Talk:Stefan Molyneux/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

I'm curious how his opinion that he doesn't think women should wear lipstick at work is any way, shape or form related to him being an alleged white supremacist?

Could this be a more biased biography of a person — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.35.240.92 (talk) 01:58, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

It's not at all related. The view is mentioned in the Views section and the Men's rights activism subsection, where it belongs. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:03, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Ask the RS that say it, we we do not.Slatersteven (talk) 10:41, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

How is it that the above editor Slatersteven can remove comments from the talk page in addition to controlling the actual wiki article? Why does this one person have so much control over this article? Is it not against the principles of wikipedia?110.174.242.150 (talk) 13:30, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

If you have a complaint about my actions take to eitehr my talk page or wp:ani (I would advise against this), this is not the place to discuss it (see wp:talk.Slatersteven (talk) 13:32, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Rfc to alter the opening sentence in the WP:Lede

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 RFC is to establish Consensus. Do you support the following sentence starting the lede "Stefan Basil Molyneux (/stəˈfæn ˈmɒlɪnjuː/; born September 24, 1966) is an Irish-born Canadian alt-right white nationalist and white supremacist podcaster, blogger, and banned YouTuber, who promotes conspiracy theories, scientific racism, eugenics, and racist views." — Preceding unsigned comment added by GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk • contribs) 05:10, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support Stefan Molyneux is described as alt-right by 9 sources on this page alone, in contrast to only 8 sources charging him as far-right. His affiliation with alt-right politics takes clear precedence over his affiliation with the far-right by the number of sources on this page alone. When I made this change, it was reverted by TucanHolmes as "superfluous", but a superfluous change doesn't require a revert. Something that's unnecessary or pointless is just that, pointless and thus not needed to fix. The other argument was that the next paragraph mentions he is alt-right, but the next paragraph also mentions he is far-right so that fails as a valid justification to warrant a revert. He finally mentions sources describe him as "far-right", but as I said, more sources use the term "alt-right". Mvbaron came in and repeated many of the same points. "because alt-right is repeated below" Yeah, so is the term far-right. "far-right is used in the sources" as is alt-right. He then says my statement that "changing pointless things is pointless" makes no sense. Ok. Please support this change. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk • contribs) 05:10, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• Please review Wikipedia:Requests for comment, and specifically WP:RFCBEFORE. This is a straightforward change, why jump straight to an RFC? Where is the prior discussion? A superfluous change does require a revert if it makes the article less clear to readers, but the best way to change consensus starts with discussion. Grayfell (talk) 05:52, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Grayfell WP:RFCBEFORE does not objectively require discussion before a Wikipedia:Requests for comment, it merely suggests one and it was of my belief that such a discussion would prove meritless so I skipped to consensus building. I didn't think further discussion would result in any of us changing our opinion. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 07:37, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: Why is this an rfc? This seems to me like a simple content dispute that doesn't need to be handled by RFC. Also, GreenFrogsGoRibbit, you should include a honest description of the changes. You want to change this:

Stefan Basil Molyneux ... is an Irish-born Canadian far-right white nationalist and white supremacist podcaster, blogger, and banned YouTuber, who promotes conspiracy theories, scientific racism, eugenics, and racist views. ... Molyneux is described as a leading figure of the alt-right movement by Politico and The Washington Post, and as far-right by The New York Times. to

Stefan Basil Molyneux ... is an Irish-born Canadian alt-right white nationalist and white supremacist podcaster, blogger, and banned YouTuber, who promotes conspiracy theories, scientific racism, eugenics, and racist views. ... Molyneux is described as a leading figure of the alt-right movement by Politico and The Washington Post, and as far-right by The New York Times. --Mvbaron (talk) 06:01, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Mvbaron It's an Rfc to avoid edit warring and build WP:Consensus, like every other Rfc on Wikipedia. Rfc main use is for content disputation and to avoid edit-wars. You accuse me of being dishonest, which makes no sense since I am explicit with what I am requesting. You then include your own version of my request which is not any different than what I said earlier. However, in your quote of my request you seem to imply calling him alt-right is redundant as it's mentioned later, but by doing so you leave out the far-right part of the paragraph presumably since including it would prove that far-right is just as redundant. I have included the far-right part omitted after this sentence for others convenience: "and as far-right by The New York Times." GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 07:37, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

GreenFrogsGoRibbit I apologize, I did not mean to imply that you are dishonest, I struck that part above. I also edited the above quotes to accurately reflect what you said. On further reflection, we might actually just remove the "far right" descriptor alltogether from the first sentence, because being white nationalist necessitates that one also is far-right anyways. So I suggest OPTION 2 below: Stefan Basil Molyneux ... is an Irish-born Canadian white nationalist and white supremacist podcaster, blogger, and banned YouTuber, who promotes conspiracy theories, scientific racism, eugenics, and racist views. What do you think about that?--Mvbaron (talk) 08:09, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Mvbaron I'm cool with that. Guess I gotta close down this Rfc now lol. And hey man, everything cool between us. Maybe I should have gone to discussion first. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 08:12, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose as at best redundant and at worst misrepresenting. The next sentence describes him as alt-right, so removing the far-right descriptor in the first sentence a) is not an improvement because it duplicates content and b) misrepresents the sources which describe him as far-right. --Mvbaron (talk) 06:01, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Support OPTION 2: Stefan Basil Molyneux ... is an Irish-born Canadian white nationalist and white supremacist podcaster, blogger, and banned YouTuber, who promotes conspiracy theories, scientific racism, eugenics, and racist views. --Mvbaron (talk) 08:09, 14 October 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.

THis RFC should not have been closed in less than a day after only two users responded.Slatersteven (talk) 09:33, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

And not this has been discussed many times, and it has always come down to calling him far-right.Slatersteven (talk) 09:35, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

This Rfc absolutely can be closed in less than a day pursuant to Wikipedia's own rules. Please see WP:RFCEND: "The question may be withdrawn by the poster (e.g., if the community's response became obvious very quickly). In this situation, the editor who started the RfC should normally be the person who removes the 'rfc' template." I fully complied with the rules here. Sorry. Now for your final point, I have edited this lede many times, I added the "As of September 2020, Molyneux has been permanently banned or permanently suspended from PayPal, Mailchimp, YouTube, Twitter and SoundCloud, all for violating hate speech policies." If I cannot edit the WP:Lede to remove far-right or add alt-right in the first sentence of the lede, then it's time to start a new RFC as far as I am concerned. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 18:45, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Two people offered opinions, that is not enough to establish a consensus, not after less than 6 hours. Hell many users (as I was) were asleep when you launched and closed this. And (as I said below) you had not included the RFC template, thus it was improperly launched anyway.Slatersteven (talk) 18:50, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven Thankfully consensus is not needed to end an RFC. Again, WP:RFCEND says: "The question may be withdrawn by the poster (e.g., if the community's response became obvious very quickly). In this situation, the editor who started the RfC should normally be the person who removes the 'rfc' template." The community response became very obvious, so I ended it which is all that is needed. Consensus is not needed to end an RFC, sorry. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 19:00, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not calling him not far-right. What about this? OPTION 3 Stefan Basil Molyneux (...) is an Irish-born Canadian far-right <MOVE NYT AND CNN SOURCES HERE> white nationalist and white supremacist podcaster, blogger, and banned YouTuber, who promotes conspiracy theories, scientific racism, eugenics, and racist views. (...) Molyneux is described as a leading figure of the alt-right movement by Politico and The Washington Post. <REMOVE ", and as far-right by The New York Times."> Mvbaron (talk) 09:40, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

If we must have sources to stop this fine it won't though (and it is already sourced elsewhere in the article, the lede should not really have sources). As I said this has been hashed out many times and keeps getting raised.Slatersteven (talk) 09:43, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Also this RFC failed to include the TRFC tag, and so was incorrectly launched, per WP:RFCST.Slatersteven (talk) 11:13, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven If you want a 'rfc|bio' let me know so I can start it. Either way, just like I had to fight to get "As of September 2020, Molyneux has been permanently banned or permanently suspended from PayPal, Mailchimp, YouTube, Twitter and SoundCloud, all for violating hate speech policies." added to this Lede, I am ready for another round with the "far-right" label. Now do you want to start the RFC or shall I? GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 18:48, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

