Talk:Stefan Molyneux/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Stefan Molyneux. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Notable Ideas

The info box has "notable ideas" down as "universally preferable behaviour" and "dispute resolution organisations". UPB isn't a notable idea (as far as I'm aware, it's never featured in any philosophy journal or book outside Stefan's own writings, so can hardly be considered even close to notable in ethics), and DROs are notable, but aren't in any way Stefan's own idea (I know Rothbard wrote a lot about them but I think they predate even him). So surely we should remove? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.16.26 (talk) 10:26, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Times Reference

I am removing the sentence in the 'Criticism' section regarding the Times interview with Tom Whipple (the interview wasn't cited, but it's here - http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/families/article5485325.ece), because nowhere in the article does it say that the boy who ran away from home, "reported that Stefan Molyneux never told him to leave his family, that he was under the care and guidance of a professional therapist before, during and after his decision to take a break, and that his therapist, who has no relationship with Molyneux, fully supported his decision."

Culthood

I removed "The article links FDR with a cult by associating it with the Cult Information Centre despite there is no evidence of FDR being a cult." because opinions about whether or not such evidence exists differ. The reference to the Cult Information Centre whose spokesperson made a claim about FDR is a reference to a reputable and independent third-party source making it very relevant for the Wikipedia article.

I also removed "The article however does disclose towards the end that the Father was violent in the past long before the child came into contact with FDR." because the term 'violent' here is ambiguous: no party has made a claim that the father has used violence against the son. The son claimed that the father regularly destroyed objects, trashed a room and yelled at a cat, but the mother and the father claim that the son's claims are exaggerated.

Perhaps this elaboration can be substituted for the removed sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brother743 (talk • contribs) 13:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles should not be used to promote an anti-victim POV. More often than not guilty parties deny any wrongdoing and that does not mean that articles should be edited to delete or dispute any claims made by alleged victims unless these claims, if reputable, can be proven false with empirical evidence or consistent reasoning. I see no reason or empirical evidence to deny the accusations made by the "son" in this case. If his father was violent then he is telling the truth. If his father was not violent at all then the parents still raised a compulsive liar. In both cases there is reason to believe poor parenting. Someone saying "No I didn't" is simply a verbal denial of allegations, not evidence to the contrary of the allegations. Fatrb38 (talk) 18:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

On second note the parents didn't even seem to deny the son's claims. Only stating that the claims were "exaggerated", meaning the allegations of violence, regardless of degree, are true. Fatrb38 (talk) 18:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Can a moderator change the title of the page to Stefan Molyneux (capital M)? Without that it is harder to link to this article from other articles on Wikipedia. --Brother743 (talk) 19:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I've added some stuff, and linked it to the Cult page, in "Online Cults" ...obviously it needs more wikification.

I do worry that Mr Molyneux or sockpuppets of his may attempt to create an alternative page with correct capitalisation and try and delete this one, and engage in edit warring on a large scale, as they are an online cult and have enough numbers and are devoted to him enough to engage in this either overtly or covertly via sockpuppetry... applying the same cult techniques used on their website to steer the flow the discussion page. The man clearly has a vested interest in his noteriety as well the time and means to abuse Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.159.117.182 (talk) 13:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

My experience of 'Free'domain was a huge disappointment. It looked interesting at first since there was a lot of talk about philosophy. I had only posted about 30 times when I was sent an email from Stefan Molyneux telling me not to post on the website anymore. He cited the fact that he did not like some of the sceptical problems I raised [about knowing about one's own existence and the nature of 'proof' - hardly controversial issues to those who've done any epistemology] and the fact that my theistic perspectives were not welcome. I think the site needs to make it much clearer to everyone that they only allow atheists on their site since there's nothing very 'free' about that practice. You can only call most of the account holders on his site 'disciples' since they behave this way. Instead of engaging me in discussion they chose instead to cite books that Stefan has written [implying that once I've read them I'll see the error of my ways]. Most of them had nothing serious to say on almost any of the topics on there. I teach secondary school and by comparison I would say that most posts are akin to where my 13 year olds are in their academic careers. Then there's all the posts from Stefan Molyneux asking for more money. I was quite impressed at first to see that some people were 'Philosopher Kings' on the website and thought this may be due to some academic achievement. How silly! One gets to be a 'Philosopher King' [whether you're male or female btw] by donating more than $500 per month! I think that pretty much says it all. After all that should you want an account on the site make sure you don't say anything remotely in support of theism, do not question political anarchy and NEVER, I repeat, NEVER say anything which questions Stefan Molyneux in the slightest. That way you may last a few days longer than me! The site needs a renaming - I suggest: 'StefanitesDomain' or 'FacistDomain' or 'DictatorshipDomain' or 'Totalitarian'Domain but certainly nothing with the word free in it.

"Free" pertains to the personal freedom associated with the ability to converse with like minded people on a site dedicated to that... Stef thinks it contrary to advertise his detractors on a server which he pays for. If you wish to bring up any objections you have, the Sunday Talk Show is there for a reason. (Especially since verbal discussions are ever so much more productive than are those of debate on a board. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.0.211.15 (talk) 03:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

This isn't the place for people to share anecdotes about experiences with FDR, nor for discussions of the ideas presented at the site. It is a place to discuss how to best improve the article according to the standards of Wikipedia. 216.121.235.227 (talk) 02:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

As is mentioned above this discussion page is only to be used for discussion on how to improve the article, NOT to discuss whether Mr. Molyneux is the leader of a cult. All future discussion that does not belong on this discussion page will be promptly deleted. If you guys are serious about editing Wikipedia articles then register and learn to abide by the rules here. Just posting your IP address does not encourage accountability and verifiability. If more vandalism of this article occurs in the near future then we may have to lock the article. Fatrb38 (talk) 07:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Strong language and accusations

I would warn that the 'discussion' page is publicly available as well, so the strong accusations ("cult", "edit warring") and language (sockpuppets) used by the anonymous user above are inappropriate it seems to me.--Brother743 (talk) 17:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, at least on the "cult" issue, that is supported in the sources and certainly a fair topic for discussion here. Not on whether it is a cult but on what the sources have to say about that and how to incorporate that in the article. --Justallofthem (talk) 18:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The fact that these accusations are in proper source indicates that they should remain in there. However, the sentence "Some people, such as cult experts, former members of Freedomain Radio, and friends and family members of Freedomain Radio members, claim that Molyneux manipulates vulnerable people into thinking their family relationships are abusive" is not a sourced claim, so should be removed.71.168.93.84 (talk) 21:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Deletion Discussion

I just heard a BBC report on Molyneux's website. While some might dispute the status of the community established around him and his ideas, it is important that people are able to discuss them. I would not like to see this entry deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by A42579 (talk • contribs) 03:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

You can voice your opinion on the preservation of the article at the deletion discussion, but note that it is not a vote, and arguments which are not grounded in Wikipedia conventions (such as WP:BIO) are unlikely to carry weight. Thanks for contributing :) Skomorokh 03:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Framing

Excuse my Norwenglish, but the main content of this article is strongly misleading and biased. It is an instance of the eristical political method of framing. Labeling a webradio with a call in show a "cult", is just plain politics. No wonder, the rhetoric in this case stems from a politician and that it is furthered by journalists.--85.165.65.183 (talk) 04:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Removed some stuff

I removed the latest changes to the article because they do not refer to information published in mainstream media, but to Molyneux' own website, podcasts and videos. The changes also indicated a strong bias.--Brother743 (talk) 20:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

There are some things that do not refer to bias. You should restore these parts. His birthdate was from his own website and not from mainstream sources, so should we remove that? The categorization that he is an atheist and an essayist is from his own website, so should we remove that? Your reversion is inconsintent. Stefan categorized himself as a "former Objectivist," but you removed the text, but failed to remove the category of "former Objectivists." There is noting wrong about some of the statements that you have reverted. Re-read all the statements you reverted, and restore the accurate facts. 72.94.48.58 (talk) 21:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

You're right about the birth date, but I don't see how the stuff about atheism is relevant for the article. It was not talked about in the articles in the mainstream media and the only way in which I can see how it is relevant for the article is by connecting it to Molyneux' encouraging people on Freedomain Radio to end their relationships with family and friends who are religious.--Brother743 (talk) 13:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, this discussion page is for serious discussion regarding the edition of this article. Some of the supposed articles and videos referenced with regards to the cult accusations are not working and thus the reference links will be deleted. If anyone can find updated links to the multimedia links it would be helpful if they could post them. Fatrb38 (talk) 07:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I restored much of the criticism, though without the dead links. 4 of the references are extremely notable news sites, and despite their bias, policy regards the section neccessary. I will ensure no bias in the article though and would it be ok to source Stef's extremely sound response to the event? - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 13:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah it should be fine. People are allowed to respond to allegations, and their response is relevant and should be quoted/cited. Fatrb38 (talk) 11:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Removed 'Philosophical Work'

