Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive316

---

This question relates to the recent arrest of Steve Bannon on charges of defrauding investorsdonors related to raising money for a boarder wall. [[4]]. Given the recent nature of the arrest and the limited information at this time, should this information be in the article lead? Springee (talk) 16:17, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I trust everyone understands that the fundraising purported to be for a border wall and not a wall inside a boarding house. <grin> wbm1058 (talk) 18:08, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

• My view is no, this is currently UNDUE for the lead. This is a serious, negative allegation made against a BLP subject while the long term impact on Bannon is unclear. The charges of defrauding thousands are serious but that doesn't mean they will stick. Given these are serious, negative allegations I think BLP dictates we should proceed with caution. Consider a case where the allegations against Bannon are found to be without merit. If we could foresee that outcome would we agree to include this content in the lead? If the charges stick I can see adding the conviction to the lead but we aren't there yet. My concern is that the material is being promoted to the lead not because it would normally merit inclusion but because Bannon is controversial and this is negative information about a disliked BLP subject. Springee (talk) 16:17, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
• It is not the key fact of his notability (the crime is getting much attention because it's Bannon, rather than the other way around), so it should not be in the opening sentence, but this is apt to be key to discussion of Bannon for a while to come, so it should be in the introduction. (This will change if he is convicted, in which case his criminal activities become a part of his career description.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:23, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

  Springee, there's not limited information. This isn't a plane crash and we are awaiting the results of the NTSB investigation. He was not arrested based on "limited information". The charge relates to the core of his notability above the notabiity of thousands of other ideologue polemecist personalities. Yes it's DUE and amply-sourced for the lead. SPECIFICO talk 16:31, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

• The prosecutor hopefully doesn't have limited information. We the editors have limited information. So how do we reconcile that this content is all but two sentences in the body and the content in the lead is just as long? Springee (talk) 16:38, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

• Three experienced editors have already informed Springee that including this in the lead is appropriate, and now two more. The allegation is not that Bannon defrauded investors; It's that he defrauded donors. - MrX 🖋 16:32, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

That is a meritless claim. I'm also an experienced editor. Regardless of donors vs investors (corrected based on your comment), this is a allegation, not proof. Springee (talk) 16:38, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what is a meritless claim? I never said that you were not an experienced editor if that's what you're referring to. - MrX 🖋 17:14, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

You used an argumentum ad populum to suggest my POV was wrong. Springee (talk) 18:09, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

On wikipedia we call "ad populum" CONSENSUS. Volunteer Marek 21:40, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

And what do you call conflating arguments? 3 early editors to the discussion disagreed with me. So? Since then it seems we are running a roughly split crowd. Springee (talk) 21:49, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• The global media attention to this issue makes it suitable for a brief mention in the lead. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:33, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
• Agreed with Nat Gertler, the information about his arrest definitely belongs in the article lead - I could find you twenty sources talking about it, so it's definitely due - but it doesn't belong in the opening sentence because it isn't what he is most notable for. Obviously Wikipedia shouldn't call him guilty until either the courts rule that way or he pleads guilty, but the charges definitely are an important piece of information about Bannon. Gbear605 (talk) 16:34, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
• I am no fan of Bannon, but this strikes me as a case of too much, too quick. I certainly think it belongs in the article, but in the lead seems a bit too much like "breaking news" to me. My opinion (for the little it is worth) is let things settle a bit and then see where we are. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:42, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
• No. Too much too soon. Too much: there is not enough meat in the article to warrant inclusion (it's undue); too soon: is the ink even dry on the indictment? (NOTNEWS) I do not understand the rush. Drmies (talk) 16:47, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
• No, per Drmie's explanation. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 16:50, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
• There are two completely different questions being asked: the one in the section title, and the one the OP asks in their first post. The question asked in the title, on the general concept of whether arrests should be mentioned in the lead of an article, is "It depends" and "That's a matter to be determined on a case-by-case basis for every article, because there's too many variables to make any general pronouncement." On the matter of the Bannon article specifically, I generally agree with Gbear605, Nomoskedasticity, et. al., that the matter has enough to merit a mention in the lead, however I would also think that we need to expand the text about the arrest in the body first. The proportions in the lead should roughly (not always exactly) match the proportions in the body, and right now theres two lines of text in the whole article about the arrest. The coverage of the event in the world is such that we should have more coverage in the article about it. The lead issue is ancillary to our article being insufficient in the first place, in that it barely mentions it. --Jayron32 16:55, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

  Jayron32, you are right and I probably should have separated by two questions a bit. In cases like this I often want to know if there is a policy/guideline that helps editors decide more than just "well not enough weight". As for this specific case, yes, lot's of coverage but also very RECENT. The sources are all saying the same things and repeating the allegations. We don't know much beyond that. I agree that the article level coverage should drive what makes it to the lead. Springee (talk) 17:04, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

  At least it's in the body. The number of times I find something in the lead which isn't mention in the body, often years laters, is sad. Nil Einne (talk) 18:36, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

• Not in the lead, for now. If he's convicted, it might belong in the lead. If it gets ongoing major coverage, it might belong in the lead. But this is by no means one of the most important things readers need to understand about Steve Bannon. —valereee (talk) 16:58, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
• Not in the lead (not leade) yet. If there is a conviction, it will likely be lead-worthy. At this point, it's an allegation. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:07, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy does not have any such requirement. A federal grand jury indictment is not like being arrested for jaywalking. In other words, it's not "just an allegation". It's a really big deal. - MrX 🖋 17:19, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

There's no hard policy, but in general, when someone is accused (and only accused without either conviction or acquittal) of a significant crime, whether to mention it at all will depend on a number of factors that relate to BLP, but these are... touchy-feely factors and not written down for the most part. But there definitely would be consideration of weight of who or what the charge is - a federal criminal charge (fraud) is something you can't quite ignore due to WEIGHT, compared to a civil lawsuit that may be claiming sexual harassment, for example, where we'd weight more on the BLP factors. --Masem (t) 17:24, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Mr. X, if I had argued that there was a policy requirement, then your rebuttal might have been more meaningful. Important or not, it IS an allegation. (BTW, I didn't say "just an allegation". When you add words to the quote, it is no longer a quote). If and when he is convicted, then it will no longer be an allegation. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:51, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

• It depends. Clearly, minor arrests, such as say drunk driving, small drug possession, etc. totally unrelated to the person's career, obviously not. On the other hand, we're talking about Bannon here, where a major portion of why he was notable was involvement with Trump and fund raising here, and the fact that the arrests (or more specifically, charges made against him) are related to that seem inappropriate to bury away from the lede. As long as the wording is careful to simply say that they are charges, not convictions or proof of guilt/etc., it would reasonable to include. But to generalize, this would have to be something significantly related to the person's career or notability. Inclusion should be considered exceptional but not inpermissible to be decided case by case. Also, if it just an arrest without any named charges, that I would be careful about. The importance is the charges, that implies a legal case that will be brought against the person --Masem (t) 17:08, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
• Not lead worthy at present. We are NOT NEWS and per RECENTISM.--MONGO (talk) 17:31, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
• Odd to think the question might not be influenced by the question of whom was arrested. If the person is in the encyclopedia for being a movie star or scientist, being arrested is much less interesting than for someone prominent in politics, such as Bannon or, say, Siarhei Tsikhanouski. Jim.henderson (talk) 17:34, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
• Given the breadth and tone of coverage, it belongs in the lead, yeah. The key to recentism is that we shouldn't place undue weight on recent events; but we do still give them the weight appropriate to them - we don't discount something that seems clearly significant solely because it is recent. It is difficult to imagine a sequence of events where this ceases to be an important part of his bio. If it somehow turns out to be nothing we can remove it later, but right now we have to go with what seems to be most likely based on what we know, and that leans overwhelmingly towards this being significant. (Although it is probably obvious, I will add - since people keep mentioning that he's a BLP - that WP:BLPCRIME does not apply because Bannon is very obviously a public figure, ie. it's difficult to argue that including it here could harm his reputation when it was instantly plastered across the entire worldwide news. WP:BLP is about avoiding stuff that could harm the article's subject; reporting on the bare existence of an arrest that clearly occurred, is widely-reported, and affects a public figure has no real possibility of harming them.) --Aquillion (talk) 18:28, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
  • That is an argument for inclusion in the article, not an argument for the lead. Given the size of the article and the size of the section on the arrest, at the moment it makes no sense for the lead. PackMecEng (talk) 19:30, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
• Let me note that we may be tumbling over some cross definitions here. Some folks seem to be treating the entire introduction as the "lead", but "lead" or "lede" is defined as "the opening sentence or paragraph of a news article, summarizing the most important aspects of the story." Our introductions are often longer than a single paragraph, as is the case with Steve Bannon... where his arrest is currently not in that opening paragraph, but it is in the introduction, as the seventeenth and final sentence. That seems appropriate to me, as it is a piece of information that people will want to have on the subject in summary, even if it's only a few sentences in the body of the article (just as we note in the introduction -- in fact, then generally in the lead -- if someone is dead or retired, even if their death or retirement gets only a single sentence in the rest of the article.) My view would likely be different if the arrest were not related to his source of notability - had it been, say, a DUI charge - but the charge is really of him abusing his position as a conservative cause promoter. It ties closely to his source of notability. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:42, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Nat, per WP:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section the lead is everything above the table of contents, not just the first paragraph. Per MOS, The lead section (also known as the lead or introduction) of a Wikipedia article is the section before the table of contents and the first heading. The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. It is not a news-style lead or "lede" paragraph. Springee (talk) 18:59, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

