Talk:Stefan Molyneux

Since when Youtube and the media have become credible sources of people's place on the political spectrum?

Collapsed per WP:FORUM

The intro is slanderous and doesn't cite any reliable sources. Plainly put it's BS. How about writing that "in the opinion of such and such the person is X, Y and Z but in the opinion of such and such the person is A, B and C". Here's what the man himself has to say about such slander https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9L0dPKpfHRA . If Big Tech policies and mainstream media are anything to go by, in this day and age there're more racists and white supremacists than there have ever been in history. The fact that so many people suddenly turn out to be racists, far right, white supremacists should raise questions as to validity of the claims which deem them such. One could accuse anyone of myriad other things and yet the main accusations are those listed above, why is that? That's simply because they stem from political bias of the slanderers, highlight things which are at the core of their ideology. And nothing else. This page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_reliable_source asserts that WIKI isn't a reliable source. And in the case of this article i'm in complete agreement with the assertion. LXNDR (talk) 08:05, 22 February 2021 (UTC) LXNDR, ahem, you're missing quite a couple of points. First, as you say in your header, youtube is indeed not a reliable source for pretty much anything, hence we cannot use it in this article. Second, there are quite a lot of reliable sources in the intro, 25 to be exact... how could you have possibly missed that? Third, wikipedia is not a reliable source to be used for quoting within wikipedia, but we're not doing that, so that point is moot too. Mvbaron (talk) 08:44, 22 February 2021 (UTC) Do we use youtube? Also read wp:legal.Slatersteven (talk) 09:34, 22 February 2021 (UTC) Do we use people’s own words to characterize their views? Surely not! Theknightswhosay (talk) 09:40, 29 May 2021 (UTC) Anything that isn’t consistently lying on behalf of the left isn’t considered a reliable source here anymore. Theknightswhosay (talk) 09:42, 29 May 2021 (UTC) Apart from sources like The Times you mean?Slatersteven (talk) 12:37, 29 May 2021 (UTC) Thank you for that helpful and constructive feedback. I'm sure we will take it into advisement and immediately re-pivot to becoming a clone of Conservapedia, based on it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:13, 29 May 2021 (UTC) No need for the snark.Slatersteven (talk) 16:18, 29 May 2021 (UTC) Slatersteven, Then why did you make a snarky response to him? Also, there's no need for you to reply to me, either, but here we are. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:24, 29 May 2021 (UTC) And wp:forum applies to us all. Snark adds nothing, and undermines the claim we are trying to maintain wp:npov. Indeed I have just has that aimed at me elsewhere here, that this kind of off topic comenetry is allowed when the targets are the right kind. Myt replying to you is not agasiwnt the rules.Slatersteven (talk) 17:09, 29 May 2021 (UTC) And I pointed out he was wrong, by giving him an examlple.Slatersteven (talk) 17:10, 29 May 2021 (UTC) You sarcastically agreed with him that most of the sources we used were "consistently lying on behalf of the left", with the sole exception of The Times. I sarcastically acknowledged his complaints and illustrated the inevitable result of taking such complaints seriously. The only differences were 1) I made it clear that my sarcasm was, in fact sarcasm; and 2) I didn't berate you for yours. Now, the purpose of this page is to discuss changes to this article. Theknight's changes have already been reverted, and I'm not suggesting any. If you want to continue this conversation, feel free to start a thread at ANI. I'll even suggest a title: ==MjolnirPants said something sarcastic and I think he needs to be bent over an admin's knee and spanked for it (please ignore my own sarcasm in that thread)== ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:03, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Use of Hostile Sources to Characterize Stefan Molyneux

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This is a broad problem that Wikipedia is having: The mainstream media has become so tendentious in its reporting, it is no longer helpful to simply use a cite in which an article from a news source which contains an adjective and have it be at all valid. Stefan Molyneux is a good case in point. I've watched his videos, when they were on You Tube, quite a number. I am not a fan, I agree with some things he says, not with others. Sometimes interesting, sometimes not so much. At no point, however, would I ever call him a White Supremacist or even vaguely racist. He is provocative but not in any way the article outrightly states. It is a poorly written and, almost to the point of being parody, sourced article. One sees this from the the outset when it uses the Southern Poverty Law Center as an authority; that's a problem right there since they have long ago simply used their once respectable name to slander people with whom they disagree politically.