What? policy requires that you put that in, you did not, its not what I want. If you want to launch (a properly launched) RFC go ahead. I think the consensus is clear from all the talk page sections in archives (and above) about this that there is no consensus for your suggested change.Slatersteven (talk) 10:34, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven On the contrary, I think there is no consensus or logic established for your stance. Mvbaron Suggestion 2 was the best option shown in our controversy. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 21:30, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I wish people would bother to check the archives. This had been discussed multiple times. Hell look at the edit history, whenever Far-right is removed it is added back [[1]] [[2]]. Now if we really need an RFC about this fine. But lets not pretend there is no consensus to call him far-right. Now get consensus to change it.Slatersteven (talk) 09:24, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Agree completely with Steven. Forgive me for not checking this page in the blink of an open and shut RfC eye. SPECIFICO talk 13:54, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

"Academic philosophers do not take the idea of Molyneux as a philosopher seriously. "

This assertion ("Academic philosophers do not take the idea of Molyneux as a philosopher seriously.") stated in Wikipedia's voice as if it were an established fact makes little sense. Check who wrote the introduction to Molyneux's book "Against the Gods?: A Concise Guide to Atheism and Agnosticism." - Peter Boghossian! This is not to say Molyneux would be a prominent philosophical thinker, but I don't think we need such a lecturing of the reader either.Polska jest Najważniejsza (talk) 00:29, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Disgraceful

Donated sparingly to this website, but after reading this page and seeing several links that prove nothing being used to claim this man is a white supremacist who hates Muslims, my support for Wikipedia will cease. 68.192.49.162 (talk) 08:00, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

-Actually he is featured prominently on the Southern Policy Law Center; in this particular article he accumulated money and spread hate through bitcoin. Beyond a small group of people he is irrelevant.

-The point is does he belong on Wikipeida? Should Wikipeida be providing him with free advertising? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.203.10.104 (talk) 13:39, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

MAybe not sp launch an wp:afd.Slatersteven (talk) 14:13, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

-- The SPLC is a political organization, not a legitimate source of information. I think their leaders recently were busted for sexually abusing their employees and creating a racist office environment that does not promote African American People of Color. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:589:8481:1720:61f7:e11a:9cb6:e9b7 (talk) 23:04, 15 Jan 2022 (UTC)

Although secondary supporting sources are widely cited in this article, the biggest source of information about Stefan Molynuex is Stefan Molynuex. His self funded and produced podcasts, self authored books, and extreme fringe positions form a very sophisticated type of self serving propaganda.

Me personally, I think Mr. Molyneux should be ignored and the deletion of this entry would protect the greater good. Wikipedia is process driven and thus lacks editorial control, for profit media on the Internet is click driven and lacks editorial control. I am all for starting the process to delete this entry.. However, I am not sure that the process is adroit enough to recognize the irrelevancy of Mr. Molyneux's propaganda. 71.203.10.104 (talk) 14:39, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Please read wp:forum, if you are not going to make a valid policy-based case for deletion (using the proper venue) please stop saying this page should be deleted because you do not like the subject. That is a violation of wp:talk.Slatersteven (talk) 14:41, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

-- "Extreme fringe" this isn't Encylopedia work, this is polemic.

---This is more politics. You want him deleted not because he is less famous than other people recorded here, but because you don't like his politics.

---You tell me what a "valid policy-based case for deletion" is and where it should go. Reading your reply, Can you help me do a deletion launch? Where can I find rules based grounds for deletion in Wikipeida policy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:589:8481:1720:61f7:e11a:9cb6:e9b7 (talk) 23:04, 15 Jan 2022 (UTC) Where is it documented?71.203.10.104 (talk) 14:49, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I have provided you already with the link, here it is again wp:afd. That tells you how to nominate a page for deletion.Slatersteven (talk) 14:51, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

well the page is locked so I cannot insert a tag to get a discussion started. If you could insert a tag I will provide an argument as to why this entry does not meet/cannot meet NPOV standards for a Biography of a living person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.203.10.104 (talk) 15:18, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

NPOV is not a reason for deletion.Slatersteven (talk) 15:25, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate your help. I am looking at the main policies. Perhaps the neutrality of the article needs to be examined or discussed instead of deletion. I think that would start from a tag to initiate an off talk-page discussion. Could you create a tag to that objective.

neutral point of view (all articles must take a fair, balanced and neutral stance)

verifiability (facts in articles must be verifiable from reliable sources), and

original research (users' and editors' opinions and "popular knowledge" are not suitable for encyclopedia articles).

verifiability (facts in articles must be verifiable from reliable sources), and — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.203.10.104 (talk) 16:01, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes our articles must obey wp:npov, but if you disagree that this article meets that you ask to change it, not delete it. Moreover, you must make a sold case that this article does not reflect what the bulk of wp:RS say. So make a case here that this article does not reflect what the bulk of RS say, by providing some RS that counter what we say.Slatersteven (talk) 16:09, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

What I think it's disgraceful...some people wanting to delete Stefan because they disagree with him. Wikipedia is supposed to be a neutral source. I don't agree with Stefan what so ever but his article should not be deleted. Who will be next to be deleted? Do we delete every other far-right, far-left and whatever else "extrimist"? What's that British person that trained his dog to do the nazi salute. I think he is still around on Wikipedia. I could give examples of "extrimists" people on all sides of the political scale. We can't erase history. MiroslavGlavic (talk) 00:20, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

References

This article seems biased.

See WP:DENY; this has been discussed to death, and until something new is brought to the table or specific instances of bias mentioned, we should not discuss it over and over.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
You can tell the author doesn’t like the subject. An encyclopedia article shouldn’t drip with digs, belittling and animus. 2601:589:8481:1720:6458:375D:7C09:707C (talk) 23:57, 1 January 2022 (UTC) You'll need to be more specific. I don't see any obvious instances of bias. —C.Fred (talk) 00:00, 2 January 2022 (UTC) Also there is no one author, this is a collaborative effort. So feel free to offer suggestions for improvement.Slatersteven (talk) 11:26, 2 January 2022 (UTC) The entire article is a massive instance of bias. The whole thing is practically made up from political activists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shweenee (talk • contribs) 09:02, 18 January 2022 (UTC) Perhaps, or perhaps they are right, and people like Molyneux do not like being called out on what they say? That is why we have to go with RS, becasue we all have opinions.Slatersteven (talk) 10:13, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Media Matters as a Source

WP:DENY. This is beyond Civil POV pushing. It is clear the IP user is more interested in incoherent ranting than actual discussion (see talk page history).
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Why would anyone consider "Media Matters" to be a Reliable Source? The reference here is a clear indicator of bias. Ironically when you compare this Wikipedia to Media Matters - Media Matters is entirely more NPOV! Stefan Molyneux Far-right conspiracy theorist - Stefan Molyneux promotes scientific racism, which cloaks discredited racist arguments that other races are inferior to whites in an academic veneer. He often comments on race and IQ and spreads conspiracy theories on social media. The SLIGHTEST modification of this article towards NPOV (even the removal of a footnote) seems to be impossible!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.203.10.104 (talk)

NPOV Living Person

{{close In regards to the treatment of Mr. Molyneux Wikipedia fails today and has failed from inception to be neutral on the subject. Wikipedia would have it that Mr. Molyneux was a fringe personality aka Nebbish in 2009 to the very reincarnation of Adolph Hitler in late 2021!

My suggestion is that a consensus be reached to either 1) remove this entry entirely as Mr. Molyneux is totally irrelevant or 2) correct the neutrality of the entry.

From 2009

Stefan Molyneux (born 24 September 1966)[1] is a blogger, essayist, author, and host of the Freedomain Radio[2] series of podcasts, living in Mississauga, Canada. He has written numerous articles and smaller essays which have been published on liberty oriented websites such as LewRockwell.com, antiwar.com and Strike The Root, recorded over a 1300 podcasts and written numerous books which all are self-published except for his first which was published by Publish America. In 2006 Stefan Molyneux quit his previous job in the field of computer software to be able to work full-time on Freedomain Radio, a philosophical community website which is completely funded fans of his work through donations and subscriptions of extra media and forum sections.

