Talk:Stefan Molyneux

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Netoholic (talk | contribs) at 01:13, 5 June 2014 (→‎Jewish family: even more.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.
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

Notability and Primary Sources

Two tags been placed on this article questioning Notability and Primary Sources. Just by looking at the ref list, the article seems to quote a lot of secondary sources (especially in the controversies section). A quick Google Books search returns 804 hits - not all him, but not all books are his neither. He is also a frequent speaker and many times a key-note speaker at many large events. So, I'd say notable. What reservations do you have, David? --Truther2012 (talk) 20:39, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Guardian, Globe & Mail and Sky News would count as third-party sources of note, the rest looks pretty skimpy. (I'd strongly question that being a guest on Alex Jones makes one Wikipedia-notable, for example.) The majority of the references are still primary; the article really seriously needs better third party coverage, the amount of primary sources makes it just look like a puff piece. Imagine what this article would look like based entirely on the third-party sources of note. Surely the third-party sources must be out there; at least add them to this talk page if you can't see how to add them to the text as yet - David Gerard (talk) 21:49, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair, I'll do some searching... -Truther2012 (talk) 21:58, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problems noted above have still not been resolved - this article still has absolutely terrible sourcing, in primary sources and non-RS third-party sources. Frankly, if it had a proper BLP blowtorching hardly anything would survive. Would one be in order, or should we just stick with the terrible sources it presently has? Remember that {{cn}} should basically never be on a BLP - David Gerard (talk) 18:39, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable journalistic sources now include Reason (magazine), The Next Web, The Guardian, The Globe and Mail, and RT (TV network). These alone establish notability. The sources you consider poor (and you're the only one saying so) are supplemental. The only primary sources remaining in the article are ones almost impossible to replace with other sources at this time. the article continues to improve. I think DG's only agenda is to keep the tag-spam on the top of the page to discredit the subject. -- Netoholic @ 18:53, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, I want the article not to be a puff-piece based on primary sources and bad secondary sources. The "tag spam" is because this article is presently a puff piece. mises.org is not a RS, freedomain radio is a primary source, etc. If we cut the article down strictly to RSes ... what would be left? (I am unconvinced Reason counts as an RS rather than an advocacy source). You removed the tags while completely failing to address the issues already raised on the talk page - David Gerard (talk) 18:56, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I removed 2 inappropriate tags and left the 1 that is appropriate. The article no longer *relies* on primary sources. The article subject is notable. The article does need more, and better, reliable sources and so that tag remains. Also, mises.org is the Ludwig von Mises Institute, which has a WP page establishing its notability. I'll add links to the references to that page. -- Netoholic @ 19:00, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's a notable think tank and advocacy organisation, but that's an entirely different kettle of fish from a WP:RS - David Gerard (talk) 19:22, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:RS#Biased_or_opinionated_sources - "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." -- Netoholic @ 19:40, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Philosopher?

Who besides Molyneux and his followers thinks he is a philosopher? 208.120.209.96 (talk) 14:55, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

