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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, yet again, it falls upon me to try and get some explanation as to why significant information has been removed, this time in the public appearances section [1][2][3]. So User:SPECIFICO or User:Thivierr, feel like explaining? The information is sourced from places like RT, Reason, JRE, and others which are not controlled by Molyneux himself and clearly reliable for this sort of information. The appearances are noted only as dry, factual information, with no commentary about the content or quality of those appearances. Mini-bios of Molyneux in several other places mention these appearances, as well. -- Netoholic @ 17:24, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The text recited various non-noteworthy primary-sourced statements concerning Molyneux' media activities. Don't reinsert it without prior explicit consensus here. SPECIFICO talk 17:41, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When multiple source note something, it is note-worthy, and primary sources are not banned on Wikipedia, they just have to be used carefully (which they are in this case by only noting the appearance, not the content). Most of these appearances have been in this article since it was created, so you're on the "bold" side of WP:BRD (and were reverted), and so you need some more compelling argument to support the removal of this information. -- Netoholic @ 17:51, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Something is noteworthy when somebody not directly involved notes it. --Rob (talk) 22:42, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, so here goes just a few:

• Alex Jones on RT’s Adam vs. the Man: Bin Laden Dead (mentions other guest Molyneux)
• 10 Most Influential People in the Alternative Media (2011) (mentions RT appearances)
• Schiff Radio Guest Host (Molyneux bio mentions appearances on RT (3 shows) and JRE)
• An Open Letter To Joe Rogan by Jeff Berwick (Mentions JRE appearances)
• Reason TV and RT especially do not require some outside indication of noteworthiness. They are established news organizations performing interviews of Molyneux, which is more than sufficient to reflect in the article.

I mean, I could go and find some more examples if you like, but I think its beyond clear that his public appearances are absolutely noteworthy. And to reiterate, right now all we have is a list of appearances - no attempt is being made to discuss the content or impact of those appearances (for that we would need more solid secondary sources, of course). But dry, factual information about when/where he has appeared is clearly noteworthy in several contexts. -- Netoholic @ 02:27, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those are not RS. It's just mutual backscratching among blogs and self-published media. SPECIFICO talk 02:56, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They are not being used as sources, they are being used on this talk page to demonstrate external noteworthiness. Your comment about "mutual backscratching" is inappopriate and judgemental - its not your job to evaluate whether it is appropriate that they consider his appearances noteworthy, only to verify that they do. -- Netoholic @ 04:56, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since no one had responded to my last comment and since I found a 3rd party source that makes note of the significance of several TV and podcast appearances, I replaced the removed appearances, but it was reverted again with the suggestion "Use talk to discuss details". Since I did that before my revert, and am continuing to do so, that comment seems disingenuous. I'll give it another day or so for him or others to comment, and if no reasonable explanation for the removal is given, then I'll be putting them back. My suggestion is that if there are problems with individual appearances, that they broken down here, but I think its clear that there is broad external interest in where/when he has appeared, and appearance information is both very informative and extremely commonplace in similar biographical articles. -- Netoholic @

