Talk:Stefan Molyneux

Stefan Molyneux denies that he is a "white nationalist" or that he believes that white people have higher intelligence than all other races.

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.

---

Mr Molyneux has always denied being a supporter of "white nationalism", and he has never claimed that white people have, on average, higher intelligence than all other races. I think his interest in IQ is misguided (personally I believe that all an IQ test measures is the ability to do IQ tests - so I reject the idea that low I.Q. is the reason why some areas of the world are poorer than other areas), but his opinions are certainly not what this article presents as his opinions. Also the article violates the basic rules of fairness, by overwhelmingly citing the enemies of Mr Molyneux, there is no attempt to cite friendly and unfriendly sources equally - and I am told that Mr Molyneux has even been "locked out" of his own Wikepedia page, thus giving him no chance to defend himself. Wikipeia claims to be "fair" and also claims that "anyone can edit" - this article casts serous doubts on both of those claims2A02:C7D:B41D:C800:487A:E896:D358:1375 (talk) 17:18, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia reports what independent reliable sources say about a subject. That you do not like what independent reliable sources say and do not understand what qualifies as an independent reliable source does not change this.

Wikipedia does not prove truth, it verifiably.

Wikipedia does not give equal weight to both sides. Wikipedia reports all significant viewpoints.

Wikipedia does not allow subjects (politicians, car manufacturers, etc.) to define themselves. Independent reliable sources use common language.

Anyone can edit so long as they follow some basic rules. - SummerPhD^v2.0 18:40, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

It's completely irrelevant what Molyneux thinks he is, we are reporting what independent, reliable sources describe him as. BeŻet (talk) 22:58, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Claiming that what he says is irrelevant is completely nonsensical when you are reporting on what he says, if a "reputable source" claims he says something, when there's primary evidence that he doesn't (I.E. multiple videos of Molyneux himself saying the opposite) that source should cease to be considered reputable. 80.233.52.40 (talk) 17:49, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

IP, please sign your comments using four tildes so that conversation is easier to follow. That isn’t how sourcing works. A person may claim to be a chupacabra, and this might even be true, but since people are rarely a reliable source about themselves due to inherent bias, we follow what reliable sources say. And the reliability of those sources is predicated on their reputation for fact checking and generally factual reporting. This isn’t just journalistic sources, either. Academics with an expertise in this area have scrutinized what he says, and have characterized it as classical white nationalism. We of course report his denial of this, but the characterization is based on everything BUT self-reporting. White nationalists rarely self-identify, and may not even see themselves as such. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 14:22, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I believe there's only one "academic" who has gone through his videos and she's a PhD student, for the record. Pelirojopajaro (talk) 14:30, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Let me try to explain this again. It doesn't matter what Molyneux describes himself as. It doesn't matter if he denies being a "white nationalist". We have mentioned in the article that he denies that, but we describe him as what reputable sources describe him as. If he said in a video that he is not bald, while reputable sources saying that he is, then we can't ignore those sources simply because he said the opposite. Sources have looked at his views and concluded that he is a white supremacist. BeŻet (talk) 17:03, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

You can explain as many times as you want and that doesn't make it right, the comparison you made is just retarded, being a "chupacabra" is a fact that can be verified by a third party, OPINIONS AND BELIEFS ARE NOT, if he says he likes red and some other source says he doesn't, there's no reason to believe the other source is more relevant then his own statement no matter how "reputable" it is. 80.233.52.40 (talk) 17:49, 29 January 2020 (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.

Reference changes

References 2,4,6,7 should be removed as they are links to articles that don't reach the standards of a reference. (They reference events and statements with out supporting evidence) if they did I would suggest using those link instead.

Reference 3 should be changed to his SPLC page (https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/stefan-molyneux) rather than just a link to the wiki page for SPLC once again this is NOT a reference Sntelmo (talk) 21:25, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

No, these are fine. See WP:RS. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, and as such we do not expect every source to provide supporting evidence. We summarize what reliable source say, and we would need a specific reason to doubt any specific claims made by those sources.

Reference 3 does link to his SPLC profile:

• "Stefan Molyneux". Southern Poverty Law Center. Archived from the original on March 24, 2019.