This really surprised me, that Wikipedia would keep an article like this up after such a large number of people have pointed out its various inadequacies. My specific point is that the sources used to ostensibly support the adjectives used to describe this commentator do not provide any substantive evidence; they simply print various descriptive words, which are then repeated here. I've now seen this in article after article on Wikipedia and it seems to be a persistent and pernicious problem - and a growing one. This entire article should be rewritten with actual statements or examples which support the extreme nature of the vilification set forth here. This is not a factual, not even fact-oriented, article. It reads like it was written by someone who dislikes the guy and doesn't care to disguise the hostility -- which is exactly what harms Wikipedia the most. I fear for Wiki's reputation as a neutral encyclopedia-style source, and have read and helped edit articles in small ways for many years now, so that is disconcerting to say the least.

Wikipedia is in danger of losing something quite special, and that is its ability to stay above the political harshness that is besetting the broader culture, this article is an egregious example of it. I really don't care too much about Stefan Molyneux, but I do care about Wiki -- and this is not a credit to its reputation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sychonic (talk • contribs) 23:27, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

If you do not agree with what mainstream media are saying, then that is not a problem of Wikipedia. It is your problem.

You listen to Molyneux, and you lack the expertise that would allow you to categorize what you are hearing. Our reliable sources have that expertise.

You do not trust reliable sources? Instead, you want to trust some of the right-wing loons and grifters? Then there is no way to make an encyclopedia you will trust.

If you think that a reliable source is wrong in one specific point, you will have to find another reliable souce that contradicts it. We will definitely not change any articles based of the subjective impressions of some random person, and neither on what some generally unreliable source says. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:34, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

-> Duck test. Just sayin'. TucanHolmes (talk) 17:44, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

There's nothing reliable about the mainstream media, except that it will always be anti-white and anti-male. 12.154.111.184 (talk) 17:39, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Well we say it is, so without a better argument you are not going to change our minds.Slatersteven (talk) 17:41, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

There's no arguing with an agenda. 12.154.111.184 (talk) 04:42, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

sychonic I might agree that sometimes mainstream media organs are biased and/or make statements based on poor sources, mainstream sources like those cited on the article are generally reliable, but no source is always reliable. But in this specific case, they are completely right, many well-intentioned people that don't have extremist views tries to defend him and criticize the treatment given to him by the media and Wikipedia, this is part of his strategy, he tries to pass himself off as a person with views of the traditional right or as an anarcho-capitalist(although this is totally contradictory), but in reality, he is an extremist with extremely racist views, a male supremacist and an anti-muslim.

He tries to demonstrate his most radical ideas only in a soft way to go unnoticed by the vast majority of his audience, as he knows how shocking and unacceptable these ideas are, so instead he concentrates on acceptable things like criticizing identity politics, supporting Trump and defending anarcho-capitalism, denying that he is a racist or extremist and at the same time trying to convey an image of someone charismatic, a "philosopher" who has a high level of knowledge (although he often defends absurd ideas and has very little knowledge about the subjects he talks about), who will tell you the secret truth about the world hidden by the elite, making many people start trusting him a lot and believing in everything he says and, unfortunately, often only the people who reach that point are those who perceive and begin to understand his extremist views, in this way he is able to gradually transform normal people and even people who previously had progressive views into radical far-right extremists.

Even I tried to change the introduction about him on this page once because even though he is an extremist that I hate, it seemed totally unfair to assign such serious adjectives to a person that was not explicitly racist, but my opinion of him totally changed when I carefully read the sources on this page, as well as some youtube videos, what later made me add more sources to the introduction instead. I think everyone should read them before criticizing this article.

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/stefan-molyneux SPLC may be extremely biased, as you can see that in this article they falsely report that Rothbard "railed in support of the apartheid", because he opposed the economic embargo (as he would obviously do since he believed in NAP), stating that he supported voluntary segregation when he explicitly describes his ideology as a way of combating racism on the article that they cite "Free-market capitalism is a marvelous antidote for racism. In a free market, employers who refuse to hire productive black workers are hurting their own profits" and also accused libertarian Mises institute of having "neo-fascist sympathies" because the chairman had given support for 2 mainstream right-wing european party leaders (probably because they supported free-market policies), what I have no words to describe how delusional it is. While I don't have much sympathy for Rothbard and this institute, I have to say that SPLC work on labeling people as extremists is sometimes irresponsible. But this article is mostly good.

These videos also helped me to understand:

Complete evidence Stefan Molyneux is a White nationalistRWW News: Stefan Molyneux Says His Trip to Poland Sold Him on White Nationalism Creepy Stefan Molyneux Busts A Nut Thinking About A White Ethnostate. In some of these videos, SM almost explicitly confesses that he is a white nationalist, isn't it enough to convince you? ​Lucasdmca (talk) 02:26, 31 March 2021 (UTC).

