Talk:Stefan Molyneux/Archive 4

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

→

"Database business" in the lead

Currently, the first sentence of the second paragraph of the lead reads: Molyneux was formerly in the database software business and now describes himself as a philosopher. Nevermind the primary source, but I feel it does not add any value to the lead. Both of the items are described in detail further on. Database software business is really not note-worthy given the focus of the article. I mean, he also was employed in daycare business, which is probably a lot more relevant. Finally, "described himself as a philosopher" calls back to much earlier discussion of whether he is a philosopher or whether calling somebody "self-described philosopher" diminishes the claim altogether. I shall remove the sentence altogether unless I'm missing any serious reasons for it to remain. --Truther2012 (talk) 14:52, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Good idea to remove it. Any dissent should be expressed here on talk and unless there's explicit consensus for that text, it should not be reinserted in the article. SPECIFICO talk 15:26, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

That sentence is a victim of Specifico's strategy de jour, which is to word a sentence very poorly, but marginally correct... then revert war to keep it in place, then agree with anyone that says "hey this sentence is bad and we should remove it". The end result is the same, he gets to keep gutting the article day after day. The sentence that gained consensus on this talk page under #"software career" was "left his career in the software industry". Specifico changed this, and has kept reverting when I try to put back the better wording. -- Netoholic @ 22:10, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Truther2012. --Rob (talk) 23:21, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

As far as the "describes himself as a philosopher", it is really the only viable solution to the problem of how to address the philosopher question (which will keep coming up if that line is removed). We are going straight to what he says is his career, and that is backed up by what other sources report that he states his career is. "Self-described philosopher" has a negative/judgmental connotation, but "describes himself as a philosopher" does not. -- Netoholic @ 04:00, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Netoholic, I dont think it's the wording per se, but the importance of that information in the lead. His prior career has very little bearing on his current notability. It fits nicely in his Early Life. Same goes for "philosopher" - if we can't agree on calling him that, what he calls himself is irrelevant. Plus, without this sentence the focus is on the show, which is his true claim to notability.--Truther2012 (talk) 18:55, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

What he calls himself is not irrelevant when every major reliable source notes that he calls himself that. Its not our determination, its theirs that makes it relevant. If you can find a way to rephrase removing his past career but keeping the "describes himself as a philosopher" bit, I'd be fine with it. The prior career portion of that sentence is used more a lead-in to that more important point. -- Netoholic @ 19:42, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Sources reporting that he calls himself that makes it enough to say he calls himself that, but not for us to call him that in wiki-voice. No objection to "describes himself as" though. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:51, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

My argument is whether that sentence makes an article stronger or weaker as an encyclopaedia entry is concerned. The philosophy is properly addressed in the first sentence of the lead, by referring to his interests (as an author).--Truther2012 (talk) 16:28, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I think removing it would add confusion for anyone following links to our sources. Few of them refer to his philosophy as a mere "interest" - many of them refer to him straightforwardly as a philosopher, so its helpful to explain that it is he himself that states his career as such. That he essentially left other career areas to focus on philosophy, rather than it being just an "interest". -- Netoholic @ 20:40, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Which WP:RS call him a philosopher in their voice? (honest question, I am only aware of the "self-described" ones. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:50, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Here is a summary of some User:Netoholic/Molyneux#Book and news sources - sometimes used as "self-described", and most times used in their own voice as a direct statement. -- Netoholic @ 21:01, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Television?

I don't see any RS which supports the statement that Molyneux has appeared on television, i.e. broadcast television. If anyone has RS for that, please add it to the text. Otherwise these statements will need to be removed. SPECIFICO talk 22:54, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

You have got to be kidding me right? You edit war to keep removing his appearances on TV, and then say this? -- Netoholic @ 01:20, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Please give a citation to a RS which states that Molyneux has appeared on television. SPECIFICO talk 01:36, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I did. You've been removing reliable sources which can be found in the diff link above. Though I think considering your bias, even if they were written on stone tables from the gods, you'd still not accept them. -- Netoholic @ 01:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I saw no such references. If you think I'm mistaken, please cite the reference here. Then editors can verify your claim and the text will have met the burden for inclusion. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 02:02, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Are you refering to the RT, ReasonTV refs? While they often take on the appearance of network/cable TV shows I am not aware of any of them broadcasting over the air, or on a "real" cable network. While the line between old and new media is certainly blurring, it is not gone and webcasts are not "TV". Gaijin42 (talk) 02:16, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Correct about RTV. Unfortunately most of what appear to be references in this article are not secondary independent RS and the amount of well-sourced content is scarcely enough to claim notability. The familial relationships controversy attracted some attention years ago, but none on an ongoing basis, as far as we've been shown. He was nominated for but didn't win a podcast award years ago. There's not much there, really. SPECIFICO talk 02:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

His appearances on 3 different RT shows were all broadcast on the television network. They are not just webcasts, although they do have archived versions viewable as webcasts now. -- Netoholic @ 04:21, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

C'mon! That's a silly challenge! It took me a whole 3 seconds... He clearly appeared on "Breaking the Set" as per previously removed source. And yes, RT is an actual tv network (I can't believe I have to actually type this!). You can even watch them on ABS-2 satellite 11793 MHz. But then again, you could have checked the validity of the source yourself, prior to deleting it.--Truther2012 (talk) 18:47, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

"Public Speaker"

My edit summary was truncated so, for the sake of clarity, it should have read "Does Bill Clinton's bio say that he's a public speaker?" SPECIFICO talk 02:37, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Strawman. Molyneux is not Clinton. Molyneux is in many ways better known for his public speaking (particularly to those in the bitcoin community) than his books or show. -- Netoholic @ 22:12, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I would agree. Molyneux derives a lot more notability from public appearances than Clinton. Clinton is a public speaker because he is already famous. Molyneux is famous because of his public speaking.--Truther2012 (talk) 16:31, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

What RS calls Molyneux "famous?" And Clinton gets lots of mention for his public speaking, both campaigning and for his Foundation. But public speaking is not the basis of notability. Even Ron Popeil is known for his other accomplishments (inventor, etc.) SPECIFICO talk 19:11, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. A problem that confounds many on wikipedia is the difference between being successful at something, and being notable for it. There are a great many people in the world who are good at their chosen careers, and may get buzz/awards within their industry blog/PR-clique, but are not "notable" by the wiki standard. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

You confuse WP:NOTABILITY standard with WP:NOTEWORTHY information - The notability standard is the one we use to determine if there should be an article on Wikipedia about a subject. When an article is justified, we then look at what is noteworthy to say about that subject. It is not necessary to prove that each individual fact about a subject be Notable on its own. In respects to Molyneux, his public speaking is a significant way that people know about Molyneux even if he may not be independently "famous" for it by some external standard. We have significant coverage of his public speaking in the article, and it is absolutely appropriate to refer to that in the lead. -- Netoholic @ 20:59, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The "speaker" sources are all promotional and not secondary independent RS. He is not famous for because of his public speaking. He's not famous at all. SPECIFICO talk 21:52, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Then why do you devote so much time to this article? -- Netoholic @ 01:21, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Quality control, no doubt. If he didn't, you'd be turning this article into one about the Second Coming. --Calton | Talk 04:49, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

ANI discussion

Editors may wish to contribute to this related ANI discussion --Rob (talk) 03:51, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

attendance at National Theatre School of Canada

Confirmation that he attended National Theatre School of Canada is available via multiple sources which I am listing here. If there is any further doubt on this matter, please discuss.

Toronto Star - "He wanted to be an actor, and was accepted to the National Theatre School in Montreal."
https://freedomainradio.com/about/ - "I also spent two years studying writing and acting at the National Theatre School of Canada."
Mississauga News - "Molyneux was a playwright at Montreal's National Theatre School before entering the business world as a computer company executive for seven years."

I'm restoring the content. I don't think its necessary to have all 3 citations (especially since the About page covers his entire educational career), but I'm putting them there anyway. -- Netoholic @ 03:13, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

deFOOing redux

I would like to discuss what should, and should not be included, regarding deFOOing, and how to improve things. I think we should add

Mention that his wife was a co-host and was sanctioned professionally for her deFOOing advice. [1]. A fair compromise is to mention the facts, with appropriate quotes, but exclude her name (I think it should be included, but others don't, and it's not a huge deal).
The current wording seems to suggest that somebody has stated that 20 out of 50,000 listeners have deFOOed. I'm not aware of any source presenting that. Nobody claims to know the total number of deFOO cases. There's no justification for presenting total listeners in a discussion of deFOO cases. There's a means of catching most listeners (YouTube count, or other metrics), but no means for measuring deFOOing. We could instead use something like a quote from G&M of "several" families members contacting them (giving a full quote with attribution).
We should work in more quotes on contentious items (such as officials involved in professional hearing).
If we quote somebody saying he has a cult, it should be attributed in the body of the article
We should carefully attribute in the body sources of facts. So, for example if the G&M says families told them they are reluctant to come forward, than we should say that explicitly, since we're relying on the credibility of G&M to vouch for the fact.
I think it's good to have all deFOO stuff together, but we have to do a better job of stating where and when facts are coming from, so as not conflate different reports.
I see no reason to preface what we say about deFOOing with his views on child rearing. The G&M and Guardian don't mention him being against corporal punishment. That's a separate issue. I also think its absurd to say he is for "peaceful parenting". Otherwise, we should add the same to every article on everybody who is for peaceful, loving, caring, or nurturing parenting. --Rob (talk) 18:10, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Spouse naming