You've repeated yourself many times. You are citing non-RS references and you appear not to understand what constitutes a primary source. Several editors have responded to your concerns but none have agreed with your views or edits. SPECIFICO talk 19:35, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how you can claim I am repeating myself, when pretty much every time I come here I add more and more sources and new information to the discussion. What is unproductive is your broad generalizations and casting of aspersions. Pages about podcasts and TV shows often have a list of guests, and the show episode notes themselves are generally considered reliable sources for that information. They are primary, but highly reliable and uncontroversial when used only to note appearance (they would not be reliable for, say, commentary on what was discussed in the appearance). My recent edit that you reverted included a new 3rd-party source that mentioned several appearances. Are these sources as amazing as I'd like? Probably not, but they are good enough for this section of non-controversial appearance information. -- Netoholic @ 19:59, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage for these appearances is exceptionally WP:ROUTINE. Saying someone appeared on a show on a particular date is not of lasting WP:10YT encyclopedic value. Its ridiculous to include it. Just think how many hundreds of thousands of entries we could put in for people who are are actually notable as speakers. How many appearances has Clinton had, or the Dali Lama, or Neil Degrasse Tyson. Save it for the appearances that are actually exceptional and notable, not just every time some other blogger gave a hat tip. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:42, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just did this revert. I removed the remaining remnants of this edit which contained several negative contentious claims with very poor sourcing. Before adding this kind of material, we need truly third party independent coverage of it. That excludes videos of Molyneux himself. A single blogger writing about it, isn't sufficient. I realize there is already an enormous amount of positive material that's also badly sourced, but we can't solve the problem of promotion by including poorly sourced negative material. There's still plenty of material that can and should be added from reliable 3rd party sources, including the Guardian and The Globe and Mail. That's the direction the article should go in. We should not be watching Molyneux's videos and writing what we think about them here (e.g. by describing them as "controversial" or "unconventional" without attributed quotes. Rob (talk) 17:05, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An "enormous amount of positive material" - could you be more specific? This is the sort of broad statement that gets people's passions enflamed about the subject. There is precisely one purely positive statement in this article (Tucker quote) and that is noteworthy by virtue of 3rd-party acknowledgement. The noteworthy criticisms of Molyneux (Gordon review and deFOO articles) are present. The rest of the article is dry information (education, appearances, show stats) with no particular positive or negative implications. Factual data has no positive or negative value, unless you are biased, in which case even neutral information can feel "positive". Until you start getting specific about what you feel is "positive material", its hard to take your contributions seriously. -- Netoholic @ 20:14, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral material can be positive or promotional if it is presented in excess, such as a lengthy resume of an individual of minor notability, a bibliography that lists every single paper published by a scientist, etc. Gamaliel (talk) 20:23, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Same goes for listing the individuals who visited the podcast, the self-published books, the self-styled "Chief Technology Officer" of what appears to be a two-man business, etc. etc. If I open a vegetable store in Beverly Hills, I would not expect to have a WP article discuss how I sold asparagus to George Clooney and Anjelica Huston. If my store were critically acclaimed, discussed by mainstream reviewers and the like, that would be a different matter. SPECIFICO talk 20:35, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Asparagus-based strawman. Talk about the subject itself, not made-up examples that you can then easily self-"refute". -- Netoholic @ 21:41, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The converse of that argument is that neutral information can be negative if it is excluded in excess. Omission of, say, particularly relevant/representative items of a bibliography. The goal of the article is to present information weighted so that it is accurate and descriptive. I think we have generally accomplished that, in that the list of guests of the show touches on the most oft-cited, independently notable, indicative of the various subject areas, and frequency of appearance on the show. The recent wholesale removals of his media appearances is likewise a negative spin, since it removes an entire aspect of his notoriety. -- Netoholic @ 21:41, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's not a Straw man. It's Reductio ad absurdum and the greengrocer analogy is entirely isomorphic with the primary content throughout this article, all of which has no value other than to inflate the narrative of this marginally notable individual. Like Mr. Molyneux, the grocery is supported by "contributions" which help inform the choice of what products to feature. The solution, as Thivierr has said, is to locate RS information which would guide us as to the mainstream view, not the fans' view, of what if anything is notable about Mr. Molyneux. SPECIFICO talk 23:13, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The most mainstream view of him is what is represented in his media appearances - like the ones you removed. There is no "fan's view here - nothing in this article is somehow fan-only content. The philosophical views in the article come from out of what is discussed appearances in media and other public venues. Your accusations of some sort of fan-bias fall flat, and in fact, by removing media appearance information, you make the more cloistered around what you claim are fan views. -- Netoholic @ 08:16, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have to agree with Specifico here. Molyneux is of marginal notability. The fact that actual reliable sources do not discuss him in any length is not an excuse to lower the standards of sourcing. Its an excuse to gut the article of everything that isn't actually well sourced, and stop making this a WP:PSEUDObiographical promotional brochure. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:45, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The sourcing of this article is better than many others. It deserves GA status in fact. The problem is that if you have a bias against the topic of an article, suddenly your standards become very strict on that page. Specifico doesn't source *any* of his edits. Check them out. he's never added a source to this article, and I can't find any in his edits to other articles. If someone is concerned about sources... don't you think they'd actually *use* them sometimes? -- Netoholic @ 22:16, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Mention that his wife was a co-host and was sanctioned professionally for her deFOOing advice. [4]. A fair compromise is to mention the facts, with appropriate quotes, but exclude her name (I think it should be included, but others don't, and it's not a huge deal).
• The current wording seems to suggest that somebody has stated that 20 out of 50,000 listeners have deFOOed. I'm not aware of any source presenting that. Nobody claims to know the total number of deFOO cases. There's no justification for presenting total listeners in a discussion of deFOO cases. There's a means of catching most listeners (YouTube count, or other metrics), but no means for measuring deFOOing. We could instead use something like a quote from G&M of "several" families members contacting them (giving a full quote with attribution).
• We should work in more quotes on contentious items (such as officials involved in professional hearing).
• If we quote somebody saying he has a cult, it should be attributed in the body of the article
• We should carefully attribute in the body sources of facts. So, for example if the G&M says families told them they are reluctant to come forward, than we should say that explicitly, since we're relying on the credibility of G&M to vouch for the fact.
• I think it's good to have all deFOO stuff together, but we have to do a better job of stating where and when facts are coming from, so as not conflate different reports.
• I see no reason to preface what we say about deFOOing with his views on child rearing. The G&M and Guardian don't mention him being against corporal punishment. That's a separate issue. I also think its absurd to say he is for "peaceful parenting". Otherwise, we should add the same to every article on everybody who is for peaceful, loving, caring, or nurturing parenting. --Rob (talk) 18:10, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There are additionally other "bizarre" websites which take this "tripe" seriously.<http://www.molyneuxrevealed.com/</ref>^[1]

Back to the point Most of the sources point back to primary-source Molyneux. I cannot find a single credible source that does not reside on the fringe (or even lunatic fringe) or does not originate from the source itself. .^[2]