempt that yet, so why is her ambiguous Jewishness being presented as basic info? Why nothing about his Father? What "ethno-religious" group did he belong to? What were his parents names? What did they do in the twenty years between the war and his birth? All of this history happened decades before Molyneux was born, so if it's encyclopedically relevant to Stefan Molyneux, we would have to indicate how it was significant, and we would have to do this through sources. I'm not saying it isn't significant, but without those sources, the Jewishness of one of his parents isn't automatically the part that needs to be emphasized. Emphasizing truthful information without any other context is a form of editorializing.
So the "pretty Jewish clan" quote is a bad choice for multiple reasons, but one reason is that we shouldn't pick the least-clear example of someone explaining something in order to justify including it. If he's talked about his mother multiple times, why the one quote uploaded by 911truther? If we cannot explain this clearly, we shouldn't feed into conspiracy theory crap to try and include it unclearly as some sort of false compromise. Grayfell ( talk) 04:34, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes, encyclopedically speaking, they are crap. Just for shits and giggles, I hit 'random article' a few times, and none of the biographies I found ( Watt Marcus C. Clyde Atkins, Patricia Godchaux, Cyndia Sieden, Abdelghani Bousta, and Miguel Saiz) mention anything at all about the subject's parents. It's common on Wikipedia to include something about a person's childhood, and dramatically less common to include their parent's childhood. Common doesn't mean mandatory. You say it's not emphasizing this, but this is based on one snotty passing mention in a Salon gossip column, and a combined two minutes of passing comments out of hundred or thousands of hours of primary ephemera. That is you, as an editor, emphasizing this far above and beyond what reliable sources have to say about it. Find reliable sources which could be used to explain why this matters to Molyneux, otherwise this remains a waste of time. Grayfell ( talk) 07:01, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
We are flogging a dead horse here. There is obviously no consensus to include the material, and Bus stop is clearly not going to convince anyone to change their minds. Fyddlestix ( talk) 02:24, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm out of here. No sense wasting time with this nonsense. Bus stop ( talk) 02:41, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Here we have an editor, Volunteer Marek, removing material relating to Molyneux being Jewish, with the edit summary "why would this be relevant?" The provided source tells us why this is relevant. The source says that "The anonymous blogger is not alone in being a Jewish person making common cause with racist anti-Semites, however. Many leading figures associated with the alt-right are also Jewish themselves including Ramsey, Cernovich, Breitbart writer Milo Yiannopoulos, libertarian vlogger Stefan Molyneux and publishing entrepreneur Ezra Levant." [16] The relevance is that Jewish people—Molyneux, among others—are "making common cause with racist anti-Semites". Bus stop ( talk) 08:08, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
that which does not matter- Do you mean to say that relevance to the subject of the article "does not matter"? I don't think so, but if not then could you explain why this dubious snippet of a throw-in line -- no more than a label -- from the "Salon" website is relevant to the life of Stefan Molyneux? What is the relevance of the specific statement in that Salon page to the topic of this WP article? SPECIFICO talk 15:07, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
They (Specifico and his friend Marek) don't want it included because the article is supposed to be about an alt-right nazi, and having Jewish decent would not help them paint it that way. We're all adults here, let's be honest and skip the bs. Saturnalia0 ( talk) 01:22, 18 December 2017 (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 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
Criticism sections are discouraged by wikipedia style guides. The (extensive) controvery section should be folded into the main text. Ashmoo ( talk) 13:45, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
I removed the reference to the Chomsky interview because it was included in a list of interviews and debates, and it was merely an interview. Its not clear why the interviews and the debates should exist in one single list, as it just makes it vague as to whether or not Molyneux has interviewed or debated each person in the list. A person more familiar with Molyneux's work should take the time to verify who Molyneux has actually interviewed and who he has debated and clearly state as much. I have removed the reference to the chomsky interview so at least the statement is possibly true right now. The entire statement should be removed if no one is willing to determine who Molyneux has debated and who he has interviewed, but I figured I'd wait for someone to correct it before deleting. 74.79.240.188 ( talk) 01:07, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Being called the leader of a therapy cult because of someone else's actions that were not under direction is unfair to say the least. I believe Tom Weed is responsible for his own actions and no one should be made responsible for them. Having watched the video it's clear he was putting forward an opinion/theory and did not tell him to do anything. I think a section on deFOOing is fine but everything currently in it should be removed including the part which mentions the actions of his wife. -- Mralan101 ( talk) 18:57, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
DeFOOing, or at least cutting one's family ties following Molyneux's extremely loose criterions is de facto absolutely unsupported by any professionals -- with the exception of Molyneux's wife who, for this very reason, has been sanctioned by Canadian authorities of her profession. That deFOOing is pseudo-scientific practice and that it is characteristic to cult-like organizations should be mentioned immediately at the deFOOing-section, and not merely at the criticism section. This is normal wiki-standards concerning neutrality. c.f., in Astrology -article the fact that astrology is regarded as a pseudo-science by the scientific community is pointed out right at the beginning of the article, and not merely at the bottom of it in "criticism"-section. Likewise, neutrality demands that the fact that deFOOing is unanimously considered humbug-threrapy and a dangerous doctrine characteristic of cult-like organizations; if the article does not emphasize what is common knowledge within community of genuine specialists, it is biased and non-neutral. -- Raži ( talk) 08:47, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Defoo.org is Molyneux's own webpage, just like freedmanradio.com. It is RS. See WP:BLP. As to the other sources see below. In the context of a mere blogger, these sources are in my opinion completely RS. They are specialist opinions, and are not libelous in nature. At least they should be mentioned in criticism section, but as deFOOing M's way has zero support in scientific community, I stand behind my view that neutrality demands that this be mentioned right at the start. -- Raži ( talk) 02:12, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