The reference is to self-published work and no reputable third parties have written about Molyneux' philosophical work.--Brother743 (talk) 08:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Is that the correct procedure? Stefan Molyneux is a (political) philosopher who has had debates with several prominent figures. If he is a philosopher then his works in the field are relevant. 76.171.92.226 (talk) 18:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I have a serious objection to people removing any claim that Stefan is a philosopher or philosophically credible from this article. It is pure intellectual snobbery and bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.208.183.241 (talk) 14:21, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Removed reference to Molyneux' YouTube response

Feedback on this decision would be appreciated. In terms of balance it would be good to keep the references, but on the other hand these videos have not been referenced in reputable third party sources which also means that their contents have not been scrutinized. They also contain statements that may be considered slanderous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brother743 (talk • contribs) 08:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

50% of this article is about a 2-year old story about a family which happens to include an influential politician. The only response of Mr. Molyneux indicated in the article (adult relationships are voluntary) confirms to the same framing created by these stories. I needed to look up his responses when I was on that site. I shouldn't have had to. We should have a link to his response. Removing them makes no sense. I'm adding them back in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Socratesone (talk • contribs) 20:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

You've removed it (again) without responding to this on the talk page. I understand the need for mainstream references, and the fact that these video response references are not POV. However, as I described, the entire article is not POV. Putting this man's entire life's work into the context of a single controversy without at least offering an alternative viewpoint is completely disingenuous, especially something like a DETAILED MEDIA ANALYSIS by the person in question. I'm not saying that we should take the controversy section down (which I can think of a legitimate argument for, BTW), nor am I saying that we should remove all criticism of it. Keep the article the way it is. Just PLEASE, for the love of god, don't make me go searching around for his side of the story if I want to find it, which is a completely rational, reasonable thing to do when somebody comes across an article like this, no matter how controversial or ridiculous that side happens to be. Articles discussing conspiracy theories discuss why those theories are not accepted by the mainstream, but PRIMARY SOURCES, such as the web sites or articles describing those particular theories, are still referenced. There is NOTHING WRONG with referencing primary sources AS WELL AS mainstream sources. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules DEFINITELY comes into play here. The goal of this article is to give the reader information about this man, and as such completely fails. This article is like dedicating 75% of the article on Bill Clinton to the Monica Lewinsky scandal. The person reading this article learns almost NOTHING about why this man is figure worthy of an article.Socratesone (talk) 19:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I've also restored the phrase "abusive family members", as that is the most correct form. This is not libelous or slanderous. This is the ACTUAL claim that is being made. Since we are specifically referencing that claim, we shouldn't CHANGE it to mean something COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. Please, let's try to remain neutral about this. This article is pretty much an attack piece as it is. Let's at least give the APPEARANCE of being being objective, shall we? Socratesone (talk) 19:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for not responding on the Talk page earlier. I had not checked it for new discussions.

One problem is that Molyneux is not noteworthy (i.e. does not meet the Wikipedia standards) because of his "entire life's work." He is noteworthy because of the controversy that has arisen around him. His work as an intellectual does not meet the Wikipedia standards. The article mentions that he does a podcast show, has written articles and self-published books. There is nothing more that needs to be said about the man's work from the point of view of Wikipedia.

Wikipedia says "Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability, and omit information that is irrelevant to their notability. Material from third-party primary sources should not be used unless it has first been published by a reliable secondary source. Material published by the subject must be used with caution."

Your point about conspiracy theories and primary sources is well-taken, but "Articles discussing conspiracy theories discuss why those theories are not accepted by the mainstream" would imply that the Wikipedia article about Molyneux should explain [not just mention] why Molyneux's viewpoint is not accepted by the mainstream. Doing that would only further endanger the neutrality of the article and bias the article against Molyneux. The article in its old form gives the points of view of both his critics and Molyneux himself. Also note that the articles in the mainstream press also describe Molyneux's views on the matter.

I see your point. This is an issue of verifiability and not fact. Since mainstream sources trump "truth", I can see what you are saying. The idea that mainstream sources trump primary sources doesn't sit well with me as I know how mainstream media can be manipulated, especially by politicians, but you're correct in your assessment of wikipedia rules. However, I think something critical is being left out of the article. Those mainstream sources all come from one source - the politician whose son talked to Molyneux and left the family. Rather than Molyneux's response and explanation, which you are right about, I will link to the audio of the show which contains the actual conversation between Molyneux and the man in question, which is, after all, the reason for the controversy (I couldn't find the original audio in question).Socratesone (talk) 04:44, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know. Should we ask a third party?Brother743 (talk) 00:52, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I just thought more about this. On the other hand, the claim that was being made here in the wikipedia article is that Molyneux responded to the allegations. Yes, there was a few sentences in response to those allegations in the articles, but the fact that he responded is that actual statement being made in the article and the link to his response is not intended to be a "reliable source" for anything other than the fact that he responded. Since we are dedicating an entire section to this controversy, the fact that he responded to these allegations is relevant information, and the source of this claim verifies the claim itself. Your point would only be valid IF the article was claiming something WITHIN his response and we were using that response as a 'reliable source' for that information, which you correctly pointed out, it is not. Since his response is "relevant to his notability", it should be included. Socratesone (talk) 05:23, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia's article on Biographies of living persons strongly urges people to err on the side of caution when it comes to references and generally goes against the argument you present here. Remember that part of the problem with linking to Molyneux' response is that that response contains claims that are plausibly considered as libelous.

I disagree with your putting back in "abusive family members." It is libelous because it presents those claims as facts. Moreover, the articles in the mainstream press don't concern the question whether it is a good thing to break with abusive family members, but only whether Molyneux "manipulates people into thinking their family members are abusive." So the sentence "The topic of the articles is Molyneux's role in talking with people about breaking ties with abusive family members and abusive people in general." is both untrue and libelous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brother743 (talk • contribs) 22:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

My issue was in the statement "Molyneux's role in talking with people about breaking ties with family members", which assumes a role. I thought "Molyneux's role in talking with people about breaking ties with abusive family members" was more accurate, but the latest change, which includes "alleged" and drops "abusive" is the most accurate. I'll leave as-is.Socratesone (talk) 04:44, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit Warring

Please keep in mind Wikipedia's policies when editing this page - specifically WP:EW and NPOV. One user in particular - User:Brother743 - is continually editing out any balance to the article and adding in his own negative POV. If this continues and violates the 3RR, please report him - or any other user engaged in this behavior - to Wikipedia:AN/EW. Bantam1983 (talk) 15:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I would be more than happy to hear the opinion of Wikipedia moderators about this page.Brother743 (talk) 22:23, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

So be it. I've reported you to Wikipedia:AN/EW for being an edit warrior and placed a warning on your user page. Good luck. Bantam1983 (talk) 09:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Freudian?

I removed the category "Freudians" pending a reference and elaboration of that matter. Danski14^(talk) 21:36, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Fan page

The page has clearly become a fan page. Many sections (education, books, public appearances, philosophy) contain no references to sources that Wikipedia deems reliable. Wikipedia's policy on self-published sources & People who are relatively unknown Brother743 (talk) 00:22, 3 September 2010 (UTC) Brother743 (talk) 14:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Enough. You constant bashing on this page and your hate for Molyneux is insufficient evidence to redact entire portions added by the rest of the community. Your changes are reverted and they will continue to be so long as they damage the quality of this article. Stop your obsessing. Bantam1983 (talk) 03:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Bantam, I suggest we use Wikipedia's Third Opinion feature. Do you agree? Brother743 (talk) 17:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Restored content, citations needed

Going by the policy on WP:BLPSPS it seems clear to me that the content removed by User:Brother743 should be restored. Self-published material can be kept so long as the subject is used as the source. I do agree however that additional references are needed. I have included "Citation needed" tags where I think there could be improvement. There may be things I have missed, so please add where appropriate. Anarchei (talk) 00:48, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the article should not be primarily based on such sources. I don't know where the line should be, but a lot of the citations are of that nature at the moment. Flailing12 (talk) 03:09, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I think the line should be less than 50%. After making a few edits I have brought the number of such references to around that area. More third-party references are needed though. Anarchei (talk) 06:00, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Self Published Works

The self published works sections reads like an advertisement. It needs to be edited or removed in my opinion. Flailing12 (talk) 21:43, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. I edited it so that it is now just a simple statement about what Molyneux has written, nothing more. Anarchei (talk) 00:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Discrepencies

As of today, the discrepancies between this biography and the one hosted at mises.org wiki are almost identical with the exception of a few things that I think are tasteless as encyclopedic information, specifically, "He is a cult leader" is seemingly inserted at random. Just to note, I have never heard of him before or have any opinion of his work. I heard his name in passing today with no relevant context and comparing this article to those of other historically controversial speakers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.80.153.174 (talk) 22:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Personal Section

This article needs a personal section talking about his life in general (upbringing, early family life, brothers/sisters, parents occupations, marital status, kids, etc...). JettaMann (talk) 14:39, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Therapeutic cult definition please

Criticism section is unclear to me. What is therapeutic cult? 78.88.117.116 (talk) 20:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

21 Century business man/ Motivational cult leader in the making

He's an example of the good and the bad of the new flattened work, and social structure and hierarchical of society, Where no formal education in an area, or none at all is needed. All you need is that social personality that everyone now is looking to have, good language skills and be able to talk for hours...much like like most motivational speakers in the self help field.