While I support naming the wife, it should be sourced in the article, and her role should be discussed. Also, there should be some discussion and consensus to do so. Last time it was discussed, most editors who had an opinion seemed opposed. I think simply naming her in the infobox, with no other discussion is pointless. I'm not editing the article for a while, so its up to others to address this, if desired. --Rob (talk) 15:07, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree, particularly in light of past discussion, that there must be a clear rationale for naming her in the article and that such rationale would be supported by well-sourced RS text. If there is no such reason to discuss her in the article then she should not be named in the infobox. SPECIFICO talk 15:19, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

bias in article

This article reads like it was written by Molyneux's fans. It can be argued that the only reason Molyneux is even notable enough to have an article is the allegations against him for being a cult leader, yet this is not even mentioned in the article. It should be a major section, and other non notable events should be removed. I will be submitting a rework in the coming days and am hoping to get others opinions first. Byates5637 (talk) 02:33, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I suggest you review the archives. There has been considerable text produced about his notability. As for article content, the guideline we follow is WP:NOTEWORTHY. – S. Rich (talk) 03:21, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree he is notable, I agree this reads like it was written by Molyneux's fans, and I also agree that the allegations of cult leadership are notable. There are a dozen websites devoted to that, and there have been articles in the UK Guardian and other mainstream media. ElizaBarrington (talk) 05:43, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

These comments indicate that people may not have given the article much of a read-through, especially since the "cult" stuff is easily found in a large section devoted to it here. Also, to people that dislike Molyneux, neutral, matter-of-fact writing style might seem "written by his fans". Broad accusations of bias are completely useless - you need to cite precise passages and describe precise problems as you see them. -- Netoholic @ 06:42, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

The article wasn't written by his fans (plural), but has been controlled by a fan (singular). A single editor has ensured a consistent bias by misrepresenting BLP to remove anything negative, and to promote him. I've given up editing this article, because I don't have hours a day to spend fighting a revert war. There are two classes of coverage generally: pundits and journalists. The vast bulk of coverage found on Molyneux is by pundits. Much is positive and much is negative. All negative pundit coverage is dismissed as violating BLP since pundits aren't deemed reliable enough for negative claims. All positive pundits, and even the subject himself, are allowed. Only a minority of coverage is in major reliable sources (Globe and Mail and Guardian). We barely use this reliable mainstream coverage, even though it ought to make up the majority of coverage. Netoholic dislikes the G&M and Guardian because it contains serious and negative claims. Wikipedia articles should be more about facts than opinion, and that means we should rely on sources that are relied on for facts, not just opinions. --Rob (talk) 11:50, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. There's also no mention of his DMCA troubles, which has been covered by Techdirt and other blogs, not to mention pundits and his own forum. --Frybread (talk) 07:00, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

The Techdirt article is written and self-published by the owner/editor the Techdirt blog itself. Since it is definitely controversial information and/or opinion, it fails the standard listed at WP:BLPSPS, and would be removed immediately. If the story shows up in a reliable news outlet, we'll include it. -- Netoholic @ 08:54, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I concur. Moreover, the suggestion that a near-unknown figure would have his article diminished by a swarm of random editors who "don't like him" strains belief. @Srich32977: -- are you stating that you believe Molyneux is WP:NOTABLE or are you just helping to orient @Byates5637: in order to enhance the discussion? There are several editors here who doubt his notability but even placing a tag on the article to improve sourcing has been met with battleground and personal attack reactions. The article in its current form is what remains after a war of attrition. Kind of the WP equivalent of a failed state. SPECIFICO talk 13:34, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I think notability isn't really an issue. He plainly meets WP:GNG, but not for the reasons his fan thinks. He's notable for coverage in The Guardian and Globe and Mail for the effects of his advice on families. He's also got a bit of attention for his controversial views on women by Time. Since the Time piece portrays him negatively, it won't be allowed by the owner of this article to appear. --Rob (talk) 16:57, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLP absolutely says that potentially negative (and unduly positive) statements about a subject automatically require a higher burden of substantiation than neutral ones. Other than the Jeffrey Tucker quote and the Peter Boghossian comments, I see no instances where a positive comment is being made in this article, only neutral and factual ones. These are both highly notable in their respective circles (having their own articles indicates this). If you find critical comments from anyone equally notable, then we can discuss their addition. If you want blanket permission to add negative comments from non-notable bloggers, that's not going to happen, but please, make specific suggestions so we can discuss them non-hypothetically.
I've already talked about this before, but The Times article about the "cult" thing is far better than the Guardian and the G&M articles, mostly because it was written several months later and includes much more in-depth reporting. Those newspaper articles are used extensively throughout this article, and I'm not sure what more can be gleaned from them.
As for the Time.com reference, I have struggled with how to include it here (and I suspect you have too which is why no one has added it). Its not really a news article, more a blog/experience piece, she doesn't interview Molyneux, and it includes factual errors (saying he is a "radio host" of a "radio show") which indicate weak research and little secondary review. Since it remains uncorrected, I can't think its very reliable, and the information value is limited. Rather than assuming bad faith, why haven't you opened a a section on this talk page with the express purpose of discussing the value of that Time.com piece? -- Netoholic @ 18:48, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I've observed a few attempts to describe Molyneux as a misogynist. The Time piece might be seen as support for that description. But I say might because the description applies only if one applies their POV. What has the Time author said? Ah, yes. The repeat Molyneux's statement that "Women do poorly when choosing men to be husbands or fathers." But does he mean all women do so all the time? Obviously not, or his wife would be included in that group and he'd be one of the poor choices. In fact, Molyneux is making a very inexpert assessment of something he's observed. Namely, that we (or some of us) make stupid choices in our lives. Well, I've read a couple of books by Dr. Laura: Ten Stupid Things Women Do to Mess Up Their Lives and Ten Stupid Things Men Do to Mess Up Their Lives. Well, Dr. Laura is certainly critical of some men and some women. She says some women marry assholes and vice-versa. Is she a misogynist or misandrist? I think not. And she is certainly far more qualified to comment on the personal mating choices that people make. So, for this article, it comes down to whether Molyneux's observations are noteworthy. I'd say they are (because of the attention they've received), but with qualifications that the observations are noteworthy only to the extent that other commentators (equally unqualified in the subject area) have picked-up and picked-on them. They should not be used to categorize him in any fashion. (For instance "Category:People who say dumb things, not supported by data, about subjects on which they know very little, from which commentators criticize the speaker.") – S. Rich (talk) 19:18, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I generally agree, its been easier to just leave it out rather than try to find balance between the uninformed opinions of both sides. I think if he ever attempted to formalize his views on women (a book or something) and if there is formal commentary on his work, then we'd include it. Until then, its all just amateur stuff, but an easy avenue for equally amateur critics. -- Netoholic @ 19:31, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

If one takes the (reasonable) perspective that all of Molyneux's notability is derived from the allegations and speculation in the MSM in regards to the cult like aspects of his show, than the linked material you provided falls miserably short of being adequate. The "cult" content should be a major section of the article with a top level header devoted to it, and likely mentioned in the lede. A single sentence about it hidden in a sectios called "parent-child relations" is not even close to the coverage this topic deserves. 68.81.221.107 (talk) 13:12, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

The above comment was from me, I forgot to sign in. Byates5637 (talk) 13:49, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think its reasonable to say "all" of his notability is in regards to that. Does Molyneux get invited to conferences or to appear on TV/podcasts to speak on the topic of parenting? No. Has he ever been formally investigated or sued for being a "cult" leader? No. Has the MSM even mentioned this since 2008? No. The objective evidence is that the topic is minor for everyone except those pundits that view it as an easy vector of attack against someone whose ideas they disagree with. The information used to be under its own section, but doing so doesn't allow us to place the information into context as the current version does. The Wikipedia guidelines also suggest that we not create sections devoted to criticism, exactly because it doesn't allow this sort of context. -- Netoholic @ 19:16, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

This guy is mostly a youtube celebrity, nobody in the academy knows him, neither did he contribute anything to the academy. It is interesting to see that anybody can now have a wiki page. Maybe I should start one myself, Stefan Molyneux seems to have done the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.65.74.227 (talk) 13:13, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

CRITICISM section?

Why is there no criticism section? This guy Stefan Molyneux is very controversial and one might say is either full of shit or a god-tier troll.

Watch him talk about White Privilege (some juicy morsels on blacks and Jews) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=auQJMLWx6og --184.161.80.90 (talk) 22:17, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Criticism#Avoid_sections_and_articles_focusing_on_criticisms_or_controversies "best practice is to incorporate positive and negative material into the same section. For example, if a politician received significant criticism about their public behavior, create a section entitled "Public behavior" and include all information – positive and negative – within that section. If a book was heavily criticized, create a section in the book's article called "Reception", and include positive and negative material in that section."Gaijin42 (talk) 22:20, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Another point worth covering is misuse of the DMCA to silence crtitics. This is enormously hypocritical for someone who claims to be libertarian. Pashley (talk) 21:56, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to make popcorn to watch the edit war on here of Moly lovers trying to keep the very encyclopedic fact of the lawsuit off of the Molyneux Wikipedia page. lol. Especially as it gets covered by more and more mainstream media, which it will be. ElizaBarrington (talk) 22:10, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Molyneux's Cancer?

A while back, Stefan Molyneux claimed to have been diagnosed with lymphoma, travelled to the US for treatment, and did a lot of talking about that on his shows. I vaguely recall his doctor even talking about it once. Did anyone ever verify whether or not this cancer was legitimate? Either way, it sounds like something notable. Whether he had cancer or pretended to for donation money, that sure is a big deal. I, for one, would love to know which is true.