The quotation from David Cooperson is from webpage https://www.freedomofmind.com section "group listing". See freedomain radio on their list: https://www.freedomofmind.com/Info/list.php Freedomofmind.com is a cult-information source apparently upheld by Steven A. Hassan ( https://therapists.psychologytoday.com/rms/prof_detail.php?profid=108149&p=10), Steve Guziec and Rachel Bernstein. Specialist opinion: "Steven Hassan is a compelling spokesman on the topic of cult mind control, which encompasses issues of human identity and our innate psychological vulnerability to dissociate. In addition, he educates and challenges us to think about the groups using mind control techniques in our culture, and how to help those affected reclaim their lives. His commitment to this neglected area of human experience is exemplary. At my invitation, Steven has taught psychiatry residents at Brigham and Women's Hospital about these issues for the last 14 years. Knowledge of these issues is crucial for all mental health professionals." -- Mary K. McCarthy, M.D. Harvard Medical School. It is a genuine source, not just " a blog" contrary to what some editors have claimed, and the quotation has the full right to be where it is. -- Raži ( talk) 17:04, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Molyneux is an outspoken Trump supporter and racist now. He doesn't even claim to be a libertarian anymore. This page should be updated accordingly. Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZzeC06hVvA — Preceding unsigned comment added by MinnesotanConfederacy ( talk • contribs) 18:26, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Certainly. I'm actually really surprised there's no mention of the fact that he constantly talks about how third world people have very low IQs and how "race matters". Seems like this should be mentioned on here since he's done dozens of videos about it and often invited on white nationalists such as Jared Taylor on his show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.234.39.69 ( talk) 13:56, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
User:Netholic has removed for a second time a chunk of material discussing Molyneux's deFOOing. User:Raži appears to be the main advocate for including this subject and claims that the sources meet WP:RS, but it's clear there's disagreement, including User:Srich32977.
Can we get some references outside of Molyneux and his obvious opponents to write something better? Molyneux's own website is a primary source, but can be used to establish that he advocates certain views. Those views cannot go completely unanswered in a balanced article. Are these views a notable aspect of Molyneux's body of work (I admit I listened to quite a few of his podcasts without ever encountering the concept of deFOOing and first came across it here)? As a YouTube and podcast personality, I suppose it's not too surprising that there is not a lot of mainstream coverage. —jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 21:57, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Comments by topic-banned editor |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
In this edit, I improved the Ann Coulter reference (replacing primary source with secondary news), added another notable guest with a solid news ref, and removed an WP:OR interpretation of a primary sourced ref. I was reverted on technicality, so I ask that editors interested in improving this article please restore that edit. I feel these are uncontroversial, clear improvements. -- Netoholic @ 20:21, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
|
Ann Coulter has Infobox philosopher when she's more of a pundit. Why does this page not have Infobox philosopher? Stoodpointt ( talk) 23:02, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Also there's an old photo of him when he was young when he had blonde hair. I've only seen it on YouTube videos so it's not a good copy but this would be a good pic to get. Even if it can't be uploaded, it would be good to link to. Stoodpointt ( talk) 23:02, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Comments about and by Topic Banned editor |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The user is topic-banned [1]. The user has been repeatedly warned that he/she is topic-banned [2], yet the user persists in editing this article [3]. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 09:14, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
|
The article states that 20 out of 50k FDR members have disassociated from their parents, or 0.04%. If you look at statistics of child abuse, that would be way more than 0.04%, so the number sounds reasonable. It's ridiculous to compare this to a cult like Scientology, which tries to get 100% of its members to disassociate from their unbeliever families, while Wikipedia is reluctant to call Scientology a cult. Also there's a big difference between disassociating from an abusive parent in rare cases versus routinely disassociating from one's entire family (including siblings, aunts and uncles, etc). Scientology advocates the latter, Molyneux advocates the former.
There are structural problems in journalists' incentives that make it unlikely for any RS to ever bother to publish a debunking of the cult claim, even if is false (which it is): 1. Cassandras get more attention than Polyannas. If it bleeds it leads. The story "this guy you never heard of is a cult leader bogeyman" is sexier and more interesting than "this guy you never heard of is not really cult leader". 2. Journalists don't want to appear to be defending a guy that almost all journalists are politically opposed to. 3. Journalists are eager to believe dirt on a guy that almost all journalists are politically opposed to.
"Subtle" distinctions like the difference between cutting ties with a specific abusive family member (as any reasonable person might do) vs. cutting ties with one's entire family (as cults do) are unlikely to be thought about in the rush to find dirt on someone that almost all journalists already hate for political and ideological reasons. [1]
The problem with wikipedia is that it eschews reason and evidence: instead it just does a he-said-she-said in which the only people who are allowed to say anything are journalists and academics, both of which groups are overwhelmingly left wing. These journalists & academics are not required to provide valid arguments or evidence to back up their claims -- membership in the caste alone is sufficient to get their views parroted by wikipedia. Plus, even the subset of journalists and academics who aren't left wing are often discounted as non-RS without any real evidence of their being any less reliable than NYT or Chomsky. Jwray ( talk) 03:00, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
References
"While it may be appropriate to recommend family separation in cases of abuse, the Member did not obtain a sufficient history to ascertain whether the advice was warranted in the circumstances discussed in the podcasts."
This was deleted in a revert because "This was one paragraph among many without any indication of specific significance in a WP:PRIMARY document. Find secondary sources establishing the importance of this point."