This is just an inkling of the onslaught of people like him who will be coming from the UK (with their superb language skills) and accents which N. Americans just love, to cash in on easy money and the huge American population.

How are these people's knowledge to be judged, to be right or wrong? do we make an assumption that he knows what he's talking about or the issue at hand because he can talk for hours69.196.135.42 (talk) 02:13, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

To find out whether what he is saying is true, you are supposed to judge the merits of his claims, rather than the man. You seem to be fixated on the man. So long as you continue to do that, you will not be able to figure out whether what he says is true or false. --99.8.184.234 (talk) 22:28, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Over-reliance on YouTube videos

This article suffers from an over-abundance of self-published YouTube videos. If these are at all WP:RS (dubious), then they are borderline refs that only support that a particular person was involved with that video. Really, the article mainly seems to be a linkfarm to host those YouTube links. AndroidCat (talk) 06:29, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

This article has been nominated to be checked for its neutrality

I have nominated this article for a POV check because there appears to be criticism/controversy that the page does not cover. This does not imply that the criticism is valid or invalid -- either way it should be covered. A google search on [ Molyneux Defoo ] brings up several sources for the controversy. Guy Macon (talk) 00:22, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I went back through the history and found that on 21:19, 1 August 2011 ResidentAnthropologist deleted the entire criticism section without discussion. I just put it back, keeping subsequent edits. That's a controversial edit that needs to be discussed and a consensus sought. Simply deleting all criticism is not appropriate. Guy Macon (talk) 06:45, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Should the Criticism and Controversy section be deleted?

It doesn't seem to make much sense or have much relevance. Criticism and Controversy sections are usually avoided on Wikipedia articles about people. Instead, it should be included in the main text. However, this sections seems more like an attack against Stefan Molyneux and I don't see the significance. I don't think the topic even deserves to be in the main text, let alone have its own section. --StormCommander (talk) 22:20, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

- It started as an attack, that is for certain. Anti-Molyneux folks have been occasionally vandalizing the page for quite some time (see Brother's edits as an example). However, when you try and so much as add NPOV edits, the anti-Molyneux warriors like to claim "ZOMG THE CULTISTS R HERE!!!!!!!!!one" and become revert warriors. I'm trying to keep both sides happy by not deleting the semi-legit claims by the popular news outlet that libeled him but at the same time keeping in defenses of Molyneux's practices. Bantam1983 (talk) 02:06, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

At this point I honestly don't think it should have its own section. It really shouldn't have anything more than maybe two sentences or so briefly explaining what happened (one sentence for each side). Having some back-page story from the Guardian or whatever is about as relevant as the score for a high school football game... and shouldn't really receive more attention than such a "story." Fatrb38 (talk) 11:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I should point out that that section has the only WP:RS and WP:Notable references in the whole article. Remove those and AfD is the next step. AndroidCat (talk) 08:19, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense, I think the credentials outlined by the various interviewers in the linked videos (whether on the show ATM or other appearances on RT, or the Kaiser report, or whatever) are sufficient WP:RS to show that he's WP:Notable. Further, this article already had an AfD vote. Bantam1983 (talk) 10:12, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Please note that the following comments do not advocate keeping or not keeping the material under discussion. I am only noting whether certain arguments are valid without expressing an opinion on what is being argued for/against.

Re: YouTube videos: From Reliable source examples: Are IRC, MySpace, and YouTube reliable sources?: "YouTube: YouTube and other video-sharing sites are not reliable sources because anyone can create or manipulate a video clip and upload without editorial oversight, just as with a self-published website. In some cases, video clips published on YouTube may be acceptable as primary sources if their authenticity can be confirmed, or as a secondary source if they can be traced to a reliable publisher, but even then should be used with caution."

These YouTube videos are clearly acceptable as primary sources (if someone was forging videos I would expect freedomainradio.com to complain rather than linking to them). Alas, they clearly fail to meet Wikipidia's Notability requirements, which say "Notability should be demonstrated using reliable sources according to Wikipedia guidelines (not policy). Reliable sources generally include mainstream news media and major academic journals, and exclude self-published sources, particularly when self-published on the internet. The foundation of this theory is that such sources 'exercise some form of editorial control.' "

Re: Previous AfD vote: Pointing out that the page survived a previous AfD vote does not address the point made. To do that you would need to go to the deletion discussion, look at the sources that were cited as reasons for keeping, and do a rough count of how many of them are in the section we are discussing. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:29, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

reevaluation

How properly to reevaluate quality scale and importance scale of the WikiProject Philosophy, as well as quality scale and importance scale of WikiProject Libertarianism? --Savo Gajic (talk) 23:30, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Current evaluation is valid. --MeUser42 (talk) 14:50, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion is not. 80 000 downloads per day, etc., is significant. Could you please tell me proper way to do reevaluation? --Savo Gajic (talk) 05:12, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

See WP:LIBERTY#Assessment --MeUser42 (talk) 09:55, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

PublishAmerica

"... recorded over 2000 podcasts, produced over 900 videos, and written several books which are self-published except for his first, which was published by Publish America."

Publish America is essentially the same as self-publishing so far as matters of authority go (actually, worse, because it's a vanity press so you're paying money for the book to be published).

However, the article currently makes it sound like a legitimate publisher, and that may lend unintended weight to the "publication" of his first book. I'm not sure how to resolve that, so will let wiser wiki-hands do so, but thought I'd point it out. 155.135.55.233 (talk) 21:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Publish America really is self publishing, they don't read the manuscript. I think we can treat it as such, if there aren't any objections. --MeUser42 (talk) 23:10, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Quote in criticism section

A quote from Mr. Molyneux's blog is in the criticism section. I think it's a great addition because it's so directly illuminating. Before, you have a mother complaining that Mr. Molyneux caused her son to leave, but no easy way to find out what Mr. Molyneux actually advocates in the matter (the man has literally thousands of podcasts and hundreds of YouTube videos). The quote added gives his position quite clearly because it comes from a linked piece on his blog which has that exact issue as its very topic. One of the clearest quotes I've seen on the matter.

As far as neutrality, I think the supporters of Mr. Molyneux should be fine with his own words with a link to their context so that the readers who agree can see that he sounds reasonable to them, the people who think he's wrong on this should be fine with this since it gives evidence that they're not completely overreacting or anything like that, and including one quote for the sole reason of direct evidence that's very hard to locate otherwise shouldn't turn the article into a quote-fest.

If there's any objections to it, I'd be happy to address them here, and I'm happy to modify it to suit Wikipedia better.

-- Olathe (talk) 12:11, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

This has unfortunately been deleted without much comment by SPECIFICO. As far as I can tell, the rationale for deletion was WP:OR (though perhaps WP:RS was a reason), as you can see in the section below about SPECIFICO's changes. However, the quote seemed relevant to the subject in that section, and seems to me to meet WP:SELFSOURCE, which seems to be an obvious exception to the original research policy.

The original research policy is intended to stop people from making Wikipedia look as if it supports an unverifiable theory. The text deleted did not seem to me to have that effect at all, so the original research policy seems inapplicable to me just on that basis. There's another basis as well: the use of people's own words from a source they control to make a claim that they have a belief seems to be the entire purpose of WP:SELFSOURCE, which seems to support the quote.