EDIT: I've been doing some research on that, and I can't find any reliable sources that attest to the veracity of the cancer claims. Probably why you didn't mention it.50.168.176.243 (talk) 05:45, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Public Appearances

Do we have secondary RS discussion of any of these speaking engagements? If not, it strikes me as undue to describe them in text. Perhaps we could move them to a list at the end of the article, similar to a bibliography. SPECIFICO talk 01:53, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I think putting them as a separate list will actually give them more prominence and hence more weight is opposed to keeping in the text.--Truther2012 (talk) 16:35, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

There's clearly no justification for keeping them in the article text. If we conclude that a separate list is also undue or unsourced, then I think we need to delete this content entirely. Of course if there are any speaking engagements which have been noted in RS secondary sources, we can mention them in the article. SPECIFICO talk 17:00, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Is your issue with sourcing or the fact that the section exists? If it is sourcing, then which current sources would you consider non-RS? --Truther2012 (talk) 21:20, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

None of them is RS. Which ones do you believe are RS? If there are any RS we can sort out the article text. SPECIFICO talk 22:16, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

They are RS within the context of him having appeared at a given public event. For example, in the first sentence Libertarian Party bulletin (published for public review) being clearly a secondary source to the New Hampshire event, states he appeared in New Hampshire. How much better can it get? Which RS checkmark is missing?--Truther2012 (talk) 15:06, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Donations vs. Subscriptions

According to Horsager and freedomainradio's website, Molyneux solicits donations, which can come in a form of a one-time donation or a subscription. Calling them subscriptions would be misleading.--Truther2012 (talk) 21:15, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Does the Washington Post or Time Magazine solicit "donations?" Even the website only calls the one-offs "donations." The Horsager reference is nearly 3 years old and refers to what Molyneux at that time called the payments. Molyneux himself has now characterized them as subscriptions. I think that calling subscriptions "donations" contrary to ordinary English usage is what would be misleading. SPECIFICO talk 22:12, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Honest question : Is any of molyneux's content, forums, videos, archives gated that requires such donations? If not, I think donations is acceptable. If there are parts of his content that is only for "subscribers" then it should be categorized as such. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:16, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Please see the cited page on his website. The subscriptions are listed in several tiers and the associated subscription content is specified for each price level. SPECIFICO talk 22:21, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I think neutrality demands saying like "Access to the main podcast and some downloads are free, but Molyneux solicits paid recurring subscriptions which come with access to additional content, as well as one time donations." or some such (although it may be a tad run-on and could be split into two sentences). Gaijin42 (talk) 22:31, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

The English word donation is almost always used to refer to a gift to a charity or worthy cause, not to a for-profit website. SPECIFICO talk 23:31, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

The page you referring to is called "donations". In addition we have an RS calling them donations. If it is too old, do we have another RS saying the first one is too old? Using a different term then the sources would be considered OR. And yes, donations to for-profit organizations are very common, albeit not typical. Are you familiar with Kickstarter? And yes, different level of donors in any scheme expect different level of privilege, be it content, products or other benefits. And yes, in any donation-based organization you can either make a one-time donation, subscribe to donations or pledge a future donation - regardless of the payment plan, they are all donations.--Truther2012 (talk) 14:56, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

The page is called donate, but on that page they say "Please support the show by signing up for a monthly subscription or making a one time donation." and multiple buttons that say subscribe His youtube also specifies both donations and subscriptions. Its sourced. If you think you can mandate including one and not the other, open up an RFC and see where it gets you.

Gaijin42 (talk) 16:10, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Internet as a Soap Box, Compounding of that Soap Box, Fringe

Found this link from anarcho-capitalism, not even attempting to edit it.

This entry on Stefan Molyneux contains a feedback-loop of self published (and poor quality) sources which align closely with the classical idea of a soap box. You can stand on a corner with a soap box and say anything you like, and you can call yourself anything you like.

This is not saying the subject is not popular or notable to a whole group of people (on a fringe) that might listen to him on a soap box.

I am currently searching for "better sources." A primary source (a lawsuit on alleged DMCA abuse, and defamation) has this to say " At all times material to this Complaint, Molyneux made his podcasts, published statements, video clips, and other materials publicly available through various Internet sources, including, but not limited to, the Freedomain Radio website, located at the URL address www.freedomainradio.com; www.fdrpodcasts.com; his YouTube channels, “Stefbot” and “fdrpodcasts”; and his Facebook page (collectively, the “Molyneux Material”). As of the filing date of this Complaint, over 2,800 podcasts are available for free download on fdrpodcasts.com, and Molyneux’s YouTube channels host a subset of these podcasts in addition to other videos. " What I am gleaming from this lawsuit is the "prolific nature" of the subjects use of the soap box. [2]

There are additionally other "bizarrely" interrelated websites: [3][4]

Back to the point Most of the sources point back to primary-source Molyneux. I cannot find a single credible source that does not reside on the fringe (or even lunatic fringe) or does not originate from the source itself. .[5]

This begs the question: What is to be done here?Lfrankblam (talk) 01:22, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Publication list notability

Wikipedia is not a list of every PDF someone makes available on the Internet, nor every vanity press publication. How are the works in the bibliography notable in the slightest aspect? Only one even has an ISBN. AndroidCat (talk) 03:33, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

General Notability;

1) Significant Coverage - Minimal or none

2) Reliable Sources - Minimal or none

3) Self published, and then a series of poor quality or fringe sources

4) Independent of the Subject - Minimal or none

The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it—without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter. Neutral sources are also needed to guarantee a neutral article can be written—self-published sources cannot be assumed neutral; see Wikipedia:Autobiography and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for discussion of neutrality concerns of such sources. Even non-promotional self-published sources, like technical manuals that accompany a product, are still not evidence of notability as they do not measure the attention a subject has received.

In Contrast to Alex Jones who I would consider to be Fringe, but there are major differences in the quality of sourcing

1) Significant Coverage - Rolling Stone, Fox News Daily Beast, Howard Stern Radio, BBC News, Huffington Post, New York Magazine, Washington Post, Southern Poverty Law Center, Guardian, CNN

2) Reliable Sources per item 1

3) Self published near none

4) Independent of the Subject - only a few sources don't meet this criteria

Presentation on Wikipeida is almost exactly the same between Alex Jones and Stefan Molyneux

Massive difference in objectivity, neutrality, sourcing, and even notability

What is the next step here? Lfrankblam (talk) 05:39, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

As tempting as it would be to take a weed-whacker to the masses of fluff in the whole article, I was mainly looking at those PDFs in the non-fiction section of the bibliography. We don't list every paper of academics, and those are at least published in some reasonable form. Why are a bunch of self-published PDFs from a self-described philosopher notable at all? I just wanted to check before removing them. AndroidCat (talk) 06:31, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

What about this, why don't you do a cursory edit; then please join me in building a proposed replacement in the sandboxLfrankblam (talk) 14:52, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I would be careful not to delete any content that is well-sourced and not undue or self-promotion. I may be misunderstanding your use of "cursory" but I think there's consensus here that the article contains a lot of inappropriate content. That can be removed and if an editor disagrees, we can discuss restoring specific bits here on talk. Many of what appear to be secondary references are in fact from promotional material or press releases which are not RS for this article. SPECIFICO talk 15:08, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I just rewrote this article in my Sandbox to a point whereby it would be in closer conformity to what I would consider to be acceptable and neutral Draft:Stefan_Basil_Molyneux. I would be very reticent to make any changes in part due to the ongoing contention regarding this entry. I would suggest an approach whereby changes are made in whole. --Lfrankblam (talk) 16:14, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I think that an all-or-none approach is not going to be constructive, and it's not the way articles are improved on WP. I don't think there's any reason to think that constructive edits to the article would be rejected or unduly disputed. I suggest you edit the current article text per standard procedure. SPECIFICO talk 16:39, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Take the "Non Fiction Section" that whole section is self-published and is an extension of prolific blogging What should we do here?Lfrankblam (talk) 16:49, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree a wholesale replacement isn't necessary. I'm sure there'll be support for any removal of poorly sourced material. We just need somebody to take the time to review the content and sources, and remove what needs to be. I do agree a self-published PDF is not noteworthy, unless it's been given independent coverage. --Rob (talk) 15:36, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I may slowly do that review, one change at a time {slowly with talk documentation and then a pause}--Lfrankblam (talk) 23:37, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Change Log

I will be trying to address the issues and concerns here one item at a time. I will make a change, document that change here, and pause

1) Changed non-fiction to Position papers, and also works

Why: A list of Non-fictional writings would the same as having a list of factual writings. The list of "self published" works are in fact either White Papers or Position papers written by the subject and then distributed by PDF. --Lfrankblam (talk) 23:44, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Recommendation and Opinions (please leave yours): *Delete This Section - Basis as self published work, and not notable --Lfrankblam (talk) 23:44, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

2) Summarized plethora of single topic videos each listed, with some pointing back to those videos, to a statement that he produces single topic videos

Why: A summary statement provides the same information as a random listing of single topic talks on the subjects own youtube podcast.Lfrankblam (talk) 06:06, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

3) Debates changed to un-moderated debates

Why: A moderated debate would be conducted with equal balance and on neutral ground. There have been questions as to the efficacy as to how these "talks" were conducted. [6] Lfrankblam (talk) 06:15, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

4) Removed claim made by his own autobiography. "Molyneux' website states that his Masters thesis analyzed "the political implications of the philosophies of Immanuel Kant, G.W.F. Hegel, Thomas Hobbes, and John Locke"."Lfrankblam (talk) 06:27, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

5) How he funds. Subject funds with direct donations.

Why: Subject has one funding source, and then we have a source telling us why. We don't need to list all the ways he does not fund if we know the way he funds.Lfrankblam (talk) 06:37, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

6) internet media presenter - Would this simply be blogger? *Yes-Blogger Any ideas here?

7) Changed Philosophical views to Views and Criticism

Why: Each of the three listed self-published views has garnered criticism. Two of the three have existing criticism and Noam Chomsky criticized the third. It is ok for the subjects viewpoints to be subject to well-founded or documented criticism if they are controversial as long as the criticism is not personal.Lfrankblam (talk) 06:47, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

8) Professional sanction inserted (I see this has been covered but it is essential to have)

Why: The viewpoints of the subject are notable but they are controversial and they speak to a fringe. Controversial statements have ramifications. The wife being part of the podcast did so as a qualified and licensed individual expressing the same views as the podcast would have done so otherwise. The wife and the husband are therefore speaking in the same voice in the same venue with the same points. The documentation source is a leading Canadian newspaper.

9) Added refutation by Chomsky to provide balance..

