Talk:Stefan Molyneux

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Libertarianism (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon Stefan Molyneux is within the scope of WikiProject Libertarianism, an open collaborative effort to coordinate work for and sustain comprehensive coverage of Libertarianism and related subjects in the Wikipedia.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Find sources: "Stefan Molyneux" – newsnewspapersbooksscholarimagesbingnytddgwrs
Find sources: "Freedomain Radio" – newsnewspapersbooksscholarimagesbingnytddgwrs

bias in article[edit]

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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 piece? -- Netoholic @ 18:48, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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. (talk) 13:12, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
The above comment was from me, I forgot to sign in. Byates5637 (talk) 13:49, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
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)

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 (talk) 13:13, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

attendance at National Theatre School of Canada[edit]

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."
  • - "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)

deFOOing redux[edit]

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. [1]. 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)

Spouse naming[edit]

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)

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)

CRITICISM section?[edit]

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) -- (talk) 22:17, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Molyneux's Cancer?[edit]

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. (talk) 05:45, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Public Appearances[edit]

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

Donations vs. Subscriptions[edit]

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

  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)

Internet as a Soap Box, Compounding of that Soap Box, Fringe[edit]

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 DMCA 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;; 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, 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. [2]

There are additionally other "bizarrely" interrelated websites: [3][4]

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. .[5]

This begs the question: What is to be done here?Lfrankblam (talk) 01:22, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Publication list notability[edit]

Wikipedia is not a list of every PDF someone makes available on the Internet, nor every vanity press publication. How are the works in the bibliography notable in the slightest aspect? Only one even has an ISBN. AndroidCat (talk) 03:33, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

General Notability;
1) Significant Coverage - Minimal or none
2) Reliable Sources - Minimal or none
3) Self published, and then a series of poor quality or fringe sources
4) Independent of the Subject - Minimal or none
The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it—without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter. Neutral sources are also needed to guarantee a neutral article can be written—self-published sources cannot be assumed neutral; see Wikipedia:Autobiography and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for discussion of neutrality concerns of such sources. Even non-promotional self-published sources, like technical manuals that accompany a product, are still not evidence of notability as they do not measure the attention a subject has received.
In Contrast to Alex Jones who I would consider to be Fringe, but there are major differences in the quality of sourcing
1) Significant Coverage - Rolling Stone, Fox News Daily Beast, Howard Stern Radio, BBC News, Huffington Post, New York Magazine, Washington Post, Southern Poverty Law Center, Guardian, CNN
2) Reliable Sources per item 1
3) Self published near none
4) Independent of the Subject - only a few sources don't meet this criteria
Presentation on Wikipeida is almost exactly the same between Alex Jones and Stefan Molyneux
Massive difference in objectivity, neutrality, sourcing, and even notability

What is the next step here? Lfrankblam (talk) 05:39, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

As tempting as it would be to take a weed-whacker to the masses of fluff in the whole article, I was mainly looking at those PDFs in the non-fiction section of the bibliography. We don't list every paper of academics, and those are at least published in some reasonable form. Why are a bunch of self-published PDFs from a self-described philosopher notable at all? I just wanted to check before removing them. AndroidCat (talk) 06:31, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