Lucasdmca Thank you for your response. It provided me with substantive, worthwhile points worth considering. It sounds like you agree with me a little bit (start of with the positive), such as that "sometimes mainstream media organs are biased" and that the SPLC is no longer what it once was. Even so, my central point revolves around the too-common experience of reading a Wiki article, and thinking something isn't quite right, and then checking the source. After doing so, even with a "reliable" source, I find it is simply wrong, or the facts of a particular situation have been twisted, or key facts omitted. I'd rather not post particular examples since that would ignite debate over the specifics of those issues and articles, causing a tangential distraction.

As I mentioned, I'm not here to cheerlead for Molyneux, if he has the cult people seem to think, they can do that. I appreciate the links you posted, the videos, and they did explain certain things. I'm afraid the voice overs by their authors were obnoxious in tone and unhelpful in their attempt to explain to me the proper way to think. When considering the clips of his shows, sans narration, I can see what has set people off. I'm not so masochistic as to want to check on the context by watching a lot of Molyneux discourses, as I said, I'm not a follower of his. The most egregious thing I did see was that he broaches the topic of IQ -- that is strictly verboten in today's America. While that particular issue doesn't interest me that much, I know that even bringing it up has caused great harm to those who dare to mention it. That does not help the case for those attacking Molyneux. I read The Bell Curve when it first came out and was absolutely shocked by the scurrilous, unfounded attacks on the authors. Insofar as this is the reason for the extreme aversion to Molyneux, it sets off alarm bells for me, it smacks of the thought police coming to to quash any rational debate because it disrupts their own worldview. Charles Murray, one of the authors, is someone I'm more familiar with, and he's no extremist, and perhaps might even fall into the "anarcho-capitalist" category, though economic libertarian might be a better term for the concept.

These are the folks who advocate a hands-off approach toward governmental controls and action, which usually entail broad policy prescriptions that cannot possibly take into account individual differences and thus suppresses freedom of choice and activity. When a free economy is allowed to work, some social activists see racial disparities as one consequence and respond, knee-jerk, with phrases like "systemic racism". The authors of those videos seem to be among that vocal group. I looked at some of the other videos they posted, and it appears that problems arise with anyone who thinks that "systemic racism" is ill-conceived and misbegotten, and that the very term "systemic racism" is racist itself since by implication it means that most white people are racist. It's hard to miss since they are the ones that have created the system. Further, they should feel guilty about it and support policies of the social activists liking or else they will be tarred with the "r" word -- "racist". One of these videos bashes Ben Shapiro and Dinesh D'Souza for being crypto-racists as well, and they are very garden-variety conservative. It strikes me that this is not a debate that should be able to be shut down because one side starts accusing the other of "racism", since that sort of toxic ad hominem quashing of speech ends up making things worse. It would be a huge loss if this phenomenon produces the phrase "well, you can't trust Wiki, it just toes the ideological line."

The accusation that anyone promotes radically harmful ideas in a "soft way to go unnoticed by the vast majority of his audience" strikes me as a criticism too often used. This entails a person saying something that might sound innocuous but somehow the accuser knows what the speaker really means. The go-to trite phrase in politics and the media is "dog whistle" and is used when one wants to repudiate someone but lacks a substantive way to do so. I will leave it with the assertion that someone should not be vilified in a Wikipedia article because his ideological opponents do not like what he has to say. I find Ta-Nahisi Coates to have voiced remarkably offensive things, but I wouldn't support an article throwing around adjectives from hostile sources in the way I see in this one. He says awful things about white people, as do many others, and most of those characterizations are met with shrugs or silent nodding, some outright applaud (or like Robin DiAngelo, turn it into a business). The difference, of course, is that Coates is a media darling, and that is where my chief concern resides -- the media. Wikipedia as a community should be more careful in simply repeating characterizations from media sources when they have become so compromised. As an example, relying on the New York Times saying someone is an "extremist" is questionable since it has become ideologically extreme itself, as people from its own staff have stated (the woman quitting the editorial board was no right winger, that's sure).Sych (talk) 08:37, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

First of all, please stay on topic. Other people have to read these walls of texts. Secondly, anyone who characterizes the New York Times as ideologically extreme is so far down the drain that I honestly don't know what will convince them that their world view needs to re-enter reality land. Lastly, I have a public service announcement which you might find useful. TucanHolmes (talk) 18:38, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Publications section

I attempted to add a publications section listing a few of Molyneaux's notable published Titles and Documentaries, similar to what appears on the pages of other published authors. Within a day the entire section was deleted. The reason given was: "see WP:SELFSOURCE and WP:PLOT for why we didn't include this already". However, all points listed at those links are irrelevant.

