Talk:Stefan Molyneux

Why no mention of his published books?

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

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

Essays

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

Novels

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And yes there is [[1]]. Slatersteven (talk) 11:01, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stefan Molyneux on the Joe Rogan Experience

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

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

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

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

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

I'm only asking for consistency.

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

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

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

What is the reason for this choice?

I provided a link to a reliable source.

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

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

Then why didn't you?

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

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

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

The Joe Rogan Experience is a minor show?

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

The Joe Rogan Experience

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This seems to be a personal preference of yours.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He was a regular guest on a RT show, per the SPLC,[2] and appeared at least once on a different RT show. The same source implies that he appeared on Alex Jones' radio show more than once ("for the first time") and later calls him an occasional collaborator with Jones. Cited third-party sources do not seem to say if he appeared on Press TV more than once, but the SPLC marks the show as when "his public profile rose" despite previous negative attention, and lists it as its earliest example of his guest appearances. Llll5032 (talk) 20:18, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

>According to the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC)

The SPLC is a shitlib rag. Can we get other sources? CobGemmothy (talk) 14:58, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Not according to wp:rsn. Slatersteven (talk) 15:01, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 October 2024

Stefan Molyneux is NOT a white supremacist. This is a slander campaign against individuals who were discussing the very real and documented phenomenon of slight differences to IQ bell-curve distribution when comparing different ethnicities and regions of the world. This is based on scientific studies conducted without bias reaching scientifically accurate conclusions.

In fact, Molyneux frequently clarified that he is not racist, rather a man of science who will not shy away from a difficult conversation topic because of slander. I share what I would ascribe as broadly the same views espoused by Molyneux; Bellcurve distinctions between populations average intelligences are in fact scientifically confirmed in at least limited scope. The fact remains that there are intelligent people of ALL ethnicities, some geniuses are performing at a greater relative advantage to members of their own ethnicity than other ethnicities relative to theirs.

My proposal is to remove verbiage indicating that Molyneux is a white supremacist directly and address the issue in neutral language. Mention that he is accused of being a white supremacist, include that he refutes this assertation. It is not a factual statement to call him this ad-hominem. 71.76.36.184 (talk) 19:34, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 23:47, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I know it's not productive in the course of getting the page changed, but this subject and talk page are a good reminder that Wikipedia is just a summary of the corporate media sentiment and nothing more. It doesn't matter if there is absolutely no fucking evidence for a claim; if some columnist at forbes or salon feels like writing a smear piece, there are your reliable sources, in plenty. Conversely, you need a "reliable (always corporate) source" to refute the corporate smear even if it's obviously untrue. Good game 2601:CF:4580:E3C0:3432:8E35:B2C0:B367 (talk) 04:15, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, see wp:rs. But in essence if "if it is shown to actually make stuff up its not reliable". Slatersteven (talk) 09:46, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

The Bell Curve, and similar works derived from its methodology and claims, are pseudo-science. Even the fundamental claims about heritability of intelligence (in the sense of genetic heritability), the validity of IQ as a measure of intelligence, and their relation to social outcomes, are extremely dubious, and usually indicative of a lack of understanding and misinterpretation up to misuse (abuse) of the statistical procedures used to estimate them. I suggest that you actually try to understand what the words you are using mean; competence is required to edit Wikipedia. TucanHolmes (talk) 11:18, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

See also: Wikipedia:No racists. Excerpts (emphasis mine):

[...] The basic definition of racism is one who believes that different races have different levels of various abilities, and that one can organize the races into hierarchies based on this. It is important to note that not all racists believe that their race is superior in every way. For example, many white supremacists believe that Asians are the most intelligent race. They will almost invariably feel that their own race is superior overall, but may "concede" that some other race is better in some highly specific way.

Racists generally believe in the following: [...] That genetic difference between races are fundamental and meaningful. [...]

[...] The categorization of humans into "races" has been considered a pseudoscientific idea by scientists and anthropologists since the 1960s and the discovery of molecular genetics. See Race (human categorization) § Modern scholarship. Because racists reject empiricism and the scientific method, it is exceedingly difficult for them to neutrally evaluate logical arguments which challenge their beliefs.

Just because you use dry statistical terminology and replaced "race" with "population" in your arguments doesn't change the fundamental core of what you're arguing for. You're not the first one to use this style of rhetoric, and you won't be the last one either. TucanHolmes (talk) 11:34, 10 October 2024 (UTC)