Quoting a primary source is allegedly forbidden as OR unless a secondary source does the same quotation. But almost every article about a book does the same kind of OR via either quoting or paraphrasing the primary source. The salience of the quote is obvious. I could easily get a job as a journalist somewhere and publish the same thing, in which case wikipedia would rubberstamp it, but why not save myself the trouble? Any moron can and does get a job as a journalist. Wikipedia should do more than mindlessly regurgitate whatever journalists say. Jwray ( talk) 05:21, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Stefan Molyneux has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
On the fifth sentence underneath Stefan Molyneux#Background, could somebody capitalize the "t" in YouTube, so that it says, "In one of his YouTube videos..."?
173.73.227.128 ( talk) 14:28, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Stefan Molyneux has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Could somebody add Stefan's wife (Christina Papadopoulos) and his daughter (Isabella Molyneux) too by adding "| spouse = Christina Papadopoulos" and "| children = 1" into the infobox?
173.73.227.128 ( talk) 02:28, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
My reason for this is because Molyneux grew up in London, England. Irish-Canadian imply's that he was raised in Ireland when he wasn't. Pc Retro ( talk) 23:23, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
It appears that the page explaining what a Dispute Resolution Organisation (DRO) has been deleted and/or redirected here.
Imho, this wasn't necessary as the idea was also brought up under another name by David D. Friedman. See POLICE, COURTS, AND LAWS---ON THE MARKET. -- JamesPoulson ( talk) 18:26, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Is the fact that he supported a presidental candidate notable enough for the lede? Especially since it is never mentioned in the main article. I would be WP:BOLD, but I have the feeling that this article is attracts a lot of strong opinions and don't want to step into the middle. Ashmoo ( talk) 10:43, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
I have added some information on Molyneux's view on race and intelligence, a commonly discussed topic on his show. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] However, some users are removing this valid information. Discuss here before removing it as it is an important topic that differentiates Molyneux from most sociopolitical commenters. Wadaad ( talk) 23:35, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Sixteen years later, Stefan Molyneux of Freedomain Radio interviews Jon Entine about this seminal book in understanding the genetics of human differences., which does not support the statement you have added (aforelinked). So again, please read WP:RS and WP:BLP. Saturnalia0 ( talk) 00:23, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
References
There is an edit that is being thrown back and forth again regarding Stefan's public statement about being part of the alt-right, as some media websites have defined him as.
The video in question is this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKCYmgvlar0
In that video Stefan goes over this subject and argues why he thinks he is not part of the alt-right movement. It is a public video made by himself expressing his own opinion on the matter, it is completely relevant to the subject and important information, as it is a statement made by the very person being talked about in the wiki page.
I also would like to point out that his videos are being used as "proper reference" for other lines of the encyclopedia. In the Background section, a video of his is used as reference: "In one of his YouTube videos entitled 'The True Costs of War', Molyneux stated that his mother was born 'in Berlin in 1937 to a pretty Jewish clan' and lived there with her family until the Allied fire-bombing of Dresden in 1944.[13]"
As that source is not being contested, I would like to know exactly what is the difference between that "approved" source and the one being removed repeatedly, it seems like some kind of double standard to me. I think it doesn't make any sense that a video publicized by someone expressing their thoughts on what the media labels them as can't be "reliable source", as we're not even saying that he is or not part of the movement, just merely pointing out he made a public statement about it.
17:38, 25 August 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HJBC ( talk • contribs)
That doesn't answer anything I inquired though. HJBC ( talk) 20:17, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
"...a news article saying Molyneux said something is more accurate than a video that shows him saying that?"Yes. It's counter-intuitive, but that's correct. Encyclopedias are tertiary sources, so we mainly summarize secondary sources. Rather than rely on Wikipedia editors to dig through his content, we rely on reliable sources, instead. He says a lot. A ridiculous amount, in fact, but he is not a generally reliable source. Wikipedia editors choosing which things he's said to highlight and which to ignore would risk cherry-picking. In order for his opinion to be included, it needs to be contextualized somehow. The default way is with WP:SECONDARY sources. Since this is specifically about him, we could include his perspective as a response to the multiple sources calling him alt-right. This would be compliant with WP:BLP. It would have to be short and sweet, though, unless reliable sources also comment on that response. In that case we go with what those sources say. His perspective, while it can be included, does not automatically override reliable sources, however. Grayfell ( talk) 21:46, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Charles Manson said he is going to live forever, so it might be time to create category:immortalsThat's why there is WP:SELFPUB. Molyneux is not saying the sky is red, he is saying he refuses an ideological label on himself. Saturnalia0 ( talk) 23:56, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
... he has been described as alt-right by Politico and The Washington Post, and right-wing by CNN.[2][3][4][1][5] Molyneux refuses the label, classifying himself as X.Italic is the text not already present in the article. That seems perfectly reasonable to me. Anyone disagrees? If so, why? That is assuming he actually refuses the label and classifies himself as something else on the video, which I haven't checked. Saturnalia0 ( talk) 23:39, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
"If he refuses to acknowledge the label, it should be noted as a response"Well, that's exactly what was tried to be added, like I already mentioned multiple times. The issue here is that a source for that response is being deemed as invalid, so those of you contesting this can come into agreement that it is valid to add to the text that he denies that label as long as there is no youtube link to that statement? Doesn't make much sense to me, but alright, that would be still acceptable.
"Maybe yes, but this fellow does thousands of videos and who knows whether they're consistent or what?"That's not an argument, that's your own assumption on the subject at hand, because you just admitted to not watch his content (which is perfectly fine, but doesn't give you any room to declare them as concise or not). We can't say someone is X or Y when we don't actually know that ourselves, regardless of personal opinion. This is not a matter of analyzing his whole life works, it's just a matter that he claimed to not be alt-right in response to claims that propose the opposite and I cannot possibly see what is wrong with that being added to the text.
