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 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]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)

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)[reply]

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)[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)[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]

DeFOOing, or at least cutting one's family ties following Molyneux's extremely loose criterions is de facto absolutely unsupported by any professionals -- with the exception of Molyneux's wife who, for this very reason, has been sanctioned by Canadian authorities of her profession. That deFOOing is pseudo-scientific practice and that it is characteristic to cult-like organizations should be mentioned immediately at the deFOOing-section, and not merely at the criticism section. This is normal wiki-standards concerning neutrality. c.f., in Astrology -article the fact that astrology is regarded as a pseudo-science by the scientific community is pointed out right at the beginning of the article, and not merely at the bottom of it in "criticism"-section. Likewise, neutrality demands that the fact that deFOOing is unanimously considered humbug-threrapy and a dangerous doctrine characteristic of cult-like organizations; if the article does not emphasize what is common knowledge within community of genuine specialists, it is biased and non-neutral. --Raži (talk) 08:47, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That section of the article is now a mess. You've included a very long quote from the subject's website and some criticisms from a website set up to specifically criticize Molyneux. What's needed are some calmer voices. I agree that bunk should be called bunk, just more briefly.  —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:26, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree: it is a mess. I also agree that my edit was poorly done -- the citations were too long, etc. I cleaned it up a little and I think it is now pretty close to wiki's quality standards. In any case, I maintain that as deFOOing is objectively bunk, it is not neutral thing to deal with it first "neutrally" and drop the critical part at the bottom of the article. Furthermore, David Cooperson is a real psychologist and published author, and what he writes is not simply an opinion: he actually describes what Molyneux in fact is doing. As to citations, there should be more of them, but to be frank, my edit made the article better from this point of view. --Raži (talk) 00:32, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Defoo.org is Molyneux's own webpage, just like freedmanradio.com. It is RS. See WP:BLP. As to the other sources see below. In the context of a mere blogger, these sources are in my opinion completely RS. They are specialist opinions, and are not libelous in nature. At least they should be mentioned in criticism section, but as deFOOing M's way has zero support in scientific community, I stand behind my view that neutrality demands that this be mentioned right at the start. --Raži (talk) 02:12, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The quotation from David Cooperson is from webpage https://www.freedomofmind.com section "group listing". See freedomain radio on their list: https://www.freedomofmind.com/Info/list.php Freedomofmind.com is a cult-information source apparently upheld by Steven A. Hassan (https://therapists.psychologytoday.com/rms/prof_detail.php?profid=108149&p=10), Steve Guziec and Rachel Bernstein. Specialist opinion: "Steven Hassan is a compelling spokesman on the topic of cult mind control, which encompasses issues of human identity and our innate psychological vulnerability to dissociate. In addition, he educates and challenges us to think about the groups using mind control techniques in our culture, and how to help those affected reclaim their lives. His commitment to this neglected area of human experience is exemplary. At my invitation, Steven has taught psychiatry residents at Brigham and Women's Hospital about these issues for the last 14 years. Knowledge of these issues is crucial for all mental health professionals." -- Mary K. McCarthy, M.D. Harvard Medical School. It is a genuine source, not just " a blog" contrary to what some editors have claimed, and the quotation has the full right to be where it is. --Raži (talk) 17:04, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Molyneux is an outspoken Trump supporter and racist now. He doesn't even claim to be a libertarian anymore. This page should be updated accordingly. Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZzeC06hVvA — Preceding unsigned comment added by MinnesotanConfederacy (talk • contribs) 18:26, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. I'm actually really surprised there's no mention of the fact that he constantly talks about how third world people have very low IQs and how "race matters". Seems like this should be mentioned on here since he's done dozens of videos about it and often invited on white nationalists such as Jared Taylor on his show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.234.39.69 (talk) 13:56, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism sections are discouraged by wikipedia style guides. The (extensive) controvery section should be folded into the main text. Ashmoo (talk) 13:45, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Generally that is true, but the majority of RS reporting on Molyneux is critical; per WP:Weight the article needs to reflect this. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 13:34, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This would make the need for a specific section even less necessary. The criticism should be part of the normal text. Ashmoo (talk) 12:31, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the reference to the Chomsky interview because it was included in a list of interviews and debates, and it was merely an interview. Its not clear why the interviews and the debates should exist in one single list, as it just makes it vague as to whether or not Molyneux has interviewed or debated each person in the list. A person more familiar with Molyneux's work should take the time to verify who Molyneux has actually interviewed and who he has debated and clearly state as much. I have removed the reference to the chomsky interview so at least the statement is possibly true right now. The entire statement should be removed if no one is willing to determine who Molyneux has debated and who he has interviewed, but I figured I'd wait for someone to correct it before deleting. 74.79.240.188 (talk) 01:07, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Netholic has removed for a second time a chunk of material discussing Molyneux's deFOOing. User:Raži appears to be the main advocate for including this subject and claims that the sources meet WP:RS, but it's clear there's disagreement, including User:Srich32977.

Can we get some references outside of Molyneux and his obvious opponents to write something better? Molyneux's own website is a primary source, but can be used to establish that he advocates certain views. Those views cannot go completely unanswered in a balanced article. Are these views a notable aspect of Molyneux's body of work (I admit I listened to quite a few of his podcasts without ever encountering the concept of deFOOing and first came across it here)? As a YouTube and podcast personality, I suppose it's not too surprising that there is not a lot of mainstream coverage.  —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:57, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ann Coulter has Infobox philosopher when she's more of a pundit. Why does this page not have Infobox philosopher? Stoodpointt (talk) 23:02, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also there's an old photo of him when he was young when he had blonde hair. I've only seen it on YouTube videos so it's not a good copy but this would be a good pic to get. Even if it can't be uploaded, it would be good to link to. Stoodpointt (talk) 23:02, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moot point about Coulter – the infobox has been changed. As far as this article goes, the long lasting consensus (e.g., talk) is that Molyneux is not a philosopher. – S. Rich (talk) 00:00, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm that's odd. Infobox philosopher lost some of the info, occupation and political party. before (philosopher) and after (person). Seems like infobox philosopher might be redundant. Stoodpointt (talk) 10:26, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]