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 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:WikiProject Libertarianism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I reverted the recent changes by SPECIFICO.

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

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

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

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

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