This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Template:WikiProject Libertarianism Philosophy Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:Calmtalk

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Time Magazine [1]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

" 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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 [2] including random googled links from a now topic-banned POV editor here. SPECIFICO talk 18:02, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Being called the leader of a therapy cult because of someone else's actions that were not under direction is unfair to say the least. I believe Tom Weed is responsible for his own actions and no one should be made responsible for them. Having watched the video it's clear he was putting forward an opinion/theory and did not tell him to do anything. I think a section on deFOOing is fine but everything currently in it should be removed including the part which mentions the actions of his wife. --Mralan101 (talk) 18:57, 16 May 2016 (UTC)Mralan101[reply]

Molyneux wife's statements are directly relevant to him because the statements were made on his podcast. If the sources are notable and credible then the content should stay. Removing the weasel words and balancing out the negative with the positive is about all that can be done. Unfortunately, having negative accusations is part of becoming a public figure. If you think this article is not neutral then add more sources and content to the article. Waters.Justin (talk) 22:05, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]