more than think you're qualified to claim otherwise, I'd assume, considering Molyneux does have a lot more followers than you. Right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.69.211.150 (talk) 06:17, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, Molyneux has no qualifications for calling himself a philosopher. I've certainly not seen any evidence of any such qualifications. Certainly not on this article.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 06:28, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Qualifications"? For you to evaluate such would be original research. You should defer to the ample sources (before you removed them) and remaining citations. Nearly everywhere Molyneux is mentioned, it is accompanied by undeniable and repeated acknowledgements that he is a philosopher, first and foremost. You might disagree, but this is not Zarlanipedia. Here we defer to the sources. You might think he is a -bad- philosopher, and perhaps you'll find sources that agree, but it is undeniable that this man makes the exploration of philosophy his life's work, based on the citations already presented and the mere existence of his published and broadcasted works. Common sense dictates he is clearly a philosopher, so removing that is akin to vandalism. If you want better sources, fine, we can argue that... but the fact of the matter is that this man is considered a philosopher. I'll be returning the article back to a sane state soon. -- Netoholic @ 07:38, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
""Qualifications"? For you to evaluate such would be original research."
Oh really? In Stephen Hawking, it is claimed that Stephen Hawking is a theoretical physicist. Is that also original research? No, it is verified by reliable sources.
Is it original research, when Daniel Dennett states that Daniel Dennett is a philosopher? No, it is verified by reliable sources.
Where are the reliable sources that indicate that Molyneux is a philosopher? Nowhere. Indeed, one of the sources cited here, that I removed due to it being Molyneux's own site, confirmed that he isn't.
"Nearly everywhere Molyneux is mentioned, it is accompanied by undeniable and repeated acknowledgements that he is a philosopher, first and foremost."
Oh, really? Try googeling Stefan Molyneux. Sure, his fans (a small, if passionate, group) often (though not always) say that. Some (including Molyneux) do admit that he is a self-proclaimed philosopher, though ...which disproves the notion that he is a philosopher.
Anyone outside of that little group, however, does not. Any mention of him, by philosophers, do not acknowledge his being a philosopher (and philosophical organizations not only don't acknowledge him, but they don't bother to make any mention of him) ...or having any real understanding of the subject. The same can be said about the thoughts about him, expressed by economists, concerning his thoughts on economy, or scientists on his thoughts on science.
"You might disagree, but this is not Zarlanipedia. Here we defer to the sources."
No. Wikipedia does not defer to sources. Wikipedia refers to Reliable Sources.
"You might think he is a -bad- philosopher, and perhaps you'll find sources that agree"
Perhaps? You clearly haven't looked for criticism against Molyneux. I haven't, but I've found practically nothing else, whenever his name is mentioned.
"but it is undeniable that this man makes the exploration of philosophy his life's work"
That is no doubt true ...but also completely irrelevant. That doesn't make you a philosopher. As I've pointed out to you before, by that logic, you could claim that all creationists are biologists and physicists.
"Common sense dictates he is clearly a philosopher"
How so?
Your, personal, common sense dictates that he is clearly a philosopher, but that is beside the point. Do you have anything that verifies that?
"but the fact of the matter is that this man is considered a philosopher."
So what? How is that relevant, in any way?
X being considered Y by a group of people, does not make X actually be Y.
That's not how things work.
Some believe that Kent Hovind has a doctorate and that Gillian McKeith has several. This doesn't change the fact that neither of them have any actual doctorate, or any degree above a masters.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 10:47, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"That is no doubt true ...but also completely irrelevant. That doesn't make you a philosopher." - User:ZarlanTheGreen personal standard is not the deciding factor in determining whether he is a philosopher, that'd be Original Research. Whatever your standards by which you define him as a philosopher do not matter at all in this, nor do mine. The Reliable Sources (Globe & Mail, etc.) all repeat his self-published description on his official website About page and books. A WP:SELFPUB description that has no reliable source disputing it (especially with multiple supporting it) is absolutely grounds to take his self-description as accurate and reliable for inclusion here. -- Netoholic @ 04:01, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"personal standard is not the deciding factor in determining whether he is a philosopher, that'd be Original Research."
Who's talking about any personal standard?
There is an actual, unpersonal, standard for whether or not you're a philosopher ...and it's not enough to just claim that you are one, as you seem to be implying.
"Whatever your standards by which you define him as a philosopher do not matter at all in this"
Yes they do.
By what standard do I call Stephen Hawking a Physicist? Does that standard matter?
Yes, yes it does ...because it's not my standard. It's the standard.
The same thing applies here.
"The Reliable Sources (Globe & Mail, etc.) all repeat his self-published description on his official website About page."
My point exactly.
They are merely repeating what he tells them about his educational history. Thus they are not really separate sources. The real source for those claims, in those articles, is (ultimately) just Molynuex himself.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 11:24, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why not post a simple RfC on the question? SPECIFICO talk 12:09, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that's really necessary, just yet, but I wouldn't be opposed to it. The way I see it, the situation is quite clear. He doesn't have a Ph.D (or even a Master's degree) in philosophy, nor has he written any philosophy papers/books that have been accepted by the philosophical community, or anything like that. Thus he cannot be called a philosopher.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 13:39, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's clear to me as well, but I can tell you from experience on other articles that these labels are frequently misapplied and that it's often helpful to invite previously uninvolved editors to comment. SPECIFICO talk 13:45, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A Ph.D (or even a Master's degree) is perhaps one indication that someone is a career philosopher, but it is not the only criteria. Not everyone in the world stays in the same profession that they graduated from. When a Masters in Philosophy becomes famous for something else (such as the case of people like Stewart Butterfield, Stacy London, Gene Siskel, and a lot more) we do not say they are a philosopher by career in the article. Likewise, when someone doesn't graduate directly in philosophy, but then writes numerous books, 2500 podcasts, 1500 youtube videos, and dozens of public appearances... each one where he both describes himself as primarily a philosopher and that moniker is repeated in virtually every source listed on this page, then we need to do the responsible thing and call him a philosopher in the lead. It is simply not our prerogative to do anything else. --Netoholic @ 17:03, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"A Ph.D (or even a Master's degree) is perhaps one indication that someone is a career philosopher, but it is not the only criteria."
Nor is it the only criteria that I've mentioned.
Thus your complaint is invalid.
"and that moniker is repeated in virtually every source listed on this page"
That says a lot about what sources are used in this article. Not about what Reliable Sources, generally state about him. Do Philosophers see him as one of their own?--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 11:06, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What makes one a professional philosopher? Not to be too cute, but did Aristotle have a PhD, or was it only a Master's? I dont think having a degree has anything to do with what the person does for living. For that matter, is there a list of professional philosophers that we can bounce Molyneux' credentials against? Or, at least a set of criteria of how to get on such a list. On the other hand, it would be hugely beneficial to produce some secondary (or tertiary) source calling him such (not just his 30-second speech intros). To those opposing, what would you call him? --Truther2012 (talk) 18:20, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That argument is not "cute" it's just wrong. If Molyneux were a philosopher you would find him published alongside others who are undisputedly philosophers or you would find him called one by widely acknowledged philosophers or RS for philosphy and related topics. SPECIFICO talk 18:31, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Not to be too cute, but did Aristotle have a PhD, or was it only a Master's?"
Is he generally recognized as a Philosopher, by Philosophers? Well yes, he most certainly is.
...so what's your point?
"To those opposing, what would you call him? "
A person who talks about philosophy.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 11:06, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't agree more. Degrees have little bearing on one's occupation.For that matter, I struggle to come up with a single prominent philosopher who held a PhD.--Truther2012 (talk) 13:50, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"For that matter, I struggle to come up with a single prominent philosopher who held a PhD."
Then you clearly don't know of any prominent philosophers, in the modern era.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 11:06, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Philosopher" as the first descriptive word in the lede is too much. He's got several non-fiction books published, but no libraries are stocking any of his books. Perhaps "popular philosopher" or "philosophical essayist" would work. His Amazon.com description [1] says Freedomain Ratio is a "popular philosophical show", but such a description can be applied almost anywhere. Let's be more stringent and drop the philosopher from the first lede sentence. – S. Rich (talk) 19:05, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We simply can't. If he describes himself as a philosopher, and every source repeats that, then we have to use it because to do otherwise would be original research (ie, putting the determination in the hands of wikipedia editors rather than the sources). I don't think any source uses "popular philosopher" or "philosophical essayist" or any similar derivation more consistently than simply "philosopher". --Netoholic @ 19:11, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"and every source repeats that"
Not to be rude, but that is utter and pure nonsense.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 11:06, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