10) Laundry list of activities. suggest a summary in public appearances..especially where there is redundancy or non-notable appearances in other youtube channels etc.--Lfrankblam (talk) 07:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

11) Satisfied and at stopping point awaiting merger discussion belowLfrankblam (talk) 02:12, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Chomsky and "balance"

I removed this passage about Chomsky's "refutation". It's inappropriate to suggest Chomsky refuted anything, unless Chomsky actually discusses Molyneux, which he does not in the cited interview. We should only reference sources that actually discuss Molyneux. --Rob (talk) 16:40, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Chomsky "debated" Moleynuex on the topic--Lfrankblam (talk) 16:54, 11 November 2014 (UTC) Chomsky is also speaking to the broad topic of the sub-topic in question applies only to a "term" that Molyneux coined himself with no use elsewhere (in journals or academia)--Lfrankblam (talk) 02:15, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

What you did is original research. Even if you made a reasonable assumption of Chomsky's position, you have to cite a source that explicitly states what you want to say in the article. --Rob (talk) 04:13, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

kk take it out.

Dispute resolution organization - Merger Discussion

I propose that Dispute resolution organization be merged into Stefan Molyneux. Dispute resolution organization is an original concept of Stefan Molyuex and has limited or no basis anywhere else. The Dispute resolution organization article uses pdf's and statements from Molynuex as the primary source. This idea does not stand by itself, nor is it notable or credible by its own volition. Lfrankblam (talk) 18:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Merge has been executed; with representation of this "original construct" of the subject being expressed here as a viewpoint.--Lfrankblam (talk) 17:27, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

You'll find on the original Dispute resolution organization page that there are other contributors to the "concept", most notably Rothbard. While Molyneux may have helped coin this particular term, the concept remains more universal and predates him. It deserves a "see also" link, but not a redirect. Redirecting is confusing, especially considering that Molyneux is known for more than just this one concept. --Aletoledo (talk) 21:13, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

-'Rothbard (a well known figure in business and economics and in the mainstream media) wrote a series of academic papers and books on self-rule and governance including (adjudication under the same) starting in 1940 and continuing to the present day.' On Amazon you will find pages of books authored by Rothbard on an academic subject matter which he defined and then was used, accepted, and quoted, by academia. [7] The DRO started with Molynuex in the first sentence, ended with Molnuex in the conclusion and misused Rothbard as the rationalization.' There are indicators suggesting plagiarism, we need not go that deep into that possibility simply this term does not exist anywhere especially in the works of Rothbard.

'Tom Keene on Bloomberg media speaks to Rothbard every now and again, but what he does not speak to a term coined in a PDF file that "leverages" the works of a great man who has never used that term--Lfrankblam (talk) 00:52, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for reverting it back again without chiming in here. If the concept of DROs is used by other noteworthy people (whether or not Molyneux coined the term and developed it for the most part), it doesn't make sense to merge it with Molyneux's page because it has become a creature of its own --Coching (talk) 01:06, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

What notable people would that be?--Lfrankblam (talk) 01:18, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

The page will not be merged. Rothbard has nothing to do with the formation of this term, and that needs to be reflected (and now is reflected) in the stand alone entry.--Lfrankblam (talk) 01:43, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Primary Sourced Material

Per this recent edit and longstanding concern about primary sourced content in this article, I suggest we remove all the primary sourced content and copy it here on the talk page so that it will be readily available while we try to find independent RS references to support it. SPECIFICO talk 19:03, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

The first paragraph removed is primary and essentially a light form of WP:OR although per WP:PRIMARY it does not require any analysis to look at that source and verify that yes Molyneux did appear. (The question is if nobody commented on those appearances, are they noteworthy).

Regarding the Turks paragraph, the issue is analysis. If we just directly quoted Kasparian, that seems like it would be acceptable, per the same kind of opinion/pov statements we put up widely in the wiki. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:52, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Agree with removal, except I find copying to the talk page to be redundant, if a link is pasted on the talk page to the relevant edit (as you did with my my edit ). Also, while I'm happy if people want to invest their time trying to find sources to support old content, I think it's more productive to just go directly to good sources, and try to add from there, without trying to "keep" anything that was here before. For example, we still have details in the G&M article that could be added, beyond a single sentence currently in the article. --Rob (talk) 01:58, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Your view seems reasonable. The cut and paste is redundant. SPECIFICO talk 02:00, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Viewpoints in Plain Language vs Self Described Jargon

An editor deleted a sentence which was not meaningful to him, and I would say rightly so because it was unintelligible to anyone not already familiar with the viewpoints of the subject as expressed in his own jargon and lexicon of terms and acronyms. Since these terms are not ubiquitous they need to be described in plain language within the heading and also the first (two or three) sentences of any section.

Someone following the subject would know what FOO is or DeFoo or DRO, or what have you, but the super-majority of people would not.

The subject has a utopian-ideal of how things would work in theory and this applies to justice within a society, family, and the organization (or lack of organization) of a state (state-less-society). These ideals are described by others and here they need to be understood generally. Failure to do so makes this entry speak to only those who had preexisting interest in it.--Lfrankblam (talk) 23:11, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. Plain, specific language is far preferable to jargon that most readers will be unfamiliar with. Steeletrap (talk) 19:26, 23 December 2014 (UTC) User:Srich32977 should check this out. Steeletrap (talk) 19:26, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

BLP caution

A recent edit summary reads in part "(one child was encouraged to leave)" their FOO. We have no RS which states that Molyneux advised any particular individual to do so. General statements in a broadcast or podcast are not equivalent to encouraging any particular person to de-FOO and this statement is misleading and possibly harmful to Molyneux. SPECIFICO talk 14:42, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

In fact we have RS regarding one particular person (Weed) who was 18 at the time. – S. Rich (talk) 15:00, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Very important not to repeat such assertions here. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 15:05, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I gather, SPECIFICO, that you agree that recent changes are problematic. I will explain and provide diffs. As of December 15 we had a somewhat stable article. With this diff we see "Critics have characterized Molyneux' philosophy as amateurish and compared him to a cult leader." added to the lead. This has two problems: 1. there is nothing to support "amateurish", and 2. only one comment from 2009 vaguely refers to him as a cult leader (also the sources are now tagged failed verify because they do not have the quote), Next, at this diff, the heading is changed to "Encouraging teenagers to abandon their families". Two problems: 1. a single 18-year old (Weed) was encouraged and 2. the language is value-laden and not used by the sources. The problem gets worse when "teenagers" is changed to "children generally" in this diff. (Again, the sources do not support this.) I revert these changes. My revert is edited here. While "amateurish" is changed to "poorly reasoned", the "children abandon" section heading is reverted to the NPOV version. The next edit changed "abandon" to leave. I again modify the lede to remove the UNDUE cult remark and unsourced plural "critics" remark and to restore the long-standing section heading here. My changes were reverted here. I maintain that these changes violate BLP. To say "critics" (plural) is unsourced and skewed to criticize Molyneux. Same holds true to say "children" when only one example is sourced. "Cult leader" is also an BLP violation because only one source uses the term (and even that source is a problem because the quote is the article is not in the RS). Comments from other editors are encouraged. – S. Rich (talk) 02:13, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I think we have to be very careful to attribute criticisms of the subject to the whoever made them. This is especially true for highly charged words like "cult", hence my recent revert. The word "cult" must appear in quotes, with attribution in body in addition to a footnote (neither of which were used). I'm not clear the words been used enough to justify putting it in the lede. I also found "Support for the right of children to leave their families" to be be a bad section heading. Section headings must be completely neutral. It's debatable whether children have a "right" to leave their families, and if that's what he supports. Also, its not clear if "children" refers to adult children, minor children, or both. So, let's stick to something simple for the header. --Rob (talk) 04:11, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Rob. I agree with your comments. I should add that the "FOO" section involves more than just the topic of children leaving their families. Also, while the British cult organization may be "following" Molyneux (from a source dated several years ago) we do not see them labeling him as a cult leader. Accordingly the edits you have made are appropriate and entirely within keeping of the BLP sanctions that this article is subject to. – S. Rich (talk) 04:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Glad to see you've come around, Srich. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 04:37, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Alleged listening in on confidential therapy sessions

The sentence "According to The Globe and Mail, Molyneux has been sued for allegedly listening in on confidential therapy sessions conducted by his wife, without the permission of her patients." is (completely) false (at least what the Globe and Mail writes is completely false) and greatly harms Molyneux's reputation. The title of the Globe and Mail article is misleading. The article itself reveals this criticism to be based on an obvious joke of Molyneux's for anybody with a few brain cells:

“I’m in the vent system, listening, and I’m – she calls it heckling, but I don’t really call it heckling, I just call it providing suggestions about how things should go and that the people should donate to Freedomain Radio,” he says in the podcast.

“I mean, it takes them a while to figure what on Earth that is, but I do, sort of, try to put my two cents in and Christina says that sometimes can be distracting and so on. But even with the combined weight of her, directly in front of them, and me, my ghostly voice floating in through the vents, they still have trouble making the kind of personal changes that really have a positive effect on their lives.”

The lawsuit is about alleged copyright law abuse and defamation: https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1346376/dkt-001-complaint-1401024.pdf, found here https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20141025/06550928937/anarcho-capitalist-stefan-molyneux-sued-abusing-dmca.shtml

Please read articles before sourcing them, they could be yellow journalism... Requesting deletion of the paragraph. Regarding the lawsuit, I would wait until more has developed as the techdirt article suggests it is very likely to lose. --MDR 62.141.176.1 (talk) 19:47, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Two issues are at play here: First, we've got to go with what the Globe and Mail has written because it is a reliable source. Second, we can't go out and analyze what the lawsuit complaint actually says. The complaint is a primary source court document, and using it in the article would be original research. Now the Techdirt.com material may be useful, but is Mike Masnick a reliable source when it comes to commenting on the lawsuit? – S. Rich (talk) 20:59, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I second S. Rich, the lawsuit document is at best merely a statement. It's filing is public record and could probably be considered, but what it says could be 'Moonpies in outerspace with laser beams' or the most eloquent and perfectly truthful bit of text you've ever read. There's nothing verifiable or true about what's said in the lawsuit as it's just a statement filed to the court. Also saying the globe and mail is not neutral and is critical does not automatically make it unusable. A negative report about someone is not automatically unusable or non neutral. Also his listening in on confidential therapy sessions was also iirc part of the sanction his wife recieved was it not? I remember there being some mention in her formal reprimand and sanctions regarding that but it was a minor infraction compared to what the bulk of it was. FlossumPossum (talk) 21:24, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Alright, if we say that Globe and Mail is a reliable source, then we have to read it. It does not say "sued for allegedly listening in" but "The allegations are part of a lawsuit" which is a small but important difference, considering it is in fact about an alleged misuse of the DMCA, which the Globe and Mail itself states (or rather, it is very, very unclear on what the charges actually are). On the second point I have to thank your for educating me about no original research, I did not know this applies.