Now in Late 2021

Stefan Basil Molyneux (/stəˈfæn ˈmɒlɪnjuː/; born September 24, 1966) is an Irish-born Canadian far-right white nationalist[2][3][4] and white supremacist[5][6] podcaster, blogger, author, political commentator, and banned YouTuber, who promotes conspiracy theories, scientific racism, eugenics, and racist views.[7][8][9][10][11][12] As of September 2020, Molyneux has been permanently banned or permanently suspended from PayPal, Mailchimp, YouTube, Twitter and SoundCloud, all for violating hate speech policies.[13][14][15][16][17]

Molyneux is described as a leading figure of the alt-right movement by Politico and The Washington Post, and as far-right by The New York Times.[18][19][20][21] Tom Clements in The Independent describes Molyneux as "an alt-lite philosopher with a perverse fixation on race and IQ."[22] Molyneux describes himself as an anarcho-capitalist.[18]

Multiple sources describe the Freedomain internet community as a cult, referring to the indoctrination techniques Molyneux has used as its leader.[23][24][25][26] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.203.10.104 (talk) 04:08, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

--- Those sources are obviously polemical. Read what the authors write, they are obviously click bait political hacks. Is Daily Wire a legitimate source?

""The Laundry List of References may indicate a lack of NPOV, and the judgement-conclusion in the first sentence reflects a lack of NPOV""

Twenty references used in the first sentence is a laundry list supporting a conclusion that Molyneux is a white nationalist, white supremist. The laundry list is in itself an argument to support the conclusion and therefore is not presenting neutral information in a neutral tone. The subject is being lambasted with an irrefutable list, a laundry list. We really don't know the reasoning as to why he was de-platformed and the major social media networks intentionally don't provide a reason for doing so.

A fact about Molyneux is that he was de-plaformed. That fact in itself is neutral. Molynenux engages in rhetoric which resulted in his de-platforming.

Have you any sources for your changes?

And no we will not either change it or delete it. We will change it or keep it as it is.Slatersteven (talk) 17:02, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

By the way, the reason we have a laundry list of sources is the constant claims to provide RS calling him this. Technically they should not be in the lead, but rather used in the body.Slatersteven (talk) 17:04, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

And we do know why RS said he was deplatformed, we go with that RS say.Slatersteven (talk) 17:09, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

• When it comes to public figures like Mr. Molyneux, we have to reflect what the sources say, even if the article's subject might dislike or be unhappy with it. And the fact is that his promotion of white supremacy and conspiracy theories is what he is most notable for and has extremely heavy coverage - more than enough to satisfy WP:BLP. --Aquillion (talk) 21:36, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

What I have found 1) The Southern Policy Law Center presents a chronology of Molenuex's rhetoric along with an analysis of his methodology.SPLC Research Re Molyneux - Position Paper 2) The same type of Chronology can be seen on the wikipedia page of David Duke 3) A big difference between the two is that Molenuex churns out a huge amount of rhetoric and Duke is less esoteric 3b) the SPLC speaks to the amount of rhetoric as a propaganda strategy 4) Opinion and Research - The SPLC piece is both research and opinion - it cites example to present an argument. 4b) None of the articles cited speak to fact - they just parrot . 5) When I looked at The numerous sources cited in the first lines of Wikipedia article they share the same quotations and they derive from an event which is de-platforming; they don't even contain references of the primary source that can be found in SPLC - the source that argues that Molyneux is "evil" ; The CEO of Britannica speaks to this; "We live in a world where we’re actually consuming more information, but processing less and less information. When you look at how the search and social engines work, it’s based on popularity — what are people likely to click on? And scandalous information — not the truth kind of information — seems to be the one that’s coming to the top. 6) The reason fact and NPOV has to be established is that the tone of this article has a parallel to McCarthyism - although repeated Ad nauseam in external sources and then cited here; the conclusion being drawn is an argument without proof or substantiation; The motivation of Molineux might be profit, followers, narcissism, mental illness, or just pure rhetoric. He might believe what he believes; He might be making arguments to absurdum 7) What is your responsibility here? I don't think it has been met. It has to be toned down to neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.203.10.104 (talk) 02:54, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

His statement to counter the public condemnation - The right to defend yourself in light of public opinion or condemnation is essential to a free society '

Race The major human races diverged tens of thousands of years ago, and had to adapt to very different environments – from brutal Siberian winters to the lush dangers of the tropics.

These varied environments posed unique challenges to our evolution, and gave each race its particular characteristics. Some people refer to these as “strengths” and “weaknesses,” but I strongly oppose such judgments.

Evolutionarily speaking, the words “strengths” and “weaknesses” are mostly meaningless – especially when talking about different environments. All creatures strive their best to adapt to their local environments.

I do not believe that any race is “superior” or “inferior.” I accept the biological facts that some racial differences exist, because philosophy teaches us to accept facts – even if they make us uncomfortable. (The virtue of intellectual courage is only required when contemplating uncomfortable facts.)

Philosophy also teaches us to avoid judging individuals by group averages – although women may be shorter than men in general, you can never prejudge any individual woman as being shorter than the average man.

I would love nothing more than to live in a world where we treated people as individuals – Martin Luther King’s dream of judging people by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin – but there is a growing group of people who claim that all differences in outcomes for various groups result from (usually white/male) bigotry, and that is an unjust and incorrect claim.

Although there are many talented Chinese basketball players, we would not expect the majority of professional players to be Chinese, for various historical, cultural, and physical reasons.

Average tested IQ levels vary among different ethnicities – again, we must never judge individuals by group averages, but group averages nonetheless exist, and play at least a part in social and economic outcomes.

I have always believed – and taught – that human beings can only resolve conflicts via reason and evidence. We can only meet and find peace in reality – not in ideology or fantasy or wish fulfillment or rage or, strangely enough, in the racial prejudice that results from denying average group differences.

I talk about these issues because I wish to help de-escalate increasing ethnic tensions and hostility, so we can have a reasonable conversation about these issues without coming to open violence, which will be our inevitable destination if these conversations continue to be suppressed.

I believe in equality before the law and reject any and all laws based on race. No race should “rule” or dominate any other race.

Eugenics is a government program that uses force to control people’s reproductive choices and is utterly immoral.

I am not an “ethno-nationalist” but an advocate for a stateless society. In a truly free society, people can live however they choose, as long as they do not initiate the use of force. The violence required to create an “ethno-state” would be a monstrous violation of the non-aggression principle, and should be utterly condemned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.203.10.104 (talk) 04:46, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Of course he denies it, most racists do. But he is not an RS for what he is. At best we can say "but he denies this".Slatersteven (talk) 11:32, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

I think that is the solution "At best we can say "but he denies this" <-because then there is balance aka NPOV in this article: its impossible to know what people believe and its impossible to refute what people believe - that is why the David Duke article is more professional; Duke actually does things in the real world which can be monitored and are part of a chronology; Molineux a creature of rhetoric and he has thousands and thousands of hours of bloviation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.203.10.104 (talk) 15:36, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Which is why we go with how RS (and particularly those who study the subject) interpret it. They will have studied his rhetoric, and compared it to what others say.Slatersteven (talk) 15:44, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Also, inserting a blanket denial ("but he denies this") would be useless, see Wikipedia:Mandy Rice-Davies applies. TucanHolmes (talk) 13:53, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