The link is his name. Even if it didn't, "references" do not always have to be links, as offline sources are also valid. Grayfell (talk) 21:44, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia does NOT demand that sources provide proof or evidence. Instead, we demand that the sources are reliable (see the link for an explanation of what makes a reliable source).

The sources you are asking to remove absolutely qualify as reliable. NBC News, Columbia Journalism Review, The Guardian and Palgrave Macmillan? If, after reading Wikipedia's criteria, you still doubt any one of them, feel free to take that question to the Reliable sources noticeboard. I assure you the answer will be swift and unequivocal.

I am unsure what problems you are having with cite #3. For me, the original like points to his profile on the SPLC site and the "archive" link points to an archived copy of the same page. Both clearly state that he is a Canadian podcaster and YouTuber who is known for his promotion of scientific racism and white supremacist views. - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:15, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

SPLC is not a reliable source. They regularly label groups they disagree with as "hate groups" CheckThatSpelling (talk) 00:45, 3 April 2020 (UTC)— CheckThatSpelling (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Is there a particular reason you added that to this totally unrelated section? - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:00, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Glad this page has become less biased

Not sure when it changed but this page was more biased than it is now until very recently. It amounted to a character assassination and a one sided opinion of his views out forward by his political opponents. There has been a lot of popular media lambasting of him that has had a platform on Wikipedia. Moderated now but still negatively biased as per media. Stephan states his own views very clearly and supporters these with research and data. LiquidElk76 (talk) 06:40, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

How biased was it before that falsely calling him a "far-right, white nationalist" today qualifies as less biased? CheckThatSpelling (talk) 00:41, 3 April 2020 (UTC)— CheckThatSpelling (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Wikipedia's policy, WP:NPOV, does not suggest that we not call things what they are. Additionally, we do not take a position whether "far-right" or "white nationalist" are good or bad. Instead, we are to fairly represent what independent reliable sources have to say about a subject.

That Molyneux is a far-right, white nationalist Canadian podcaster and YouTuber who is known for his promotion of scientific racism and white supremacist views, a leading figure of the alt-right movement, a far-right activist, has "a perverse fixation on race and IQ" and has been described as a cult leader, using cult indoctrination is sourced to NBC News, the SPLC, Columbia Journalism Review, the Data and Society Research Institute, The Guardian, Palgrave Macmillan, Politico, The Washington Post, CNN, The New York Times, The Independent, The Times, The Globe and Mail, etc.

If you feel we do not accurately report what the sources say, please explain.

If you feel the sources do not meet the criteria outlined at WP:IRS, please explain (espve ecially since many of them are covered at WP:IRS/P.

If you have independent reliable sources that we have missed describing him as a swell guy who wants all of the children of the world to join hands and sing in peace and harmony, please present it here. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:16, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Does anyone have a single source that actually shows evidence of him being Alt Right or a white nationalist?

Obviously I like him, that's why I'm defending him. But that doesn't mean I have my head in the sand. If you have evidence that he is racist, I'll accept it. That being said, I looked through the sources for the claims in the first paragraph of this article and they don't hold up to scrutiny. For example, the SPLC's article on him uses as an example a sentence he uttered on his podcast: “I don’t view humanity as a single species...” Now that seems inflammatory and racist, until you look at the context, which the SPLC cites and apparently they didn't listen to (or they did and they're hoping you don't). In the show, he's referring to the difference between evil psychopaths and the rest of us, not to people of difference races. That's just one example. Does anyone have an example that does show that he's racist?