  NatGertler, my opinion is w/re the paragraphs above the TOC —valereee (talk) 19:29, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

• I think the WP:WEIGHT for a lead mention is there. It shouldn't be in the first paragraph, let alone sentence. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:03, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
• It seems pretty clear that Bannon's arrest and criminal indictment will be a notable part of his biography in the long term, regardless of the ultimate legal outcome or whether he is acquitted or convicted. (I mean, if he's arrested and then the case falls apart and he's acquitted, that will be at least as notable as if he's convicted, right?). Since the lead is supposed to summarize all relevant aspects of the biography, it is therefore appropriate to mention the arrest in the lead. MastCell ^Talk 19:37, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, this almost inherently gets longer. The dropping of charges, the conviction, the finding of not-guilty, or the pardon, any of these will add to the material that's there. About the only path to not adding substantially to its length is if he dies of natural charges before any of those occur. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:14, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

• I agree with others that it is not WP:LEAD materiel for this article, at this time. I don't buy that it is summary of his whole life as opposed to gotcha-factoid, which may or may not matter in the long run. Per BLPSTYLE we are to be cautious and conservative about recent matters and per BLPCRIME, we are suppose to presume innocence -- in around 2 to 5 years should his innocence hold or the court decides it's almost like a traffic ticket, the lead of the article will look absurdly un-cautious if it's there, and so it is today. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:15, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

  What life? This is not Albert Schweiter. Nelson Mandela? Eisenhower? If Ike had run over a cat or even a little old lady with his Jeep, it might not go in the lead. But this arrest goes to the core of Bannon's notability. It's our best unbiased representation of RS weight today that this needs a sentence in the lead telling readers that he was charged. If things change and it turns out it was really parking tickets and not conspiracies to commit money laundering, defraud a hundred thousand donors out of tens of millions of $$, etc. Well, then we'll update the article. SPECIFICO talk 23:49, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

  How does this go to the core of his notability? He was notable long before this indictment, before working for Trump etc. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:46, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

  It would have been more helpful if you'd given me a rebuttal or counterexample. Being a naval officer, a 2-year finance grunt, etc. are commonplace. Being a founding board member of a fringy publication the same. Being the chief driver of Democrat Trump's hard pivot to the alt-right and CEO of his miracle Presidential campaign, top White House advisor -- those are what he is and will be known for. Getting arrested for belying all his deeply held beliefs and anti-immigrant agenda in a scam that turns out to show he's using all this "ideology" to enrich himself and fatten up like a yankee Onassis in the polluted Long Island Sound? That's quite something. It more or less destroys whatever dignity attached to the narrative of his Notability. SPECIFICO talk 18:31, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

• The mere fact that the article on Bannon was written in 2013, long before Trump declared candidacy, before he worked for Trump, before this legal issue, is evidence that this issue is not the core to his notability. The notion that guy has an article for 7 years and you claim that this is now what his notability is based on is absurd. Numerous experienced editors, including admins, edited that article, so if his notability had been in question, I'm pretty confident the issue would have been raised.Niteshift36 (talk) 14:57, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

• I try to steer clear of anything political, so I'm going to answer this in the general sense. I think people seem to get too caught up in the notion that one aspect or another is the most important thing, and therefore must be first and most prominent. I try to look at these things as if we were talking about any other article, like a scientific or technical article. It is well sourced that breaking a mirror may cause 7 years of bad luck, at least, that's the legend anyhow. If these things are important to you, then it would likely seem that the first sentence should begin by explaining this incredibly important piece of information. But the first thing a reader needs to know, before they can understand any of that, is what a mirror is. What a mirror is not. What it does. How it works, and what it's used for. In comparison, the mythology associated with them, albeit very interesting and goes back to prehistoric times, well it's really not all that important in the entire scope of things, regardless of our personal feelings or how much coverage it has gotten.

Coverage is a good measure for determining weight, but placement is something more akin to "assembly order" found in construction or mechanics. You have to crawl before you can walk, and similarly, you have to answer questions of what, where, and when before getting into matters of who, how, and why for it to flow and be coherent. This is just as true for living persons as it is for potential energy, welding, or vergence.

In general, for something like this,I would first determine it's weight and placement in the body. Upon determining just how much space to give it, and where it should fit in within the entire scope of the body, then I would go back to the lede, and use the body as a reference to determine the placement and weight given in the lede.

The lede, in encyclopedic writing, refers to the short synopsis given at the beginning of the article, and that's really all it should be, just a very brief synopsis of the entire article (I like to think of it as being somewhat of a scale model) --the shorter; the better. If you can whittle it down to a single paragraph, perfect! If it's a complex subject, that may require two or three paragraphs, but I would avoid any more than that. (For very complex subjects, like alloys or fighter maneuvers, I prefer a very short lede written at a sixth grade level, then a longer introduction section (5 to 7 paragraphs) written at a tenth grade level, whereas the intro is really just an expanded lede. But I digress, as that isn't very suitable for biographical articles.)

Honey is an example of a well written article and the perfect example of how a good lede should look. I really see no difference in this aspect between these types of article and bios, yes, even including political articles. It may seem very important to want to put someone's crimes or accusations in the lede, and even try to cram it into the very first sentence, but unless that person is like Charles Manson and the crime is all he is known for, it sticks out like a sore thumb and just looks ridiculous and amateurish, especially in political articles, like that child yelling, "Look at me! Mom! Look at me!" while the adults are having a conversation.

The point is that, even discussing the lede is pointless until we first determine its weight and placement in the body --it's putting the cart before the horse-- and that there is a certain order of importance that information has, that has to do with coherence and comprehensibility and has nothing to do with our personal feelings about what is most important to us at the time. Zaereth (talk) 01:20, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Very well put, Zaereth. In fact, you have been consistent in your position about leads (ledes) and BLPs, and I can't tell you how much I appreciate your thoughtful responses because they align with good practices and ethics in journalism. I was so impressed with your critical thinking skills that I added one of your BLP discussions with Jimbo Wales in the header of my user TP. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 20:20, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

• We don't use lede's. We use leads. You are making an argument for something our MOS disallows. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:46, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

And what in your mind is the difference? "Lede" is the spelling people in the writing profession use simply to avoid confusion between the various meaning associated with the word "lead", for example, if working on the article about the metal lead, or electrical leads, plumbing leads, etc. It is simply the Middle English spelling of the word "lead". That's like saying, "We drive automobiles, we don't drive cars"; a distinction without a difference. Zaereth (talk) 17:34, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

• Perhaps you should actually read the MOS, especially the part that says "It is not a news-style lead or "lede" paragraph." This isn't car/automobiles, it's a difference in style. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:07, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I might also add that, in all my years at Wikipedia, I'll admit I've never once bothered to read the MOS. I don't recommend that for everyone, but I've read the Chicago Manual of Style and Reuters Manual of Style, and I've been well versed in encyclopedic writing among many others since before there was an internet, let alone a Wikipedia. That made it very easy for me to begin here, starting with the flashtube article, which was in horrendous condition when I found it. An encyclopedia is written in a very formal style and needs to be very coherent and informative across a wide range of ages and backgrounds and intelligence levels, and that's something to always keep in mind, because when you stray from that formality it really stands out. Zaereth (talk) 19:01, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

• Well, since WP doesn't use the Chicago or Reuters MOS (I'm more AP myself), I'm not sure how relevant they are to this discussion. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:58, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Zaereth, trust me, you haven't missed anything. Use British-style quotations and sentence case in the headers. That's about it. Lev!vich 23:30, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

No. It should not at this time be in the lede at all: per WP:RECENTISM Maineartists (talk) 01:42, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

What if he dies? Is that RECENTISM too? SPECIFICO talk 14:24, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

That's not a fair comparison. Death is a finite storyline, whereas this is evolving and fresh off the press. petrarchan47คุก 19:43, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

• Too soon for the Lede, though it will likely be added in time. As Zaereth notes above, adding this to the Lede now is "putting the cart before the horse". In full, the account of Bannon's arrest in the body of his BLP is one sentence:

Bannon was arrested by US Postal Inspectors off the coast of Connecticut, on board Guo Wengui's luxury yacht Lady May; later that day, he pleaded not guilty to the charges. petrarchan47คุก 19:43, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

• Feel free to fatten the horse. SPECIFICO talk 20:03, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

There are, of course, two paragraphs on the fraud indictment and the charges. Mentioning his arrest in the introduction is not just mentioning the arrest, but the fact that he has been charged with a crime. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:10, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

• No, not in the lead per Zaereth. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 20:11, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

• Include: now a defining characteristic of the subject's biography. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:47, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
• Include. Notable event which has garnered nationwide press coverage. It's certainly notable enough to be in the lead. It involves large sums of money, and a host of criminal charges. The "We Build The Wall" non-profit crowdfunding project has it's own article on Wikipedia, and a ton of notable coverage. The whitewashing of Steve Bannon's article is not supported by the utter deluge of news articles on the topic, it belongs in the lead, if for no other reason than its historical importance as yet another example of the greed and avarice which underpins the Trump Administration and the people it associates with. Octoberwoodland (talk) 03:31, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• That depends. There are several criteria for inclusion. The lede should be a summary of the contents, but each inclusion should be WP:DUE - WP:WEIGHT applies. If there is enough material in the body to summarise and if the fact of the arrest will be long-term facet of the reasons for notability of that person, then inclusion is warranted. So - someone arrested for, say, a DUI and no other charges - don't include. A prominent polemicist with connections to the U.S. President, with an arrest for an alleged federal crime, gaining international attention and which will result in a lengthy and prominent trial? Include. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 08:02, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
• Look, Bannon was arrested. He's under indictment. He is currently free on $5 million bail (if he weren't rich, he'd be in jail right now) and is awaiting trial on federal criminal charges. If someone reads the lead (which, recall, must stand alone as a complete summary of the article subject and isn't informed of any of that, then we've failed the reader and violated our basic responsibilities in a pretty major way. MastCell ^Talk 18:21, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
• I would include the indictment but not the arrest. At the moment it is an important part of his story and will certainly occupy his time for the foreseeable future. Most readers coming to the article today are probably looking to find out more about him because of the accusations. We should therefore mention them. It would probably be best to give details about the case in a separate article if one has not been created already. TFD (talk) 18:49, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the arrest itself is implicit in the indictment. - MrX 🖋 19:24, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

This is what I was trying to get to; the arrest is really not the "thing" but the indictment or the charges named against the person that should be taken relative to the person's overall notability. And in the case of Bannon, that they are federal charges and that this seems very much rather connected to his notability make it prime lede material.