For these reasons, I can't see the reason why this quote in particular should be deleted. — Olathe (talk) 14:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The reason is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. The critic does not refer to that quote. The inference that the criticism relates solely or in part to that quote is your personal opinion and is not suitable for a WP article. I hope this clarifies the matter. SPECIFICO talk 19:39, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your reasoning. It does clarify things, and when I have time, I'll look into how to correct it. — Olathe (talk) 11:38, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I've heard of this guy but don't know anything about him but what's in here.

per edit summary and WP:BLP don't put back "right-libertarian" without a source. He might consider it a smear. Many libertarians do.
Frankly the criticism section is so poorly written, and the controversies so poorly described, they don't make any sense. Not worth my while investigating further, but FYI.
In any case the section should be renamed "reception" or at least "controversy" since wikipedia is moving away from naming sections criticism because they turn articles into attack pages. Per Wikipedia:NPOV#cite_note-1 and its linked WP:Criticism essay. CarolMooreDC🗽 22:23, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Carol, I agree with the gist of your remarks. I wish that some editor who is familiar with this guy would find RS discussion of him and his views so that we could begin to shore up the article. It's overwhelmingly primary sourced right now. SPECIFICO talk 22:29, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Podcasts, YouTube videos and blogs

The number of self-published sources used in this article is a disgrace. It either needs a serious hit with a weed-whacker or an AfD. AndroidCat (talk) 20:17, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Adding more links to self-published sources only increases the disgrace. Except for the solid refs in the Controversy section, this article is a Link Farm. AndroidCat (talk) 00:05, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Reverted changes by SPECIFICO

I reverted the recent changes by SPECIFICO.

SPECIFICO deleted well-documented appearances by Mr. Molyneux in his field of acclaim, libertarian speaking. If the article does not violate WP:Notability because he has notability as a libertarian speaker, including verifiable times when he has spoken seems like a bad idea.

In the criticism section, SPECIFICO removed a quote by Mr. Molyneux from the criticism section, which was certainly not self-promotional, as it tended to support the criticism leveled, while leaving Mr. Molyneux's defense to those claims, which seems a clear violation of WP:NPOV.

I also wrote a section on the talk page above which gives my reasons for adding what was deleted in the criticism section. It was not responded to.

—Olathe (talk) 09:29, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Per my edit summary, the edit which you have undone was policy-based removal of excessive promotional or trivial detail, unsourced and not WP:RS statements, and WP:OR. Please undo your recent edits and pursue your view here on talk to seek consensus for reinserting the content I reverted. Once you have undone your reinsertion I will respond to your concerns. Thank you. SPECIFICO talk 12:04, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

It's strange how you request that I restore your changes and seek consensus for changing them back to the way they've been for quite a while with the edits of several people with discussion above of some facets of why the page is like it is. It appears that your comment just above is the first time you've said anything on this talk page. You'll note above that people have already discussed the deletion of various things that you've deleted again. You didn't add to that discussion or seek consensus before or after editing, even given that you appear to know that consensus is important in Wikipedia. I even started a section of this talk page about a quote I inserted that you deleted. You didn't add to that section or seek consensus before or after editing.

You even say that "Once you have undone your reinsertion I will respond to your concerns". You don't have to respond to my concerns, but that's pretty much the opposite of what seeking a consensus means. I see no emergency reason to return to your changes immediately.

While I agree that the list of speeches and so on in the article might be pared down a bit and the tone might be promotional, Mr. Molyneux is almost solely notable for his many libertarian speeches, YouTube videos, podcasts, and controversy. Just as the wars a general fights are fairly good to include in the general's articles, I'd say mention of particular speeches and videos and so on are good for inclusion, though I wouldn't mind you changing the tone and limiting that to his most influential speeches or a representational sample or something like that.

As far as policy, while you've mentioned the policies you think have been violated, you haven't explained why you think so. None of the sources seem unreliable for the purposes they're used. Also, the no original research policy is intended to stop people from using Wikipedia to spread their newly-discovered supposedly-brilliant ideas. It's certainly not intended to prohibit evidence that someone holds the beliefs that people criticize him for acting on.

As WP:SELFSOURCE says, "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field...". The claim being made by the article is not that his unusual claims are true. It's that the man believes them to be true, which illuminates why his critics might think that he was acting toward certain goals.

Wikipedia is not being written to support or spread his views, and removing such quotes is like removing a quote that shows that Hitler thought Jews had certain unproven characteristics or that Tesla thought certain things about electricity. Such quotes, even though they may be generally unaccepted, are not prohibited original research. They're part of the evidence that a person acted upon certain views, since them actually holding those views is quite necessary for that. — Olathe (talk) 16:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Despite whatever they may have in common, I hardly think that Molyneux is as notable an individual as Hitler. Moreover even Adolf gets WP:RS citations for his article. Since you refuse to undo your edit, I will do it for you and once again ask you to respond to the specific policy-based reasons for my reversion of the unsourced, non-RS and trivial content. Just state your views as to why these policies do not apply or whatever other rationale you may have, but do not edit war. Please re-read WP:BRD Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 17:07, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I am now going to seek mediation, since you've threatened me now on my talk page with being blocked for reverting you twice when I haven't, which is very strange behavior. You haven't sought consensus at all. You've resorted very quickly to threats when I called for you to actually engage in seeking consensus, which is a violation of Wikipedia policies, since that sort of environment is not what they want for editors.

We'll see what happens. I've discussed my reasons for reverting your changes just above. Your sole response to those is to claim that an illustrative example of a principle is a direct comparison of the two men, which isn't what I meant at all. The talk about the policy is something you haven't addressed. —Olathe (talk) 00:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Please list the material I edited out of the article which you feel has WP:RS citations. There can be a limited amount of primary material to document statements of belief by an individual, so some of the Youtube and blog material remains intact. At any rate, you cannot, for example accept Molyneux characterization of his own academic work as "analysis of ..." or juxtapose statements to imply that a particular quote from Molyneux was referenced in a specific critical statement by someone else. Please state why you think that the material I edited out conforms to WP policy and should remain in the article. SPECIFICO talk 19:36, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Cancer

Should a section be added for his recent announcement of his cancer diagnosis? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.105.213 (talk) 01:21, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Improving This Article

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. Guy Macon (talk) 10:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that unless anything has changed out in the real world, he's only notable for controversy, and the article otherwise remains a big fat link farm for self-published YouTube videos. AndroidCat (talk) 15:52, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Article quality and article notability are two different things. As Wikipedia editors we have no control over notability, but we do control how well-written the article is. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:50, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

On 2.8. he had 75,000 show downloads in one day, and 81,000 YouTube views! To me it is notable ! --Savo Gajic (talk) 23:18, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Then let's start creating Wiki pages about every doofus that knows which cat videos to post on YouTube to get tons of views and Thumbs-Ups for them, shall we?

D0nj03 (talk) 13:20, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Point is that it is not a "doofus that knows which cat videos to post on YouTube to get tons of views", it is primarily a philosophy show and it is the biggest one as far as I know. WP:NOTABLESavo Gajic (talk) 02:50, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Notability and Primary Sources

Two tags been placed on this article questioning Notability and Primary Sources. Just by looking at the ref list, the article seems to quote a lot of secondary sources (especially in the controversies section). A quick Google Books search returns 804 hits - not all him, but not all books are his neither. He is also a frequent speaker and many times a key-note speaker at many large events. So, I'd say notable. What reservations do you have, David? --Truther2012 (talk) 20:39, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Guardian, Globe & Mail and Sky News would count as third-party sources of note, the rest looks pretty skimpy. (I'd strongly question that being a guest on Alex Jones makes one Wikipedia-notable, for example.) The majority of the references are still primary; the article really seriously needs better third party coverage, the amount of primary sources makes it just look like a puff piece. Imagine what this article would look like based entirely on the third-party sources of note. Surely the third-party sources must be out there; at least add them to this talk page if you can't see how to add them to the text as yet - David Gerard (talk) 21:49, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Fair, I'll do some searching... -Truther2012 (talk) 21:58, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

The problems noted above have still not been resolved - this article still has absolutely terrible sourcing, in primary sources and non-RS third-party sources. Frankly, if it had a proper BLP blowtorching hardly anything would survive. Would one be in order, or should we just stick with the terrible sources it presently has? Remember that {{cn}} should basically never be on a BLP - David Gerard (talk) 18:39, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Reliable journalistic sources now include Reason (magazine), The Next Web, The Guardian, The Globe and Mail, and RT (TV network). These alone establish notability. The sources you consider poor (and you're the only one saying so) are supplemental. The only primary sources remaining in the article are ones almost impossible to replace with other sources at this time. the article continues to improve. I think DG's only agenda is to keep the tag-spam on the top of the page to discredit the subject. -- Netoholic @ 18:53, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

No, I want the article not to be a puff-piece based on primary sources and bad secondary sources. The "tag spam" is because this article is presently a puff piece. mises.org is not a RS, freedomain radio is a primary source, etc. If we cut the article down strictly to RSes ... what would be left? (I am unconvinced Reason counts as an RS rather than an advocacy source). You removed the tags while completely failing to address the issues already raised on the talk page - David Gerard (talk) 18:56, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I removed 2 inappropriate tags and left the 1 that is appropriate. The article no longer *relies* on primary sources. The article subject is notable. The article does need more, and better, reliable sources and so that tag remains. Also, mises.org is the Ludwig von Mises Institute, which has a WP page establishing its notability. I'll add links to the references to that page. -- Netoholic @ 19:00, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

It's a notable think tank and advocacy organisation, but that's an entirely different kettle of fish from a WP:RS - David Gerard (talk) 19:22, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:RS#Biased_or_opinionated_sources - "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." -- Netoholic @ 19:40, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

External Links

The External Links section of this article is in clear violation of the WP:EL. Over the last couple of weeks my attempts to bring this article in compliance with the WP has been repeatedly reverted. In case you don't care reading the policy yourself, I'll excerpt it for you...