I've been a listener of his for a while and haven't encountered a single piece of evidence that he's a racist or wants a white ethno-state. In fact, his beliefs contradict those accusations. First, he is an anarchist, which is about as far as you can get from supporting an ethno-state (because that would require a lot of government intervention). There are instances of him supporting border controls, but that's only because a welfare state exists -- as Milton Friedman said, "you can’t have open borders and a welfare state." Agree or disagree with him, if we assume that's true, then supporting border as a defensive measure while the welfare state exists is not supporting borders as an ultimate ideal. Molyneux is for the elimination of political borders as long as the government isn't intervening in other ways. Here's an analogy: if a slave get to vote on an overseer and one would beat him more and he votes for the one that beats him less, is the slave supporting slavery? Second, the claims of racism come mostly from calling him a supporter of "scientific racism," a term which is normally put in quotes to mock those who allegedly try to mask their racism with fancy scientific terms. Molyneux draws from conclusions from The Bell Curve and other scientists who show that the average IQ is significantly different for each race. And what IQ tests show is that white people are not the most intelligent, so he's not much of a white supremacist if he believes that whites aren't the most intelligent, that should be your first clue that the label is just slander. But, you might say, maybe putting whites somewhere in the middle of the IQ spectrum is just a ploy to make the racism more believable and as long as the blacks and mexicans are under whites that's good enough. Now we're entering pretty speculative territory, which would be cut by Occam's Razor unless you have great evidence. But, you might still say, even if he honestly believes that whites are somewhere in the middle of the IQ spectrum, isn't that sill racist against the races that fall under the middle? Let's define racism: it's the believing that one race is superior to another. Ask yourself: if you are smarter than one of your friends, does that make you superior to them? If you answered yes, then you're wrong because intelligence doesn't determine a human's value, it's only one factor of who we are. If you answered no, then it doesn't make sense to call Molyneux a racist based on him mentioning IQ research. But, you might insist, even if that's all true, why does he talk about IQ if not to denigrate other races? Because if societies operate on the wrong hypothesis that every race has the same average IQ, then large differences in economic success will lack the explanatory power of differences in IQ and the odds that the economic differences will be blamed on racism in the workplace will be much higher. The reason not many other people out there talk about IQ research is because so many people fail to understand that intelligence doesn't determine the value of a human and will try to destroy the career of anyone who talks about it. And this article is a perfect example of that misunderstanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CheckThatSpelling (talk • contribs) 01:59, 3 April 2020 (UTC) — CheckThatSpelling (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Wikipedia does not examine evidence then decide if the Earth is flat or spherical, whether or not NASA landed astronauts on the Moon, whether or not Nazis murdered 6 million Jews during the Holocaust or whether or not Molyneux is a far-right, white nationalist. Wikipedia reports what independent reliable sources say about the subjects (spherical, yes, yes and yes).

If you would like to debate any of those questions, challenge the data, point to shadows in photos, etc., you are on the wrong site. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:21, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Whether Molyneux is what he's called in the article is not comparable to whether the moon landing is real, flat earth conspiracies are true, or whether the holocaust happened. The latter are commonly known and easily verifiable, the former is not. In your above comment, you've violated (unprovoked) Wikipedia's rules against personal attacks by comparing me to people who try to disprove the moon landing by "point[ing] to shadows in photos." Read the code of ethics again and come back when you're ready to apologize.

Let's examine the claim that independent and reliable sources show him to be an alt right, white nationalist. As I stated above, the claims in the Southern Poverty Law Center article -- which is currently being used as a source -- are contradicted by the primary source material. It is simply attributing to Molyneux a meaning that is not supported by the podcast being referenced. So, even if the SPLC is generally a reliable source, it is not reliable in this case. I won't go down the line for the other sources right now to avoid being tedious, but this should at least be a good starting point from which to open up the conversation about whether the article is using unreliable sources. CheckThatSpelling (talk) 17:21, 3 April 2020 (UTC)— CheckThatSpelling (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I am not comparing you to flat Earthers, Holocaust deniers, etc. and I'm not sure what "code of ethics" you are referring to. I assure you I am quite familiar with WP:NPA.

Independent reliable sources state quite clearly that Molyneux is a far-right, white nationalist. That your interpretation of primary sources is at odds with that is not relevant. That Molyneux may prefer other terms is not relevant. Independent reliable sources are abundantly clear here. - SummerPhD^v2.0 20:33, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

As SummerPhDv2.0 says, we are not interested original research, and any attempt by an individual editor to analyse primary sources is original research.