A second way to look at it: obviously if he is found guilty, this is still lede material; if he is found innocent, I still would think this becomes part of his notability and thus something in the lede, though maybe not presented as "arrested and charged for..." but "was named by found innocent in fraud charges related to the border wall", once those are figured out. --Masem (t) 19:39, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

MrX has taken it upon themselves to decide that consensus has been reached and added the material to the lead. I think it would be best if we allowed an independent editor to decide if consensus has been achieved. Else this just opens things up for a back and forth. Springee (talk) 19:28, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• The indictment should be mentioned briefly, late in the lead section. At this point, the vast majority of sourced information we have in the way of understanding the notability and details of the life of Steve Bannon, both in the world and in our article, pertains to events prior to the indictment. Vadder (talk) 20:54, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• It definitely belongs in the lede. There is just no state of the future where this does not remain a significant part of his biography (even if he's acquitted). It's not like people get federally indicted all the time. Well, ok, Trump advisors and campaign managers do, but the standard is notable people in general. Volunteer Marek 21:42, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I believe the recent nature of the arrest and the limited information at this time are irrelevant because his indictment by the SDNY for major federal felonies will never go away with the passage of time. I can't help but wonder if this matter would be debatable for even a moment if it involved, say, Valerie Jarrett. soibangla (talk) 22:01, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

It appears there's more to this story considering the following from the BBC: That this indictment comes out of the Southern District of New York, the federal prosecutorial office that has handled other high-profile cases involving Trump associates, will stir greater interest in the indictment. The district was itself the source of recent controversy when Attorney General Bill Barr abruptly fired its head, Geoffrey Berman. We need to wait, and see some evidence. It looks to me like SDNY thinks they have a "gotcha" situation because there were promises that the money for the wall would go directly to the construction, but some of those players were covering their expenses with it. I will not take either side at their word - corroborate it first - and I certainly don't trust some of the breaking news based on recent experiences. The big scoop is Kevin Clinesmith and far more important in the grand scheme because it appears the lid is about to blow off that pressure cooker. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:30, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

As I explained on Talk, we don't need to know at this time what might be going on behind the scenes. We have enough facts to make it leadworthy. If subsequent reports reveal more, we can add it then. And the Clinesmith matter is trivial and relates to a minor player (Page) in the grand scheme of everything that has happened, but I fully understand the political strategy of some to vastly exaggerate its importance to divert attention from the 16-ton pink elephant in the room. It has no bearing on this matter. soibangla (talk) 22:39, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

That's exactly right Soibangla. The indictment represents a very significant milestone. Speculation about the prosecution is beside the point. - MrX 🖋 16:14, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• I agree with TFD and Masem. It should be included in the lede. Though unless found guilty, not in the first paragraph. starship.paint (talk) 14:22, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
• It probably belongs in the lead, but not in the opening paragraph let along sentence. Ravensfire (talk) 14:30, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
• It should be in the lead. An indictment of this sort is not issued without hearing evidence. It's a major enough issue that it seems worthy of being in the lead to me. Fearless lede'r (talk) 20:32, 29 August 2020 (UTC) — Fearless lede'r (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• If (for example) it's a young actor who has one too many drinks and gets arrested for fighting a paparazzi, then no. Those kind of events are regular and not worth mentioning in the lede, but should be mentioned elsewhere. If it's somebody whose career is ended/defined by their criminal exploits (Harvey Weinstein et al) then yes, it should be in the lede. GiantSnowman 20:38, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
• It should be in the lead section. The criminal charges against Bannon concern how he has supported himself (the Wikipedia article makes clear that he has no regular business or source of income), and that's fundamental to any biography. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:40, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• In the lead Neutrality doesn't mean we write a puff piece. Inclusion in lead is essential if we don't want to whitewash the article and illusion our readers. - hako9 (talk) 20:18, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

---

Stefan Molyneux (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article about Stefan Molyneux is an evident libel. Locking the article after accusing a living person of such a terrible thing as being a racist and supernacist without any proof other than links to op-ed articles (proving opinion/commentary and not reporting on news) is just horrible.

THe bias of this article makes me question the veracity and authenticity of other "facts" on wikipedia.

When did you go down this political spirall? Such a waste. I can't believe that I financially supported you in the past. What a waste of my money and time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.143.105.44 (talk) 05:55, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

@89.143.105.44: Just having a quick look at the article in question and the sources for the claims of white supremacy and nationalism, it looks like they're supported by reliable sources. Only one of the eleven sources is an opinion piece, and even then, it's attributed in-text (Molyneux is described as a leading figure of the alt-right movement by Politico and The Washington Post...) per our in-text attribution guidelines. They're extraordinary claims, but they're absolutely appropriate, referenced, and justified. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 06:16, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Of course there's no way OP could be the one politically spiraling, surely it's everyone else. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:48, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Should we be oversimplifying him? If he said "I have always opposed the idea of racial superiority/inferiority" why wouldn't that warrant inclusion in the article? The conclusion here seems to be in opposition to even allowing Molyneux to speak in his own voice in his own article articulating that "I have always opposed the idea of racial superiority/inferiority". Bus stop (talk) 03:24, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Stefan Molyneux is notable for being a far-right, white nationalist, white supremacist, former YouTuber and podcaster who promotes conspiracy theories, scientific racism, eugenics, and white supremacist views. That's not "oversimplifying him", that's saying why he is notable. Maybe he once built a 1/720 scale model of Oz out of balsa wood and makes delightful pettifors. That's not what he's notable for. Heck, maybe Meryl Streep was once a remarkably bad wine steward. She's still an American actress, particularly known for her versatility and accents. That's not an oversimplification of Streep. It's a standard part of the lede in a biography, answering the question: "Why is this person notable?" Molyneux is notable for far-right, white nationalist, white supremacist conspiracy theories, scientific racism, eugenics, and white supremacist views. We've been through this with you repeatedly. - SummerPhD^v2.0 05:28, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

SummerPhDv2.0—the source says Molyneux said in a statement to the Guardian: "I have always opposed the idea of racial superiority/inferiority." I have never suggested placement of this in "the lede". The question is: should this be included in the body of the article? Bus stop (talk) 06:20, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Establishing why a person is notable in their lede is important, but BLP further requires a neutral and dispassionate tone and impartiality first and foremost, and this may mean that what someone is notable for may not be in that first sentence or the first phrase of the first sentence of the lede if that doesn't provide a neutral and impartial start to the article, which is a problem for Molyneux, as identified last time he was brought up. In addition to all those being subjective labels and those requiring some type of distancing from factual terms in wikivoice (save for perhaps "white nationalist" which was identified as a term he self-identified as). Our article remains in violation of core BLP and NPOV policy at this point because it fails to start with an impartial tone. Once once that first step of introducing the person impartially and factually (eg NO LABELS), the rest is fair game as long as standard BLP practices are followed. It should lead "Steven Molyneux is a Canadian writer, YouTuber, and podcaster who is widely considered to hold far-right, white nationalist and supremacist views and known for his promotion of conspiracy theories, scientific racism, and eugenics." Nothing is lost in terms of his notability, but it is worded in a far more neutral and impartial manner. (obviously leave the sourcing where it is).

It needs to be stressed, again, while we as a general group of editors may loathe the far right and the people there, and agree with the media that they are far from bastions of any reasonable good, we are still writing them neutrally in an encyclopedia and cannot let that "right great wrongs" philosophy take over here. We clearly need to capture the widely-shared views across multiple media sources when they label people like this far-right/etc., per UNDUE/WEIGHT, but we need to avoid cherry-picking which should be reviewed (one or two sourced do not justify the use of a label even if we feel it must be applied, for example). We need to look at the larger picture and not find every fault that can be included. For example, what is the point of Molyneux interviewing Damore? And I just saw a Twitter source used here, which is inpermissible per BLPSPS. I mean, I'm sure most of the rest of the article can be cleaned up and reads what I would say is indicative of Molyneux, no question; the OP claim that this is libel is absolutely nonsensical as it reflects pretty well what is out there in the media's representation of him which we are going to follow -- BUT we have to be better and more neutral and impartial than the media in how we work with that media and that requires just a bit more care. It doesn't mean to whitewash the article of the "negative" stuff, but again, make sure that if labels are being used they are widely used and use appropriate inline attribution or wording to take out of wikivoice, summarize rather than document every point and look for themes, and try to put personal distrust and loathing of such people aside when working on these articles. A good quality article for Molyneux will still come out making him appear like a person that society frowns upon, but our write up will at least start as impartial as possible to that point and let the reader make that decision, if done right.