Links normally to be avoided

Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject, one should generally avoid providing external links to:

...

Social networking sites (such as Myspace and Facebook), chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), Twitter feeds,

Open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors. Mirrors or forks of Wikipedia should not be linked.

...

So, no, you cannot use neither Facebook, Twitter nor Mises Wiki in External Links

The "stability" argument is weak at best - this page, until very recently, had a huge number of issues despite being stable. So, no, just because nobody bothered to bring it up to Wiki standards, does not make it right.--Truther2012 (talk) 13:51, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:EL#Minimize the number of links - "More than one official link should be provided only when the additional links provide the reader with significant unique content and are not prominently linked from other official websites." The Stefan Molyneux Facebook and Twitter pages are separate from the Freedomain Radio ones, and are not linked from the official website. Also, per Wikipedia:EL#EL12, the MisesWiki does have "a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors." --Netoholic @ 18:09, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Social sites, such as Facebook and Twitter cannot be considered as External Links (or official websites). --Truther2012 (talk) 20:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:ELOFFICIAL, official links override this concern. WP:LINKSTOAVOID says: "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject, one should generally avoid providing external links to:" --Netoholic @ 23:37, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Truther2012 is right. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. I've removed them again - David Gerard (talk) 08:54, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Debate championship event

Did he compete at the World Universities Debating Championship? If this is the correct event, then da Costa's reference should be used to reference the participation, which is an interesting and useful fact. But it is not encyclopedic to say he studied literature, history, economics, philosophy, and debate as an undergrad. (Most humanities students do exactly that.) – S. Rich (talk) 19:32, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

No, the source that's currently there is about him debating the winners of that championship who were visiting his college, not competing himself. The main purpose in using the da Costa reference is to show he attended Glendon College (within York University) and that debate was part of his education (details which aren't mentioned on his SELFPUB "About" page, but are mentioned elsewhere). To a some small extent, it illustrates some of the early origins of his political philosophy. -- Netoholic @ 19:52, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

It's a RS for him attending Glendon College. Not for what he studied there, though ...and I have yet to see any source that claims that he has studied philosophy...--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 11:08, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Philosopher?

Who besides Molyneux and his followers thinks he is a philosopher? 208.120.209.96 (talk) 14:55, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

more than think you're qualified to claim otherwise, I'd assume, considering Molyneux does have a lot more followers than you. Right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.69.211.150 (talk) 06:17, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

As far as I know, Molyneux has no qualifications for calling himself a philosopher. I've certainly not seen any evidence of any such qualifications. Certainly not on this article.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 06:28, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

"Qualifications"? For you to evaluate such would be original research. You should defer to the ample sources (before you removed them) and remaining citations. Nearly everywhere Molyneux is mentioned, it is accompanied by undeniable and repeated acknowledgements that he is a philosopher, first and foremost. You might disagree, but this is not Zarlanipedia. Here we defer to the sources. You might think he is a -bad- philosopher, and perhaps you'll find sources that agree, but it is undeniable that this man makes the exploration of philosophy his life's work, based on the citations already presented and the mere existence of his published and broadcasted works. Common sense dictates he is clearly a philosopher, so removing that is akin to vandalism. If you want better sources, fine, we can argue that... but the fact of the matter is that this man is considered a philosopher. I'll be returning the article back to a sane state soon. -- Netoholic @ 07:38, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

""Qualifications"? For you to evaluate such would be original research."

Oh really? In Stephen Hawking, it is claimed that Stephen Hawking is a theoretical physicist. Is that also original research? No, it is verified by reliable sources.

Is it original research, when Daniel Dennett states that Daniel Dennett is a philosopher? No, it is verified by reliable sources.

Where are the reliable sources that indicate that Molyneux is a philosopher? Nowhere. Indeed, one of the sources cited here, that I removed due to it being Molyneux's own site, confirmed that he isn't.

"Nearly everywhere Molyneux is mentioned, it is accompanied by undeniable and repeated acknowledgements that he is a philosopher, first and foremost."

Oh, really? Try googeling Stefan Molyneux. Sure, his fans (a small, if passionate, group) often (though not always) say that. Some (including Molyneux) do admit that he is a self-proclaimed philosopher, though ...which disproves the notion that he is a philosopher.

Anyone outside of that little group, however, does not. Any mention of him, by philosophers, do not acknowledge his being a philosopher (and philosophical organizations not only don't acknowledge him, but they don't bother to make any mention of him) ...or having any real understanding of the subject. The same can be said about the thoughts about him, expressed by economists, concerning his thoughts on economy, or scientists on his thoughts on science.

"You might disagree, but this is not Zarlanipedia. Here we defer to the sources."

No. Wikipedia does not defer to sources. Wikipedia refers to Reliable Sources.

"You might think he is a -bad- philosopher, and perhaps you'll find sources that agree"

Perhaps? You clearly haven't looked for criticism against Molyneux. I haven't, but I've found practically nothing else, whenever his name is mentioned.

"but it is undeniable that this man makes the exploration of philosophy his life's work"

That is no doubt true ...but also completely irrelevant. That doesn't make you a philosopher. As I've pointed out to you before, by that logic, you could claim that all creationists are biologists and physicists.

"Common sense dictates he is clearly a philosopher"

How so?

Your, personal, common sense dictates that he is clearly a philosopher, but that is beside the point. Do you have anything that verifies that?

"but the fact of the matter is that this man is considered a philosopher."

So what? How is that relevant, in any way?

X being considered Y by a group of people, does not make X actually be Y.

That's not how things work.

Some believe that Kent Hovind has a doctorate and that Gillian McKeith has several. This doesn't change the fact that neither of them have any actual doctorate, or any degree above a masters.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 10:47, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

"That is no doubt true ...but also completely irrelevant. That doesn't make you a philosopher." - User:ZarlanTheGreen personal standard is not the deciding factor in determining whether he is a philosopher, that'd be Original Research. Whatever your standards by which you define him as a philosopher do not matter at all in this, nor do mine. The Reliable Sources (Globe & Mail, etc.) all repeat his self-published description on his official website About page and books. A WP:SELFPUB description that has no reliable source disputing it (especially with multiple supporting it) is absolutely grounds to take his self-description as accurate and reliable for inclusion here. -- Netoholic @ 04:01, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

"personal standard is not the deciding factor in determining whether he is a philosopher, that'd be Original Research."

Who's talking about any personal standard?

There is an actual, unpersonal, standard for whether or not you're a philosopher ...and it's not enough to just claim that you are one, as you seem to be implying.

"Whatever your standards by which you define him as a philosopher do not matter at all in this"

Yes they do.

By what standard do I call Stephen Hawking a Physicist? Does that standard matter?

Yes, yes it does ...because it's not my standard. It's the standard.

The same thing applies here.

"The Reliable Sources (Globe & Mail, etc.) all repeat his self-published description on his official website About page."

My point exactly.