"Ironically, he admits that it would be unreasonable to ask journalists to read all of his books to determine his position, but he does nothing to address this problem"I don't see your point. What can he even do regarding to that? Physically force journalists, that clearly dislike his opinions that go against their own bias, to listen and read his content properly?
"He rambles about how loyalty to Trump as a human being isn't the same as loyalty to Trump's ideas, how the war in Afghanistan has been going on too long, and about WWII and the USSR, and fixed-winged aircraft, and the opium trade, and the troop surge, and immigration policy in Mexico, Saudi Arabia, and China, and how beautiful the internet is, and on and on... none of this has anything to do with being far-right or alt-right as the terms are commonly used by reliable sources."I beg your pardon? Those topics are strictly related to how mainstream media has been talking about the subject, and labeling people. As an example of a trendy label, it was not long ago that CNN, mainstream and "reliable" media source, said an Indian man with dark skin and posters saying "Black Lives DO matter" near him was a white supremacist in Boston, which actually ended up mobilizing people to go to the streets to protest against a rally that was not even expressing ideas those protesters entirely disagree, they were just too angry because the news said a "far-right" rally was going on, right after Charlottesville, since they are used to associating "far right" with fascism or some other infamous word. And I will not even mention that whole shameful display of "reliability" by mainstream media when trolls on 4chan made some terrible fan fiction about Donald Trump having adventures in Russia with prostitutes and that was published. (some websites at least had the decency to apologize for that)
I also think it's fairly obvious that ..., they are having to interpret what is being said and that is not the job of Wikipedia editors. Wikipedia editors shouldn't be interpreting anything we should be reporting what is said. For it to be included he needs to say that he doesn't consider himself alt-right or something to that effect. There can be no interpretation of what he is saying. Your last example is good,
someone being accused of a crime and denying that accusation, saying they are innocent. That isn't what the video does, it leaves it up to the person watching it to determine what he means. ~ GB fan 11:08, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
"they are having to interpret what is being said and that is not the job of Wikipedia editors."But that's not really the case, if we were interpreting his whole video we would have to point out his points, but all we add is a line saying he denies it. Even though it's not just a 5 seconds long video saying "I'm not 'far-right'", his video is very clearly showing that he does not consider himself "far-right", as he even laughs about the idea while arguing about it. Would a line saying simply "Molyneux released videos regarding to that description" be fit?
"Adding it to the lede seems undue without much better sources"I still don't agree with this definition of a "much better source" being something that mentions X exists instead of X itself, especially when it is about something 100% objective with no room for interpretation like numbers indicating how many subscribers someone currently have, but I won't make a case out of that. From what I understand, you are saying that it's fair for the subscribers number to be included briefly in "Career", right? Especially because it's directly relevant to the current information there saying he funds his efforts directly from donations, and I believe YouTube's subscriber counter is a reliable and unbiased enough source. If that's the case, then I think we all can agree on something now.
References
I have attempted to add the fact that Molyneux has 650,000 subscribers on YouTube. The content has been deleted three times.
The number of subscribers is easily verifiable at his YouTube home page. [1] WikiFan11427 ( talk) 22:31, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
References
Greyfell, Could you please explain to me the logic behind your revert edit that is backed by "They are not required or expected to meet that standard."? I thought references had to be reliable and not just blatant opinions without any real source attached to them. Does that make possible to use very biased and unreliable websites like Infowars as reference then? HJBC ( talk) 21:02, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
All of his books appear to be self published. Including amazon links to them pretty much turns this page into an advertisement for his products. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 22:18, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
I think there is a strong argument that he is a White Nationalist. He has created a lot of content on the supposed "racial differences of populations," and it is a reoccurring theme in his works that whiteness is inherent in "Western Civilization." He has made many videos with those on the alt-right, and with many open White Nationalists, and he generally is in agreement with them. Molyneux also advocates for the cessation of immigration from what he names the third world. He advocates for this due to his argument that they have too low of an IQ to behave in a functional democracy, as well as having incomparable cultures and personalities, which he again links to them being inherent in biology. As one last note, Ryan Faulk, a notable member of the alt-right that advocates for White Separatism, states that "Stefan Molyneux is the most successful White Nationalist currently in popular culture." This seems to be an agreement with most who are on the alt-right or identity sphere. Here are some video examples, (long videos,) but I'd like this to be discussed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4S8CJ-qn_3Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lsa_97KIlc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJ0W5Efp8N0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTdMY9RI-7E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UW_AZafEJ4A&t=3s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2RVIi6M7oM&t=7s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZPsXYo7gpc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zsh_b70NSFQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4x-tYmyJSVo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toTKacDgX_Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4u1J6EEhkyM Again, almost all of these videos take openly White Nationalist positions, as well as advocating for what is Scientific Racism. This is very re-occurring topic for Molyneux, and forms one of the most foundational aspects of his view of civilization, and where it should head. Most of these interviews, are also by people noted as White Nationalist in popular media, many having wiki articles stating that as well. 2601:982:4201:D40:F494:6D96:E8AA:B7A3 ( talk) 19:29, 1 October 2017 (UTC) |
I do not think there are any, as he is almost never mentioned in any noteworthy newspapers, news sites, or magazines. One can only find this being discussed on non-notable websites, blogs, and forums. We'll more than likely just have to wait for some to be published then if that is the criteria, but the evidence is extremely blatant. Is it possible to include a section outlining his views concerning race, nationalism, and IQ, and how it is in major conflict with mainstream scientific opinion? 2601:982:4201:D40:F494:6D96:E8AA:B7A3 ( talk) 19:41, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
apocryphal and racist" statistics when they support a racist narrative, backed up by Chuck Johnson, no less. [4] That's from Newsweek, so it seems at least somewhat substantial. New York Magazine refers to his
...uh, unorthodox views on race, [5] while ThinkProgress calls him
racist and sexist. [6] ThinkProgress isn't a reliable source as far as I know, but it's an indicator that this view of him isn't novel. I am not saying we add these to the article, but it's clear from both his own videos and what limited commentary we have his videos that race is a central preoccupation of his.