And to Bus Stop's point, the fact we're ignoring any statements from Molyneux published in reliable sources is also not-neutral. 'HOWEVER This is not meant to say that you remove the media stance, as that's far too UNDUE to not include. You need to put his words in their somewhere to make it neutral. That is, just because Molyneux says he is not X does not mean we don't mention that most of the media says he is X, that would be against UNDUE. Instead we'd say something akin to "Molyneux is widely considered to be X by most journalists due to this-and-that. Molyneux said he is not X because of this-other-thing." (likely in the body, doubt that would be lede material). --Masem (t) 06:39, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

No, I didn't suggest "remov[ing] the media stance". His opinion on "racial superiority/inferiority" is worthy of inclusion. The reader should be apprised of Molyneux's stated opinion on "racial superiority/inferiority". We don't have to come up with a reason why this is worthy of inclusion. It is intrinsically interesting and relevant to the article as a whole because "racial superiority/inferiority" is a subject addressed by those commentators who have opinions on Molyneux. Bus stop (talk) 07:09, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Molyneux denying what he is notable for doesn't really matter. Mark Dice similarly complains that he's not a conspiracy theorist and all cranks insist that they're the real scientists. If they want to turn those labels into "former," then they need to specifically refute their ideas that have lead reliable sources to conclude Molyneux is a white nationalist and Dice is a conspiracy theorist. And as has been discussed before, Molyneux looked at white nationalism in Poland and said that it works and he's no longer skeptical of it. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:48, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Its not about changing those labels but following NPOV, inserting what the person has said about themselves, with due WEIGHT, to counter what the media has said about them, keeping in mind that labels are subjective terms. If we know there are reliable sources that outline a person's own stance and we're failing to include even a sentence as a minimum, that's a problem. Now Molyneux, it sounds like he's waived a bit, I wouldn't know exactly where one would begin since I have seen in the last discussion a self-claim of support of white nationalism, but then you have this Guardian article as well. We shouldn't be ignoring these, but figuring out how to incorporate these in the body as necessary NPOV counterpoints. --Masem (t) 13:24, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Ian.thomson—why wouldn't we include that Molyneux says he is not a racist? Because it is not on topic? You are arguing that racism is "what he is notable for". So, material related to his very reason for notability should be omitted—do I understand you correctly? Wouldn't that fall under the heading of selective omission? Bus stop (talk) 14:09, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion on the Molyneux article but I want to support what Masem is saying here. A Wikipedia article shouldn't read like the intent was to persuade a reader who had never heard of the subject that the subject is good/bad/nice/mean. Also, I think Masem's lead sentence structure of "objective facts" followed by "subjective labels, assessments etc" is something that should be damn near required for subjects like this. Also, once again support for including the subject's self published replies/responses to negative (or positive) claims about them/things they have said/done. When there are two sides to a story we need to make sure it's clear there were two sides. That sometimes means we need to give a bit of space for a explanation along with the refutation. So if X is accused on publishing a racist idea we can say X refutes the accusation because Y and Z.. Springee (talk) 14:58, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Springee—you say "So if X is accused on publishing a racist idea we can say X refutes the accusation because Y and Z". What if there is no "Y and Z" available? Molyneux has simply said "I have always opposed the idea of racial superiority/inferiority". And Ian.thomson is arguing " If they want to turn those labels into 'former,' then they need to specifically refute their ideas that have lead reliable sources to conclude Molyneux is a white nationalist". I would argue that specific refutation is not required. That is a concocted criterion. The main criteria for inclusion are relevancy and sourcing. The statement "I have always opposed the idea of racial superiority/inferiority" is clearly relevant. Everyone agrees the subject is noted for being a racist. And the material is reliably sourced, to The Guardian. Bus stop (talk) 15:33, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm not familiar enough with the details of the Molyneux story to say what should be done in this case. However, in a general case I was trying to emphasize that when "Y and Z" are available we include them. A while back I was involved with this [[19]] where ExxonMobil published a report that refuted an LA Times article. The question was should we just say EM refuted the accusations or should we include some of EM's specific counter claims/evidence? It doesn't always mean much when we read a simple denial. It's a bit like the kid with paint on his hands standing next to the fresh graffiti saying "didn't do it". Anyway, if we don't have "Y and Z" then I guess you should still include the denial as it was clearly a response to the accusation. Springee (talk) 15:49, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

It is not a bit like the kid with paint on his hands standing next to the fresh graffiti saying "didn't do it". It is valuable information. Bus stop (talk) 16:11, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree that absent additional information the statement of denial should still be included. Springee (talk) 16:15, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, because we are not only concerned with whether he is a racist or not. Preternatural focus on that question represents a simplification of the article. We are addressing all aspects of the subject of the article. We are not preternaturally focussed on whether he is a racist or not. Bus stop (talk) 16:23, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Independent reliable sources regularly and repeatedly say he is a white supremacist. That you have extracted one sentence from his sourced statements is trivial. Pick any American President from the past 20 years and you can dig out one sentence that makes it sound like the predicted the current pandemic or believe it is caused by reptilian aliens. Your insistence that you have found the key sentence about the subject -- and every independent reliable source has chosen to ignore it -- does not push it past WP:WEIGHT.

Proportionate to the coverage it has received in independent reliable sources, your single sentence in one source -- despite it supporting your POV -- is trivial. If you would like to start pulling out individual quotes from him to add to the article, let's add "I don’t view humanity as a single species", "The whole breeding arena of the species needs to be cleaned the f--- up", "blacks are collectively less intelligent", "You cannot run a high IQ [white] society with low IQ [non-white] people", and a whole bunch more. Why wouldn't they warrant inclusion in the article (other than not fitting your theory that the notably white supremacist Molyneux isn't a white supremacist)? - SummerPhD^v2.0 19:12, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Regardless of how many independent reliable sources say X is a label, the use of a label is still a subjective assessment that cannot be treated as fact (only that lots of sources use it) and has to be treated subjectively. And that given that is a direct statement against the person, not including any sourced statement that person has made in their defense when that label has been applied to them is inappropriate per NPOV. This doesn't mean we have to dwell in any depth into any details of his philosophy at all , unless that itself was the subject of sourced discussion; without sources, that would be UNDUE. Nor do we need to given equal coverage of their defense, but there needs to be at least something when Molyneux has specifically spoken in defense to what critics have said about him. That part is the key driver, as to avoid picking out when we would otherwise pull random statements Molyneux has otherwise said of himself. --Masem (t) 19:26, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I love this logic. Adolf Hitler said once that he loved Jews, so we need to dedicate equal weight to that, and have to be very careful about calling him an anti-semite. Jorm (talk) 02:29, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for providing evidence that Godwin's law hasn't been repealed. But I'm not sure how BLP applies to someone who died ~75 years ago. Also, it ignores the meat of Masem's argument sandwich. But score one for following the law. Springee (talk) 02:35, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Quoting Molyneux in one sentence is not providing "equal weight", Jorm. Additionally, there is only one "self". Molyneux's opinion of "himself" is unlike any other person or organization's opinion of Molyneux. Molyneux's opinion of himself is quintessentially unique. It can't be compared to anyone else's opinion on the nature of Molyneux. It is hard to find a reason to omit Molyneux's opinion on what virtually all in a discussion such as this or in a discussion on the article Talk page agree is Molyneux's reason for notability—namely that he is a racist. So let's recapitulate—the argument for omitting this material is that it is entirely on-topic and unique. That doesn't sound like a very strong argument for omitting this material, but it sounds like an excellent argument for including the quote from Molyneux saying "I have always opposed the idea of racial superiority/inferiority." Bus stop (talk) 03:22, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

If Hitler actually once said that he loved Jews, that absolutely seems like something which belongs in his article. It already mentions an associate from his Vienna years who claims he was not an anti-Semite at this time. As for the "anti-Semite" label, did Hitler ever deny that he was an anti-Semite? If so I would include that too. It would be very interesting and relevant information for understanding how the Holocaust happened.--Clevera (talk) 08:36, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Clevera—I would just add to what you said the following. You say "It would be very interesting and relevant information for understanding how the Holocaust happened". I would add that it would also be interesting and relevant information for understanding the subject of the biography. What is being lost in the shuffle is that the Molyneux article is a biography. We want to understand Stefan Molyneux. The aim of a biography is the development of an understanding of the human being that is the subject of the biography. Here is Molyneux interviewing Tommy Sotomayor. Would any reasonable person derive from this interview that Molyneux is an unalloyed racist? This interview took place after the deaths of Rayshard Brooks and George Floyd. This interview was on YouTube before YouTube banned Molyneux. (Now this interview is on BitChute.) In my opinion this is an entirely constructive interview. I don't think anyone would derive from this interview that Molyneux is racist. Bus stop (talk) 15:17, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

No, we do not aim to "understand" Molyneux. Wikipedia aims to summarize what independent reliable sources say about him. They unanimously say he is a white supremacist. They do not discuss the ONE SENTENCE you want to include. It is one sentence from a primary source. Your desire to cast doubt on Molyneux being a white supremacist -- the unambiguous, unanimous assessment of all of the independent reliable sources -- does not create WP:WEIGHT for its inclusion. - SummerPhD^v2.0 21:52, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

The media - the court of public opinion - is not an objective determination of someone's ideological, religious, political, or other belief system. Period. The only person that can make that assessment is the person themselves. The only thing the media can do is assess what the person says and does and make the assertion - often as fact in their words - that the person is such-and-such an value-laden label. Or a superlative in their field, or similar positive or negative assessments. We can accept that a majority if near unaminity of sources do this, but we are still neutral and impartial and have to write these statements with the usual caution and attribution, and recognizing that absolutely ignoring any statement a living person has made directly in their defense is not neutral presentation of this. This is in no way equal weight (that would be asking for the same volume of coverage), but simply stating as appropriate for UNDUE with respect to BLP and NPOV. We absolutely are not free to ignore a BLP's statements in counterpoint to criticisms against them just because the volume of the media far outweigh him, because that immediately takes the side of the court of public opinion. Remember, we don't know if that side is right or not, which is part of the problem here: media and labels doesn't mean they are correct. They may be morally considered correct, but keep in mind, we know that this is a liberal bias and not necessary representative of the world's overall POV. (I mean, I will agree with their assess on people like Molyneux, BUT first and foremost, we are not here to repeat that bias) It's the "loudest" and thus the one we have to cover with the most depth but we have to make sure it is clear who is speaking that because it is not at all an point of objectivity.