Because I think it might help explain why sources are so important, I will explain what I think it happening here. Molyneux's videos tend to avoid making bold claims, but instead he presents a parade of isolated facts which have been stripped of context (the pseudoscience of The Bell Curve is one example). His viewers then form the obvious (but false) conclusion from this selective sample, without Molyneux having to spell it out himself. Molyneux gets to look smart for teaching something, and his viewers get to feel smart for thinking that they came to the conclusion on their own. This is superficially similar to the Socratic method, except that Molyneux has the luxury of ignoring his better-educated, more informed critics.

It would be easy to get lost in the weeds with specific examples, such as that Molyneux's views rely on an extremely simplistic form of racialism to make any sense, but this is exactly the point. There is always some esoteric bit of nonsense he can point to as a defense. One of the things that makes reliable sources so reliable is their ability to push back against these rhetorical tricks. Reliable sources ignore the evasion and come to the conclusion that Molyneux's self-published media implies white supremacy, regardless of his purported intentions.

Again (and again, and again) this is why we need to use reliable sources to come to conclusions. Unreliable sources, such as Molyneux himself, are not reliable, not independent, and not useful. Grayfell (talk) 21:51, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

SummerPhDv2.0, it doesn't seem like you're familiar with WP:NPA because you did compare me to moon landing conspiracy theorists. Just look above: "Wikipedia does not examine evidence then decide if the Earth is flat or spherical, whether or not NASA landed astronauts on the Moon [...] If you would like to debate any of those questions, challenge the data, point to shadows in photos." Pointing to shadows in photos is a reference to disputing moon landing photos based on shadows. Why are you doubling down on such an obvious remark?

Anyway, from your link, SummerPhDv2.0, the OR page states, "The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.." I pointed out that the allegations of the SPLC are false based on going to the primary source, which the SPLC claims as evidence for their claim. I'm not arguing that Molyneux is a reliable source. The SPLC used a recording of his as evidence for its claim, so what the recording says, in this case, is the most reliable source for whether that specific claim is true. To give a simple example: if someone says "this recording of my neighbor shows that he plans to steal my furniture," and when you play the recording it's just him singing La Cucaracha, the claim has obviously been shown to be false. Grayfell describes this as "getting lost in the weeds." If listening to the contents of the original recording to determine whether an accusation is true is getting lost in the weeds, then the neighbor in my example can be sent to jail if the accuser has been sufficiently reliable in the past. You see the problem? CheckThatSpelling (talk) 05:18, 5 April 2020 (UTC) — CheckThatSpelling (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Again, you seem to be arguing an independent reliable source is wrong, based on your interpretation of the primary source you believe their statement is based on. The independent reliable source, SPLC (see WP:RS/P), says Molyneux is "A skilled propagandist and an effective communicator within the racist 'alt-right' and pro-Trump ranks, his promotion of scientific racism and eugenics".

You are attempting to compare what one source clearly and directly states with your interpretation of the primary source and deciding that your synthesis (part of WP:OR) strikes down the reliable source.

The independent reliable sources clearly state Molyneux is "known for his promotion of scientific racism and white supremacist views", though I suppose we could include eugenics in that list.

I am not comparing you to Moon landing conspiracy theorists, Holocaust deniers or anyone else. I am saying your methodology -- pointing to your analysis of primary sources to cast doubt on independent reliable sources -- is similar to that used elsewhere. Yes, Moon landing conspiracy theorists point to shadows in NASA photos in an attempt to cast doubt on various independent reliable sources (various academic publishers, assorted national science bodies, etc.). If that were comparing you to Moon landing conspiracy theorists, it would be comparing Molyneux to NASA. I assure you I am doing neither.

Cutting to the chase here: If you wish to dispute that SPLC is a reliable source, the question has been repeatedly discussed and you will not be able to override the consensus here. Please take the issue directly to the Reliable sources noticeboard.

If you are arguing we should dismiss what an independent reliable source directly states based on your interpretation of the primary source, I do not see any way past that conflicting with WP:OR, one of Wikipedia's pillars. If that is your concern, please take the issue directly to Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard.

If your concern is something else, please state it as simply and directly as possible. - SummerPhD^v2.0 05:58, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I understand that formally/logically, you might be comparing my methodology to that of moon landing conspiracy theorists and of course there are some similarities, but you should have known that the example you picked was charged with negative connotations. I can correct someone making a math mistake by telling them, "Like the designers of the Kansas City, Hyatt Regency walkway that collapsed and killed more than a hundred people, you've made an incorrect calculation here." They'd look at me like I'm crazy for making such a charged comparison.