Furthermore, on other author's pages, a list of published works on an author's page is included as standard, as it is relevant information that improves the encyclopedia. For example: Noam Chomsky, Sam Harris, Dave Rubin, Ben Shapiro.

Clearly a "Publications" section should be included for Molyneaux just as it is for other authors.

Mherzl (talk) 03:25, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Molyneux is not unambiguously a "published author", he is instead a self-published author. All of the other people you mention are independently notable as authors of books, all of which have been published vie reputable independent publishers.

Further, "notable" is part of notable published Titles and Documentaries. Notable in Wikipedia jargon means independently notable. All of the other authors you mention have had their works discussed in at least some depth by reliable, independent sources.

Therefor, please provide reliable sources which discuss his self-published books and self-published documentaries. For Wikipedia's purposes, these sources would also necessarily be independent sources. I have looked for such sources in the past and not found anything. Molyneux's own website is neither reliable, nor independent, and cannot be used to demonstrate encyclopedic significance. Grayfell (talk) 04:17, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

The distinction between corporate-published and self-published is not material to whether the works should be listed. For example, Michael Malice's "The Anarchist Handbook", is a self-published work which yet still appears in the publications section of Malice's Wikipedia page. Any ambiguity about which kind of publishing was used can be resolved by adding a single word, not by removing the entire publications section.

Independent sources are easy to find via a simple search query. The books are listed on goodreads, and the documentaries on imdb.

Mherzl (talk) 05:52, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello, in fact "The distinction between corporate-published and self-published" is very much THE criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. Have a look at this policy for editing in Wikipedia: WP:SELFPUB. It is pretty much non-negotiable.

IMDB and goodreads are also self-published sources and can not (never) be used as sources. Please see here WP:RSP for a list of sources that can or cannot be used. IMDB and goodreads are red and thus cannot be used. You have to find discussion of M's books in reliable, independent sources.

And this is a good thing, because otherwise someone could just self-publish some book that in fact no one ever read, but pay a couple of friends to add reviews on self-published spaces like goodreads etc and then we would need to include it in here in the encyclopedia. It is clear that this can not be how an encyclopedia works, right? Best -- Mvbaron (talk) 08:02, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Neither of those websites are reliable per reasons explained at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. As I said many times on this talk page, if you have reliable sources discussing any of Molyneux's works, please present them. At this point you should present them here on the talk page for discussion to avoid edit warring. These works were previously discussed on this talk page and consensus was that they are not automatically significant. Therefor, every specific work listed will need a reliable, independent source.

Michael Malice will also need some cleanup, per reasons you have indicated, but see WP:OTHERCONTENT. Wikipedia is a work in progress and all changes will have to be evaluated on their own merits. Grayfell (talk) 08:11, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

We can say he is a self-published author, but I do not think we need (or benefit) from a puffy list of those works.Slatersteven (talk) 12:19, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

The distinction between corporate-published and self-published is not relevant in this context because the article's statement concerns the works themselves. Please review the Acceptable use of self-published works section of Wikipedia’s policies regarding identifying and using self-published works. Note point 3, I will quote it here:

"A self-published work may be used as a source when the statement concerns the source itself. For example, for the statement 'The organization purchased full-page advertisements in major newspapers advocating gun control,' the advertisement(s) in question could be cited as sources, even though advertisements are self-published."

The "published works" section states that Molyneaux has written and published these works. Since their existence is evidence of that, an independent source beyond the works themselves is not required to verify that fact.

The list of an author's published works is relevant information which should be included on the author's page. That's why it is included for other authors, such as all other authors mentioned prior in this discussion, whether their works were corporate-published or self-published. Furthermore, the publications section also represents the author's point-of-view, and thus its inclusion is required per Wikipedia's neutrality principle.

Quoting from the "Neutral point of view" page: "This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus."

Mherzl (talk) 01:12, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Please try and understand exactly what we are telling you, and why we are explaining this to you in this level of detail. It is a bad sign that you are lecturing more experienced editors on matters of basic policy. It doesn't mean you are wrong, but think about it from our perspective.