Again, consider any other person that is well beloved, well disliked, or the like where there is a clear matter of subjectivity in that assessment - excluding the new "far right" ppl (and the Godwin test has already been brought up so that's fair game), select these at random, and you're hardly find a case where they are written in a manner that puts the subjective assessment in a factual voice, but instead will always put it in some type of attribution. It is really really hard to find cases of vetted articles that are as poorly written in terms of wikivoice treatment towards subjectively labels as BLPs like Molyneux and other new far-right figures. Again, I have zero love for these people but we also have a responsibility to be objective first and foremost to them like we have for ever more hatred figures in our past. --Masem (t) 22:19, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Jorm—did Adolf Hitler ever say that he "loved Jews"? You say "I love this logic. Adolf Hitler said once that he loved Jews, so we need to dedicate equal weight to that, and have to be very careful about calling him an anti-semite." The question being addressed here is not whether we can call someone something. We are not discussing for instance whether we can call Molyneux racist. That is already in the article in abundance and it is not being considered for removal. What we are discussing is whether or not we can include the quote from Molyneux saying "I have always opposed the idea of racial superiority/inferiority." If you are going to weigh in please try to address the specific question. Bus stop (talk) 14:19, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, we are still discussing whether or not to ignore WP:WEIGHT and WP:BLPPRIMARY to include the one sentence that none of the sources discuss in any way. As I said, there are a dozen other quotes mentioned but not discussed in sources that I think are of similar importance in understanding the white supremacist we are discussing. - SummerPhD^v2.0 21:52, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

SummerPhDv2.0—I am suggesting including this Molyneux quote: "I have always opposed the idea of racial superiority/inferiority." You refer to "a dozen other quotes". You have not suggested any other quotes. The article Talk page is littered with you insisting that Molyneux's notability rests primarily on his being a racist. The quote that I am suggesting for inclusion is relevant, as it addresses Molyneux's view on "racial superiority/inferiority". You mistakenly reference [my] desire to cast doubt on Molyneux being a white supremacist when my main interest is in writing a well-rounded biography. Bus stop (talk) 15:22, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

What in WP:WEIGHT makes you think this quote should not be included? This page Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_or_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves says that Molyneux's statement is acceptable as a source. Your weight article says "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents". Surely Molyneux counts as a prominent adherent of this view? Should Wikipedia really be the sort of place where reliable sources which say bad things about someone are cited, but the person isn't allowed a word in their own defense because that would give "undue weight"? This practice would appear to violate NPOV in a BLP.--Clevera (talk) 12:29, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I want to add that Bus stop's quote is not just any quote of Molyneux's. If you go to Molyneux's website [20], the very most prominent link on the homepage is labeled: “What I Believe” Find out the truth! And under the "Race" section he clearly states: I do not believe that any race is “superior” or “inferior.” So this is not some statement that he made offhand. This is his very official, very public position statement. Earlier you mentioned a few other individual quotes from Molyneux which form the basis of the statements made about him in reliable sources. Molyneux has a page on his website explaining how he feels he was misrepresented in some of these quotes: [21] I started watching one of the videos, and it does seem as though he was unfairly (and egregiously!) misrepresented in at least one instance. Notably, this "I don't view humanity as a single species" quote was not Molyneux's official/public position statement on race, but rather an offhand remark he made in one of his many podcasts which appears to have been taken out of context (was originally made in the context of discussing crimes for which Molyneux feels there is no restitution, a discussion that didn't touch on race at all!)--Clevera (talk) 13:08, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Something to be cautious about that comes with this: We do want to avoid including BLPSPS statements that are self-serving. We know the press has called out Molyneux's views on race, but no one had ever reported on his counter statement (such as the Guardian piece). Now including what Molyneux has written on his website which doesn't necessary appear to be in challenge to any specific piece of criticism about his view on race would be appropriate as that can be seen as self-serving. If it were the case that he wrote "Many have written that I am a white supremacist, but really I think ... " then that's a bit more valid to include because now at least that's in response to the criticism he's getting and cannot be argued as self-serving. But we prefer what we see by the Guardian here when we have an independent third-party that's actually gone to source a quote directly from the person (not pulled from existing writings) as in response, and thus that can't be seen as a self-serving facet. We absolutely need to concern this "Self-serving" facet when considering NPOV and creating a false balance and that is a line that could be overstepped here for Molyneux, absolutely, but I don't see the addition of one sentence sourced to the Guardian being anything close to that. --Masem (t) 18:05, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Molyneux is an intelligent person who refuses to abide by the conventions of identity politics. That is not necessarily racist. Bus stop (talk) 19:09, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

You have made your opinion of Molyneux very clear. The article, however, is meant to summarize what independent reliable sources say about him. They all say -- all of them -- that he is a white supremacist. - SummerPhD^v2.0 21:48, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

SummerPhDv2.0—why should we not include the quote from Molyneux in which he says the following: "I have always opposed the idea of racial superiority/inferiority"? YouTube banned Molyneux after this interview (with Tommy Sotomayor) and this interview. Molyneux interviews black men in those two interviews for hours. Both interviews take place after the deaths of George Floyd and Rayshard Brooks. The discussions are about race relations in the USA and about policing in the USA. These are not just good interviews, these are great interviews, in my opinion of course. Needless to say Black Lives Matter is also discussed. Why might YouTube ban Molyneux after these two interviews? Could it be that Molyneux is not in the least bit racist? Molyneux, in interviews with police and black people is, in my opinion again, fostering good relations between black people and white people. Good relations would be the opposite of "racist", wouldn't it? Again, why wouldn't you want the article to contain the quote from Molyneux: "I have always opposed the idea of racial superiority/inferiority"? By the way, it is sourced to The Guardian. Do you not think that is a good source? Bus stop (talk) 02:02, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I am familiar with your opinion of Molyneux: that all of the independent reliable sources which regularly and repeatedly say Molyneux is a white supremacist who promotes white nationalism with racist pseudoscience, well, they're all wrong in your opinion. Molyneux, however is verifiably a white supremacist who promotes white nationalism with racist pseudoscience. That you found one sentence from a primary source (the subject of the article) that is not discussed by any sources puts that one sentence in the same boat as hundreds of other sentences. Why should we not include the one where he says he believes the different races are not the same species? How about where he confidnently tells us that Blacks are naturually more criminal and less intelligent? Other than your wanting to present the white supremacist Molyneux in a better light, why should we not include those?

I am sorry, but independent reliable sources do not say what you want them to say. All of them regularly and repeatedly define Molyneux as being not only a white supremacist, but being notable because he is a white supremacist, spreads racist pseudoscience and promotes white nationalism. None of the sources discuss this as even a reasonable question. There is absolutely no discussion in sources that show any doubt. None of the sources discuss your one sentence. As far as sourced information go, the possibility that Molyneux is not a white supremacist is limited to ONE person: Molyneux (and that's only by interpreting that one isolated sentence in the most favorable way possible. Per WP:WEIGHT "the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all... For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct (and minuscule) minority; to do so would give undue weight to it." There are a hell of a lot of flat Earthers in independent reliable sources. Molyneux is a minority of ONE. His self-serving view of himself is the very definition of "the view of a distinct (and minuscule) minority". - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:05, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

No, SummerPhDv2.0, of course I didn't say "all of the independent reliable sources which regularly and repeatedly say Molyneux is a white supremacist who promotes white nationalism with racist pseudoscience, well, they're all wrong". You said that; I did not say that. Bus stop (talk) 04:48, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Can an admin please close this thread? The original BLP question has now repeatedly devolved into Bus stop openly promoting (banned) white supremacist videos and race realist talking points in an effort to argue that Stefan Molyneux is not a racist. At best this discussion now belongs on the article talk page. JoelleJay (talk) 04:04, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

JoelleJay—you are merely conceding that there is not any reason that the Molyneux article should not include the reliably sourced quote from the subject of the article saying "I have always opposed the idea of racial superiority/inferiority." I can only conclude that if you had a reason that this should be omitted from the article you would have presented that reason by now. Bus stop (talk) 04:48, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Break (Stefan Molyneux)