To get back to the meat of the matter, it's not my belief that the primary source I mentioned is what their statement is based on. They link to it next to the statement as evidence. And I'm not arguing we should dismiss what an independent reliable source directly states based on my interpretation of the primary source. Why would I expect you to take my word for it? Maybe this next question will lead the discussion to a conclusion: if we have a situation where an independent, reliable source (deemed so by Wikipedia rules) makes a claim and links to a recording as evidence, and that recording doesn't support the claim, is that a problem by Wikipedia rules? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CheckThatSpelling (talk • contribs) 03:31, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Again, a shortcut here: Several independent reliable sources confirm that Molyneux is far-right, white nationalist, promotes scientific racism and white supremacist views, a far-right activist, has been described as a cult leader, and uses cult indoctrination techniques.

To counter that, you would need to establish

• the sources do not meet the criteria outlined at WP:IRS (note that WP:RS/P discusses several of them)
• the sources do not support the statements
• the descriptors are not a significant aspect of his identity according to the sources.

Arguing that one of the sources is "wrong" or doesn't support its claims is a non-starter. If independent reliable sources said Molyneux was a cheese sandwich, this article would say, "Stefan Molyneux is a cheese sandwich", cite the sources and a discussion on the talk page would begin to figure out whether to link that to Cheese sandwich, Cheese and Sandwich or something else. That the source doesn't show that he is cheese stacked between two pieces of bread would be moot.

Wikipedia does not try to determine "truth". It tries to determine "verifiability". Stefan Molyneux is verifiably a far-right, white nationalist who promotes scientific racism and white supremacist views. - SummerPhD^v2.0 05:52, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

SummerPhD—it is not a hard-and-fast fact that "Molyneux is far-right, white nationalist, promotes scientific racism and white supremacist views". These are the opinions held by the sources used to support those assertions. Shouldn't those opinions be attributed to those sources? It is currently being said in Wikipedia's voice. I'm not sure if that is proper. Bus stop (talk) 06:27, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

To answer that question, I think we would first have to examine the reliable sources stating that Molyneux is not far right, white nationalist or promoting of white supremacist views. Are there any? Newimpartial (talk) 14:39, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Newimpartial—how is it in anyone's interest to convert opinions to assertions? Bus stop (talk) 15:02, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Being "alt right" is an attribution, not simply an opinion. Attributions can be supported and contested. The particular attributions we are talking about, I have never seen contested in reliable sources. Newimpartial (talk) 17:57, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Newimpartial—why would the source of a characterization be relegated to a citation when the the source of a characterization can be plainly stated? Bus stop (talk) 18:15, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

As has already been asked of you multiple times and multiple places, including this talk page, please stop asking these pedantic, loaded questions. This doesn't improve the article at all. Many sources describe Molyneux this way in factual terms. Your attempt at casting doubt on these sources by framing this as an opinion is as disruptive as it is obvious. Grayfell (talk) 19:32, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Molyneux's political views are not really comparable to shape of the Earth or holocaust numbers. The first is a question of empirical science, the second is a question of historical methodology as well as some empirical proof. For that reason, for wikipedia to have any credibility it has to go by peer reviewed academic sources. On the other hand, the sources describing Molyneux as a White supremacist are just journalistic sources, mostly left leaning media outlets (some super left leaning the the SPLC). The webpage seems to at least go against neutrality, as I don't see any conservative news journals labeling him a White supremacist.

With that said about the article's lack of neutrality, I do think White nationalist is fitting. He has said numerous times immigration from Black and Brown countries is a mistake because these are low IQ countries. And he has also said that he thinks it's largely because of innate genetic differences. Just watch his interview on the Rubin report, and he even made a video praising Poland for how White it was. "White supremacist" though, that's a tough one. When people get the idea of a White supremacist in their minds, they don't view a guy running an internet podcast talking about IQ scores. They think of KKK rallies or terrorist bombings of Black churches. Arch Hades (talk) 21:40, 7 April 2020 (UTC)