Recommend Grayfell instead edits "rational wiki" to promote his political views and to leave Wikipedia alone in order to enhance this encyclopedia's neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.247.145.89 ( talk) 21:53, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
This article seems to be protected for disingenuous reasons as any entries about Molyneux's background are instantly deleted where the user who reverts will reject such entries for not being "Secondary Sources" yet will keep up entries about Molyneux's theories which are Primary Sources which are in themselves subject to a greater deal of nuance and interpretation by virtue of the fact discussions of politics are more abstract yet entries inserted of Molyneux himself detailing his ethnic/religious/cultural origin are very quickly deleted. So which is it? An article Molyneux writes about political theory can be cited and used to write up an entire section in 'Stateless Society' but his own religious background and upbringing as cited by himself on numerous occasions can not? When the former is morhttp://docs.newsbank.com/s/InfoWeb/aggdocs/AWNB/10E4169AE30BF068/0EB2D3A803A21E8C?s_lang=en-USe subject to change and the latter is grounded in reality and cannot?
Also, this specific user in question, SPECIFICO, wrote this in the article earlier this month:
"Cheap at half the price! Instantly delivered to your Kindle. Philosophy. SPECIFICO talk 00:00, 2 September 2017 (UTC)"
What exactly was meant by this? And is this the calibre of a "Veteran Editor"? I now see it fit to report this user under the suspicion that their edits are motivated by some cause other than neutrality. Rìgh ( talk) 19:41, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
SPECIFICO seems to hold a strange belief that I am a Stefan Molyneux supporter and wish to clear his name from White Nationalism or Racism. That is NOT the case. I care about one thing and one thing alone, proving the TRUTH for Wikipedia. Stefan Molyneux has stated in MULTIPLE podcasts (they have been referenced) from the past and lectures [1] that he was born to a Jewish mother. The user in question has stated that if I produced a secondary source that confirms this alongside the primary ones, the information would be allowed to stay. So I did this in producing an article from Salon. The user in question then REMOVES this and claims that Molyneux never states he is Jewish in the podcasts even though this is DEMONSTRABLY FALSE from actually checking the references and I will provide the EXACT minute and second he states it.
Truth above all. I believe this user has a political agenda, of what kind, I do not know. All I know is that I MYSELF have no political agenda but the facts and the facts are this; Stefan Molyneux was born to a Jewish mother and if he covers this up nowadays for whatever reason then I shall prove this also. Rìgh ( talk) 19:09, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
References
This
edit request to
Stefan Molyneux has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
To include the statement that Stefan Molyneux's Freedman Radio is a cult, is preposterous. Dark Net is not recognized as a body with the authority to pronounce such things, nor was there evidence given, nor was there reason for including it on Stefan's page EXCEPT to slander him and promote a Leftist ideology. 144.208.110.105 ( talk) 23:08, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Stefan Molyneux has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Stefan Molyneux is a libertarian, not part of the alt-right. Also, he was not a big supporter of President Trump's campaign. He has been critical to Trumps actions on numerous occasions, while supporting a few of his actions that are more libertarian in nature, rather than conservative. He is constantly called alt-right, but in reality he is a libertarian. Libertarians have some views that are similar to conservatives on certain issues, but they also have views that are similar to liberal views as well. Eirik929 ( talk) 08:46, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
SPECIFICO I see your revert on the recent addition of Molyneux Jewish ancestry. Salon seems to back his judaism. Salon is generally considered an RS. The anonymous blogger is not alone in being a Jewish person making common cause with racist anti-Semites, however. Many leading figures associated with the alt-right are also Jewish themselves including Ramsey, Cernovich, Breitbart writer Milo Yiannopoulos, libertarian vlogger Stefan Molyneux and publishing entrepreneur Ezra Levant.
. Additionally, I am surprised by your statement regarding extraordinary claims. While that is indeed wikipeia policy, I think this is not an extraordinary claim. Many people are jewish or have jewish ancestry. We generally take their own word for it in biographical articles. In this case we have both Molyneux's own words, and secondary sources stating it in their own voice. To be sure, I don't think this is a super important bit of information, but I think your reasoning for removing it are not correct.