You clearly do not have consensus for this material. The burden is on you to gain consensus for these changes. This material is not "relevant" simply because you tell us it is "relevant". Relevance is decided by consensus, and that ultimately is based on reliable, independent sources. It is not enough for this to be WP:VERIFIABLE, it also has to be WP:DUE.

As another example, among many, of why this material is excessive, look closer at the IMDB source. It lists hundred of videos indiscriminately. It perhaps lists every video he published to Youtube during the time he was allowed to publish there. Obviously we cannot include a directory of hundreds of videos, and it would not benefit readers to clog-up the article with minutia like this. So for you, as an editor, to decide that a handful are important enough to list would be arbitrary and promotional.

To put it another way, it is not neutral to include a some of his vidoes but not other videos. Why the self-described documentaries but not videos such as An Introduction to Female Evil: Part 3, Wait for It! I've Never Had a Conversation Like This! Oh My!, My Wife Married Her Rapist, The War on Tommy Robinson: Lauren Southern and Stefan Molyneux, and hundreds of other videos with similar clickbait titles? That is a rhetorical question. Any answer would need a reliable, independent source.

So, yet again, please point to a reliable, independent source which mentions his self-published works. We can then figure out how to summarize that source. Grayfell (talk) 05:08, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

• Incidentally, I have cleaned up the Michael Malice article's bibliography section (ISBN numbers, etc.) I removed the anarchist handbook, since it appeared to be a compilation of other people's work which Malice self-published. It was also still extremely obscure per WorldCat. The only other self-published book does have at least a small amount of independent coverage demonstrating notability. This is the same standard I hold this article to. Grayfell (talk) 06:08, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
• If there's no secondary coverage, then it's hard to see how they're WP:DUE. I would also tend to disagree that we can use WP:SELFSOURCE to cover self-published publications that are not noted in any secondary source, since by definition focusing on them is promotional and therefore unduly self-serving - ie. WP:DUE means that listing anything here carries an implication of "these are noteworthy books this person has written, and significant things they have done"; and we cannot rely on the person themselves for that assertion. But even beyond that, WP:SELFSOURCE merely allows the usage of such sources for trivial biographical details; it doesn't mandate them. You still have to illustrate that eg. a particular publication passes WP:DUE to cover it, and I don't see how a self-published work can be due when there's no secondary coverage of it. --Aquillion (talk) 06:54, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Mherzl Your assertions about NPOV are irrelevant to this discussion, and in fact, our NPOV policy is quite clear that this information has no business on this page. See WP:PROPORTION which is a section of our NPOV policy that states An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject.

As there are no reliable, published materials covering Molyneux's self-published books, there is nothing we can say about them per our policies. Also, see WP:SPS (a section of WP:V, which is also policy) for why these books are not reliable sources themselves. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:24, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

I am glad to see that some of the points I have raised now appear to be understood. For example, I hope it is sufficiently clear that self-sourcing is in fact valid for self-referenced material. In case anyone was still doubting that, please notice the work that Grayfell, in attempt to demonstrate his opposing claim, has removed from Malice's published works section. He has removed an actual Amazon bestseller, claiming that it "is extremely obscure per WorldCat". Perhaps he doesn't realize "The Anarchist's Handbook" was #1 nonfiction, and #3 overall, on Amazon's bestseller list. What should be obvious to all: that work should not have been removed from Malice's published works section. And similarly, the self-published works should not have been removed here.

Verifiability has been demonstrated, now consider whether the works are sufficiently relevant for inclusion: The are the most salient works written by an author are sufficiently relevant for inclusion on that author's page. Full stop. Clearly, if an author is sufficiently notable to have a page written about him, then his most salient works are sufficiently notable for inclusion upon it. In other words: if Molyneaux's most salient published works are not sufficiently notable for inclusion, then Molyneaux himself is insufficiently notable and the entire page must be deleted. Publications are some of the more obvious information to include about any author.

So now both reliability and relevance have each been demonstrated. Now consider how the NPOV principle is relevant here. As MPAnts quoted, the NPOV policy states: "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." Given that the subject of the page is Molyneaux himself, his own works are clearly some of the most reliable published material relevant to the subject of the page. Thus, not only *should* the works be included per Wikipedia's norms, they actually *must* be included per Wikipedia's NPOV principle. Currently articles published by others about Molyneaux have undue weight, and the NPOV principle demands representation of his own works. Since the NPOV principle is violated by the removal of the publications section, consensus is irrelevant; the publications simply must be included. Mherzl (talk) 01:45, 27 June 2021 (UTC)