They are not, however, RSes on whether or not he is actually a philosopher. This article is a puff piece as is, hanging on very light threads of notability; you're stretching way too far from too little material in an attempt to justify completely unreliable sources like mises.org - David Gerard (talk) 21:43, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Un"desireable" to a socialist maybe, that doesn't mean unreliable on the topic of libertarian political philosophy, a topic on which Mises is preeminent. Added: By the way DavidG, Can we use your RationalWiki as a potential source? Its entry on Molyneux even describes him as a philosopher. --Netoholic @ 22:16, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is a content issue to be determined by WP:CONSENSUS. (Also, I think David knows full well that rationalwiki is not RS.) – S. Rich (talk) 22:28, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Un"desireable" to a socialist maybe, that doesn't mean unreliable on the topic of libertarian political philosophy, a topic on which Mises is preeminent."
Pre-eminent? According to whom?
Also, regardless of whether they are or not, using them as a source about people who support them, will often be a problem, as there are issues of bias and conflicts of interest.
"By the way DavidG, Can we use your RationalWiki as a potential source? Its entry on Molyneux even describes him as a philosopher"
I'm sorry but it clearly doesn't. It calls him a self-proclaimed (i.e. not genuine) philosopher. Thus it clearly states that he isn't a philosopher. As does any other source, that calls him self-proclaimed.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 11:06, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and we all know full well that consensus determines content here. But this isn't a democracy, and so far, despite a bunch of rhetoric from editors politically opposed to an accurate article on this subject and none of them have provided a reliable source that disputes the documented profession of this article's subject. 1) He asserts on his own pages that he is a philosopher by career (which are both reliable on their face per WP:SELFPUB). 2) We have a review of one of his philosophy books by another libertarian philosopher, which is an acknowledgement of the subject matter (even a negative review of a movie is a reliable source that it was a movie). 3) We have numerous secondary sources (interviewers of the subject, etc.) which describe him as a philosopher. 4) We have tertiary sources (Globe&Mail, The Next Web) which also cite his profession as philosopher. 5) We have -zero- sources that conflict with these accounts of his career focus. If anyone here wants to find a reliable source that he's a baker or a dry-cleaner, let's have it. --Netoholic @ 23:13, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Three citations are given for "philosopher". 1. Casey Research is an investment advice firm. They say Molyneux runs a philosophy show and is interested in philosophy. 2. Paul Sawyers knows about technology and is a blogger (the TNW page he writes on is titled "blog"). 3. Globe & Mail says "cyberphilosopher" and uses the term philosopher once ("Philosopher King") and philosophy/philosophical 4 other times, but it does not come out & say he is a philosopher. (Of the 3, the G&M is the best because it is a WP:NEWSORG.) In all, the sourcing for this part of the WP:BLP is weak (e.g., "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources.") We can use the term philosopher to describe Molyneux, but without such prominence. – S. Rich (talk) 03:22, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"We have -zero- sources that conflict with these accounts of his career focus."
Career focus? That's not what we are discussing.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 11:06, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Without strong RS, we can't say it at all. We don't relax WP's standard for less "prominence" in the article. This comes up all the time among media personalities who are self-styled psychologists, economists, philosophers, etc. None of the references are RS for the declaration that he's a philosopher, even in a footnote. SPECIFICO talk 04:05, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Could we just call him something along those lines of "self-described philosopher"? It is accurate and still contains "philosopher" in it.--Truther2012 (talk) 13:50, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me, might seem deprecatory to the fans though - David Gerard (talk) 17:10, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In order to do that, we would need RS which calls him a "self-described philosopher". We can't strike a compromise which disregards core WP policy. SPECIFICO talk 17:18, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. Suppose we find a source where he calls himself a "self-described philosopher". Can we then call him a "self-described self-described philosopher"? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:50, 13 May 2014 (UTC).
That disagrees with his self-description and all the other sources. The word "self-described" would have to be removed from the article immediately due to BLP policy, because that puts a contentious, negative spin on his work. I considered "philosophical author" or other such construction (in order to semi-satisfy the elitist snobs that take issue with "philosopher"), but that too doesn't match the sources and so we can't use it. Only "philosopher" works here. --Netoholic @ 18:07, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I came across these little nuggets on Dictionary.com:

"phi·los·o·pher [fi-los-uh-fer] noun a person who offers views or theories on profound questions in ethics, metaphysics, logic, and other related fields."

...at Merriam-Webster:

phi·los·o·pher noun \fə-ˈlä-s(ə-)fər\: a person who studies ideas about knowledge, truth, the nature and meaning of life, etc. : a person who studies philosophy

...and from Cambridge:

philosopher noun [C] /fɪˈlɒs.ə.fər/ US /-ˈlɑː.sə.fɚ/ B2 someone who studies or writes about the meaning of life

Maybe, I don't get it, but there is no mention of degrees or qualifications. Ultimately, if the guys espouses about philosophy, he is a philosopher (as per established reliable source definition). --Truther2012 (talk) 17:09, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's a dictionary. It doesn't count. I looked up physisist. Not a word about any degrees there either ...yet you generally can't call someone that, unless they have a Ph.D in Physics.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 13:08, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Zarlan: You don't need a degree to be a physicist either. Michael Faraday - "Although Faraday received little formal education, he was one of the most influential scientists in history." -- Netoholic @ 17:18, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"You don't need a degree to be a physicist either. Michael Faraday - "Although Faraday received little formal education, he was one of the most influential scientists in history.""
1. Ph.D's did not exist at the time. Frankly, he was as awarded as you could get, in terms of academic degrees, for his field, given the period in question.
2. He was educated by established scientists. (see Michael Faraday#Adult life)
3. He frequently and successfully published his scientific work, in peer review.
4. He was widely acknoledged by the established scientists of his day. He was made Fellow of the Royal Society, was twice offered to become President of the Royal Society (refused both times) and was elected a foreign member of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences and the French Academy of Sciences
Thus he clearly qualifies, under the requirements that I have pointed out to you, multiple times. I have never stated that a Ph.D is the only way to become a philosopher or physicist. On the contrary, I have pointed out that there are other ways to become one. Multiple times.
A far better example would be Ewart Oakeshott:
He genuinely had no formal degrees in History, yet he did publish multiple papers in respected journals and revolutionized the study of swords (especially medieval swords). Hence he is a well respected amateur historian ...and fully qualifies, under the requirements that I have pointed out.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 20:26, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External Links

The External Links section of this article is in clear violation of the WP:EL. Over the last couple of weeks my attempts to bring this article in compliance with the WP has been repeatedly reverted. In case you don't care reading the policy yourself, I'll excerpt it for you...

Links normally to be avoided
Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject, one should generally avoid providing external links to:
...
Social networking sites (such as Myspace and Facebook), chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), Twitter feeds,
Open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors. Mirrors or forks of Wikipedia should not be linked.
...

So, no, you cannot use neither Facebook, Twitter nor Mises Wiki in External Links

The "stability" argument is weak at best - this page, until very recently, had a huge number of issues despite being stable. So, no, just because nobody bothered to bring it up to Wiki standards, does not make it right.--Truther2012 (talk) 13:51, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:EL#Minimize the number of links - "More than one official link should be provided only when the additional links provide the reader with significant unique content and are not prominently linked from other official websites." The Stefan Molyneux Facebook and Twitter pages are separate from the Freedomain Radio ones, and are not linked from the official website. Also, per Wikipedia:EL#EL12, the MisesWiki does have "a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors." --Netoholic @ 18:09, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Social sites, such as Facebook and Twitter cannot be considered as External Links (or official websites). --Truther2012 (talk) 20:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ELOFFICIAL, official links override this concern. WP:LINKSTOAVOID says: "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject, one should generally avoid providing external links to:" --Netoholic @ 23:37, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Truther2012 is right. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. I've removed them again - David Gerard (talk) 08:54, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Newspaper article texts for editor reference