"Of course he denies it, most racists do." Do you have a source for that Slatersteven? Do you realize what slander is? Putting this at the top of his page is definitely biased. If I look up Bill Cosby's wikipedia article, I don't see "convicted sex offender" in the first sentence, even though that is what he is most famous for in the past half-decade. You can find hundreds of RS for that. Very disturbing trend at Wikipedia, completely biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 133.159.121.130 (talk) 07:31, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Well Bill Cosby is not a pundit, who makes his money from what he says. That is the point with Molyneux, he makes his living by what he says. Slatersteven (talk) 09:48, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Why is what he does for a living even remotely relevant to the discussion of bias on the page? 173.8.33.245 (talk) 20:56, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Doug Weller's deletion of these personal attacks was perfectly appropriate.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
At 'Slatersteven': Your logic here is utter nonsense. For your information, I came here to find out who Molyneux is, for I had never heard of him. I scanned the opening wiki paragraphs, discerned that they display smear language, and immediately clicked on 'talk' to see if any others have been repelled by the language. Quite apparently, many have. It is ironic that in the excerpt of his own self description, posted on this talk page above, I find what I came for - a brief summary of his stated position on things. Now he may be in many ways a hypocrite - I do not know. But I am not stupid - what he writes is not a denial. He is not rebutting anyone. He is simply asserting the beliefs he holds. Any man is nothing more and nothing less than what he himself says and does. Certainly there may be incongruity and even contradictions in those truths, but they remain the fundamental truth. What others think may be of interest, but it is not central. That there are apparently many tertiary sources that are severely critical of him is most appropriately documented under a section entitled 'Reception' or 'Criticism'. Indeed, if you wish to shine light on a man's contradictions, it is best to factually document those contradictions by juxtaposing and sourcing his own conflicting statements. Ad hominem linguistic bullying with vague opinionated labels like 'racist' and 'white supremacist' only cast a shadow on you, at least in the eyes of any thoughtful person. If you wish to use such words, they must be presented in a neutral point of view context. For example, you might demonstrate and source a contradiction, and then state "as a consequence, some have classified him as racist", being careful to cite sources refering to those who have so opined. It is not incumbent upon you to proffer the opinion yourself, nor is it legitimate to simply parrot another's opinion, however well sourced. That is heresay, and invariably, there will be those who hold opposing opinions, however heinous an individual may actually be. By using the word 'some', you, as an editor, remain neutral, and allow for the possible existence of dissent. Thereby you maintain the integrity of the article and wikipedia as a whole. Indeed, if the contradictions, as well as opinions expressed by others, are overwhelmingly numerous, you could be justified in using the word 'many' instead of 'some', while still preserving your neutrality and the integrity of wikipedia. In conclusion, I find this particular wikipedia article to be incredibly sub-standard. Articles like this, that sacrifice objectivity and neutrality in service to the current vogue for neo-liberal propagandist language (neo-conservative propaganda is equally anathema) degrade the credibility of the wikipedia as a general reference source. In fact, in these times, I have concluded that many who scream 'racist' most loudly are, in fact the most racist among us, or worse, they are the true fascists: utterly intolerant of views that deviate even slightly from their own. This is your encyclopedia now. I stopped editing it years ago. Surely you are intelligent enough to understand the principle of 'a house divided against itself can not stand'. By systematically traveling the path you have taken in the last decade, you only move closer to a world in which the wikipedia is untrusted and irrelevant. 2001:569:5202:1900:29BD:23B0:5B0C:F7BD (talk) 06:46, 5 July 2022 (UTC) Posted to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Stefan_Molyneux So typical ... immediately deleting a coherent disinterested call to actually serve the interests of wikipedia users. You waste the time of your user base Mr. Slater. It can lead no where good. 2001:569:5202:1900:29BD:23B0:5B0C:F7BD (talk) 07:49, 5 July 2022 (UTC) (Immediately reposted with addendum after nearly immediate summary deletion of the original post. Edited with clarifying and explanatory addenda the next day - thank you for not deleting the remarks a second time, as I half expected to find.) It seems I spoke too soon. The second deletion has now happened. Alas, maybe I can get through to a man who seems to use precisely the tactics that WP:NOTDUMB and Civil POV pushing, as well as other policies try to prohibit. Indeed Mr. Slater, it seems to me you are WP:Wikilawyering. In your note to me on 'my' talk page you project your own behavior on me, when I have done none of the things of which you accuse me. In fact, I have read more of the wikipedia guidelines than most editors I've encountered over the years. I'm thoroughly familiar with the policies you cited to me. That I no longer edit is an irrelevant point. I am a wikipedia user, and I value a wikipedia that maintains a neutral point of view, where I can efficiently answer simple questions without wasting enormous amounts of time wading through prejudicial tripe. I am in no way 'threatening' you to "get my way". I merely point out that the user base is also "not dumb". People are smart enough to see when a presentation is biased, and even now on this talk page, there is plenty of evidence that some care enough to point out that bias. Inferior articles genuinely degrade the reputation of the wikipedia. As for "reliable sources" (wp:rs) and "original research" (wp:or), I am not in any way suggesting that these policies be ignored. I am making quite reasonable suggestions about how you might maintain a neutral point of view by more strictly adhering to these very policies. It is clear to me, having read this talk page, and having read your personal talk page, that you have an agenda and distort wikipedia policies to suit your agenda. This is the projection you are imposing on me. I am not trying to "get my way", while it is apparent that you have repeatedly done that with the history of this article. Ultimately, I do not care what happens to this article. I came here for an answer, and I got my answer. I really don't care about Molyneux. I do not defend him and I do not disclaim him. I do care about a credible wikipedia and a positive user experience. It is entirely appropriate to address you directly here on this page, for any intelligent reader can see from the material that is already here, let alone the deletions in the history, that wikipedia policies are being grossly abused in the bullying of other potential contributors and the prejudicial presentations. I am in ACTUAL FACT, discussing the content of this article. This IS a terrible article. It is one of very minor importance, and I suppose that is why you can get away with your behaviour. Few would care enough about the topic to seriously oppose you. Indeed I myself do not care about the topic. I am addressing you directly because it seems to me, you are the one who is excluding others from making any suggestions, let alone contributions. That degrades all wikipedia editors. It is wrong behaviour. If you can not contain your prejudices, perhaps you should recuse yourself from editing controversial topics. In any event, summarily deleting legitimate criticism of the article clearly violates wp:talk policy. Civil discussion can only occur when there is tolerance of suggestions made by others. I don't expect to "get my way". I do expect to be respectfully heard and I expect my suggestions to survive long enough for other editors to view and discuss them. I see that you are retired and on vacation. I am also retired, not just from employment, but also from the wikipedia. Ironically, had you simply allowed my original post to stand, I would have quietly gone my way. At this juncture, I am tempted to re-enlist as an editor solely for the purpose of filing a formal complaint against the violations of wikipedia policies that are apparent in this article's history. No, that is not a 'threat'. It is completely within my rights as a former editor and is a possibility that conforms with current wikipedia policy. I'll have to think about whether it is worth the trouble. 2001:569:5202:1900:CD50:BD21:8FBB:DE24 (talk) 20:51, 5 July 2022 (UTC) This is a violation of wp:soap and or wp:forum, in addition it violates wp:npa, as to it seems to be about me, the the subject of the article. Slatersteven (talk) 16:24, 7 July 2022 (UTC) User:Doug Weller's deletion of these personal attacks was perfectly appropriate. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:34, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Redundancy

Normally I'd just make the edit without bothering to ask, but this is the sort of article where consensus is needed for every detail.

The stuff about Tom Bell is a) relevant and b) in here twice. Should it be in the "de-fooing" section, or the "cult" section? DS (talk) 02:43, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

good point , moved. Slatersteven (talk) 09:26, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

RS Issues

Footnotes 2-7 are cited at the top of the article in support of the conclusory statements that the subject is a "far-right white nationalist and white supremacist." Most of the cited sources consist of articles summarily reporting on YouTube's decision to ban the subject (among other individuals) without any objective analysis of his views, i.e., "The channels repeatedly violated YouTube’s policies, a YouTube spokesperson said, by alleging that members of protected groups were inferior." The only source that falls outside of the foregoing parameters mentions the subject in passing, using conclusory language, i.e., "While a guest on white supremacist, right-libertarian Stefan Molyneux's podcast, Peterson specifically appealed to Herrnstein and Murray's The Bell Curve (Herrnstein and Murray, 1994) to support his views [...]". I have no particular love or hate for the subject; however, I agree with the sentiment of many on this page that the article has been hijacked by folks with a political agenda who are actively degrading the objectivity and, therefore, the quality of mighty Wikipedia. I certainly think the article should not ignore the allegations of racism, but such discussion should be limited to the "criticism" section as others have suggested. 173.8.33.245 (talk) 21:23, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, facts about which all reliable sources agree are stated as facts. We do not WP:WHITEWASH BLP (or any other) articles. Newimpartial (talk) 21:59, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

What are these reliable sources? I looked at some of his works. I googled around and found a lot of sources who did not seem to hear his podcast. The just accused him of things they did not even know about by putting quotes and stories without full context.

This would mean creating a lot of sources with misleading information would consensual make it legit - thats wrong. 88.69.146.45 (talk) 13:31, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

If you wish to challenge the sources we use take it to wp:rsn. And demonstrate there that they do not have a reputation for fact checking. Slatersteven (talk) 13:35, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Criticism in intro/summary

The criticism from david gordon is out of place in the introduction and should be removed or moved to the criticism section of the article. The opinion of david gordon is out of place and does not add enough information about molyneux to warrant inclusion in that section. Perhaps a sentence along the lines of "Molyneux's writings have drawn extensive criticism from intellectuals who question Molyneux's intellectual rigor". 179.6.207.8 (talk) 20:56, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Not technically far-right. He's anarcho-capitalist.