Clevera—sad to say the Molyneux article is a terrible hatchet job. The quote I'm trying to put in the article should be no big deal. Any fair-minded editor should be saying sure, no big deal—how could it matter one way or the other if it is a reliably sourced quote from the subject of the article? But Molyneux is a figure who dares to mention Blacks and Jews in a tone of voice that doesn't march in lockstep with prevailing norms. To me that smacks of intolerance—not on the part of Molyneux but on the part of those who would abuse Wikipedia to express their displeasures. This is a 2020 interview with Tommy Sotomayor. Molyneux is a racist? Here we have a 2020 interview with 2 retired cops, one of whom is Black. As I have argued on the article Talk page, our article is an oversimplification of Molyneux. A biography should be especially sensitive to include those points that do not support prevailing narratives—especially on subjective matters. 99% of sources support that Molyneux is a racist. That makes it all the more imperative that we include a source implying that he might not be a racist. In this particular instance it happens to be his own denial, but the same principles apply. We should want to include countervailing views on subjective matters, which is what racism is. Racism is very often just a highly subjective opinion. Bus stop (talk) 16:25, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

But Molyneux is a figure who dares to mention Blacks and Jews in a tone of voice that doesn't march in lockstep with prevailing norms. Are you fucking serious? JoelleJay (talk) 02:09, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

"Stated simply, editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect. They should focus on improving the encyclopedia while maintaining a pleasant editing environment by behaving politely, calmly and reasonably, even during heated debates." From WP:CIVIL.--Clevera (talk) 02:19, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm not going to guess what I said wrong, JoelleJay. You might be making a valid point but you would have to clarify. Bus stop (talk) 17:55, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Given the context of the article and this thread, where Molyneux's notability as a racist white supremacist is utterly unquestioned even by you, do you really not see what the problems are with But Molyneux is a figure who dares to mention Blacks and Jews in a tone of voice that doesn't march in lockstep with prevailing norms. and Molyneux is an intelligent person who refuses to abide by the conventions of identity politics. That is not necessarily racist.? Those statements are wholly irrelevant to whatever argument you have with v2.0|SummerPhD, David Gerard, and Ian.thomson about whether to include an off-hand denial Molyneux made once; you are just explicitly defending his racist views here. JoelleJay (talk) 20:17, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Molyneux is a figure who dares to mention Blacks and Jews in a tone of voice that doesn't march in lockstep with prevailing norms -- And there's an explanation for that that you've been rejecting. Molyneux is an intelligent person who refuses to abide by the conventions of identity politics -- Describing him as rejecting identity politics when he says that white nationalism works in Poland would rather suggest that he rejects the legitimacy of the non-white identity politics. Again, there's an explanation for that. These arguments are pretty parallel to "look, he likes the freedom of swinging axes around (can't the gun control nuts respect anyone's right to defend themselves?) and stupid people just have a habit of getting in his way, but he's not an axe-murderer." Ian.thomson (talk) 21:55, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Ian.thomson, JoelleJay—the purpose of a biography on Wikipedia is not to compartmentalize, dismiss, and demonize. As Clevera aptly says "I started watching one of the videos, and it does seem as though he was unfairly (and egregiously!) misrepresented in at least one instance." That has been my experience as well. I find it interesting that many black people (Tommy Sotomayor) agree with Molyneux on many points. It is not necessarily racist for instance to opine that black people in the United States may not be disproportionately targeted by police. Unlike charges of racism, statistics on actions, such as shootings, taken by police against various ethnicities, can actually be objectively analyzed. It is also not at all inconceivable that Molyneux has evolved over time. We all do. The question is why would we not include the quote that "I have always opposed the idea of racial superiority/inferiority"? Bus stop (talk) 22:26, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I think you're eliding the key issue here. We know that citogenesis is a thing. Having watched that video on Molyneux's website, it appears to me that he's been egregiously misrepresented in at least one instance ("I don't view humanity as a single species") in both this discussion and his Wikipedia page. (Will you please watch the first video on this page and tell me if it seems like a misrepresentation to you?) It seems plausible to me that this is a case of circular reporting/citogenesis: His Wikipedia article has this quote of his which was clearly taken out of context, journalists read his Wikipedia article and go "Oh, a white nationalist", and now we've got sources 2-5 in the article referring to him as a white nationalist/white supremacist on the basis of almost no supporting evidence in terms of specific things he has said (if you look at sources 2 through 5, they don't offer any quotes of Molyneux's that are especially damning).

He's "notable" on the basis of being a white nationalist/white supremacist in the sense that there are widely read articles which describe him that way. That doesn't mean it is a fair characterization. I'm not familiar with Molyneux's work and frankly I'm not all that interested in becoming familiar with it. Given my limited knowledge of its specifics, I have a high level of uncertainty about his ideology, ranging all the way from "he wants to exterminate people who don't look like him" to "he's a politically incorrect egalitarian who has been repeatedly taken out of context". If the latter, I certainly wouldn't want his Wikipedia page to treat him as the former, because that gives the real bad guys a bigger forest to hide in / a larger supply of useful idiots who have officially been identified with them in the public eye.

But this is all besides the point in a sense. The question we're examining is whether it's appropriate to note the fact that he denies these allegations on his Wikipedia page. I'm unsure whether the citogenesis question affects my answer to this--even if there was no doubt in my mind that he was a thoroughly despicable individual, it still seems appropriate to note that "Molyneux officially denies despicableness" on his Wikipedia page. After all, this seems to be the entire reason he is notable, it seems like an obvious omission to neglect his official denial.--Clevera (talk) 11:54, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Masem here, 100%. As usual, I find their reasoning very logical and astute, and in this case I agree. Now I don't know the first thing about the subject, although I find that the way the terms "white nationalist" and "white supremacist" are used, it often comes off more as racial slurs than any well-defined term that one can objectively label a person as (I'm not even sure they have real meanings), but that's beside the point. A person's own statements in defense of themselves is extremely important in any event. Of course it's not necessary to go into some big diatribe in their defense, but a brief quote or short summary is very relevant and made due by the addition of the allegations, crimes, labels, or whatever. It is necessary to maintain balance and neutrality, and just by including the info on ... whatever, it opens the door.

As an example, recently someone at Mary Kay Latourneau insisted on adding her defense that she didn't know sex with a child was illegal. Now that's an idiotic statement if I ever heard one, and some would argue that it doesn't deserve any mention in the article. But it does tell us something about the subject (either she's lying or stupid beyond belief), and it very much should be mentioned in the article. What does Molyneau's statement tell us? Well, that's up to the reader to decide, but everyone deserves a chance to defend themselves, and that is very much relevant to an article about them, and necessary to maintain balance and neutrality. Zaereth (talk) 00:13, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

That any editor feels the universal assessment of independent reliable sources is "against" the subject is immaterial. NPOV demands that we objectively report what independent reliable sources say, not that we present positives/neutrals to offset negatives when absolutely no independent reliable sources provide those supposed positives. All of the independent reliable sources say Molyneux is notable as a white supremacist. ZERO independent reliable sources cast ANY doubt on that assessment. The question here is whether Wikipedia should attempt to contradict the universal assessment of reliable sources by fishing ONE UNDISCUSSED SENTENCE from the subject out of hundreds of pages of his statements based on some of our assessments that "Sources say Molyneux is a white supremecist[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12], but Wikipedia editor 'Bus stop' found this one sentence that they believe might mean he isn't.[13]"

This is a primary source. IF the one isolated sentence means what you believe it means, it is the very definition of a minority viewpoint: one person's single sentence. See WP:WEIGHT. - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:43, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Clearly, no one is asking for that type of statement, and you're making an illogical step here. And the Guardian by no means is a primary source here.

Again to stress the most fundamental point: Wikipedia cannot say anyone or any group is a label in wikivoice, period. A label is a subjective term, Wikipedia cannot speak to that as fact, no matter how many sources back that up. Doesn't matter if there are hundreds of RSs that use the label on a person or group, it is still a label and by definition a term we cannot use in wikvoice as fact when covering the media. But we can capture the fact that numerous sources consider a person or a group as a label, and there's ways to do that being clear it is widely used and without have to have a bazillion sources after the statement, which are beyond the scope of what to discuss here. Even when we have self-identification of a label, we should make it clear it is self-identified.

Now, on that point, because we know it is subjective and that's how the media views him, and that it is a very negative view of him, if we know he has commented in response to that criticism (particularly if it is in RSes), it is absolutely necessary to briefly mention this per NPOV. Again, this is because a label cannot be treated as a fact as the argument above starts. It would be far different if this were some "dietician" offering a crazy diet that every medical expert said didn't work per MEDRS (something actually factual rather than subjective) while this dietician continued to insist it was true. That's where FRINGE would coming into play. But when we are talking labels, there is no firm objective basis for when they apply, and thus it is fair game for those being labeled to be able to deny those labels, and if we can source that, we should. We don't have to go any further than that, and we certainly don't need to go into "unsolicited" defenses either.

This is at no point contradiction at all. This simply adding one sentence or so after presenting the rational from the bulk of the other sources so that its understood where the arguments sit and the reader then can decide for themselves. A paragraph in the body of an BLP may go like "Molyneux is widely considered a white nationalist by numerous publications. <two or three sentences with source quotes here to explain why from these RSes consider Molyneux a white supremacist.> Molyneux denies he is a white supremacist because <reason>." Written like this, are we denying the media assessment? Absolutely not. It clearly gives it more weight compared to Molyneux's stance. So no, there is absolutely no attempt to contradict the sources. --Masem (t) 05:32, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

This:

"Wikipedia cannot say anyone or any group is a label in wikivoice, period. A label is a subjective term, Wikipedia cannot speak to that as fact, no matter how many sources back that up. Doesn't matter if there are hundreds of RSs that use the label on a person or group, it is still a label and by definition a term we cannot use in wikvoice as fact when covering the media."

is utterly wrong.