Then FlossumPossum brings up an important point: "what it says could be 'Moonpies in outerspace with laser beams' or the most eloquent and perfectly truthful bit of text you've ever read. There's nothing verifiable or true about what's said in the lawsuit as it's just a statement filed to the court." But the Globe and Mail is just based on that statement! "Mr. Molyneux has not filed a statement of defence and could not be reached for comment. Ms. Papadopoulos and her lawyer declined to comment." On the prior sanction: No, it was not. It was about her giving advice on the internet. So in a way very public but never labelled as official therapy. --MDR 62.141.176.1 (talk) 13:40, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

there is Zero difference in meaning between "Sued for allegedly" and "allegations in a lawsuit". In both cases its clear that the claims are allegations, and that the allegations were presented in a lawsuit. WP:OR is a policy that applies to us, not the Globe and Mail. If they have analyized the WP:PRIMARY documents, then we use their analaysis of them. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:39, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

redacting blp violation

WP:FORUM and WP:BLP violations

He's not a philosopher simply because he whines about his problems with women all the time. Why does this joke page exist? I'm willing to bet he created it himself and has been maintaining it ever since. 92.25.123.216 (talk) 06:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Stefan Molyneux is a well-documented public intellectual who has influence in many spheres of thought. Your opinion is not enough to negate his whole page. Solntsa90 (talk) 18:48, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Could you both please stick to specifics and not offer your opinions of Molyneux? Let's deal with content at the level of text and sources. Is there article text that fails verification or is undue? Are there RS not adequately represented here? In either case, those would suggest ways to improve the article. SPECIFICO talk 19:13, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I've been looking for mainstream sources that discuss Molyneux and his work.

I'll add what I find below. Editors can make use of them as they feel is appropriate:

Time Magazine [8]

Description as a philosopher in the lead?

The IP user 99.251.52.21 has twice tried to change Molyneux's occupation as described in the lead from "blogger" to "philosopher". Based on the current contents of the article, I do not think he fits the classical definition of a philosopher. However, it is probably worth having a discussion here so that it can be decided and we can avoid constant changes to the first sentence. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 05:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I see this has been discussed thoroughly before in the archives in June 2014. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 05:45, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Violence is the fault of women part?

" Molyneux argued that nearly all violence in the world is women's fault as a result of how they treat children" The source is written by a feminist who clearly has political motives to discredit him. Until I hear it from a primary source such as an audio recording of the conference or video I'm not going to believe it. It clearly is a bias statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dutch Ninja (talk • contribs) 01:36, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Also of note is the quality of the page going down? there seems to be much more info on him in past edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dutch Ninja (talk • contribs) 02:12, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

His views are more nuanced that what Jessica Roy presents. For example, in this FDR podcast he talks about how early childhood abuse, including punishment of children (spanking), has measured, objective adverse impacts on children. I'm not about to undertake re-writing of the article to properly summarize his views, but I have modified the Roy reference to more clearly reflect what Molyneux is saying. – S. Rich (talk) 02:55, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

The source is the Time Magazine article from a previous comment, in which SM is directly quoted from a conference: "If we could just get people to be nice to their babies for five years straight, that would be it for war, drug abuse, addiction, promiscuity, sexually transmitted diseases.... Almost all would be completely eliminated, because they all arise from dysfunctional early childhood experiences, which are all run by women". It subsequently links his Youtube vid which has more detail. 2601:197:301:DB90:8119:EFE0:432A:BF01 (talk) 20:42, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Jewish descent

Molyneux's mother was born Jewish. 0:39 mark on this video from his YouTube channel.

I have reverted this. It is dubious and not verified by an independent reliable source. This content has previously been rejected on talk and you must not reinsert it without consensus to do so here. You may be blocked if you continue to reinsert this without consensus on talk. Please read WP:BRD. SPECIFICO talk 21:23, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I haven't reinserted anything. Why is his statement not reliable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.179.162.66 (talk) 01:08, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for posting the clip where Molyneux says his mother was Jewish. I came across that fact somewhere else previously. It's obviously reliable. He says it and goes into great detail about her. Hearing his commentary on WW II previously, I suspected he was Jewish. I don't know why Wikipedia rejects his statement about his own family. It is obvious Wikipedia is very biased in its articles on WW II. The reason Wikipedia rejects Molyneux's statement about his own family might be because he says his mother was born in Germany in 1937 and says his grandmother went to work in Dresden in 1937, the day of the allied bombing attack on Dresden. Those statements would indicate Molyneux's Jewish family led the typical life most German families led in WW II, even having a family member (grandmother)killed in a bomber attack. Of course none of this conforms with the stories peddled about how Jews were supposedly treated during WW II. You know the stories, making soap out of Jewish fat and lampshades from their skin and other ridiculous hate propaganda discredited long ago. Molyneux's German Jewish mother obviously survived the war if he was born in 1967. He says they lived in Germany throughout WW II. This completely contradicts WW II propaganda stories, including those by Wikipedia about how Germany treated Jews during WW II.```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.96.156.137 (talk) 06:41, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

This certainly qualifies for WP:BLPSELFPUB as that his mother was Jewish, but saying much about it in the article would likely be WP:UNDUE Gaijin42 (talk) 02:47, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

This violates each of the conditions of WP:SELFPUB and cannot be used in this article. SELFPUB states,

Such material may be used as a source only if:

it is not unduly self-serving;
it does not involve claims about third parties;
it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
the article is not based primarily on such sources.

No dice. SPECIFICO talk 12:22, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Which of those points are you considering failed? Gaijin42 (talk) 12:46, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

"This violates each of the conditions of WP:SELFPUB..." SPECIFICO talk 17:17, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

How would such logic not apply to any persons statements about their ancestry? If you are interpreting policy correctly, a great deal of content needs to be removed from the wiki. As I said above, I'm am not sure this needs to be put into the article, I might even weigh against inclusion, but I am quite sure that this sourcing is sufficient to pass his claim. As I'm not pushing for inclusion, I won't likely take this further, but if we ran an RFC on the acceptability of this source&claim for BLPSELFPUB I am quite confident the answer would be yes. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:33, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

"each" of the conditions? I don't see how it violates ANY of the conditions. Marteau (talk) 17:45, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Content and policy tests depend on context. Mr. Molyneux promotes his brand with self-published self-description. Without making any assumptions or accusations as to his motives, all 4 of the principles suggest that for this largely self-sourced and weakly-sourced article about this person, the "Jewish mother" bit is undue and not verified. What do you think it would add to the article other than SYNTHy insinuations about his life and self-published statements? See also [9] including random googled links from a now topic-banned POV editor here. SPECIFICO talk 18:02, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? I'm struggling to understand why exactly you object to including an obviously correct piece of information about Molyneux's background. Zacwill (talk) 10:44, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

SPECIFICO—why are you removing from the article that His mother was Jewish and born in 1937 in Berlin? He tells us this in his 2013 talk called The True Costs of War, given at at the University of Toronto. Bus stop (talk) 16:41, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Please review previous talk threads on this. It's arguably a cover story for his arguably anti-Semitic statements on his blog and Youtube. Find an independent source. The story about how the family lived happily in Nazi Germany is extraordinarily unlikely and is certainly an extraordinary claim. SPECIFICO talk 16:45, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

SPECIFICO—we don't remove content based on your suspicions. Bus stop (talk) 16:54, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

The WP:BURDEN is on you for inclusion and they are not "suspicions" but rather a reasoned evaluation of the circumstances in accordance with WP policy on primary sources. SPECIFICO talk 16:56, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

The burden is met by the oral vocalizations of the subject of the article. He states his mother's religion, date of birth, and place of birth. Where does your doubt creep in? He never said that anyone "lived happily in Nazi Germany". Do you think that conditions worsened for Jews in Germany in the years after the date of his mother's birth? It is you who is making the "extraordinary and unlikely" claims. The articulations of the subject of the article serve to inform us about the particulars of mother's life. Bus stop (talk) 17:08, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm disappointed you didn't read the prior talk threads where the whole thing was discussed, including how mom lived in Nazi Germany. SPECIFICO talk 17:09, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

From where do you derive that it is "arguably a cover story for his arguably anti-Semitic statements"? What is this based on? You can't just make stuff up. Anything is arguably an argument for anything else. Bus stop (talk) 17:13, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Could you please review the prior discussion as I requested. That seems a constructive beginning. SPECIFICO talk 17:15, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

OK, I've glanced at the previous mentions of tangentially related topics and—I still have no idea what you are talking about. Can you please articulate your case for keeping this information out of the article? Bus stop (talk) 17:20, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm really so disappointed you didn't take the time to check the archives, when I have taken the time to reply constructively to your concerns. One of the prior threads is here Please review that and all the associated policies. Thanks. Other editors will respnd and we'll have the benefit of their thoughts. SPECIFICO talk 17:25, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