"Hugh Molyneux is the salesman in the family. His brother Stefan is the computer expert. Together, they have created Caribou Systems Corp., a Willowdale software company that in two years has made more than $1 million in sales and landed such high profile clients as Bombardier, Nortel, and General Mills. These Companies want Caribou to provide them with a computer software package that manages the reams of environmental and chemical data they collect for their properties - such as what and how much hazardous materials are stored in a factory or underground storage tank. They also want a system in which this information could quickly be retrieved through a company's internal computer network anywhere in the world."

...

"The brothers work on their projects in a small, busy office in an office park along the Don River Valley. But the Molyneux brothers never intended to be partners, and the truth is, their roles in the company also do not reflect their initial careers. True, Stefan did become addicted to programming as a teenager, spending his Saturday afternoons in his school computer lab. But he thought it was a phase. He wanted to be an actor, and was accepted to the National Theatre School in Montreal. "First of all, the technology wasn't that good at the time, and secondly the people going into computer science then weren't exactly the kind of people I would be aching to spend four years with,"he said. But Stefan never entirely forgot computers. After pursuing an acting career, as well as writing poetry and fiction, and getting a master's degree in history, he returned to programming a few years ago." -- Burg, Robert (May 26, 1997). "Their software keeps tabs on site data". Toronto Star.

Since not everyone can see behind the paywall for the Toronto Star citation used in Stefan Molyneux#Early life, I'll post the relevant sections here, just so future editors don't continuously rip out the information just because they can't read it first-hand. -- Netoholic @ 08:01, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Times - You can read the full text of article here. -- Netoholic @ 09:49, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Debate championship event

Did he compete at the World Universities Debating Championship? If this is the correct event, then da Costa's reference should be used to reference the participation, which is an interesting and useful fact. But it is not encyclopedic to say he studied literature, history, economics, philosophy, and debate as an undergrad. (Most humanities students do exactly that.) – S. Rich (talk) 19:32, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, the source that's currently there is about him debating the winners of that championship who were visiting his college, not competing himself. The main purpose in using the da Costa reference is to show he attended Glendon College (within York University) and that debate was part of his education (details which aren't mentioned on his SELFPUB "About" page, but are mentioned elsewhere). To a some small extent, it illustrates some of the early origins of his political philosophy. -- Netoholic @ 19:52, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's a RS for him attending Glendon College. Not for what he studied there, though ...and I have yet to see any source that claims that he has studied philosophy...--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 11:08, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Viewpoints section

Several items in the viewpoints section rely solely on primary or non-RS references. If there are secondary RS discussions of this content, the sections should be written to conform with their content. Otherwise, unsourced or non-RS content will eventually need to be deleted from the article. I hope that editors will review the citations in this section. SPECIFICO talk 21:04, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I get the feeling that you're not satisfied with sourcing unless every sentence fragment has numbered source associated with it. Sometimes, we write sections combining the information from several source, then link them all at the end of the section or nearby. I can guarantee that every comment in that section has a source, with secondary RS given preferential placement, and WP:SELFPUB RS as sparingly as possible. You just need to read the related/nearby sources a bit better. --Netoholic @ 21:10, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to go through point by point now, but just to start at the top, this section [2] is sourced to a primary source and a blog. SPECIFICO talk 21:25, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're under the mistaken belief that the content of his writings can't be used on Wikipedia. That's wrong. Primary sources can be (and in some cases must be) used per WP:PRIMARY: "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source." As long as great care is taken not to interpret or analyze the content of the source, we can use it for brief summaries. --Netoholic @ 21:49, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. This person is of marginable notability at best, and the article reads very like it has been puffed up by fans based on a very few thin strands of notability. I think it might be straw poll time.— Preceding unsigned comment added by David Gerard (talk • contribs)

Straw poll

Severely cut back article strictly to WP:RS-sourceable statements only, per best rigorous WP:BLP practice?