ResultingConstant (
talk)
18:51, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
He talks at length about his Christian upbringing and his atheismHm that does make describing him as "Jewish" problematic. Let me see if I can find any more/better sources on this - I agree it should stay out pending this discussion. Fyddlestix ( talk) 19:36, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
After looking into this some, I'm uncomfortable with it: Molyneux has gone on record himself as saying his mother was Jewish. But he's also said that he was raised a Christian. People on the far right appear to have run with the "Jewish mother = Jewish" assumption and characterize him that way regularly (though in places, and via sources, that aren't RS for our purposes) but after looking quite carefully, I don't see where Molyneux has ever said he practices Judaism. I do see videos and blog posts online where he talks about having been raised Christian, though, and where he is quite critical of organized religion in general. So the question really is: what is meant by "Jewish" - it can be used to refer to someone of Jewish ethnicity (which, given Molyneux's own statements about himself, seems like what the Salon writer meant), but in general use it implies that he's a practicing Jew, which (again, based on his own statements) is pretty unlikely. Problem is: outside of the Salon piece I can't find a single RS that talks about his religion or mentions his religious upbringing. So we have the Salon piece on one hand and his own statements (which contradict a simple statement of "Molyneux is Jewish") on the other. IMO, we should either state what Molyneux himself has said (that his mother was Jewish, but he was raised as a Christian), and source it to his own statements, or remain silent on his religion altogether. Otherwise we risk misleading the reader by saying "he's Jewish" when he's not a practicing Jew, and is simply of Jewish ancestry on one side. Given that it's the only RS I can find saying he's Jewish (outside of Stormfront-type fringe stuff) and that his own statements appear to contradict that, hanging an ambiguous statement like "Molyneux is Jewish" on the Salon piece is undue weight on that one source. Fyddlestix ( talk) 05:08, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
We have plenty of biographies of nonobservant Jews in which it is noted in the article that they are Jewish- sure. How many of those people have publicly said that they were raised as Christians, and made a living (in part) off criticizing organized religion in general? How many of those people have never self-identified as "Jewish"? Molyneux, as best as I can tell, never has. He's said that his mothers family was Jewish, but that's not the same thing as saying "I'm Jewish" - there is no One drop rule of Judaism, and given that there's compelling reason to doubt that Molyneux considers himself Jewish or has ever practiced Judaism (ie, his own statements) one article in Salon that characterizes him as a "Jewish" in passing, which is the only RS anyone has found that says that, is simply not enough to apply the label. Sorry, but it's just not. If you're that determined to include this, and if you think it's really that clear cut, do some research and find some RS that support it and we can talk. Fyddlestix ( talk) 18:10, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
A "pretty Jewish clan" is not sufficient to say his mother was Jewish, much less to say that he was Jewish. Why is it only "pretty Jewish"? Using clan instead of family also adds ambiguity. Combine this with the Dresden thing, and I think this surpasses the OR threshold into a genuinely unusual claim being highlighted from extremely thin sources. As with so many of his videos, he almost says something meaningful, but never quite gets there. Lacking either quality source, or a definitive primary source, I say leave it out completely. This isn't the place to discuss issues of Jewish identity beyond what sources say about it. They do not say he's of Jewish ethnicity, nor do they say his mother was religiously Jewish, nor culturally Jewish. We would have to clarify what, exactly, "Jewish" means in the article, and currently proposed sourced do not justify that level of detail. Grayfell ( talk) 22:38, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
SPECIFICO clearly has an agenda. I have provided TWO podcasts where he goes into depth about his Jewish ancestry of BOTH his mother and his grandmother AND their experience in Dresden. I have also provided YouTube evidence of him claiming his mother was born to a "Jewish clan" AND I have provided a Salon (Reliable Source) article as a secondary source to BACK THIS UP after being asked to in a previous attempt at inputting this information.
SPECIFICO is using Original Research and disingenuous arguments to remove this information from the Wikipedia. There are COUNTLESS Wikipedia biographical articles where the sources are PRIMARY and from the OWN MOUTHS of the person in question. These are not put into question but TWO PODCASTS of GREAT LENGTH, a YouTube Lecture and SECONDARY SOURCES are "insufficient". I am entirely convinced that the reasons for these reverts are NOT in good faith and I would like to know why this is the case. And before SPECIFICO claims I am "personalising" the Talk section, no, it is YOU personalising this article by inserting Original Research. Rìgh ( talk) 03:51, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
PODCAST EVIDENCE #2 [2] @ 9:44 "On my mother’s side there is a lot more, I guess Jewish influence a Jewish history, as far as i understand it my grandmother was Jewish. Which I’ve also been told makes me Jewish. So I could give a flying fig about that, since the idea of taking on somebody else’s sort of pre-scripted identity would just feel unbelievably claustrophobic and nightmarish. Of course Spinoza and Jewish Philosophers who have great ideas fantastic lets jaw about it all night, but the idea of taking some preformed cultural identity I view that with complete horror. So although people have said “”oh that makes you Jewish”” I really can’t imagine that could have any interest or relevance to me."
PODCAST EVIDENCE #3 [3] @ 6:39 "For my mother to see most of her family wiped out, because ofcourse she came from … uh her mother was Jewish. And for my mother’s own childhood to be the carnage and brutal series of orphanage rapes that I am absolute positive that it was."
PODCAST EVIDENCE #4 [4] @ 32:01 "She was born as I mentioned before 1937 in Berlin, Jewish heritage, not a good place to be. Spend her war years been shunted around, hidden, send to orphanages. You can imagine what was going on in those orphanages, particularly in wartime, was just the worst kind of predation that you can Imagine."
PODCAST EVIDENCE #5 [5] @ 5:13 "My mother was just mad .. like she is just mad and vain and weird. And she also, to me at least, had the additional, not inconsiderable, excuse of having grown up in Nazi Germany as the son of Jewish parents. And she was born in Berlin in 1937 not a good place to have the hallmark childhood so she was shipped to from sort of.. they were in hiding for periods of the war and then she was shipped from orphanages to orphanage during the war and ofcourse complete social breakdown and malignant evil throughout the land. I can only imagine what happened to her in the wee hours with the caregivers who were around. So, she was crazy mad and evil but at least had some pretty sparky starting point to start from so It is something that .. I don’t forgive but I can sort of understand it a little but more."
PODCAST EVIDENCE #6 [6] @ 1:32:27 "I understand that my mother was, you know, had her entire world bombed into oblivion in the 2nd World War. And that she lived in a world that was so terrifying that I don’t think I can even conceive it, right? Her mother was blown apart in the fire bombings of Dresden in 1944. On a bombing raid that one of my uncles on my father’s side was actually piloting in. And she lived in a world that was just blowing up literally blowing up in a way that I can’t even fathom. And what happened to her during the course of that, you know, a girl racing across Germany living in a series of orphanages pulling her own Anne Frank thing from time to time because she came from Jewish parents."
