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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Such material may be used as a source only if:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Content and policy tests depend on context. Mr. Molyneux promotes his brand with self-published self-description. Without making any assumptions or accusations as to his motives, all 4 of the principles suggest that for this largely self-sourced and weakly-sourced article about this person, the "Jewish mother" bit is undue and not verified. What do you think it would add to the article other than SYNTHy insinuations about his life and self-published statements? See also [1] including random googled links from a now topic-banned POV editor here. SPECIFICO talk 18:02, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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]