What about this, why don't you do a cursory edit; then please join me in building a proposed replacement in the sandboxLfrankblam (talk) 14:52, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I would be careful not to delete any content that is well-sourced and not undue or self-promotion. I may be misunderstanding your use of "cursory" but I think there's consensus here that the article contains a lot of inappropriate content. That can be removed and if an editor disagrees, we can discuss restoring specific bits here on talk. Many of what appear to be secondary references are in fact from promotional material or press releases which are not RS for this article. SPECIFICO talk 15:08, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
I just rewrote this article in my Sandbox to a point whereby it would be in closer conformity to what I would consider to be acceptable and neutral Draft:Stefan_Basil_Molyneux. I would be very reticent to make any changes in part due to the ongoing contention regarding this entry. I would suggest an approach whereby changes are made in whole. --Lfrankblam (talk) 16:14, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
I think that an all-or-none approach is not going to be constructive, and it's not the way articles are improved on WP. I don't think there's any reason to think that constructive edits to the article would be rejected or unduly disputed. I suggest you edit the current article text per standard procedure. SPECIFICO talk 16:39, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Take the "Non Fiction Section" that whole section is self-published and is an extension of prolific blogging What should we do here?Lfrankblam (talk) 16:49, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree a wholesale replacement isn't necessary. I'm sure there'll be support for any removal of poorly sourced material. We just need somebody to take the time to review the content and sources, and remove what needs to be. I do agree a self-published PDF is not noteworthy, unless it's been given independent coverage. --Rob (talk) 15:36, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
I may slowly do that review, one change at a time {slowly with talk documentation and then a pause}--Lfrankblam (talk) 23:37, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Change Log[edit]

I will be trying to address the issues and concerns here one item at a time. I will make a change, document that change here, and pause

1) Changed non-fiction to Position papers, and also works

Why: A list of Non-fictional writings would the same as having a list of factual writings. The list of "self published" works are in fact either White Papers or Position papers written by the subject and then distributed by PDF. --Lfrankblam (talk) 23:44, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Recommendation and Opinions (please leave yours): *Delete This Section - Basis as self published work, and not notable --Lfrankblam (talk) 23:44, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

2) Summarized plethora of single topic videos each listed, with some pointing back to those videos, to a statement that he produces single topic videos

Why: A summary statement provides the same information as a random listing of single topic talks on the subjects own youtube podcast.Lfrankblam (talk) 06:06, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

3) Debates changed to un-moderated debates

Why: A moderated debate would be conducted with equal balance and on neutral ground. There have been questions as to the efficacy as to how these "talks" were conducted. [6] Lfrankblam (talk) 06:15, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

4) Removed claim made by his own autobiography. "Molyneux' website states that his Masters thesis analyzed "the political implications of the philosophies of Immanuel Kant, G.W.F. Hegel, Thomas Hobbes, and John Locke"."Lfrankblam (talk) 06:27, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

5) How he funds. Subject funds with direct donations.

Why: Subject has one funding source, and then we have a source telling us why. We don't need to list all the ways he does not fund if we know the way he funds.Lfrankblam (talk) 06:37, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

6) internet media presenter - Would this simply be blogger? *Yes-Blogger Any ideas here?

7) Changed Philosophical views to Views and Criticism

Why: Each of the three listed self-published views has garnered criticism. Two of the three have existing criticism and Noam Chomsky criticized the third. It is ok for the subjects viewpoints to be subject to well-founded or documented criticism if they are controversial as long as the criticism is not personal.Lfrankblam (talk) 06:47, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

8) Professional sanction inserted (I see this has been covered but it is essential to have)

Why: The viewpoints of the subject are notable but they are controversial and they speak to a fringe. Controversial statements have ramifications. The wife being part of the podcast did so as a qualified and licensed individual expressing the same views as the podcast would have done so otherwise. The wife and the husband are therefore speaking in the same voice in the same venue with the same points. The documentation source is a leading Canadian newspaper.

9) Added refutation by Chomsky to provide balance..

10) Laundry list of activities. suggest a summary in public appearances..especially where there is redundancy or non-notable appearances in other youtube channels etc.--Lfrankblam (talk) 07:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

11) Satisfied and at stopping point awaiting merger discussion belowLfrankblam (talk) 02:12, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Chomsky and "balance"[edit]

I removed this passage about Chomsky's "refutation". It's inappropriate to suggest Chomsky refuted anything, unless Chomsky actually discusses Molyneux, which he does not in the cited interview. We should only reference sources that actually discuss Molyneux. --Rob (talk) 16:40, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Chomsky "debated" Moleynuex on the topic--Lfrankblam (talk) 16:54, 11 November 2014 (UTC) Chomsky is also speaking to the broad topic of the sub-topic in question applies only to a "term" that Molyneux coined himself with no use elsewhere (in journals or academia)--Lfrankblam (talk) 02:15, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

What you did is original research. Even if you made a reasonable assumption of Chomsky's position, you have to cite a source that explicitly states what you want to say in the article. --Rob (talk) 04:13, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
kk take it out.