I have followed your link. I find Netoholic cogently saying that "Molyneux is an expert in his own family history, he has a MA in History, gives an account that is in line with other reliable accounts, and gave this speech to a roomful of students, faculty, and other speakers." I would basically agree with that. I would add that Molyneux was speaking at the University of Toronto. While I would not say that Stefan Molyneux was an "expert" on his own family history I would say that the likelihood is high that he would be fairly knowledgeable about his own family history. It has been my experience that both younger and older children are interested in the origins of their parents. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that a son would know this information. One of the reasons given in your edit summary for the removal of this content is that this is "Self-promotion". Can you tell me how this is "self-promotion"? Bus stop (talk) 19:01, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for following the link. Ultimately, there was little "cogent" about that user's participation here. His view was rejected and he was TBANned soon after. Back to your point: Just because most folks are interested in their family history, that does not imply that all folks are truthful or accurate about their family histories. Please consider that wrt your statement above. I believe it invalidates that argument, so let's consider further. Obviously we do not know, and it's not our job as WP editors to know, the truth of the matter. What we do know, however, is that Mr. Molyneux is a skilled self-promoter and that he has assiduously built the audience for his media empire. I don't want to speculate in too much detail about whether and why he might have misrepresented his lineage. I suggest you google "Molyneux Jewish" and see the kind of talk that's circulating around him. The websites you'll find, including neo-Nazi and alt-Right chat threads are certainly not RS for Wikipedia, but they do give a hint of what Mr. Molyneux must navigate in building his brand. For example, it could be that when he first broadcast anti-Semitic memes such as that the Russian Communists were largely Jewish and caused murder on a vastly greater scale than the Holocaust, that a claim of Jewish ancestry might have shielded him from being called an anti-Semite. ~~"Some of my best friends..."~~ "My mother was Jewish!" Now, please note that I am not accusing him of anything. I am saying that this is a reasonable possibility for so skilled a self-promoter and that we need a better source than his own possibly self-serving say-so. Oddly, in the few years since Mr. Molyneux first posted that his mom was Jewish, the political winds have shifted on the alt-Right internet to widespread and overt anti-Semitism. Various neo-Nazi's now accuse Mr. Molyneux of trying to whitewash his toxic parentage. Again, this stuff is not RS but it shows us, as editors, how complicated this content is and why we need a very strong independent RS for this assertion. Some folks believe this promotes him, others believe it deprecates him. It needs independent RS. SPECIFICO talk 20:22, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

SPECIFICO—you say that he "broadcast anti-Semitic memes" and you say that Stefan Molyneux's assertion that his mother was Jewish and born in 1937 in Berlin is "arguably a cover story for his arguably anti-Semitic statements". Is Stefan Molyneux an antisemite? If so, why doesn't our article suggest that Stefan Molyneux may hold antisemitic views? Bus stop (talk) 10:29, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I have no opinion about Mr. Molyneux, nor would any WP editor's personal opinion be relevant to our work here building the encyclopedia. Like many fringe thinkers, his work is not covered by mainstream sources that could be used for WP content. Much of this article is poorly sourced or sourced to primary references. Did you google the searches I suggested to see the context of Mr. Molyneux' views on Jewish history and culture and the social, political and intellectual role of Jewish leaders as they relate to alt-Right themes? I happened to find another online compilation of Mr. Molyneux' views with a comparison to notable American anti-Semite Kevin B. MacDonald. Again this video about Mr. Molyneux is not RS for WP but it provides context as to his claim that his mom, whom he detests, was "born to a fairly Jewish clan." Please do some of the investigation that I have suggested. Let's also give other editors time to comment. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 14:59, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

SPECIFICO—you say that he "detests" his mother. I haven't seen that in a source. Have you? If so can you please bring the source to our attention? Would his detesting his mother make her not Jewish? Wouldn't he still have a Jewish mother even if he detests her? Why are you arguing to keep this material out of the article? We know that Stefan Molyneux's mother was Jewish because he tells us that his mother was Jewish. Why in this edit are you removing this from the article? Bus stop (talk) 15:10, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

[10] I keep getting the feeling that you're asking me to parse out information that I've asked you to research for yourself to be familiar with what we're discussing here. I am going to disengage for a while and see what other editors have to say. I do think you'll benefit from some research on Molyneux' stated views on Jewish folks, anti-Semitism, and related political, commercial and social topics in his video blog archive. SPECIFICO talk 17:33, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

SPECIFICO—do you have a source that contradicts or calls into question that Stefan Molyneux's mother was Jewish? In this talk given at the University of Toronto in 2013 Stefan Molyneux says that his mother was Jewish. Bus stop (talk) 21:19, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

DMCA abuse and subsequent lawsuit

Was he found guilty or not? I can't find a source. I think it should be removed if no one can find an answer as it's an allegation and not a fact which wikipedia should base its articles on. --Mralan101 (talk) 00:39, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I have access to PACER (law). There was a settlement and the case was dismissed with prejudice. Terms of the settlement are not in the court records. (If you have access to PACER please see this.) As this news story does not have noteworthy information (i.e., follow-up), I am deleting the entire paragraph as a WP:NOTNEWS and WP:UNDUE item. – S. Rich (talk) 03:11, 16 May 2016 (UTC) 03:21, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

"Philosopher"

The term "philosopher" according to modern definitions certainly wouldn't include Molyneux, ever since the "professionalization of philosophy" during the 20th century. But given that Alain de Botton is called "philosopher", Wikipedia's standards are generally slack. Fans of Molyneux really do consider him a philosopher, whereas Alain de Botton is only titled as such by television networks to appeal to consumers. So if, in a throwaway comment, we allow Alain de Botton the title of philosopher on Wikipedia, ought we not to take Molyneux's fans pleas into consideration? After all, they really think he is a philosopher, and his work really forms the core of many people's personal philosophies, whereas De Botton is merely one of many cultural commentators who drift in and out of the lives of the mildly intellectually curious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User: 72.79.221.54| 72.79.221.54]] ([[User talk: 72.79.221.54|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/ 72.79.221.54|contribs]])

See this RFC Talk:Stefan_Molyneux/Archive_2#RfC_-_Should_Stefan_Molyneux_be_described_as_a_.22philosopher.22_in_the_lede.3F. There would need to be some fairly strong sources describing him as a philosopher in their own voice. But if you really want to try another RFC, its possible (but very unlikely) consensus would come out differently this time. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:37, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

YouTube citations

The various citations we see to Molyneux's YouTube clips violate ~~WP:ELNO~~, WP:SOCIALMEDIA, WP:UNDUE, etc.. WP is not a soapbox, so let's edit them out. – S. Rich (talk) 02:57, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I would tend to agree that, at least on rudimentary inspection, there would seem to be "too many" uses of YouTube clips as references in this article. However, WP:ELNO covers only the "External links" section of an article; not general references. For WP:SOCIALMEDIA, it would be best to demonstrate that the links, or the material which they support, fail one or more of the 5 criteria listed there; cf. the previous section on this Talk page. Similarly for WP:UNDUE, it would be best to demonstrate how the material does not align with WP:NPOV@WP:UNDUE; noting that it would be the material, not the refs which are undue. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 04:12, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Ryk72, you are correct about ELNO. (I have ~~stricken~~ the link.) As SPECIFICO has recently accomplished, the various YouTube clips are primary source and go beyond what WP should be posting. E.g., we want secondary sources that we can present in WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. – S. Rich (talk) 02:29, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

This is not a new complaint. Talk:Stefan_Molyneux/Archive_1#Over-reliance on YouTube videos AndroidCat (talk) 03:39, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Claim of Jewish lineage

This bit has repeatedly been removed from the article due to its primary sourcing and the possibly self-serving and context of the unproved and dubious claim. "Some of my best friends..." Better yet "My mother..." We should find an independent secondary Reliable Source for this statement to establish its noteworthiness and verify it for inclusion in this BLP. Please discuss here and do not put it back in until we can find RS for this per WP:WEIGHT. SPECIFICO talk 16:12, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

SPECIFICO—the article previously read "According to Molyneux his mother was Jewish and born in Berlin in 1937." That wording was sourced to this YouTube video yet you removed the wording and the source in this edit. Can you please explain why you are removing that material from the article? Bus stop (talk) 21:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello thanks for coming to the talk page. In addition to considering the WP:SPS and WP:ABOUTSELF problem, please review all the previous discussion and reasons several editors have deleted this self-sourced assertion about Mrs. M. I think this will answer your immediate question, and then we and others can discuss the matter. SPECIFICO talk 23:15, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

SPECIFICO—do you have another source which casts doubt on this source? Do you have any reason for removing this material from the article? Bus stop (talk) 00:10, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I politely asked you to read the talk page discussion of this matter. That includes the archived talk discussion, as well as this very section of the talk page, which deals with Youtube sourcing in general on this article.. Have you reviewed all these threads? I think that the objections are clear from the prior discussion and I suggest you take account of all that so we don't have to repeat what's already gone down here. The burden is on the editor who advocates for inclusion, and the reason not to include has been stated by several editors over an extended period of time here. SPECIFICO talk 00:16, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

SPECIFICO—I will ask you again—do you have any reason that you feel the referred-to material should be kept out of the article? Bus stop (talk) 00:32, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes. The same reasons I gave in the previous threads here that represent current talk page consensus. Yes. Those are my reasons. Is there some reason you are not responding as to why you disagree with previous consensus? SPECIFICO talk 02:09, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

SPECIFICO—don't tell me to read archives. I am speaking with you now. Do you have any reason to remove the material in question? This is a Talk page. It is for discussing the article. Please discuss the article with me. An important aim of discussion is the avoidance of the problematic behavior of edit warring. While it is true that the burden is on me to provide a source in support of material that I add, I believe there is an additional burden on you to explain the removal of material that is supported by a source. Are you going to present your argument? What argument do you feel justifies the removal of this material? It is a sentence reading "According to Molyneux his mother was Jewish and born in Berlin in 1937". It is supported by this source. Articulate your reason(s) for removing that material, please. Bus stop (talk) 03:29, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

As you know, my first post in this section gives several reasons to reject that content. Now I'll again politely remind you read the current talk page and archived discussions of this extraordinary claim about his mother per WP:EXHAUST &ff.

Read the archives: If you are a new editor to an article, be sure to read the archives. Not only are content disputes valuable examples of talk page behavior, but they contain a lot of expert knowledge surrounding the topic. You may quickly find your questions and/or objections have already been answered if you try searching all the archives for that article at once using the prefix parameter.