Non-binding straw poll to roughly estimate consensus on direction

  • Yes
  1. David Gerard (talk) 11:32, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 11:08, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No
  • Discussion
    • This is not a helpful poll. RS & content is always evaluated in context. The broad and vague "strictly", "severely", "direction", & "best rigorous" phraseology sounds like code words for "let's torpedo this BLP". – S. Rich (talk) 16:04, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Most of the discussion above is about the sourcing and the quality of the sourcing. WP has very high standards for BLPs, and the talk page reads like a fan demanding exemption from them - David Gerard (talk) 16:17, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • (edit conflict) Oh, I quite agree that fans have worked to puff up the article. And I've been criticized because I appear to be un-puffing content. (Indeed, I am. But not because I dislike Molyneux.) Setting the like/dislike question aside, there are two issues involved: 1. How well is this article sourced? and 2. Assuming that it is properly sourced, does he meet notability standards? (A third question is how many editors will respond to the poll. I bet this article is on the < 30 watchers category. Page has 62 watchers. Talk page gets 2.3 page looks a day average. Article page gets 3k page looks daily.) – S. Rich (talk) 16:37, 14 May 2014 (UTC)01:33, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree with Srich. I didn't know "slash and burn" is now an acceptable WP practice. I get that people don't like the subject of this article, and probably hate that the structure and content have been improving so rapidly lately. I know some wiki-warriors prefer when the articles they disagree with have multiple issue-tags spamming the top, because that crap is almost better than no article at all. So when someone comes along that is knowledgeable in the subject area and threatens to clean up the problems, they start getting realllllly pedantic about things. Occasionally they even try to get people to go along with the "nuclear option". -- Netoholic @ 16:25, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Slash-and-burn is a standard option for dealing with problematic, particularly attack, BLPs. As far as I know it's not so common to apply to puff pieces like this, except cleanup in the course of an AFD (where it is routinely applied) - David Gerard (talk) 20:11, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • I consider articles about obscure German techno bands to be "puff pieces" that people add unsourced information to, but luckily for my sanity I don't fight over them. One person's "puff piece" is another person's core value. Go improve articles about subjects you enjoy and are willing to research, rather than attempting to lobotomize ones you don't understand or don't like - THAT is how WP gets improved. If you think this article is not notable, then put it on AfD, but I think you're just trying to use every wiki-warrior procedural weapon at your disposal. It survived AfD 5 years ago when it was total crap, it will again, and you know it. The minute it comes back from surviving that next AfD, though, all the issue-tag spam comes off. -- Netoholic @ 20:24, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't like the "severely" part of the question. Given, the article relies way too heavily on the primary sources, but that's a matter of clean-up not slash-and-burn.--Truther2012 (talk) 17:13, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Srich32977: @Netoholic: the poll doesn't propose that context should ever be ignored in evaluating RS. It's not helpful to put up a straw man in claiming the poll is not helpful.
@David Gerard: You don't need a poll to remove poorly sourced text or anything which you reasonably believe violates BLP. There's also still lots of text which is not supported by the cited references. For example the "philosopher" in the first sentence is sourced to several citations which call Molyneux a philosophy podcaster or one who discusses philosophy. The only one that seems to call him a philosopher is in the context of that assertion not RS. SPECIFICO talk 20:32, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So you consider that one removable?
Or, in general, shall we leave the fans to their real-world fanfic? Honestly, this article is more hagiographic than the articles about J-Pop bands - David Gerard (talk) 21:50, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. If there are particular items that need changing, then discuss and/or change & discuss them in particular. A broad indictment of the article is not helpful.
  2. Again, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Neoholic has worked to improve the article, and I think will continue to collaborate in the improvement.
  3. Anchoring the straw poll with a lopsided question shows the need for caution. For more, see WP:Straw polls and WP:VOTE.
– S. Rich (talk) 22:43, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Again, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS."
Is there anyone here who disagrees about that?
"Neoholic has worked to improve the article"
No one has said that he/she didn't have good faith (WP:ASSUME). That's not the issue here. I remember an editor that was very passionate about kendo and some other martial arts articles, and whose good faith and good intentions were never in any doubt ...who is now blocked.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 13:08, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Srich, the poll is not a broad indictment. It's a proposal to remove improperly sourced content. Do you feel that improperly sourced content should be left in a BLP article? Metacomments and handwaving are not going to make this article better. Unfortunately recent edits which improved the article and conformed it to policy have been reverted. SPECIFICO talk 14:05, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Improving means contributing, not just erasing. Erasure and blasting articles with issue-tags is lazy work. So far, despite a lot of talk here, none of the people in this straw poll section have done any work to find different/better sources. Don't like that he's called a "philosopher" - find an indisputable and preeminently reliable source that contradicts the sources that say he is a philosopher. Dislike the fact that multiple sources call it "the largest and most popular philosophy show" - find a great source that contradicts that and add the "controversy" to the article. Hell, add something positive to say about the article subject if you come across new information... I sure have added a lot of non-positive items to this article, for balance, and because they are true and accurate things. Unfortunately, this talk page is rapidly becoming an unsafe place for me to communicate because my comments keep being moved or deleted. If you have an issue with any content in the article that I've added, drop me a message. I will do the hard work & research to fix the issue as best I can. -- Netoholic @ 18:32, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Improving means contributing, not just erasing."
That is utter and complete nonsense.
So if people "contribute" loads of unverified statements, vandalism, link spam and/or other such things that are not allowed, under Wikipedia policy, then that person is a contributor?
People like that tend to be corrected and their edits reverted. They are not praised. In fact, if they persist, they get blocked. Are you saying that the system that Wikipedia has, concerning this, is wrong?
Also, would you then say that people who do their duty of enforcing Wikipedia policy by removing such content are worthless?
Would you say that ClueBot NG is worthless and/or does nothing to improve Wikipedia?
"none of the people in this straw poll section have done any work to find different/better sources."
You're suggesting that bad sources, sources that do not qualify as Reliable Sources and thus are not allowed on Wikipedia (need I remind you that WP:V is one of the five pillars?), are okay as long as better sources cannot be found?
That's not the way it works.
You are shifting the burden of evidence.
"Hell, add something positive to say about the article subject if you come across new information..."
Why? The article should reflect what the Reliable Sources way about him. Not be a text that takes sides. (see WP:NPOV)--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 02:59, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Concur. BLPs are not fan hagiographies, and Netoholic's understanding of sourcing rules is severely problematic - David Gerard (talk) 22:40, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@David Gerard: You know, I'm going to start getting upset if you keep describing me as just an obsessed "fan". I found the article, found it was lacking, know something about the subject, and started meaningfully contributing. Also, I care a lot about sourcing rules... actually, I care more about facts... and sourcing rules are just a means towards establishing facts for the uninformed. I don't go to a badly sourced wiki page (like -philosophers-) and delete every unsourced sentence. The reason it sits in such an unsourced state is because there are certain facts that everyone with knowledge about the subject can accept without strict sourcing. I have a lot of knowledge about Molyneux, and so I accept as fact many things. Yes, no PhD. Yes, makes some bad arguments. Yes, still pretty obscure compared to even the goddam Kardasians. ... but also... Yes, committed to the study of philosophy. Yes, producing tangible philosophical output... output that is being heard by more people daily than Aristotle reached in his life and several hundred years after... and being heard more daily than any other modern philosopher out there is. I can respect that. His extensive use of online media makes him a brand new kind of philosopher... and the same online media make his peers and students different than in the past as well. It also makes him hard to pin down in sourced forms that used to work fine for old school philosophers. -- Netoholic @ 07:10, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"I don't go to a badly sourced wiki page (like -philosophers-) and delete every unsourced sentence. The reason it sits in such an unsourced state is because there are certain facts that everyone with knowledge about the subject can accept without strict sourcing."
That means that you are therefore accepting the definition of what a philosopher is, in philosophers ...thus meaning that you accept that we cannot call Molynuex a philosopher.
"Yes, committed to the study of philosophy."
"Study"... the meaning of that word can be differ radically...
"Yes, producing tangible philosophical output..."
No.
"and being heard more daily than any other modern philosopher out there is."
That is nothing more than an appeal to popularity.
Please avoid blatant fallacies.
Jenny McCarthy has been listened to, concerning vaccines, far more than any modern Ph.Ds or MDs in medicine. Does that mean that Jenny McCarthy is an authority on vaccines?
No.
No she most certainly isn't.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 01:36, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Categories