Far right means hyper-nationalist and white nationalist. Because he is an anarchist, he technically is not far-right or alt-right. He is a fringe anarcho-capitalist racist conspiracy theorist. 76.113.227.254 (talk) 06:04, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia goes by reliable sources. You are not the first person to claim on this talk page that there is some contradiction between being far-right and anarcho-capitalist, but reliable sources do not, in general, treat this as an important refutation. There are a lot of reasons sources don't take this position seriously, but for our purposes, we would need sources explain this as a contradiction as it relates to Molyneux by name. Using sources which are not about Molyneux but are about anarcho-capitalism would likely be WP:SYNTH for anything in this article. Grayfell (talk) 07:40, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

There are no sources that support the claim that he is a white nationalist or far right. There are sources that make that claim but they don't support it. I doubt he claims to be far-right. What does he claim to be and why isn't that listed? 68.6.71.154 (talk) 18:18, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

He is a libertarian according to Southern Poverty law Center. A libertarian is not far-right.

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/stefan-molyneux 68.6.71.154 (talk) 18:22, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Upon re-reading his entry there is nothing listed that evidences his as being far-right or alt-right. 68.6.71.154 (talk) 18:25, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

We go by what RS say (for example) the above source lists his ideology as "alt-right", and ", shifting from the Ayn Rand libertarian right (and from supporting Ron Paul in 2008) to the ethno-nationalist far-right,"). Slatersteven (talk) 18:27, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I’m pretty sure AnCap is just a non-authoritarian far right philosophy and your definition is incorrect. Dronebogus (talk) 08:22, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Source for the claim he is an anarchist? Slatersteven (talk) 10:35, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Eugenics in the lede?

The lede states that Molyneux promotes eugenics to his audience, and does so in wikivoice. However, the only other mention of the word in the entire article is an attributed statement coming from the SPLC, which doesn't even elaborate on what exactly his promotion of eugenics entails. The article needs better sources that elaborate on the subjects pro-eugenics positions, otherwise specifically mentioning eugenics in the lede is WP:UNDUE. 46.97.170.11 (talk) 12:17, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree that it should be removed from the lede - looking at the SPLC link, it looks like by "promotes eugenics" they mean "has interviewed a few people who believe in eugenics". It's a nonsense claim. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:46, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

This is WP:OR. SPLC is a reliable source, the question isn't whether Molyneux promotes Eugenics or not, but whether or not high quality reliable sources report on it to such an extent that justify emphasizing it in the lede, using in wikivoice. The attributed statement by the SPLC is not a problem, only the mention in the lede. 46.97.170.11 (talk) 11:28, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

I made the change. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:33, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Why is this so unobjective?

Can we get an entry that isn't so plainly unobjective. Very little is in the entry that discusses his actual beliefs or counter-arguments. It's 90% a bunch of entries about people's editorial opinions. There are very few facts in here. Most of it resembles defamation as it contains little supporting evidence. What makes him far right exactly? What makes him a racist exactly? Suggesting rap music causes violence is not a racist opinion. Are we just anti-science now? It's ironic that the entry essentially calls him out for being a bigot but then excludes any real material information that would allow someone to reasonably come to any conclusion. At least support with some quotes or something. Citing to another's editorial opinion that he is racist isn't evidence of racism. It's just creating an echo chamber. 68.6.71.154 (talk) 18:14, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

We do not say that him saying rap music causes violence is racist. Slatersteven (talk) 18:28, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

exactly my point 24.205.76.240 (talk) 20:37, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

If you aren't happy with the way the article is written, try to rework it in your sandbox - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 20:54, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Your point is we do not say something, then you need RS saying it. Slatersteven (talk) 20:58, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Forgive me, but what is defined as a RS (I'm assuming that means "Reliable Source")? Vice, ScreenRant and the SPLC definitely shouldn't qualify.

Additionally, many major news outlets have lost credibility in recent years yet they are also cited as being reliable sources. 2601:410:4200:3260:B1B4:A212:8E36:7130 (talk) 13:27, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Consensus at wp:rsn. Slatersteven (talk) 13:36, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I apologize again for being indignant, but I'm very passionate about this guy and his page here completely misrepresents what he stands for. Take care, this will be the last time I bother you. 2601:410:4200:3260:B1B4:A212:8E36:7130 (talk) 02:54, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

All of the sources citing him as a white supremacist don't actually provide proof. They just refer to him as such. 99.115.151.92 (talk) 19:34, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

As they are RS they are not required to provide us with proof, the assumption is as they care reliable they have seen it. Slatersteven (talk) 19:38, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

That standard might work for a lot of information and opinions on Wikipedia in general, but when that standard is applied to a claim of something so egregious and defamatory as being called racist or a white supremacist, especially when it's the first thing listed about someone, there should be a lot more due diligence when providing such proof. This article makes a bold and harmful claim about someone, and does nothing to back it up with actual proof. Once you actually look at the sources and realize that no proof is provided, this article comes off as extremely biased and damages the credibility of Wikipedia 99.115.151.92 (talk) 19:47, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Well I did, and felt they did, this is why we go by what RS say and not out OR. Slatersteven (talk) 19:48, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Proof of something doesn't rely on 'feel'. The sources either have the proof, or they don't. Which sources actually provide the proof, and what exactly is that proof?

What is OR exactly? 99.115.151.92 (talk) 19:53, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:OR is Wikipedia jargon for 'original research'. To explain in simple terms, Wikipedia doesn't publish original research. Instead, Wikipedia is a tertiary source which mainly summarizes other sources. Therefor, we do not expect sources to provide 'proof' to our own individual level of satisfaction. If you have some specific reason to think any individual source is not reliable, you can to present that reason here for discussion. Grayfell (talk) 21:23, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken, the first thing listed about a person implies that it's the most prominent trait about them, and as such, supporting evidence speaking to not only the validity but also the degree of this trait should be overwhelmingly abundant, explicit, and difficult to dispute.

In this case, it implies that Stefan Molyneux either himself primarily identifies as a White Supremacist and White Nationalist, or primarily and explicitly promotes things like violence and negative actions against people based on their race, as a topic covering the majority or a significant percentage of his discussions.

Additionally, topics that fall under the umbrella of racism (white nationalism, white supremacy, etc.) are emotionally evocative and extremely divisive. Having something like that listed as a primary descriptor about someone brings more to the table beyond a mundane fact or trait and therefore warrants an even higher degree of scrutiny.

These are very bold and egregious implications, which should require every supporting source to provide explicit examples to back them up.

What I'm seeing here is that every single linked source, which (while it's not required), not only fails to provide proof, but most also fail to even provide any actual evidence (beyond appeals to authority) of the fact that this article is not only asserting but placing in that foremost and primary place in the article.

I have reviewed a very large portion of his content, and while there should be a discussion about how a subset of his more recent topics can be viewed as adjacent to what White Nationalists believe, topics like that are completely absent throughout most of his time as a podcaster. Most of his topics have related to the Non-Aggression Principle (to which he has always vehemiantly held himself), Anarcho-Capitalism, peaceful parenting, and relationships.

In lieu of labeling him primarily as a white supremacist or white nationalist, I would suggest devoting a section to his views on the topic rather than asserting it as an assumed fact. 99.115.151.92 (talk) 20:29, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion or advocacy, so how he personally chooses to describe himself is not necessarily of prime importance, nor would it be an excuse for whitewashing the article. Disliking a description doesn't make it any less neutral, nor any less factual. The main reason reliable sources discuss Molyneux at all is because of his various forms of pseudo-intellectual extremism. That he is prolific and verbose is mostly irrelevant, because he isn't treated by reliable sources as an expert in politics, relationships, etc.. Using indirect language to describe the reason he is noteworthy would be euphemistic, which would be the opposite of neutral. We're not a platform for public relations, so instead, as an encyclopedia, we attempt to describe things in direct language. Since we are not a platform for promoting him, nor for promoting his podcasts, confining this to a separate section would be inappropriate (WP:CSECTION may help explain this further, if you care). Grayfell (talk) 22:05, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

IP user, have you actually listened to Stefan Molyneux? Wikipedia is written from a global perspective, not a US American one, and in pretty much every other country on Earth (with the exception of maybe Russia or Hungary), Molyneux would be considered a Nazi. That's why so many reliable (!) sources describe him as a white supremacist/racist/etc.; because he talks like one. TucanHolmes (talk) 11:44, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Well the entire article reads like a smear piece and not something at all neutral. I'm looking through the web page on the wikipedia link and I don't see anything that has anything to do with White Supremacy, but I do see a lot of criticism about communism and the current left. I am watching his video about George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin and, again, he isn't saying anything that wasn't in the court case, points out bot Zimmerman and Martin's police records, and praises Zimmerman for getting White cops arrested for beating a Black homeless man... none of what I am seeing here seems anywhere near as racist as this article makes him out to be. I was expecting something as horrible as the KKK, and it is all pretty tame and says next to nothing condemning or praising one race over the next. This entire article is in need of a rewrite to make it more balance, some of what I am seeing in the wiki article seems like an outright lie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:246:5a83:d090:9581:1645:55e8:7756 (talk) 00:22, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I assume by 'web pages' you mean the sources which are cited in the lead of the article. Those sources support the current description. Wikipedia articles summarize reliable sources, and we do not publish original research. Picking arbitrary examples of his own videos is a form of original research.