SPECIFICO talk 03:39, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

SPECIFICO—if you don't have the time, effort or inclination to discuss the article then don't edit it. I am here (on this Talk page) and I am ready and willing to discuss the edit in question. You have in the past directed me to the archives, which I of course have looked at. I believe that was a few months ago. The material in question has been in article space for several months. It read: "According to Molyneux his mother was Jewish and born in Berlin in 1937". But now you are removing that sentence once again. And at this time you are once again referring me to the archives. If you are editing the article to keep that sentence out of the article then you have to be able to present a cogent argument for keeping it out of the article. If you are unable to argue for the exclusion of this material from the article then please do not remove that material from article space. The burden is as much on you as it is on me to employ this Talk page in order to come up with the correct solution for this article. Bus stop (talk) 04:05, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

First off, you must understand that, although your schedule and other activities may permit you to edit WP round the clock, other editors may take more than a few hours, or even a few days to visit articles and talk pages they watch. There's no deadline and it's certainly not a few hours. Thanks. At any rate, I see that you've reinserted this primary-sourced self-published sourced 'extraordinary claim' -- a claim that is not about Molyneux or his opinions, which might permit an SPS citation, but rather a factual claim about other people. And an untestable unverifiable claim. You should undo this. It's edit-warring and your refusal to state any rationale to reject the reason various editors have stated, and which I repeated at the beginning of this section is disruptive. Your denial of my having posted that reason at the outset of this section is tendentious. Please undo your recent edit and present your rationale for inclusion of this bit on talk. The burden to do so is on you. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 17:12, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

SPECIFICO—you cite WP:SPS. This is more than a "Self-published source". Molyneux is speaking about himself. Specifically he is speaking from his memory and from family knowledge dating from 1937. There is virtually no "claim" being made. The "claim", for instance, is not that Molyneux is Jewish. Anyone can hear in plain English what Molyneux is saying, in this particular "Self-published source". All we are dutifully reporting to the reader is what he has said. The sentence in question, again, is: "According to Molyneux his mother was Jewish and born in Berlin in 1937." The wording that I have chosen does not overstep that which is supported by the source, "self-published" or not. You mustn't misuse policy. We are not here to twist policy to the detriment of our articles. Molyneux is a speaker. He is a blogger. He is a self-published author and podcaster. Note the WP:LEDE of this article: "Stefan Basil Molyneux; born September 24, 1966) is an Irish-born Canadian blogger/vlogger. Molyneux usually speaks on topics including anarcho-capitalism, race and intelligence, atheism, politics, secular ethics, right-libertarianism, cryptocurrencies, and familial relationships. He is a self-published author and podcaster, and has spoken at libertarian conferences. Molyneux formerly worked in the software industry." I have bolded certain words that I want to call to your attention. You also cite WP:ABOUTSELF. The material in question is not "unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim". If you disagree, please explain. Don't refer me to archives. Present the argument yourself. That will give me the opportunity to counter your argument. The material in question does not substantially "involve claims about third parties". You are stretching the import of the policy in question. The person being referred-to is for all intents and purposes anonymous. More importantly, we are not saying that the mother of Molyneux is Jewish. We are saying that "According to Molyneux his mother was Jewish and born in Berlin in 1937." The "According to Molyneux..." part should count for something. Do you not see that the wording attributes any possible claim to Molyneux? Why would we not report that Molyneux makes a claim? There are actually 5 points under WP:ABOUTSELF and I have only addressed 2 of them. If you feel that the other three points need discussion I hope you will bring them to my attention. Bus stop (talk) 18:41, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

In general, self-published bloggers whose work is not substantially discussed, reported, or represented in secondary independent sources are not even included in Wikipedia, as they do not satisfy WP:GNG. Molyneux is borderline WP:NOTABLE largely due to his "de-fooing" controversy. Thanks for finally stating your view as to why that Jewish mother bit should be included. I believe you are mistaken. First, Molyneux is making a claim about his mother. He does not say, "I believe ..." He says "My mother..." Second, this is a self-published source so we have no independent RS to establish the noteworthiness or significance of this fact. If Molyneux had said "I am Jewish..." this fits the safe harbor of "about self" and is given a great deal of latitude as to the verification of the statement. That's not what we have here. Finally, the text you've inserted is WP:UNDUE. It's a non-sequitur in fact. The preceding sentence is about behavioral issues within a family and the "Jewish" claim is an assertion about the religion of his mother's "clan" as he puts it. There is no connection to the topic of the preceding sentence, and if anything there's a WP:SYNTH association by the juxtaposition. He might just as well have said "My Father's hobby was model trains" --- Please undo your reinsertion of this bit and continue to share your views on talk so that others can join the discussion. SPECIFICO talk 23:02, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

SPECIFICO—why, in a biography, would we omit what the subject of the biography perceives as a part of the genesis of themselves? I have no reason to doubt that the assertion made by Molyneux is true, but assuming for a moment that it is not true, I wish to point out that the article doesn't assert that his mother was Jewish and born in 1937 in Berlin. The article asserts that according to Molyneux his mother was Jewish and born in 1937 in Berlin. There is a difference, and that difference can be found in the words according to Molyneux. We are generally permitted to include reliably sourced information in an article if that information helps advance the purposes of the article. In a biography, a person's explanations about themselves count for something. Molyneux is telling us the origins of his mother's side of his family, consequently he is conveying to us his perceptions of the origins of himself as a person who meets our notability requirements. That this has to do with the period of time of the Holocaust is of obvious significance. The Holocaust was of pivotal significance in the lives of Jews. I have no reason to doubt the veracity of Molyneux's statement but its veracity is not what matters most. What matters is that this is a piece in the explanation of himself as a person. As editors we have a natural interest in wanting to know what makes a subject of a biography "tick", or what motivates them. Why would we omit his explanation of his origins? Why, in a biography, would we omit what the subject of the biography perceives as a part of the genesis of themselves? Your hypothetical involving a father's interest in model trains comes out of left field. Much of Molyneux's subject matter in his talks involves contention among groups of people. His talks sometimes are about the jostling for position between varying groups of people. Jews constitute a group of people, more or less. I don't find it to be so "out of left field" that he points out that his mother was Jewish in an antisemitic environment. A biography doesn't answer all questions about a person. But a biography should include information that may be of relevance. Bus stop (talk) 14:59, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Relevance to what? Please be specific. What information? In this Youtube, which to my knowledge no independent RS has described as noteworthy or of any significance, Molyneux uses the statement that "My mother was born into a fairly Jewish clan..." To introduce his discussion of the horrors of war. So in terms of continuity of the article first -- it was not S.M. himself who survived WW2, but rather the previous generation of his family. If you were to propose that Mr. Molyneux discussed the hardships many members of his family endured in WW2 Europe, that might be a more credible part of the narrative of this article. The bit about a Jewish clan, which he doesn't define, which is undocumented, and which is unverifiable, is undue and irrelevant. If he were to discuss his own faith, that would be within WP:ABOUTSELF and could be cited to an unverified primary source. This is a statement about other people. You should also be aware that many commentators have stated their concerns about anti-Semitic themes in some of Mr. Molyeux' self-published material, and this have argued that his dubious and unverified assertion about his mother is intended to deflect criticism for some of the views he espouses in his podcasts and videos. You might also review the sourcing for this article as a whole. I believe that, were it not for the mainstream press coverage of his De-Foo flap and the press coverage of accusations made against him, he would not pass the test for a WP:NOTABLE person at this time. There's considerable prior talk page discussion of this point as well. Please have a look. SPECIFICO talk 20:54, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

SPECIFICO—you say "You should also be aware that many commentators have stated their concerns about anti-Semitic themes in some of Mr. Molyneux' self-published material, and this have argued that his dubious and unverified assertion about his mother is intended to deflect criticism for some of the views he espouses in his podcasts and videos." You are welcome to attempt to add material pertaining to his alleged antisemitic views. You would of course want to abide by our sourcing requirements and other policies. But I don't object in principle to a multi-perspective view on Molyneux vis-a-vis Jews. I will just add this: I have listened to Molyneux at length and I have never detected anything remotely antisemitic in anything he's said. To my ear, Molyneux is a person trying to sort out groups that he perceives as in contentious relationship with one another due to a variety of factors that he relishes addressing, some of which derive from ancestral history. Rather than deleting a sentence about his own disclosure or at least perception of his family history I think more material should be added relating to that topic. Much of Molyneux's discussion involves what I think can be called identity politics. I personally think identity politics contains an inextricable element of stupidity, but no one is asking me for my opinion. You raise the specter of possible antisemitic leanings attributable to the subject of this biography, or at least reported by others. If you feel it is reliably sourced that Molyneux has antisemitic leanings, I think you should develop an exploration of that theme in the article. Bus stop (talk) 22:30, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

First and most important, the Molyneux opinions in this article are (with the exception of the de-Foo thing) entirely self-sourced and none are WP:RS. You may not be aware that hundreds of editor hours were wasted here by editors who believe that, because Molyneux calls himself a "Philosopher" that he should be described as such in this encyclopedia. That's the problem with self-published sources and that's why we look for independent secondary sources to guide us as to what is DUE content here. I doubt that there are RS discussions of his alleged anti-Semitism, because mainstream sources pay no attention at all to him, except when he was accused in the de-FOO matter.