There you go. Now let NO ONE deny that I am providing evidence. Happy now? Or are you going to delete my edits again? Rìgh ( talk) 04:07, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
HOW INTERESTING THAT SPECIFICO REJECTS MY SIX PODCASTS OF EVIDENCE BY CLAIMING NOW THAT MOLYENUX SAYS "he is not Jewish." WHEN IN PREVIOUS REVERTS HE SAID THAT MOLYNEUX'S OPINION DOESN'T MATTER, WHAT MATTERS IS A SECONDARY SOURCE AND WHEN I PROVIDED THAT HE REVERTED MY EDIT. HOW INTERESTING INDEED. Rìgh ( talk) 04:38, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
References
We reflect the weight of mainstream secondary coverage. We don't do contortions. SPECIFICO talk 19:40, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Do any of the LIARS here actually know anything about Jewish history? Jews are an ethno-religious group. If Molyneux doesn't follow the Jewish religion then he is still 50% ethnically Jewish. His statements of people calling him Jewish meaning he is Jewish clearly pertain to an ethnicity. You are all being purposely deceptive and strawmanning the debate. No one is debating whether Molyneux is religiously or culturally Jewish, that is the FALSE DEBATE that YOU ARE HAVING. The fact is this from all the evidence I have shown, Molyneux is at least 50% ethnically Jewish on his mother's side. Molyneux is 50% Jewish in at least ethnic origin. Continue being deceptive and continue to strawman this discussion. I hope the lying weighs heavily on your conscious. Rìgh ( talk) 20:24, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Nope, and humoring what has degraded into openly anti-Semitic conspiracy-monger isn't productive. This would be introducing a separate problem. Nobody is doubting that he's commented on his mother's upbringing, but he's commented on countless things. Why would this one thing get so much attention? We cannot include comments simply because some editors think they are interesting for unspecified reasons. Any quotes from him would require a specific reason, which would generally be supported by a reliable source.
This is why I keep coming back to the issue of Jewish identity. If we're going to imply that he's Jewish, and that's apparently the reason this is being discussed, we need to be able to explain some things to pass the due weight threshold:
A) why is this encyclopedically relevant?
B) what, exactly, do we mean by "Jewish"?
The first is relatively easy, since having Jewish heritage is of interest to many people for anodyne reasons, but the second is much, much harder. The term can mean radically different things in different contexts. Lots of people might have Jewish heritage, so Molyneux having "contemplated" this is not particularly helpful. No reliable source treats Jewishiness as pass/fail, and being "ethnically" Jewish isn't a simple matter. Saying he "is Jewish" is unacceptable, because in many very real senses, he is not Jewish. Saying he's talked about having Jewish ancestors is too vague to be meaningful by itself. The only secondary source we have for this, the Salon article, directly ties this issue to neo-Nazism and anti-Semitism as the main reason it was mentioned, so the BLP issues are clear. The burden of sourcing is high, and the default position must be to just leave it out completely. We cannot spread anti-Semitic conspiracy mongering without a good reason, so we need to be able to explain this in a way which is proportional to reliable sources. So far, I have not seen any proposal that meets this requirement. Grayfell ( talk) 04:04, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
The information that "Molyneux was born in Ireland and raised mainly in London before moving to Canada at age 11" was probably provided by Molyneux himself. Your only objection to including a paraphrased quote from Molyneux such as "According to Molyneux his mother was born in Berlin in 1937 to a 'pretty Jewish clan'" is that it contains the word "Jewish". Isn't that correct? The question that we are discussing here on this Talk page, and the reason the article is presently "protected", has just about nothing to do with the concept of being "Jewish". If we were saying "According to Molyneux his father was a shoemaker born in Pittsburgh in 1937 to a traveling circus", there would be no issue. But it just so happens that the facts presented by Molyneux involve a Jewish mother and all hell breaks loose on this Talk page. How do we know she was Jewish? Was it by religion or ethnicity or culture? Was she practicing? The suggested sentence begins with According to... This doesn't have to be verified. The reader is immediately alerted that this may be just the narrative that the subject of the biography wants to put forth. Molyneux a multitude of times tells whatever audience that his mother was Jewish and survived the war as a little girl in war-torn Europe. Whether it is true or not doesn't matter as concerns whether we should or shouldn't pass this perhaps-true piece of autobiographical information along to the reader. We are allowed a degree of latitude in writing a biography, even if it is about a living person. The negativity here is hard to bear. With your interest in the concept of being Jewish you should be working on articles such as Who is a Jew? or Jewish identity or other articles with similarly arcane subject matter. I haven't the foggiest idea if Molyneux's mother is "really" Jewish. But in a biography you have the latitude to include significant even if quirky positions maintained by the subject of the biography. Molyneux repeats this narrative numerous times. As long as we are introducing this material with "according to" I cannot understand why there would be any objection to its inclusion. Bus stop ( talk) 23:52, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
BS said he's done. Somebody feel free to archive this nonsense. SPECIFICO talk 03:04, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
This is what the higher up people on Wikipedia do. If they don't want you to include a piece of information, they will debate strawmen and actually create false debates over definitions and even on multiple occasions as seen throughout this talk page, they will even ignore the evidence you provided and say something else, like the multiple people that have claimed "oh he's only 1/4" when in actual fact he is 1/2. They will also ignore the fact that Jews are an ethno-religious people (something which is confirmed on the very first line of the Wikipedia page on Jews) and claim "What does it mean to be Jewish?", "Molyneux has also said that being Jewish is uncomfortable for him" completely ignoring the fact that Jews are an ethno-religious people so if he doesn't consider himself Jewish religiously, he is still ethnically Jewish, and in fact, calling someone just 'Jewish' in their Wikipedia page is ok for this as the difference between the two is recognised in the Wikipedia page on Jews. The fact the higher-up people in this website won't even allow an entry of "Molyneux's grandparents on his mother's side were Jewish but he has expressed x about that" only creates a highly suspicious group of individuals like myself. I wonder if anyone had read my previous attempts to enter this information, only to be told "You need a Reliable Secondary Source" and when I did the second time, it was again removed and strawman debates were had and false debates were had like "What does it mean to be Jewish?" The person in question, SPECIFICO, told me in an earlier attempt at including this information from primary sources that "Molyneux's opinion doesn't matter" (Go to the first section of the talk page) so when I include a Secondary source, the user in question, SPECIFICO, removes it and claims "Molyneux says he doesn't identify himself as Jewish". This is clearly a contradiction to anyone that doesn't have an agenda. I was banned from Wikipedia for 24 hours because of my attempts to input the truth. I will continue on this mission. I have no agenda. I am not an anti-semite or a philo-semite. I am not pro-Molyneux or anti-Molyneux. I am a Wikipedia editor and a Wikipedia editor should be neutral. Rìgh ( talk) 19:51, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
No-I mean yes, you're partly wrong about my concern, so I'm going to correct you. I don't know, but I don't think it's bogus. For information like this I normally take someone at their word, which is common practice on Wikipedia, as we both know. Regardless of how strongly I disagree with his views, we would need a good reason to think he was inherently untrustworthy for his family history, and I don't know of such a reason.