They are merely repeating what he tells them about his educational history. Thus they are not really separate sources. The real source for those claims, in those articles, is (ultimately) just Molynuex himself.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 11:24, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Why not post a simple RfC on the question? SPECIFICO talk 12:09, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's really necessary, just yet, but I wouldn't be opposed to it. The way I see it, the situation is quite clear. He doesn't have a Ph.D (or even a Master's degree) in philosophy, nor has he written any philosophy papers/books that have been accepted by the philosophical community, or anything like that. Thus he cannot be called a philosopher.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 13:39, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

It's clear to me as well, but I can tell you from experience on other articles that these labels are frequently misapplied and that it's often helpful to invite previously uninvolved editors to comment. SPECIFICO talk 13:45, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

A Ph.D (or even a Master's degree) is perhaps one indication that someone is a career philosopher, but it is not the only criteria. Not everyone in the world stays in the same profession that they graduated from. When a Masters in Philosophy becomes famous for something else (such as the case of people like Stewart Butterfield, Stacy London, Gene Siskel, and a lot more) we do not say they are a philosopher by career in the article. Likewise, when someone doesn't graduate directly in philosophy, but then writes numerous books, 2500 podcasts, 1500 youtube videos, and dozens of public appearances... each one where he both describes himself as primarily a philosopher and that moniker is repeated in virtually every source listed on this page, then we need to do the responsible thing and call him a philosopher in the lead. It is simply not our prerogative to do anything else. --Netoholic @ 17:03, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

"A Ph.D (or even a Master's degree) is perhaps one indication that someone is a career philosopher, but it is not the only criteria."

Nor is it the only criteria that I've mentioned.

Thus your complaint is invalid.

"and that moniker is repeated in virtually every source listed on this page"

That says a lot about what sources are used in this article. Not about what Reliable Sources, generally state about him. Do Philosophers see him as one of their own?--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 11:06, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

What makes one a professional philosopher? Not to be too cute, but did Aristotle have a PhD, or was it only a Master's? I dont think having a degree has anything to do with what the person does for living. For that matter, is there a list of professional philosophers that we can bounce Molyneux' credentials against? Or, at least a set of criteria of how to get on such a list. On the other hand, it would be hugely beneficial to produce some secondary (or tertiary) source calling him such (not just his 30-second speech intros). To those opposing, what would you call him? --Truther2012 (talk) 18:20, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

That argument is not "cute" it's just wrong. If Molyneux were a philosopher you would find him published alongside others who are undisputedly philosophers or you would find him called one by widely acknowledged philosophers or RS for philosphy and related topics. SPECIFICO talk 18:31, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

"Not to be too cute, but did Aristotle have a PhD, or was it only a Master's?"

Is he generally recognized as a Philosopher, by Philosophers? Well yes, he most certainly is.

...so what's your point?

"To those opposing, what would you call him? "

A person who talks about philosophy.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 11:06, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. Degrees have little bearing on one's occupation.For that matter, I struggle to come up with a single prominent philosopher who held a PhD.--Truther2012 (talk) 13:50, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

"For that matter, I struggle to come up with a single prominent philosopher who held a PhD."

Then you clearly don't know of any prominent philosophers, in the modern era.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 11:06, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

"Philosopher" as the first descriptive word in the lede is too much. He's got several non-fiction books published, but no libraries are stocking any of his books. Perhaps "popular philosopher" or "philosophical essayist" would work. His Amazon.com description [1] says Freedomain Ratio is a "popular philosophical show", but such a description can be applied almost anywhere. Let's be more stringent and drop the philosopher from the first lede sentence. – S. Rich (talk) 19:05, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

We simply can't. If he describes himself as a philosopher, and every source repeats that, then we have to use it because to do otherwise would be original research (ie, putting the determination in the hands of wikipedia editors rather than the sources). I don't think any source uses "popular philosopher" or "philosophical essayist" or any similar derivation more consistently than simply "philosopher". --Netoholic @ 19:11, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

"and every source repeats that"

Not to be rude, but that is utter and pure nonsense.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 11:06, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

They are not, however, RSes on whether or not he is actually a philosopher. This article is a puff piece as is, hanging on very light threads of notability; you're stretching way too far from too little material in an attempt to justify completely unreliable sources like mises.org - David Gerard (talk) 21:43, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Un"desireable" to a socialist maybe, that doesn't mean unreliable on the topic of libertarian political philosophy, a topic on which Mises is preeminent. Added: By the way DavidG, Can we use your RationalWiki as a potential source? Its entry on Molyneux even describes him as a philosopher. --Netoholic @ 22:16, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

This is a content issue to be determined by WP:CONSENSUS. (Also, I think David knows full well that rationalwiki is not RS.) – S. Rich (talk) 22:28, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

"Un"desireable" to a socialist maybe, that doesn't mean unreliable on the topic of libertarian political philosophy, a topic on which Mises is preeminent."

Pre-eminent? According to whom?

Also, regardless of whether they are or not, using them as a source about people who support them, will often be a problem, as there are issues of bias and conflicts of interest.

"By the way DavidG, Can we use your RationalWiki as a potential source? Its entry on Molyneux even describes him as a philosopher"

I'm sorry but it clearly doesn't. It calls him a self-proclaimed (i.e. not genuine) philosopher. Thus it clearly states that he isn't a philosopher. As does any other source, that calls him self-proclaimed.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 11:06, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and we all know full well that consensus determines content here. But this isn't a democracy, and so far, despite a bunch of rhetoric from editors politically opposed to an accurate article on this subject and none of them have provided a reliable source that disputes the documented profession of this article's subject. 1) He asserts on his own pages that he is a philosopher by career (which are both reliable on their face per WP:SELFPUB). 2) We have a review of one of his philosophy books by another libertarian philosopher, which is an acknowledgement of the subject matter (even a negative review of a movie is a reliable source that it was a movie). 3) We have numerous secondary sources (interviewers of the subject, etc.) which describe him as a philosopher. 4) We have tertiary sources (Globe&Mail, The Next Web) which also cite his profession as philosopher. 5) We have -zero- sources that conflict with these accounts of his career focus. If anyone here wants to find a reliable source that he's a baker or a dry-cleaner, let's have it. --Netoholic @ 23:13, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Three citations are given for "philosopher". 1. Casey Research is an investment advice firm. They say Molyneux runs a philosophy show and is interested in philosophy. 2. Paul Sawyers knows about technology and is a blogger (the TNW page he writes on is titled "blog"). 3. Globe & Mail says "cyberphilosopher" and uses the term philosopher once ("Philosopher King") and philosophy/philosophical 4 other times, but it does not come out & say he is a philosopher. (Of the 3, the G&M is the best because it is a WP:NEWSORG.) In all, the sourcing for this part of the WP:BLP is weak (e.g., "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources.") We can use the term philosopher to describe Molyneux, but without such prominence. – S. Rich (talk) 03:22, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

"We have -zero- sources that conflict with these accounts of his career focus."

Career focus? That's not what we are discussing.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 11:06, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Without strong RS, we can't say it at all. We don't relax WP's standard for less "prominence" in the article. This comes up all the time among media personalities who are self-styled psychologists, economists, philosophers, etc. None of the references are RS for the declaration that he's a philosopher, even in a footnote. SPECIFICO talk 04:05, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Could we just call him something along those lines of "self-described philosopher"? It is accurate and still contains "philosopher" in it.--Truther2012 (talk) 13:50, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Works for me, might seem deprecatory to the fans though - David Gerard (talk) 17:10, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

In order to do that, we would need RS which calls him a "self-described philosopher". We can't strike a compromise which disregards core WP policy. SPECIFICO talk 17:18, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Hm. Suppose we find a source where he calls himself a "self-described philosopher". Can we then call him a "self-described self-described philosopher"? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:50, 13 May 2014 (UTC).

That disagrees with his self-description and all the other sources. The word "self-described" would have to be removed from the article immediately due to BLP policy, because that puts a contentious, negative spin on his work. I considered "philosophical author" or other such construction (in order to semi-satisfy the elitist snobs that take issue with "philosopher"), but that too doesn't match the sources and so we can't use it. Only "philosopher" works here. --Netoholic @ 18:07, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I came across these little nuggets on Dictionary.com:

"phi·los·o·pher [fi-los-uh-fer] noun a person who offers views or theories on profound questions in ethics, metaphysics, logic, and other related fields."

...at Merriam-Webster:

phi·los·o·pher noun \fə-ˈlä-s(ə-)fər\: a person who studies ideas about knowledge, truth, the nature and meaning of life, etc. : a person who studies philosophy

...and from Cambridge:

philosopher noun [C] /fɪˈlɒs.ə.fər/ US /-ˈlɑː.sə.fɚ/ B2 someone who studies or writes about the meaning of life

Maybe, I don't get it, but there is no mention of degrees or qualifications. Ultimately, if the guys espouses about philosophy, he is a philosopher (as per established reliable source definition). --Truther2012 (talk) 17:09, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

That's a dictionary. It doesn't count. I looked up physisist. Not a word about any degrees there either ...yet you generally can't call someone that, unless they have a Ph.D in Physics.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 13:08, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

@Zarlan: You don't need a degree to be a physicist either. Michael Faraday - "Although Faraday received little formal education, he was one of the most influential scientists in history." -- Netoholic @ 17:18, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

"You don't need a degree to be a physicist either. Michael Faraday - "Although Faraday received little formal education, he was one of the most influential scientists in history.""