To put it another way, Wikipedia attempts to maintain objectivity by summarizing reliable, independent sources. Compiling examples from his own prolific output would not be impartial, it would be very partial to his preferences. Since Wikipedia is not a platform for public relations, this would not be appropriate. Grayfell (talk) 02:54, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

please read wp:or. Slatersteven (talk) 10:51, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

"Not an argument" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Not an argument has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 5 § Not an argument until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 04:41, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Why does "Dispute Resolution Organization" redirect here?

"Dispute Resolution Organization" redirects here despite this article not mentioning them once. Nuclearnerd321 (talk) 06:23, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

@Nuclearnerd321: Good catch! I noticed that that page used to redirect to Dispute resolution organization, which used to be an article itself before it was also redirected here (and then deleted). I've enquired with the administrator who deleted that page to see if it can be undeleted - that page's history might shed more light on why it was redirected here in the first place, and the article that was there prior to the deletion may potentially be a better target for the redirects than here :)

Thanks for bringing this up! All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 07:22, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Banned from platforms; software career in lede

I don’t see why these points belong in the lede for this guy. He’s not famous for his career in software. That he’s banned from platforms is not remotely what he’s notable for, and is also subject to change that may not be tracked in reliable sources. Why is it lede-worthy? Zanahary (talk) 16:23, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

It is not what he is notable for, but it is notable about him, if that makes some sense. Being banned, at least at one point in his career, from four major online platforms, all for violating hate speech policies, is extraordinary and illustrates just how extreme Molyneux is. However, given that a lead is supposed to summarize the article, I think this should be broadened to include the travel ban and visa entry episodes.

Basically, the lead should get across that he is, in essence, a persona non grata in multiple jurisdictions/spaces, both on- and offline. TucanHolmes (talk) 18:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Surely that can be expressed without just listing a bunch of platforms. It is not that important. Zanahary (talk) 17:40, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

No mention of atheism

Jesus you are really covering up for the atheists 109.240.98.232 (talk) 12:47, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

The fact he's an atheist would contradict the ludicrous cult narrative which the leftists and nihilists are pushing to slander him. 2A01:5A8:447:A861:917D:3E97:8AE8:72C (talk) 06:14, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Uh huh, "slander", sure. Regardless, without a reliable sources, who cares whether or not he's an atheist? If you have a reliable source for this, and that source indicates why it matters, feel free to propose it. Grayfell (talk) 06:19, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

He actually wrote a book abouth atheism, and another about secular ethics, so atheism and secularism are important parts of his philosophy, so they should be mentionned. He also often refers to Ayn Rand as one of his early influences (he talks about her in his book The Art of The Argument).

https://www.amazon.ca/Against-Gods-Concise-Atheism-Agnosticism/dp/1975654382

https://www.amazon.ca/Universally-Preferable-Behaviour-Rational-Secular/dp/1975653742Hayden41 (talk) 17:08, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Where is the reliable source about him being a White nationalist? Wikipedia is a hilarious echo chamber of people LARPing as neutral fact finders interested in the truth, who on the same hand will only use mainstream media as their sources. I bet not a single moderator who edited Stefan's page and who has the power now to actually make it neutral has listened to a single full podcast from Stefan. 70.48.250.13 (talk) 14:39, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 June 2024

Put in somewhere “he appears on freedomainradio often with his daughter in a condescending demeanor to his call-in guests…”. And “he milks donations out of listeners and complains if his tips are of a dollar or less…” 2603:6011:4301:7094:2DBA:D539:24D:6936 (talk) 04:01, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

May well be OR and way to much editorialising. Slatersteven (talk) 10:02, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: unsourced, non-neutral Wracking ^talk! 15:05, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Why no mention of his published books?

Reardless of his controvertial opinions, Molyneux is a published author, so there should be a section about his books.

I don't have the necessary permissions to edit his page.

Essays

• On Truth: The Tyranny Of Illusion (2007)
• Universally Preferable Behaviour: A Rational Proof of Secular Ethics (2007)
• Everyday Anarchy: The Freedom of Now (2008)
• Practical Anarchy: The Freedom of the Future (2008)
• Against The Gods (2010)
• The Art of The Argument: Western Civilization's Last Stand (2017)
• Real-Time Relationships: The Logic of Love (2017)
• Essential Philosophy: How to know what on earth is going on (2018)

Novels

• Revolutions (2002)
• The God of Atheists (2007)

Hayden41 (talk) 16:46, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I am open to correction on this but isn't CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform a self publishing platform?

Essential Philosophy: Everything You Need to Understand the World's Greatest Thinkers, comes back as the author James Mannion.

Maybe someone with more knowledge on this can weigh in. Knitsey (talk) 17:47, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I thought I didn't have the required privileges to edit the page, but it turns out I can, so I added the section. Hayden41 (talk) 17:54, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

This has come up multiple times in the past. See Talk:Stefan Molyneux/Archive 11#Publications section. Wikipedia isn't a platform for promotion, and reliable sources do not, in general treat him as being notable as a published author. For example, despite much effort, only one review of any of his work has been found which is even arguably reliable. Since it was arguable, it has already been removed.

Further, it appears the list you added includes multiple errors. ISBN 1598691384, which you cited for his 2018 book, shows up in Worldcat as the 2006 Mannion book. ISBN 1975654382 for Against the Gods is not in Worldcat at all (which demonstrates the obscurity of these self-published works) but it is listed by Google and Amazon as having been published in 2017, not 2010.

Instead of adding a bland and superficially flattering bibliography, if any of his work are discussed by reliable and independent sources, use those sources to explain why the work is significant in prose in the body. Since this has come up before, proposing those sources on talk is also a good idea. Grayfell (talk) 20:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Since the article mostly talks about his philosophical and polticial views, wouldn't it be pertinent to post the work he has written himself at length on these subjects, instead of relying solely on second-hand opinions on what he is alledged to believe?

He has written books, that is a fact, so therefore he is an author, and people should be allowed to know what those books are. The entirety of the article about him is about what other people think of his views, never once is he allowed the courtesy of being provided a link or a mere referrence to his own published words. That is very weird.Hayden41 (talk) 22:58, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

People have a lot of traits, but we use independent sources to determine which traits are encyclopedically significant. Wikipedia isn't a platform for public relations, nor is it a place for fans to help him sell his wares (not even as a "courtesy" as you put it). Wikipedia strongly favors WP:SECONDARY sources. Further, WP:UGC (user-generated content) sites such as Goodreads are not reliable sources for Wikipedia.

Additionally, per MOS:SEEALSO: As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body. (emphasis in original). Grayfell (talk) 19:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a structure to be used to gang up on someone's reputation either, which is clearly what this page seems to be about.

As I said, this page almost entirely uses second-hand opinions of his words, but not a single time is it acknlowledged that he has written his own thoughts in book form. Why is that? Are other people's opinions the only thing that count as fact here?

Oddly enough, the only place where there is mention of one of his books is the "reception" section, which only talks about one reviewer, David Gordon, which is of course negative. Should I add a positive review of his books then, to make it seem that wikipedia at least tries to be fair and balanced? But I'm sure if I do it will promptly be erased for "promoting" his work.

If you're going to have a section about one reviewer, why not have a section about his bibliography? There seems to be an inconsistency here.

