Jump to content

Talk:Stefan Molyneux

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 12.154.111.184 (talk) at 04:42, 26 March 2021 (→Use of Hostile Sources to Characterize Stefan Molyneux). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.



Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2020

I'll begin by quoting a from Wikipedia Rules and Guidelines,

"Misinformation on Wikipedia misleads readers, causing them to make errors with real consequences, including hurt feelings, public embarrassment,[1] reprints of books,[2] lost points on school assignments, and other costs. Some hoaxes about living people may be defamatory, which could expose Wikipedia to legal consequences (see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons)"

The Wikipedia article on Stefan Molyneux is objectively false. All of the sources referenced regarding the accusations against him are, at best gross exaggerations and at best outright lies. To verify I have poured over Stefan's work to verify the claims of the cited articles and none of them are accurate. There is no indication in any of Stefan's work to indicate he is a white supremacist or white nationalist. There is also no evidence that he promotes scientific racism, or racism of any kind. Whasty1991 (talk) 09:26, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PLease read wp:or.Slatersteven (talk) 10:58, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done. Plenty of sources in the first sentence. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 13:10, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a clip from one of his videos where Molyneux says he is no longer skeptical of white nationalism or Identitarianism and argues that white nationalism works. That may not be explicit self-identification, but it makes no difference -- he is saying that white nationalism works while also saying that it's wrong to call it out, out of some belief that there's an organized leftist plot targeting white men. Here is another video where he accuses everyone else of trying to pull down "white civilization" and attacking the "white race" because they're jealous of white people's achievements. The kindest thing you can say is that he is only favorable toward white supremacism even if he doesn't explicitly identify with it. And no, white nationalism and white supremacism aren't different things, we don't play with that Nazified political correctness.
Though I don't know why I bother at this point, as anyone who doesn't get "Molyneux is a white nationalist" either doesn't understand who Molyneux is, what a white nationalist is, or is lying to themselves or others to support a white nationalist. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:37, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re "Molyneux describes himself as being a philosopher"

"Mr. Molyneux holds a Masters Degree in History from the University of Toronto; his graduate thesis focused on the History of Philosophy, detailing the relationship between the metaphysical arguments and the political ethics of major Western philosophers such as Plato, Kant, Locke and Hegel." https://www.freedomain.com/about-stefan-molyneux/

- bit more than a self-description...? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.115.97.158 (talk) 14:47, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that would pass as an RS. Pleae read wp:blp wp:sps and w:rs.Slatersteven (talk) 14:53, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Do we use youtube? Also read wp:legal.Slatersteven (talk) 09:34, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Use of Hostile Sources to Characterize Stefan Molyneux

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
-> Duck test. Just sayin'. TucanHolmes (talk) 17:44, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
There's no arguing with an agenda. 12.154.111.184 (talk) 04:42, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stefan_Molyneux&oldid=1014277288"