1. Ph.D's did not exist at the time. Frankly, he was as awarded as you could get, in terms of academic degrees, for his field, given the period in question.

2. He was educated by established scientists. (see Michael Faraday#Adult life)

3. He frequently and successfully published his scientific work, in peer review.

4. He was widely acknoledged by the established scientists of his day. He was made Fellow of the Royal Society, was twice offered to become President of the Royal Society (refused both times) and was elected a foreign member of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences and the French Academy of Sciences

Thus he clearly qualifies, under the requirements that I have pointed out to you, multiple times. I have never stated that a Ph.D is the only way to become a philosopher or physicist. On the contrary, I have pointed out that there are other ways to become one. Multiple times.

A far better example would be Ewart Oakeshott:

He genuinely had no formal degrees in History, yet he did publish multiple papers in respected journals and revolutionized the study of swords (especially medieval swords). Hence he is a well respected amateur historian ...and fully qualifies, under the requirements that I have pointed out.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 20:26, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Molyneux blog material

I've tagged the article for WP:SPS. The main problem I see is the blog references that go beyond a mere listing of what he has written, but seeks to expound upon those SPS sources. (This issue was raised a few years ago above.) All of his books are self published, so he does not qualify as an expert in these various subject areas. (This is the case even though Tucker has high praise for him.) This is a WP editing concern based on what the RS is and what the SPS criteria require. – S. Rich (talk) 07:03, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Sweeping statements are totally unhelpful. If there are specific concerns, list them and we'll address them. Per WP:ABOUTSELF, "Living persons may publish material about themselves". The passages that use his self-published sources as reference all either revolve around his background, his current activity, or are worded to describe his political and philosophical beliefs. No claims of truth are being made, only statements about himself and his viewpoints. I hope this helps. If you see some section that doesn't fit this, let me know. --Netoholic @ 08:03, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I will add in-line tags to the particular items. At present I suggest looking at Familial relationships. His blog post goes beyond talking about himself or his activities. Just as WP:NOTBLOG restricts our user pages to biographical material, we are restricted by SPS from posting stuff related to the subject matter in which he is an expert. Why? Because that subject matter has not been published by third-party publications. – S. Rich (talk) 15:31, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

The newspaper articles in that section are the third-party publications that discuss the subject matter. The only point in his blog citation (and the mention of the books/articles) is to show sourcing of the views, not the views themselves. The text about his views on familial relationships is primarily based on the text from the newspapers. To illustrate, if the starting phrase "In articles, blog posts, and his books On Truth and Real-Time Relationships" was removed, the rest of the text of that section is derived solely from the newspapers. --Netoholic @ 15:40, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

The claims themselves need to be of notability to note - David Gerard (talk) 22:39, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Viewpoints section

Several items in the viewpoints section rely solely on primary or non-RS references. If there are secondary RS discussions of this content, the sections should be written to conform with their content. Otherwise, unsourced or non-RS content will eventually need to be deleted from the article. I hope that editors will review the citations in this section. SPECIFICO talk 21:04, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I get the feeling that you're not satisfied with sourcing unless every sentence fragment has numbered source associated with it. Sometimes, we write sections combining the information from several source, then link them all at the end of the section or nearby. I can guarantee that every comment in that section has a source, with secondary RS given preferential placement, and WP:SELFPUB RS as sparingly as possible. You just need to read the related/nearby sources a bit better. --Netoholic @ 21:10, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to go through point by point now, but just to start at the top, this section [2] is sourced to a primary source and a blog. SPECIFICO talk 21:25, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

You're under the mistaken belief that the content of his writings can't be used on Wikipedia. That's wrong. Primary sources can be (and in some cases must be) used per WP:PRIMARY: "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source." As long as great care is taken not to interpret or analyze the content of the source, we can use it for brief summaries. --Netoholic @ 21:49, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I concur. This person is of marginable notability at best, and the article reads very like it has been puffed up by fans based on a very few thin strands of notability. I think it might be straw poll time.— Preceding unsigned comment added by David Gerard (talk • contribs)

Straw poll

Severely cut back article strictly to WP:RS-sourceable statements only, per best rigorous WP:BLP practice?

Non-binding straw poll to roughly estimate consensus on direction

Yes

No

Discussion
- This is not a helpful poll. RS & content is always evaluated in context. The broad and vague "strictly", "severely", "direction", & "best rigorous" phraseology sounds like code words for "let's torpedo this BLP". – S. Rich (talk) 16:04, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
  - Most of the discussion above is about the sourcing and the quality of the sourcing. WP has very high standards for BLPs, and the talk page reads like a fan demanding exemption from them - David Gerard (talk) 16:17, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
  - (edit conflict) Oh, I quite agree that fans have worked to puff up the article. And I've been criticized because I appear to be un-puffing content. (Indeed, I am. But not because I dislike Molyneux.) Setting the like/dislike question aside, there are two issues involved: 1. How well is this article sourced? and 2. Assuming that it is properly sourced, does he meet notability standards? (A third question is how many editors will respond to the poll. ~~I bet this article is on the < 30 watchers category.~~ Page has 62 watchers. Talk page gets 2.3 page looks a day average. Article page gets 3k page looks daily.) – S. Rich (talk) 16:37, 14 May 2014 (UTC)01:33, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
- Agree with Srich. I didn't know "slash and burn" is now an acceptable WP practice. I get that people don't like the subject of this article, and probably hate that the structure and content have been improving so rapidly lately. I know some wiki-warriors prefer when the articles they disagree with have multiple issue-tags spamming the top, because that crap is almost better than no article at all. So when someone comes along that is knowledgeable in the subject area and threatens to clean up the problems, they start getting realllllly pedantic about things. Occasionally they even try to get people to go along with the "nuclear option". -- Netoholic @ 16:25, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
  - Slash-and-burn is a standard option for dealing with problematic, particularly attack, BLPs. As far as I know it's not so common to apply to puff pieces like this, except cleanup in the course of an AFD (where it is routinely applied) - David Gerard (talk) 20:11, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
    - I consider articles about obscure German techno bands to be "puff pieces" that people add unsourced information to, but luckily for my sanity I don't fight over them. One person's "puff piece" is another person's core value. Go improve articles about subjects you enjoy and are willing to research, rather than attempting to lobotomize ones you don't understand or don't like - THAT is how WP gets improved. If you think this article is not notable, then put it on AfD, but I think you're just trying to use every wiki-warrior procedural weapon at your disposal. It survived AfD 5 years ago when it was total crap, it will again, and you know it. The minute it comes back from surviving that next AfD, though, all the issue-tag spam comes off. -- Netoholic @ 20:24, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- I don't like the "severely" part of the question. Given, the article relies way too heavily on the primary sources, but that's a matter of clean-up not slash-and-burn.--Truther2012 (talk) 17:13, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

@Srich32977: @Netoholic: the poll doesn't propose that context should ever be ignored in evaluating RS. It's not helpful to put up a straw man in claiming the poll is not helpful.
@David Gerard: You don't need a poll to remove poorly sourced text or anything which you reasonably believe violates BLP. There's also still lots of text which is not supported by the cited references. For example the "philosopher" in the first sentence is sourced to several citations which call Molyneux a philosophy podcaster or one who discusses philosophy. The only one that seems to call him a philosopher is in the context of that assertion not RS. SPECIFICO talk 20:32, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

So you consider that one removable?

Or, in general, shall we leave the fans to their real-world fanfic? Honestly, this article is more hagiographic than the articles about J-Pop bands - David Gerard (talk) 21:50, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

If there are particular items that need changing, then discuss and/or change & discuss them in particular. A broad indictment of the article is not helpful.
Again, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Neoholic has worked to improve the article, and I think will continue to collaborate in the improvement.
Anchoring the straw poll with a lopsided question shows the need for caution. For more, see WP:Straw polls and WP:VOTE.

– S. Rich (talk) 22:43, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

"Again, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS."

Is there anyone here who disagrees about that?