Dispute resolution organization - Merger Discussion[edit]

I propose that Dispute resolution organization be merged into Stefan Molyneux. Dispute resolution organization is an original concept of Stefan Molyuex and has limited or no basis anywhere else. The Dispute resolution organization article uses pdf's and statements from Molynuex as the primary source. This idea does not stand by itself, nor is it notable or credible by its own volition. Lfrankblam (talk) 18:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Merge has been executed; with representation of this "original construct" of the subject being expressed here as a viewpoint.--Lfrankblam (talk) 17:27, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

You'll find on the original Dispute resolution organization page that there are other contributors to the "concept", most notably Rothbard. While Molyneux may have helped coin this particular term, the concept remains more universal and predates him. It deserves a "see also" link, but not a redirect. Redirecting is confusing, especially considering that Molyneux is known for more than just this one concept. --Aletoledo (talk) 21:13, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

-'Rothbard (a well known figure in business and economics and in the mainstream media) wrote a series of academic papers and books on self-rule and governance including (adjudication under the same) starting in 1940 and continuing to the present day.' On Amazon you will find pages of books authored by Rothbard on an academic subject matter which he defined and then was used, accepted, and quoted, by academia. [7] The DRO started with Molynuex in the first sentence, ended with Molnuex in the conclusion and misused Rothbard as the rationalization.' There are indicators suggesting plagiarism, we need not go that deep into that possibility simply this term does not exist anywhere especially in the works of Rothbard.

'Tom Keene on Bloomberg media speaks to Rothbard every now and again, but what he does not speak to a term coined in a PDF file that "leverages" the works of a great man who has never used that term--Lfrankblam (talk) 00:52, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for reverting it back again without chiming in here. If the concept of DROs is used by other noteworthy people (whether or not Molyneux coined the term and developed it for the most part), it doesn't make sense to merge it with Molyneux's page because it has become a creature of its own --Coching (talk) 01:06, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

What notable people would that be?--Lfrankblam (talk) 01:18, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

The page will not be merged. Rothbard has nothing to do with the formation of this term, and that needs to be reflected (and now is reflected) in the stand alone entry.--Lfrankblam (talk) 01:43, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Primary Sourced Material[edit]

Per this recent edit and longstanding concern about primary sourced content in this article, I suggest we remove all the primary sourced content and copy it here on the talk page so that it will be readily available while we try to find independent RS references to support it. SPECIFICO talk 19:03, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

The first paragraph removed is primary and essentially a light form of WP:OR although per WP:PRIMARY it does not require any analysis to look at that source and verify that yes Molyneux did appear. (The question is if nobody commented on those appearances, are they noteworthy).
Regarding the Turks paragraph, the issue is analysis. If we just directly quoted Kasparian, that seems like it would be acceptable, per the same kind of opinion/pov statements we put up widely in the wiki. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:52, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Agree with removal, except I find copying to the talk page to be redundant, if a link is pasted on the talk page to the relevant edit (as you did with my my edit ). Also, while I'm happy if people want to invest their time trying to find sources to support old content, I think it's more productive to just go directly to good sources, and try to add from there, without trying to "keep" anything that was here before. For example, we still have details in the G&M article that could be added, beyond a single sentence currently in the article. --Rob (talk) 01:58, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Your view seems reasonable. The cut and paste is redundant. SPECIFICO talk 02:00, 21 November 2014 (UTC)