The word "doctor" is a label. Does that mean we can never call anyone a "doctor" in wikivoice? The word "swimmer" is a label. Does that mean we can never call anyone a "swimmer" in wikivoice? This is absurd.

The objection here is to "labels with a negative connotation". But there's absolutely nothing in Wikipedia policy which says we cannot use "labels with negative connotation" to refer to people if these "labels" are well sourced.

If a label is non-controversial, as reflected by reliable, mainstream, sources, we can most certainly state it in Wikivoice. Show me where a policy says otherwise. Volunteer Marek 06:05, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Uh, no. That's not what anyone is saying, but a good example of false equivalence. The difference is between a subjective label and an objective one. "Doctor" and "swimmer" are objective labels. Schizophrenic or obsessive compulsive are objective labels, when given by a qualified psychiatrist. Labels with either negative or positive connotations are subjective. The very concept of what is "good" or "bad" is subjective, as it's all in the eyes of the beholder. No one here, as far as I can tell, said "don't use those labels", rather just attribute them to someone other than Wikipedia, and if the subject says otherwise, include their denial. I don't see what is so difficult about that. (Not to mention it actually makes the labels a million times more believable that way, and much less believable the other way. It's really very simple; tell people I'm an asshole and it's like, "yeah, whatever...", but show them that I'm an asshole in RSs, and it's like, "wow, I guess he really is an asshole". It's called "giving credence", so I'm not sure why the fierce stance against it unless people are either hoping making him look better than he really is, or Wikipedia look newspaperish, or are simply too narrow in focus to realize stating it in wikivoice will have the opposite effect as intended.) Zaereth (talk) 07:22, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Nope. "Swimmer" is as much of an "subjective" label as "white supremacist". Labels with negative or positive connotations are not inherently subjective. "Murderer" being one example. The concept of what is good and bad is... yeah that's getting too philosophical and anyway, irrelevant. Anyway, there's absolutely no Wikipedia policy which says we cannot use a "label" in Wikivoice, and there's absolutely no Wikipedia policy which states that we must take a subject's word as gospel truth (white supremacists claim they're not white supremacist for PR reasons all the time), especially in cases where they're contradicted by reliable sources. Volunteer Marek 07:43, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

And btw, Masem didn't even distinguish between "subjective" and "objective" labels, so um, yeah, that's exactly what "someone" was saying and there is no false equivalence here. Volunteer Marek 07:45, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Then let's use exactly what WP:LABEL calls them: "value-laden labels". While I would argue that something like "swimmer" would be a profession or career (something very objective and easily proven out), and something like "murderer" would be applied only in the case of a conviction in a trial but otherwise still objective once that was determined, most of the others, like "racist", etc. are still based on subjective assessment of what a person does to understand their values. It is something impossible to prove unless self-stated by the person itself, and because these are value-based, the exact definition also depends who you talk to, making them double edged swords. For all purposes, when I have said "labels" above, assume I'm talking the specific value-laden labels that LABEL cautions about. (I have spoken on distinguishing between things like profession and labels in the past, this is not new). --Masem (t) 13:38, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

• A white supremacist is (objectively) "a person who believes that the white race is inherently superior to other races and that white people should have control over people of other races."[22] A racist is a person who believes in racism, the doctrine that one's own racial group is superior or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others.[23]. If reputable sources refer to a subject as a "white supremacist", then it is because they have concluded that based on their investigation of the subject's public remarks, comments, writing, speeches, and actions. That's what journalists do. If a person is a white supremacist, then they are obviously also a racist, by definition. It is not our role to moderate reputable sources. WP:YESPOV provides the necessary guidance. Folks should sop obsessing over WP:LABEL which is simply style advice so that editors don't inappropriately use value-laden labels. - MrX 🖋 12:20, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
  • "Because they have concluded" is still not an objective answer here to dealing with value-added labels, especially with today's form of journalism. Just because there dictionary definitions doesn't mean every journalist and analysis is using the same exact level of when someone's values flip from "white nationalist" to "white supremacist", because that's a massive grey line. This is why these are still subjective labels, that they are contentious by their nature, even if they are not contested in the media when used on people like Molyneux, and Wikipedia cannot go around repeating them as fact. That's exactly what YESPOV says. The only way we (the world) can judge a person as a white supremacist (or most of these other labels) factually is well-after their death in context of the rest of the world at that time, from an academic view that no longer is wavering or changing from that period, and even then that can still be subject to new ideas. Basically, any use of a contentious term, label or not, always needs to be presented outside of wikivoice, with some type of attribution, and can't be stated as fact. --Masem (t) 13:38, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Sources have to be evaluated in context and on their individual merits. I'm not sure I know what "subjective label" is, but it seems to imply that it's impossible for reasoning people to evaluate a subjects's views against a standard of what those views commonly represent. I don't consider that a valid position. It is debatable whether "white supremacist" is even a value-laden label. (Maybe they prefer to be called "differently equal based on color"?) If a descriptor like "white supremacist" is seriously contested among reliable sources, then of course we can't use in in Wikipedia's voice, but there is no inherent prohibition simply because the descriptor is associated with repugnant values. Among other things, WP:NOTCENSORED comes to mind. I also disagree that somebody has to be long dead to finally be recognized as a white supremacist or racist. We are an online encyclopedia after all. - MrX 🖋 17:17, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
      • The definition above from M-W is likely a nice "core" area of what white supremacy is, I agree with that. And there are certainly actions and statements that assessed objectively to be equated to white supremacy (eg being a KKK member for example). But the exact bounds of a person themselves a white supremacist is, today, is very much unclear because it requires knowing what they actually believe (which you cannot know at all unless you are that person), and that the bounds change depending on who you area (eg the SPLC tends to play a bit faster and looser than perhaps the NYTimes). The only thing the press can do is say that the total sum of the actions and behavior of a person likely makes them a white supremacist in their stance, so they will call them that. Until we can read people's minds and know if they consider themselves, objectively, to be a white supremacist, this is always going to be a subjective evaluation based on observation and not something that is done in a more "scientific" manner one can do in the area of fringe/pseudoscience.
      • And just because there is "no contest" to a label in reliable sources doesn't make it a contentious label (these are two different facets). This not only applies to negative value-laden ones but to positive ones, and we'd take the same steps to avoid wikivoice there as well. Tom Hanks may be considered one of the greatest actors in the world with no contest against that point, but we aren't going to say "Hanks is the greatest actor" in wikivoice, we'd say it as "Hanks is considered one of the greatest actors." Any value-laden label that is subject must be presumed to be contentious, positive or negative, in terms of applying YESPOV. Just because that contentious isn't found in sources doesn't mean we ignore it. And if we specifically want to question "white supremacy" as a label, it should be obvious that people try to deny being one as a fact that it is a contentious label. (Maybe not Molyneux here). This is not hard.
      • And there's no censorship here. Not one thing said here is saying to omit any information that is coming from the sources, but simply to write it outside of wikivoice and give better attribution. We still can say "Molyneux is widely considered to be a white supremacist." rather than "Molyneux is a white supremacist", tagging that statement with just a few high quality RSes that make that stance (I'm assuming a NYTimes, BBC, and others can be used here), followed by key reasons why the media say that he is, and further followed by his counterclaim that Bus Stop has point out. That's it, all the same information, simply presented out of wikivoice fact. Its not that hard, its not denying anything the media has said, it still lays thick on the fact that Molyneux is not liked at all by the press for his views, stuff that we definitely cannot ignore per UNDUE, but all stated with the impartial and neutral nature that policy requires.
      • (I am precluding that behind all these, a source analysis has been done to see how many times labels like "white supremacy", "far right" etc have been used when speaking of Molyneux in general, and that they come up more than a few times (~20% or more, given the nature of reporting), such that these are not cherry-picked terms. My own 2 minutes in GNews suggests they aren't cherry picked , that is, they DO apply here, but I mean, this really should be documented on the talk page in the first point. Just grabbing two or three sources to show that in the article is not good in the long term, it should be affirmed in talk page and then set in the article, so that you can always point to the talk page analysis of why that's the case if the argument ever came up again.) --Masem (t) 17:39, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

SummerPhDv2.0—you say "but Wikipedia editor 'Bus stop' found this one sentence that they believe might mean he isn't". Both points are incorrect. Let's start with the second point. I don't "believe might mean he isn't". Have you ever heard of "nuance"? Have you ever heard of "contradiction"? Have you ever heard the term "multi-faceted"? We are not trying to write a cogent story. That would be creative writing. This, by contrast, is an encyclopedia. All the pieces do not have to fit together. We are compiling information on a human being. The criteria for doing so include "relevance" and "reliable sourcing". I am not particularly concerned with whether Molyneux is or isn't "racist". In fact, it is a stupid question. "Racist" is an "abstract concept". It is like "beauty", which famously is "in the eye of the beholder", or as Baseball Bugs has famously said, is in the eye of the beer holder. Some may call Molyneux racist and some may not. You also say "'Bus stop' found this one sentence". No, I didn't. The section is initiated by someone called Fzimmerman. That can be seen in the section called Is "The Guardian" OK?, the first sentence of which reads: I found this in "The Guardian" [1]: "Molyneux said in a statement to the Guardian: 'I have always opposed the idea of racial superiority/inferiority.'" Will this be acceptable to insert into the article? Bus stop (talk) 15:56, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Your intent, as you have made very clear is to cast doubt on the universal assessment of the independent reliable sources: Molyneux is a white supremacist. The source does not say that. You believe that and intend to add the material to add that "nuance". Yes, Molyneux's statement about himself is a primary source. Yes, one sentence from the subject that supports your "nuance" is well below the WP:WEIGHT line. Yes, we have hundreds of similarly sourced statements from the subject that we could add to support the "nuance" that Molyneux wants an all-white country because he feels other "races" are not human beings. Molyneux is verifiably a white supremacist who uses pseudo-scientific racist nonsense to support his desires for an all-white country, supported by his white supremacist magazine, published by his white supremacist publisher, funded by his white nationalist foundation. That you feel he isn't a white supremacist, supported by your interpretation of ONE SENTENCE from a primary source is not a significant opinion. - SummerPhD^v2.0 18:00, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