Yes, he is self-published, but there is a link to his website that he owns the rights to. If he owns and operates a website, then technically he's a publisher. Obviously his opinions have had an impact on others and culture, enough to justify having a wikipedia page of his own, so therefore what exactly he has written matters as a matter of record.

Molyneux has written books that people have read, he is a thinker and writer, that is not my opinion, it is a fact. You may not like his opinions, and I never said that I did, BTW, but it's what he does and what he is known for. The very reason why this page exists. It's not "public relations" or "promotion" to merely have a footnote mentioning that he has written books.

Any way, his bibliography is alot more relevant to the topic of "Stefan Molyneux" than his wife's name and occupation, which for some reason has been judged pertinent. 69.156.66.92 (talk) 21:56, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you about the "see also" section, I didn't know that. Hayden41 (talk) 22:05, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Encyclopedias are tertiary sources, so this article attempts to explain Stefan Molyneux as a topic from an outside perspective. This means we mainly summarize WP:SECONDARY sources (specifically independent sources).

Molyneux has his own platforms for describing himself and his own views. This article is not one of them. His self-published books are not any more or less important than his blog posts or podcasts or forums, or videos, or interviews, or whatever else might exist. To put it another way, Wikipedia should not be placed in the position that we are rewarding/punishing him for being prolific. That he has produced a lot of material is neither a good thing nor a bad thing, and further, it isn't even noteworthy at all unless a reliable source notes it for us.

As I've said multiple times on this talk page over the years, if you know of any reviews for any of this books that have been published as reliable sources, please propose them here. Admittedly, I haven't looked recently, but if there is any reason to think that more have appeared recently, let me know and I will look again. From what I have seen, almost nobody has paid any attention to these works. Why would these works be so inherently noteworthy that they do not need a reliable source despite Wikipedia's core policies and long-standing convention? Without context from a reliable source, their mere existence tells readers pretty much nothing about Molyneux as a topic.

So we need to provide at least some context, and the way to do that is via reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 22:50, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

At the very least there should be a mention that he is indeed an author, since you have a section about the reception of one of his books. You can't mention one book and not the others. You can't have it both ways.

Furthermore, his essays do inform us about his worldview, which might inform the reader on why he is so controvertial. It is mentioned in his bio that he is an anarcho-capitalist. Then why on Earth shouldn't it be mentioned that he has written two books on anarchism?

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, encyclopedias are disinterested, dispationnate, and unbiased sources of information. This is clearly not the case here. Every single opinion on this page is negative, every single link leads to a harsh critic. The page on Adolph Hitler shows more impartiality. Any page on any person should be an overview of who that person is, and a record what they have done. It should be more than a collection of negative and defamatory comments people have made about them, often with very little context (which could be provided by his writings). A person can't solely be summed up by the opinion of others. 69.156.66.92 (talk) 00:24, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

As I said, he has many traits. Being a self-published author isn't automatically vitally important just because you say it is. Our goal isn't to inform people of his "worldview" as a context-free set of factoids, it is to provide context, and as I said, that context must come from reliable, independent sources. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't at least some of his self-published books just compilations of his blog-posts and forum posts? These kinds of works would be unlikely to belong without context. Again, this is why we use reliable, independent sources to decide which works are important and which are not.

This approach extends to the rest of the article. The article attempts to dispassionately summarize source, but those sources are not required to be 'dispassionate' in the way your comment suggests. Likewise, we are not required to robotically ignore the context those sources provide. Grayfell (talk) 03:28, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Care to explain why you edited out the information I added?

There doesn't seem to be any logical reason for you to do so. Hayden41 (talk) 00:48, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Becasue of wp:not, it is not our job to act as a bibliography or catalog. I fail to see how this will help the reader. Slatersteven (talk) 09:52, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

There is a "reception" section talking about one his books being reviewed, so therefore it is pertinent to mention that he is an author and self-published. You can't have it both ways, you can't mention he has a book out and not mention that he is an author. Hayden41 (talk) 00:12, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

And I put back the reference to his presence on the Joe Rogan Experience, since he was indeed invited twice (episodes #436 and #538).

https://www.jrepodcast.com/guest/stefan-molyneux/

You have no legitimate reason to take it out. Hayden41 (talk) 00:15, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

There's even a third time (#396) Hayden41 (talk) 00:21, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Just as he has produced many blog posts and similar, he's also appeared on many podcasts over the years. The site you've mentioned, jrepodcast.com, is an "unofficial fan site" and isn't even reliable at all. It is poor for both factual claims and also for demonstrating lasting encyclopedic significance. We still need reliable WP:IS to explain to readers why any particular appearance matters. The one book review by David Gordon (philosopher) has come and gone from the article a few times, but regardless, as an independent source it's still better than anything you have proposed. Grayfell (talk) 00:53, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

On the site I referenced you can view the actual podcast, you can see him being interviewed by Joe Rogan, what more proof does one need that he indeed was on the show?

Why are there mention that he was on those other platforms (RT, PressTV, Info Wars) pertinent, but for some reason one can't say he appeared on the Rogan Experience? What is the logic behind that choice?

I don't see any reliable sources that shows he was on PressTV. Hayden41 (talk) 01:01, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

https://open.spotify.com/episode/1aGslQJpQhdNBwLXSYqx6a

This is the actual Joe Rogan Experience Podcast, not a "fan site". Hayden41 (talk) 01:04, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Rogan's podcast is not an independent source for these appearances. It is a primary source, and Wikipedia articles should mainly use secondary and independent to determine whether or not something is important enough to mention. This is especially true for the lead of the article. RT, Press TV, and InfoWars are all supported by a reliable, secondary source. That source doesn't mention Rogan. Grayfell (talk) 01:39, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

The Joe Rogan Experience is not a reliable source of what appeared on the Joe Rogan Experience?

Are you kidding me? Hayden41 (talk) 01:41, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I dunno know, are you reading what I actually wrote? I said it's not an independent source for this. As I've said multiple times, we use sources which are both reliable and independent to determine which pieces of information belong in the article. The sources you have proposed do not explain why this information is significant. These books cannot independently explain themselves, nor can a podcast, nor can anything else. Grayfell (talk) 01:45, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

No independent sources have been provided for his appearances on RT or PressTV. Hayden41 (talk) 02:02, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

It is wp:undue as this is just 4 appearances over a decades-long career, its not significant. Slatersteven (talk) 10:57, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

And yes there is [[3]]. Slatersteven (talk) 11:01, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#unjustified removal of my edits on the Stefan Molyneux page and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, Hayden41 (talk) 02:35, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#unjustified removal of my edits on the Stefan Molyneux page and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, Hayden41 (talk) 02:12, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#unjustified removal of my edits on the Stefan Molyneux page and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, Hayden41 (talk) 02:12, 10 August 2024 (UTC) Can we not discuss different issues in the same place, as it makes it difficult to follow? Slatersteven (talk) 10:56, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

In the Newsweek link I provided, it is clearly stated:

"But a slew of right-wing guests failed to make the cut during the move, including Gavin McInnes, Milo Yiannopoulus, Stefan Molyneux and earlier Jones interviews."

EARLIER INTERVIEWS. Which means he was invited at The Joe Rogan Experience before.

You sir are dishonest. Hayden41 (talk) 12:15, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

What has this to do with asking users to keep discussions focused on single topics? Slatersteven (talk) 12:18, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm talking about your latest removal of my edit.

I believe you are the one engaging in "edit war". Hayden41 (talk) 12:21, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Y≥ou discuss user action as the appropriate notice boards (or the users talk pages), not on article talk pages, which are for discussion how to improve the article only. Slatersteven (talk) 12:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Stefan Molyneux on the Joe Rogan Experience

I put a link to a Newsweek article which clearly states:

"But a slew of right-wing guests failed to make the cut during the move, including Gavin McInnes, Milo Yiannopoulus, Stefan Molyneux and earlier Jones interviews."

Which means he was on the Joe Rogan podcast, which should logically be included in his appearances along RT, PressTV and Infowars. Newsweek is a legitimate reliable source.

User Slatersteven keeps editing it out, which is edit warring. Hayden41 (talk) 12:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

It is wp:undue as your source does not even bother to say anything more than he did appear (well to be "fair" implies it, but let's be generous. Slatersteven (talk) 12:27, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm only asking for consistency.