I see lots of categories. Are they well supported? Per WP:CAT "It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories." For example, why is Category:Former Objectivists listed? – S. Rich (talk) 01:14, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gave it some work, I think I removed all the ones that weren't established well. -- Netoholic @ 01:58, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Srich32977, some of the categories you removed should go back. Categories (especially with people) can't be thought of as strictly hierarchical, meaning that sometimes an article belongs in both a main category and a sub-category, for different purposes. Category:Canadian philosophers, Category:Canadian political writers, and Category:Canadian non-fiction writers I think are appropriate because a lot of his writing is political, some of his philosophy is non-written, and some of his philosophy is non-political, (such as with regards to ethics and family relationships). I wish WP used some sort of meta-data instead of these archaic categories (for example, I find all the "X by nationality" things a bit arbitrary as a distinction), but until then we should use them as liberally as appropriate, especially since sub-categorization schemes can change in the future. -- Netoholic @ 03:40, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think I removed the parent categories, in which case WP:SUBCAT applies. – S. Rich (talk) 04:22, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you're removing arbitrary categories that are neither superior nor sub-categories of the ones you're keeping, so SUBCAT isn't the issue. If you're using keeping the "Canadian" cats in place of the non-geographical you've removed, then I think thats not important to do, since being "Canadian" in a his fields isn't very critical information (it works for sports teams or geographical articles, but not for philosophers). Having both may be redundant, but accurate, and just helps navigation to and from here. --Netoholic @ 05:29, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you are incorrect. I removed t https://twitter.com/EUfixer/status/469950626936664065hose categories which were parents to the subcategories already listed. "A page or category should rarely be placed in both a category and a subcategory or parent category (supercategory) of that category (unless the child category is non-diffusing - see below)." Perhaps I am mistaken – the "diffusing" and "non-diffusing" aspects of this topic are a bit confusing to me. But overall I'm pretty sure I am correct in removing the parent categories. The only non-parent/non-subcategory removals were for those categories which do not apply to Molyneux as a person, e.g., the TV/radio show & UTube celeb categories. – S. Rich (talk) 05:53, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That refers (more or less) to direct sub- or super- categorizaion. By way of example: You took out Category:Philosophy writers with the reason "Already in a subcategory: Canadian political philosophers". Its not a direct sub... its five levels below due to some odd quirks in structure. Philosophy writers >Philosophers > Philosophers by nationality > Canadian philosophers > Canadian political philosophers. There's no reasonable way an interested reader would navigate that many levels to get to Category:Philosophy writers, which is arguably FAR more valuable information than the Canadian one. I hate categorization in general, and sounds like you're not an expert either, so lets put them all back in and let the bots and cat maintainers take care of it later. --Netoholic @ 06:08, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I think you are mistaken. The number of levels of subcategorization is not the issue. The fact that we have parent categories and subcategories is the issue for proper listing of categories. Here is my suggestion: give us a list of the particular categories you think should remain. We can then post a third opinion request for someone to take another look. (This assumes none of the other interested editors post their comments here.) Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 06:13, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody would get any effective categorization done if you went 5 levels deep on everything. Some categories don't fit into rigid structure, and they shouldn't. They're navigation aids, nothing more, so its not worth being pedantic about - especially when you admit not to be fully up on how this stuff works out. I don't need a third opinion to Be Bold and leave categories for better editors to fix later if needed. -- Netoholic @ 06:25, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I concur that Wikipedia's ridiculous degree of subcategorisation is problematic, and they should work like tags. OTOH, that is how it's done here, per MOS - David Gerard (talk) 13:30, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Molyneux blog material