The Guardian article in question: [24], in which it appears that Molyneux was specifically asked by the Guardian to comment on a statement made by Naomi Seibt, his reply, reported by the Guardian, is not a primary source. If he said that on his blog or Twitter, yes, it would be. But not as processed through the Guardian, because the Guardian has framed how this quote came about and the nature of Molyneux's stance - aka the transformative element of a secondary source. Even if they didn't do that, the Guardian is an independent source, removing it from being a self-serving SPS use of Molyneux's own words, which would be a problem. So this is a bogus argument against this inclusion. The Guardian article is nearly a perfect setup for why we'd want to include his explainaition against the numerous sources and reasons already there (including the SPLC's) of why he is considered a white supremacist. And its one of the higher quality RSes by WP's eyes, so again, failing to include this seems really non-sensical and trying to hide something. --Masem (t) 18:23, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

See, here is what I don't get. Your position, while it is clearly obvious you are very passionate about, how on Earth do you think his statement actually helps him look better? Trust me, it doesn't. Just like Letourneau's statement I referenced above only makes her look worse, the same is true for Molyneux's statement. It tells us actually quite a lot about the subject, because if you really want to understand someone, it's necessary to gage not only their actions, but also their reactions, which tells so much more. Pay close attention to what they say and twice as much to what they're not saying. That's why your position makes absolutely no sense to me, because it seems to contradict your goals, so perhaps you could please explain? Zaereth (talk) 18:28, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

My "intent" has never been to "cast doubt on the universal assessment of the independent reliable sources [that] Molyneux is a white supremacist". (You are saying "Your intent, as you have made very clear is to cast doubt on the universal assessment of the independent reliable sources: Molyneux is a white supremacist.") You don't seem to understand, SummerPhDv2.0, that this is a biography. It is not solely focussed on the question you insist on addressing. A biography explores all aspects of a human subject. We are not focussed on answering the question of whether Molyneux really is a racist or not. 100 out of a 100 sources external to Molyneux himself could assert that Molyneux is a racist and we still would insert in the article "Molyneux said in a statement to the Guardian: 'I have always opposed the idea of racial superiority/inferiority.'" We are committed to fleshing out the human subject at the heart of the biography. If this person says that they "have always opposed the idea of racial superiority/inferiority" then we include that in the article in the interests of the readers who might want to know the sort of person that is the subject of this biography. The main criteria we have to be concerned with are "relevancy" and "reliable sourcing" and I think those 2 criteria are both met. Bus stop (talk) 19:57, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Your intent is to include ONE SENTENCE because you feel there is some "nuance" in it. That nuance, you now insist, is not about whether or not Molyneux is a racist. (You insist on calling it "racism". ALL of the sources say he is a white nationalist, which some racists feel is an important distinction.) Whatever. We are also missing the "nuances" embodied in his well-sourced statements that not all of "humanity" is the same species, "The whole breeding arena of the species needs to be cleaned the f--- up!" (Which species? He didn't specify...), "blacks are collectively less intelligent", "You cannot run a high IQ [white] society with low IQ [non-white] people", "the Germans were in danger of being taken over by what they perceived as Jewish-led Communism. And Jewish-led Communism had wiped out tens of millions of white Christians in Russia", "collectively ethnicities tend to act differently,...they tend to have different rates of criminality", "the American blacks and blacks around the world have truly shockingly high levels of criminality", "dysfunctional early childhood experiences, which are all run by women", "if I lived in a society of [only] white people then the giant fly swatter of ‘shut up whitey, you’re racist’ could never be used against me", etc. I'm guessing you will want to include all of these, to make sure we touch on all of the "nuanced" aspects of Molyneux: his beliefs that some races are not human beings, women are the cause of all childhood trauma, the defensive aspects of the Nazi's Final Solution, etc. These are all similar in origin to your one sentence and are certainly relevant, given this whole question of whether or not the far-right, white nationalist, white supremacist, best known for his promotion of conspiracy theories, scientific racism, eugenics, and white supremacist views is a ... gulp ... racist. That is nuance we need to include, right? Hell no. Wikipedia does NOT pick ONE individual sentence from ONE source quoting the subject to include in the article. If we did, articles on Donald Trump, Barak Obama, etc. would be in even worse shape then they are now. Which ONE sentence from ONE source (without discussion of the sentence) would YOU include about any given politician? And the idiot troll on the other side of the political divide: what sentence would THEY include? - SummerPhD^v2.0 20:41, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

That is absolutely not what Bus Stop (nor myself) is saying. Have you read the Guardian article? They actually set out a strong argument around Molyneux being called a white supremacist, and his counterclaim within that frame. It's far more than one random quote from a random source. It is no way nuanced, and instead, I'd argue the rational to not include it is nuanced at this point. Yes, you can throw every piece of evidence to show that there's a preponderance of facts that suggest Molyneux is a white supremacist. We have sources that point this out, we have that in the article already, that's not going anywhere. To add that Molyneux refutes this, even though we've listed all this evidence, is no way a nuanced thing nor does it refute all that prior evidence. It just will leave the reader going "huh, there's all this, but he says he isn't, huh what am I to believe?" That we don't include it knowing it exists and present in a reliable source is the problem as that's purposely being not neutral on a BLP.

Seriously, one needs to step back, strip away their emotional and ideological take here, and remember we're writing a neutral encyclopedia. We are not writing a hit piece on people that the media have decided are "bad", which is nearly always the problem with discussions around these articles, in that editors want to start "But this is a bad person , the media has shown this is a bad person, so we have to write them as a bad person". (not singling out SummerPhD here, this has happened way too many times in the past) We don't even write on convicted criminals or hated figures in history that way. We are an impartial encyclopedia and while we have to make sure our article properly reflects the weight of the media opinion of a person, it does not mean all the neutrality and impartiality coverage goes out the window. If you want to write that way, then maybe Wikipedia isn't the right place for writing here. Again, I'm not speaking at all of burying anything coverage the media has made, but just writing it with the proper use of attribution and wikivoice, and making sure we're staying impartial and neutral, and not like we're starting with "this is a bad person". Done right, the article will still show that Molyneux is a figure very much distrusted by the media and should absolutely be known to be considered to be racist and a white supremacist, because that is why he's notable, but the tone will be far less confrontation in wikivoice, and will make sure, where appropriate Molyneux's side is given, which at this point is literally one sentence based on the Guardian article. --Masem (t) 21:02, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Saying of that Guardian article They actually set out a strong argument around Molyneux being called a white supremacist is literally false. The article doesn't do any such thing - it just quotes Molyneux talking about himself.

You don't appear to be able to assess sources very well - perhaps consider if If you want to write that way, then maybe Wikipedia isn't the right place for writing here - David Gerard (talk) 23:02, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

There are a handful of paragraphs before and after that one line that establish context (eg why his name comes up this article that is actually about Naobi Seibt as she name-drops him, what the SPLC says of him and then gives his counterpoint.) To quote specifically: In another YouTube interview describing her embrace of “views that were outside the mainstream”, Seibt referred to the Canadian alt-right internet activist Stefan Molyneux as an “inspiration”. (break) Molyneux has been described as an “alleged cult leader who amplifies scientific racism, eugenics and white supremacism” by the Southern Poverty Law Center, which monitors extremism and white supremacy. (break) Molyneux said in a statement to the Guardian: “I have always opposed the idea of racial superiority/inferiority.” (break) In 2019, Molyneaux said: “I’ve always been skeptical of the ideas of white nationalism, of identitarianism, and white identity. However, I am an empiricist, and I could not help but notice that I could have peaceful, free, easy, civilized and safe discussions in what is, essentially, an all-white country.” It is perhaps not the most in depth analysis but that is explains why his is called a white supremacist by the SPLC, his counterpoint to the Guardian, and a previous statement he made. Those were picked by the Guardian, not him, so that's selected press picks which avoids self-promotion or self-serving aspects, which would be a concern if we were pulling from a SPS blog. So, no, there is absolutely nothing wrong with using the first short sentence quote ("I have always...") as one additional sentence to provide the necessary counterpoint on the article. --Masem (t) 00:28, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

David Gerard—the Guardian article repeatedly refers to Molyneux as a "white nationalist". I think Masem simply typed "white supremacist" when they should have typed "white nationalist". Bus stop (talk) 02:26, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

If you are trying to claim that "white nationalist" versus "white supremacist" is a difference of substance rather than dissembling hair-splitting from exactly the same bunch of people, then you're not arguing in good faith - David Gerard (talk) 10:01, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

David Gerard—I think you make a fairly valid point. I would tend to agree that there is a degree of similarity between the sentiments embodied in the terms "white nationalism" and "white supremacism". Bus stop (talk) 13:18, 3 September 2020 (UTC)