Talk:Stefan Molyneux

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)

"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)