"Neoholic has worked to improve the article"

No one has said that he/she didn't have good faith (WP:ASSUME). That's not the issue here. I remember an editor that was very passionate about kendo and some other martial arts articles, and whose good faith and good intentions were never in any doubt ...who is now blocked.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 13:08, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Srich, the poll is not a broad indictment. It's a proposal to remove improperly sourced content. Do you feel that improperly sourced content should be left in a BLP article? Metacomments and handwaving are not going to make this article better. Unfortunately recent edits which improved the article and conformed it to policy have been reverted. SPECIFICO talk 14:05, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Improving means contributing, not just erasing. Erasure and blasting articles with issue-tags is lazy work. So far, despite a lot of talk here, none of the people in this straw poll section have done any work to find different/better sources. Don't like that he's called a "philosopher" - find an indisputable and preeminently reliable source that contradicts the sources that say he is a philosopher. Dislike the fact that multiple sources call it "the largest and most popular philosophy show" - find a great source that contradicts that and add the "controversy" to the article. Hell, add something positive to say about the article subject if you come across new information... I sure have added a lot of non-positive items to this article, for balance, and because they are true and accurate things. Unfortunately, this talk page is rapidly becoming an unsafe place for me to communicate because my comments keep being moved or deleted. If you have an issue with any content in the article that I've added, drop me a message. I will do the hard work & research to fix the issue as best I can. -- Netoholic @ 18:32, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

"Improving means contributing, not just erasing."

That is utter and complete nonsense.

So if people "contribute" loads of unverified statements, vandalism, link spam and/or other such things that are not allowed, under Wikipedia policy, then that person is a contributor?

People like that tend to be corrected and their edits reverted. They are not praised. In fact, if they persist, they get blocked. Are you saying that the system that Wikipedia has, concerning this, is wrong?

Also, would you then say that people who do their duty of enforcing Wikipedia policy by removing such content are worthless?

Would you say that ClueBot NG is worthless and/or does nothing to improve Wikipedia?

"none of the people in this straw poll section have done any work to find different/better sources."

You're suggesting that bad sources, sources that do not qualify as Reliable Sources and thus are not allowed on Wikipedia (need I remind you that WP:V is one of the five pillars?), are okay as long as better sources cannot be found?

That's not the way it works.

You are shifting the burden of evidence.

"Hell, add something positive to say about the article subject if you come across new information..."

Why? The article should reflect what the Reliable Sources way about him. Not be a text that takes sides. (see WP:NPOV)--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 02:59, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Concur. BLPs are not fan hagiographies, and Netoholic's understanding of sourcing rules is severely problematic - David Gerard (talk) 22:40, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

@David Gerard: You know, I'm going to start getting upset if you keep describing me as just an obsessed "fan". I found the article, found it was lacking, know something about the subject, and started meaningfully contributing. Also, I care a lot about sourcing rules... actually, I care more about facts... and sourcing rules are just a means towards establishing facts for the uninformed. I don't go to a badly sourced wiki page (like -philosophers-) and delete every unsourced sentence. The reason it sits in such an unsourced state is because there are certain facts that everyone with knowledge about the subject can accept without strict sourcing. I have a lot of knowledge about Molyneux, and so I accept as fact many things. Yes, no PhD. Yes, makes some bad arguments. Yes, still pretty obscure compared to even the goddam Kardasians. ... but also... Yes, committed to the study of philosophy. Yes, producing tangible philosophical output... output that is being heard by more people daily than Aristotle reached in his life and several hundred years after... and being heard more daily than any other modern philosopher out there is. I can respect that. His extensive use of online media makes him a brand new kind of philosopher... and the same online media make his peers and students different than in the past as well. It also makes him hard to pin down in sourced forms that used to work fine for old school philosophers. -- Netoholic @ 07:10, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

"I don't go to a badly sourced wiki page (like -philosophers-) and delete every unsourced sentence. The reason it sits in such an unsourced state is because there are certain facts that everyone with knowledge about the subject can accept without strict sourcing."

That means that you are therefore accepting the definition of what a philosopher is, in philosophers ...thus meaning that you accept that we cannot call Molynuex a philosopher.

"Yes, committed to the study of philosophy."

"Study"... the meaning of that word can be differ radically...

"Yes, producing tangible philosophical output..."

No.

"and being heard more daily than any other modern philosopher out there is."

That is nothing more than an appeal to popularity.

Please avoid blatant fallacies.

Jenny McCarthy has been listened to, concerning vaccines, far more than any modern Ph.Ds or MDs in medicine. Does that mean that Jenny McCarthy is an authority on vaccines?

No.

No she most certainly isn't.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 01:36, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Notability

Notability tag is back. Has the notability of the subject been not established by now? The very links in the tag (Find sources: "Stefan Molyneux" – books · scholar · JSTOR · free images) gain multiple results. I am not advocating that this is a GA, but the subject is definitely notable and there are plenty of RS that demonstrated that. What is missing? --Truther2012 (talk) 21:46, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

This article has survived the notability check back in 2009 when it survived AFD, at a time when the article was short, atrocious, and POV. In the last month, I have tripled the character count and citations from 10k/24 refs (a lot bad) to 30k, 62 refs (all relevant and reliable). Despite two people that keep putting back the issue tags, NEITHER of them as actually ADDED a new source or information. They are not interested in improving the article, only keeping the tag spam in place to deface it. -- Netoholic @ 21:58, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

This appears to be yet another personal attack on this talk page. You've also been placing nonsubstantiable claims of vandalism on user talk pages, as well as some strange claims that editing this talk page constitutes acceptance of notability - David Gerard (talk) 23:17, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Noting a pattern of tendentious editing is not a personal attack. You've shown no interest in actually being part of improving this article, and your only actions are to continuously restore a notability tag that's been inappropriate since 2009. You also seem very concerned about the sources on this article, yet your edits on other articles show you have no particular qualms about adding unsourced claims to articles of weak notability. Now, do you want to actually address why you claim this article is non-notable? -- Netoholic @ 23:39, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is pretty much never accepted as a valid argument. I'm very interested in improving this article, by removing all the stuff with sources that are not up to BLP standard, as Zarlan has explained to you at length above - David Gerard (talk) 12:33, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

@David Gerard: "do you want to actually address why you claim this article is non-notable?" -- Netoholic @ 16:58, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I am not entirely convinced of his notability; most of the RSes are about the cult accusations. I'm open to persuasion. But given the paucity of high-quality sources even now, I consider the tag appropriate - David Gerard (talk) 22:48, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

"I am not entirely convinced of his notability; most of the RSes are about the cult accusations."

Well... I wouldn't exactly call people like David Koresh or Sun Myung Moon non-notable, although RSes mainly just talk about them being cult leaders.

How exactly is he not notable?--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 01:36, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I think the notability tag should be removed. He's gotten significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. There's definitely a focus on the cult accusations, but that goes beyond WP:BLP1E. There's also the Reason TV interview about a completely different subject. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 03:42, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Are there any recent RS discussions of the cult accusations? If not that material should be removed from the article. The tag helps invite editors to search for good sourced material. It's not an AfD, just an indication that it's questionable. SPECIFICO talk 04:24, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

There was something of a followup in late 2012 here. I would suggest changing the tag from {{notability}}, which is not at issue, to {{refimprove}}. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 05:15, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

"Are there any recent RS discussions of the cult accusations? If not that material should be removed from the article."

Recent?

Wikipedia is not a newspaper and notability is not temporary.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 01:36, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... (your reason here) --Mississippi4music (talk) 19:20, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Stefan as a larger amount of subscribers than many other youtube personalities found on wikipedia, such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ana_Kasparian Mississippi4music (talk) 19:20, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because it is of importance. --164.127.184.68 (talk) 19:30, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Article does not qualify for speedy deletion

The criterion cited for the speedy deletion (CSD A7) states:

"The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines."

Claims have been made about importance and notability, and therefore qualification for speedy deletion cannot be claimed. If deletion is desired, this needs to go through the normal, "non speedy' articles for deletion process, WP:AFD. I'm removing the tag. Marteau (talk) 19:53, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Notable Ideas

Times Reference

Culthood

Strong language and accusations

Deletion Discussion

Framing

Removed some stuff

Removed 'Philosophical Work'

Removed reference to Molyneux' YouTube response

Edit Warring

Freudian?

Fan page

Restored content, citations needed

Self Published Works

Discrepencies

Personal Section

Therapeutic cult definition please

21 Century business man/ Motivational cult leader in the making

Over-reliance on YouTube videos

This article has been nominated to be checked for its neutrality

Should the Criticism and Controversy section be deleted?

reevaluation

PublishAmerica

Quote in criticism section

Podcasts, YouTube videos and blogs

Reverted changes by SPECIFICO

Cancer

Improving This Article

Notability and Primary Sources

External Links

Debate championship event

Categories

Philosopher?

Molyneux blog material

Viewpoints section

Straw poll

Notability

Contested deletion

Contested deletion

Article does not qualify for speedy deletion