This particular video, in which he's discussing war and uses the Jewish Clan (hmmm?) thing to glide intro to his theme for the lecture, is not covered in any RS I have seen and from Youtube view counts, it's one of his least popular bits. If we want to cite more of his self-published opinions, about his mom or anything else, why not pick one of the videos where the counts are ten times as large? While we're here, what do you think of his claim that the family lived peacefully in Nazi Dresden until near the very end of WW2 and would have lived happily ever after if not for the Allied bombing? How many Jewish families, living openly and "going to work" as he says, lived comfortably in Dresden from 1937 until 1945? He states it as a fact. That's an "extraordinary claim" off the bat. It isn't even the main point of his video. More of a modulation from "Welcome I'm Stefan" to "My Subject is War." Are you familiar with his videos? There are hundreds of more significant personal assertions in them. How does the sentence about the Jewish ("Clan") mother relate to the preceding sentence in this article? Also, what is a Clan? Is that a religion? SPECIFICO talk 23:43, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

SPECIFICO—you say "You may not be aware that hundreds of editor hours were wasted here by editors who believe that, because Molyneux calls himself a 'Philosopher' that he should be described as such in this encyclopedia." I don't have a thorough knowledge of the history of this article as pertains to his supposed calling himself a "philosopher", but assuming that he enunciated that he considers himself a philosopher, it is not out of the question that we could pass along to the reader that in his own self-assessment, he is a philosopher. You are concerned that the Molyneux article is "borderline" notable. Then nominate the article for deletion. A "clan" is a family. Do we have to know the Halachic status of his mother? Maybe his mother's mother was not Jewish, rendering her technically not Jewish. I haven't the foggiest idea. We do know that Molyneux passes along the information to the audience that his mother was Jewish and born in 1937 in Berlin, and the language we use in the article to pass this along to the reader employs the introductory terms "according to" This language leaves no doubt that the source of that fact is Molyneux himself. This would be analogous to our saying in the article that in his opinion he considers himself a philosopher, and as such would probably be acceptable for inclusion. Bus stop (talk) 00:34, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Clan is also a racist dog-whistle term of derision that seeks to portray "Jew" as a racial tag rather than a religious belief. You know that. You know this is a subject of much discussion here. We ultimately have to exercise some judgment related to the totality of the facts about the source and context, whether it's a primary or secondary source. Should we also report other self-serving unverifiable statements from a blogger -- his IQ, his charitable work, his heroism in battle, etc.? This is why we strictly limit our use of primary sources and particularly statements ABOUTSELF that could use WP's platform for promotional or other personal purposes. What is the relevance of his "Jewish Clan" bit to anything else in this article? There is none. On the other hand, in another video about "single mothers" he goes on at some length about how sexy his mother was and how she was preoccupied with dating, leaving him and his brother when Stefan was only 15 and moving across the continent to enjoy her single life and leave the kids to fend for themselves. Now, that's also self-published subjective and unencyclopedic, but at least it could conceivably be related to his life and work. Neither this nor his "Clan" insinuation should be in an encyclopedia unless and until an independent RS discusses its significance. That's WP 101. SPECIFICO talk 00:45, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

SPECIFICO—you call it "self-serving". How is it self-serving for Molyneux to say that his mother is Jewish and born in Berlin in 1937? You equate "clan" with "racist dog-whistle term of derision". That is your interpretation. We don't have preconceived views about how one can speak about one's mother. You suggest that his reference may be "promotional." How can having a Jewish mother born in Berlin in 1937 be "promotional"? You are applying a high degree of interpretive qualities of a personal nature to his statement. Are you seriously concerned that he may have also described his mother in another video as "sexy"? What if his mother was "preoccupied with dating"? Should I reach the conclusion that sexy and preoccupied with dating is incompatible with being Jewish and born in Berlin in 1937? As an editor of a biography you are expected, among other things, to verbally construct a life of the subject of the biography that is reliably sourced and which stays reasonably on topic. This subject's mother, according to him, was Jewish and born in Berlin in 1937. Bus stop (talk) 01:31, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

You've actually circled back to your weakest point. A self-published opinion about another person is not RS in any sense under any WP policy. My point about sexy mom leaving her underage kids alone so she could run off thousands of miles to pursue romance was that such a life experience is far more likely to relate to some of Molyneux' core talking points re: Family, Women, Men's Rights, de-FOO, etc. than the fantastic and unverified assertion that his mom and her "Jewish Clan" lived peacefully in the open throughout 8 years of Nazi rule in Dresden. SPECIFICO talk 02:10, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

SPECIFICO—does our article say that "his mom lived peacefully in the open with her family throughout 8 years of Nazi rule in Dresden"? You are talking about an "opinion about another person". A piece of information such as that his mother was Jewish and born in Berlin in 1937 is only going to be known by Stefan Molyneux. There is an exceedingly thin chance that anyone but Molyneux could know that. We are not stating it as fact, even though I see no reason to doubt its veracity. You seem to think the world is simple. His mother could have been "hiding" in plain sight. Did the Nazis identify every Jew? Do you know what her circumstances were? Do you know her appearance? We are permitted to pass along information to the reader if we are attributing it to Molyneux. I don't think undue weight is being given to his statement. In a biography there is an understood aim to flesh out details relating to a subject's life. You refer to his "core talking points re: Family, Women, Men's Rights, etc". He also talks about black people. He also talks about Irish people. Even "Family, Women, Men's Rights" relates to identity politics. There is ample reason to include this in the article. We are trying to flesh out the man's identity. Whether you believe it or not he claims his mother was Jewish and born in Berlin in 1937. We see him time and again discussing the identities of other people, including Jews. The article is meant to be informative. In the instance of this statement he is informing us of the Jewish origin of himself. He is not saying he is religious or even that he thinks highly of Jews, or "identifies" as Jewish. We should aim to write the article that needs to be written. I see little justification for omitting material that doesn't meet our preconceived notions of how the world works. He is telling us—he tells a packed audience at a Toronto university—that his mother was Jewish and born in Berlin in 1937. Does Jewishness bear any relation to the rest of identity politics? Do blacks and Jews have a history that has been much written about? If he is talking about blacks—and indeed he has—then why can't we inform the reader that he claims his mother was Jewish and born in Berlin in 1937? I have heard him speak at length about the Black Lives Matter movement, and about his opinions on "the black family" (as if it is highly distinct from "the white family"). Yet his own identity must remain blank in our article? I don't understand this. He could have not mentioned this. He surely knew what he was saying when he claimed a Jewish mother born in 1937 in Berlin as his own. This information is harmless. And it is also informative. It may even shed light on some of the strong opinions he holds about various groups of people. By the way let me add that there is a difference between being dismissive of Jews and being antisemitic. He can refer to his mother's "clan" as a way of referencing what in his opinion are negative qualities of Jews without being someone who harbors in his heart irrational hatred of Jews. I am sympathetic to him as a speaker and I don't interpret anything he says about anyone as hatred. He is not a hateful person, in my opinion—far from it. Bus stop (talk) 03:31, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm probably editing this completely wrong. But honestly I just don't care. I've read this exchange between SPECIFICO (talk) and Bus stop (talk) and for the first time in several years decided to actually write something. Not at all about the article, but about the argument going on between these two. This argument is the reason why Wikipedia is The Free Encyclopedia that hardly anyone can edit. In order to make "useful changes" to an article you have to; 1) Know 50 billion writing formatting/submission policies, 2) Be willing to have an extensive argument with an article "owner" for an extended period of time. Madness. That is all I wanted to say. Please continue the crazy discussion on making an extremely minor adjustment to an article that most people don't care about, where a source is clearly recorded stating the obvious which whilst unverifiable is in all likelihood completely true. The Free Encyclopaedia that anyone can edit - Bollocks. XXXOOO logiboy123 (talk) 21/02/2017 See! I had to do a Google search just to lookup how to create a link to a user, just to write this post on the talk page discussion. MADNESS! Took me an hour to write just this and why do I get the feeling my comment will be removed ASAP? Just not worth it. —Preceding undated comment added 00:52, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia needs independent secondary Reliable Sources

This ain't one of those. We don't piece together what we guess to be noteworthy or true about a blogger. We need RS. Find some and we can say anything at all that RS have verified. The 1 in a million chance that all his "Jewish Clan" lived happily out in the open in Nazi Dresden throughout WW2 is plenty of reason to "doubt its veracity" -- that's why we use secondary independent RS on Wikipedia to sort out what's true. Extraordinary claims need verification. You have none. Let's skip the "identity politics stuff -- it sounds like mumbo-jumbo and I have no idea why it's relevant to WP policy. "Just the facts ma'am." Your opinions about Nazi's have nothing to do with this. Yes, the Nazi's identified just about every Jew who lived openly as Molyneux claims. Who knows, maybe his father was an SS officer and they later told the kids that the family was Jewish to hide the facts. We have no idea as to the facts. How many other irrelevant self-promoting details should we cherry-pick from Mr. Molyneux thousands of hours of self-published, promotional videos? Do you believe that He meets WP:GNG? The more time that passes, now that the de-FOO accusations have subsided, the less of a case can be made for any article at all. But there's no rush to AfD the article, just to stick to what secondary independent RS have to say. This is a broad problem with fringe personalities and ideologies that attract fanatical fans to WP seeking to bolster various articles. It's a policy issue, not a Stefan Molyneux issue. SPECIFICO talk 04:12, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

SPECIFICO—you say "The 1 in a million chance that all his "Jewish Clan" lived happily out in the open in Nazi Dresden throughout WW2..." That would be original research if put into article space. Maybe I missed it, but I haven't seen where Molyneux claims that his Jewish family members "lived happily out in the open in Nazi Dresden throughout WW2". I don't find anything "extraordinary" about his claim that his mother was Jewish and born in Berlin in 1937. He has left out details. But the statement alone isn't patently false. To tell you the truth, I don't even find it unlikely. Molyneux told an audience and we see this on video. You say that "maybe his father was an SS officer and they later told the kids that the family was Jewish to hide the facts." Anything is possible. You seem to think that your preconceptions about reality rule an article. He has not said that his mother was green cheese and derived from Mars. Furthermore the article is stating that it is according to Molyneux that is mother was Jewish and born in Berlin in 1937. You are characterizing his "details" as "self-promoting". Can you tell me how you've reached this conclusion? How could you possibly distinguish between self-promotion and the facts, to the best of his knowledge? You say "The more time that passes, now that the de-FOO accusations have subsided, the less of a case can be made for any article at all." Fine—nominate it for deletion. You say that a "broad problem with fringe personalities and ideologies that attract fanatical fans to WP seeking to bolster various articles". I don't consider myself a fanatical fan of Molyneux. I have only a passing interest. Can you please point me to where I can see the allegedly antisemitic remarks made by Molyneux? Bus stop (talk) 06:01, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because... this has been proposed in the past multiple times by anti-Molyneux single-issue activists. It has been debated and concluded multiple time. This is a bio page on a notable person, if you have any doubts read WP:BIO again! --Truther2012 (talk) 13:38, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Correction: this time the deletion is proposed by an anonymous IP --Truther2012 (talk) 13:41, 30 August 2016 (UTC)