No, my problem is something else. I dispute that this is, in the form you have proposed, basic biographical information. The direct quote is worse than a simple summary would be, and a simple summary would be barely justifiable under normal circumstances. Molyneux is incredibly prolific, to the point of absurdity, and as far as I know, only the tiniest sliver of his output has any outside editorial oversight. When we highlight one of his quotes taken at random, we are giving him a platform to spread information about himself. We are ALSO doing something else, which is even worse. We are highlighting some of his off-hand comments to reinforce an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory, as demonstrated by the youtube uploader's history. The problem is not that Molyneux isn't being truthful, it's that we do not automatically include passing quotes just because they answer a question that no reliable source seems to be asking. These are two separate, but important, problems.
If we were going to explain this, we would need context other than "she was probably kinda Jewish". We're introducing incomplete information based on incomplete, de-contextualized comments plucked from youtube. We don't currently mention anything at all about Molyneux's mother, and we do not have sources to even attempt that yet, so why is her ambiguous Jewishness being presented as basic info? Why nothing about his Father? What "ethno-religious" group did he belong to? What were his parents names? What did they do in the twenty years between the war and his birth? All of this history happened decades before Molyneux was born, so if it's encyclopedically relevant to Stefan Molyneux, we would have to indicate how it was significant, and we would have to do this through sources. I'm not saying it isn't significant, but without those sources, the Jewishness of one of his parents isn't automatically the part that needs to be emphasized. Emphasizing truthful information without any other context is a form of editorializing.
So the "pretty Jewish clan" quote is a bad choice for multiple reasons, but one reason is that we shouldn't pick the least-clear example of someone explaining something in order to justify including it. If he's talked about his mother multiple times, why the one quote uploaded by 911truther? If we cannot explain this clearly, we shouldn't feed into conspiracy theory crap to try and include it unclearly as some sort of false compromise. Grayfell ( talk) 04:34, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes, encyclopedically speaking, they are crap. Just for shits and giggles, I hit 'random article' a few times, and none of the biographies I found ( Watt Marcus C. Clyde Atkins, Patricia Godchaux, Cyndia Sieden, Abdelghani Bousta, and Miguel Saiz) mention anything at all about the subject's parents. It's common on Wikipedia to include something about a person's childhood, and dramatically less common to include their parent's childhood. Common doesn't mean mandatory. You say it's not emphasizing this, but this is based on one snotty passing mention in a Salon gossip column, and a combined two minutes of passing comments out of hundred or thousands of hours of primary ephemera. That is you, as an editor, emphasizing this far above and beyond what reliable sources have to say about it. Find reliable sources which could be used to explain why this matters to Molyneux, otherwise this remains a waste of time. Grayfell ( talk) 07:01, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
We are flogging a dead horse here. There is obviously no consensus to include the material, and Bus stop is clearly not going to convince anyone to change their minds. Fyddlestix ( talk) 02:24, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm out of here. No sense wasting time with this nonsense. Bus stop ( talk) 02:41, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Here we have an editor, Volunteer Marek, removing material relating to Molyneux being Jewish, with the edit summary "why would this be relevant?" The provided source tells us why this is relevant. The source says that "The anonymous blogger is not alone in being a Jewish person making common cause with racist anti-Semites, however. Many leading figures associated with the alt-right are also Jewish themselves including Ramsey, Cernovich, Breitbart writer Milo Yiannopoulos, libertarian vlogger Stefan Molyneux and publishing entrepreneur Ezra Levant." [16] The relevance is that Jewish people—Molyneux, among others—are "making common cause with racist anti-Semites". Bus stop ( talk) 08:08, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
that which does not matter- Do you mean to say that relevance to the subject of the article "does not matter"? I don't think so, but if not then could you explain why this dubious snippet of a throw-in line -- no more than a label -- from the "Salon" website is relevant to the life of Stefan Molyneux? What is the relevance of the specific statement in that Salon page to the topic of this WP article? SPECIFICO talk 15:07, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
They (Specifico and his friend Marek) don't want it included because the article is supposed to be about an alt-right nazi, and having Jewish decent would not help them paint it that way. We're all adults here, let's be honest and skip the bs. Saturnalia0 ( talk) 01:22, 18 December 2017 (UTC)