There is no logical reason to not mention his presence on the podcast. Hayden41 (talk) 12:30, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

So then maybe the others also fail undue and should be removed? Slatersteven (talk) 12:33, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Tell me why RT or Press TV is mentioned and not the JRE.

What is the reason for this choice?

I provided a link to a reliable source.

Either his presence on podcasts are mentioned, or they aren't. You don't get to chose. Hayden41 (talk) 12:38, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I have no idea, I did not add them, and as I said I have no objection to removing them. Slatersteven (talk) 12:40, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Then why didn't you?

You clearly chose to remove one, and not the others.

I want to know why? Hayden41 (talk) 12:43, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Because Joe Rogan is a minor show, that is not even on a minor channel, whereas the others are not podcasts, they are TV shows. Thus it seems to be less due then those. And this will be my last comment on this for a while, as there are others here. Slatersteven (talk) 12:47, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

The Joe Rogan Experience is a minor show?

We clearly disagree. Someone else needs to weigh in on this, you are obviously biased and unfit to make such an edit. Hayden41 (talk) 12:50, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

The Joe Rogan Experience

"By 2015, it was one of the world's most popular podcasts, regularly receiving millions of views per episode"

"The Joe Rogan Experience would be available on Spotify in an exclusive licensing deal worth an estimated $200 million"

A minor show? Hayden41 (talk) 12:54, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't dispute the popularity of the Joe Rogan Experience, but you still haven't given us a good reason why to bring up his Joe Rogan appearances in this article. Wikipedia doesn't mention every time a celebrity was interviewed on a late night talk show, and the same applies to podcasts. Harryhenry1 (talk) 08:35, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Why then mention RT, InfoWars and Press TV and not the Joe Rogan Experience? You clearly are making a personal decision based on your personal preferences. That is not objective.

Either you mention all of them or you mention non of them. Which is it? Hayden41 (talk) 18:26, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Per your request, I removed all mention of his celebrity appearances on podcasts.

Hope you like it. Hayden41 (talk) 18:32, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

For what reason are his appearances on RT, Press TV and InfoWars is mentioned, and not his appearances on the Joe Rogan Experience.

I have asked the question repeatedly, and noone seems to want to answer. Hayden41 (talk) 18:48, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

I did, some are TV channels not podcasts. Slatersteven (talk) 18:50, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Why are you dedicing that TV channels are more relevant than podcasts?

This seems to be a personal preference of yours.

The Joe Rogan Experience has 11 million subscribers, and 2 billion downloads, which means he has alot more viewership than InfoWars, RT and PressTV COMBINED.

https://wifitalents.com/statistic/joe-rogan-podcast/#:~:text=The%20Joe%20Rogan%20Experience%20has%20been%20downloaded%20more%20than%20200,100%20million%20times%20per%20month.

I ask again, why do you feel it is not pertinent to mention he was on the show? Hayden41 (talk) 18:55, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

That link throws up a security warning, so I doubt it's reliable. Do any reliable, independent sources mention the popularity of Rogan's podcast specifically as it relates to Molyneux? A reliable, independent source mention his appearances on Infowars and Russian and Iranian state TV, and uses those appearances specifically to contextualize his media career. How popular those programs are is irrelevant. What matters is context, and that context must come from a reliable source. Grayfell (talk) 05:14, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

PressTV, RT and InfoWars are not popular because of Molyneux's appearances either, and yet they are included in his bio.

The Variety article does put his appearances on the JRE in context too, if you only bothered to read the article.

Your reasoning doesn't make any sense. Hayden41 (talk) 16:15, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

They aren't there because of their popularity, they're there because they've been used by a reliable source to explain what Molyneux has done in the media. The Variety article is about the JRE and with regards to Molyneux just informs the reader that he has two available episodes and one unavailable episode. There's no further context of him on the podcast, just a brief description of who he is and that he was banned from YouTube and Twitter. Shaws username . talk . 16:54, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

The same goes for his appearances on RT, Info Wars and Press TV.

There is no reason to favour those interviews over the JRE ones. Hayden41 (talk) 04:59, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

You removed my link to Variety. Explain yourself. Hayden41 (talk) 18:23, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

The word " guests " is more than just "implying". He was on the show. Hayden41 (talk) 12:34, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Newsweek is not a generally reliable source. One throwaway mention in an non-reliable source isn't sufficient for inclusion. Cortador (talk) 21:55, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Explain how Newsweek is not a reliable source? Hayden41 (talk) 01:18, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

It's explained at WP:NEWSWEEK, but basically their post-2013 articles aren't considered as reliable as what came before, and should be judged per current consensus "on a case-by-case basis". Harryhenry1 (talk) 08:46, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I added a link to Variety, a reliable source, and you removed it. Explain. Hayden41 (talk) 18:13, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

I removed it since there's still no consensus on its inclusion in the article. Harryhenry1 (talk) 02:00, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Even if there is not consensus to include in the fourth paragraph, could citing the Variety article with its context in the career section be an acceptable compromise? Llll5032 (talk) 04:55, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Is this source just being used to mention that he appeared on the podcast three times a decade ago? That seems pretty flimsy to me. Do sources indicate why these appearances would matter to Molyneux, specifically? Grayfell (talk) 05:14, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

If his appearances on the world's biggest podcast don't matter, then why do his appearances on RT, Inforwars and Press TV matter? Hayden41 (talk) 16:07, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Variety said he was one of the far-right figures Rogan had interviewed, and that as of 2020, one of the three earlier shows with Molyneux had become unavailable on Spotify. The two sentences amount to more than a passing mention but less than a major focus. Separately the Variety article noted that Rogan's podcast is popular. Llll5032 (talk) 19:22, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

It may not be a passing mention, but it's pretty close. I want to make sure we're not padding the article out with context-free trivia, since even the source doesn't treat these appearances as a big deal, nor explain anything about them. Still, what, exactly, is being proposed here?

As for being the world's biggest podcast, it doesn't really matter unless a reliable source explains why that popularity is specifically relevant to Molyneux. I suspect that somewhere out there is a reliable source which provides some context on this, but I haven't found it yet. Grayfell (talk) 23:55, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

The same goes for his appearances on RT, InfoWars and Press TV.

You stil haven't clearly established why his appearances on these shows are more relevant than those on the JRE. Hayden41 (talk) 04:54, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

He was a regular guest on a RT show, per the SPLC,[4] and appeared at least once on a different RT show. The same source implies that he appeared on Alex Jones' radio show more than once ("for the first time") and later calls him an occasional collaborator with Jones. Cited third-party sources do not seem to say if he appeared on Press TV more than once, but the SPLC marks the show as when "his public profile rose" despite previous negative attention, and lists it as its earliest example of his guest appearances. Llll5032 (talk) 20:18, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

He appeared three times on the JRE. Hayden41 (talk) 23:57, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

And unlike PressTV, RT and InFoWars, the JRE podcasts are long form interviews, often reaching the three hour mark. Hayden41 (talk) 00:00, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

So that would make his appearances on the JRE a total of almost 9 hours of interview, which to my mind would make it very much relevant to include., much more relevant that a breif moments here and there on RT. Hayden41 (talk) 00:05, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

"to my mind" is original research. Articles should instead use reliable, independent sources to determine what is and is not relevant. Without context, it doesn't matter how long these podcasts are, just as it doesn't matter that they are not edited for brevity, which would make 9 hours an entirely arbitrary amount of time. Grayfell (talk) 06:51, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

We do need to have (In the article) an explanation as to why his appearances in these shows are noteworthy, just mentioning them tells us nothing of worth (note this is not a call to remove them). Slatersteven (talk) 16:51, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

The same goes for his appearances on RT, InfoWars and Press TV. Hayden41 (talk) 04:54, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

The original reason that was given as to why the JRE interviews were not included was because my source wasn't "reliable". Then it was because the JRE was considered a "minor show". Then it was because there wasn't enough "context". Now it's because it's not "noteworthy".

You seem to keep changing the reasons behind your decision. Why is that? Hayden41 (talk) 05:23, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Because you keep changing your reasons to include it? But I in fact did not make all those objections. Also (guess what) yes I was referring to the material we currently include (oddly). Slatersteven (talk) 09:29, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Note, silence is not acquiescence, unless I say yes assume silence means no. Slatersteven (talk) 12:50, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

THis is needs closing it is not going anywhere (fast) and seems to be one against many. Slatersteven (talk) 11:31, 2 September 2024 (UTC)