I've tagged the article for WP:SPS. The main problem I see is the blog references that go beyond a mere listing of what he has written, but seeks to expound upon those SPS sources. (This issue was raised a few years ago above.) All of his books are self published, so he does not qualify as an expert in these various subject areas. (This is the case even though Tucker has high praise for him.) This is a WP editing concern based on what the RS is and what the SPS criteria require. – S. Rich (talk) 07:03, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sweeping statements are totally unhelpful. If there are specific concerns, list them and we'll address them. Per WP:ABOUTSELF, "Living persons may publish material about themselves". The passages that use his self-published sources as reference all either revolve around his background, his current activity, or are worded to describe his political and philosophical beliefs. No claims of truth are being made, only statements about himself and his viewpoints. I hope this helps. If you see some section that doesn't fit this, let me know. --Netoholic @ 08:03, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I will add in-line tags to the particular items. At present I suggest looking at Familial relationships. His blog post goes beyond talking about himself or his activities. Just as WP:NOTBLOG restricts our user pages to biographical material, we are restricted by SPS from posting stuff related to the subject matter in which he is an expert. Why? Because that subject matter has not been published by third-party publications. – S. Rich (talk) 15:31, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The newspaper articles in that section are the third-party publications that discuss the subject matter. The only point in his blog citation (and the mention of the books/articles) is to show sourcing of the views, not the views themselves. The text about his views on familial relationships is primarily based on the text from the newspapers. To illustrate, if the starting phrase "In articles, blog posts, and his books On Truth and Real-Time Relationships" was removed, the rest of the text of that section is derived solely from the newspapers. --Netoholic @ 15:40, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The claims themselves need to be of notability to note - David Gerard (talk) 22:39, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RfC - Should Stefan Molyneux be described as a "philosopher" in the lede?

Question: Should Molyneux be called a "philosopher" (without qualification) in the lede of this article? SPECIFICO talk 00:18, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Please record yes or no !votes here. Place any discussion, including discussion of alternative terms, or proposed qualifiers (such as have been discussed here on talk) in the Threaded discussion section below.

  • No. - The cited references are not RS to call him a philosopher, and only one of them even makes that statement. A bone fide philosopher is widely considered one by that peer group. Merely discussing or dabbling in topics related to philosophy does not make one a philosopher. Molyneux is a podcaster and author. SPECIFICO talk 00:18, 22 May 2014 (UTC)+[reply]
  • No – He is properly described as a libertarian thinker (with RS to support the assertion) and one of his areas of interest is "libertarian political philosophy" (in the second sentence of the lede). Leaving these two descriptives as they are is appropriate. Removing "philosopher" from the first sentence is appropriate in accordance with UNDUE. – S. Rich (talk) 01:59, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No - Glanced at the references and agree with User:SPECIFICO that none of them seem reliable enough to really use the adjective "philosopher". NickCT (talk) 13:53, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Following discussion on my talk page; I'm changing my position to Neutral for 2 reasons. 1) I think the original question here was poorly worded. It's not clear whether the question is asking if we should use the word "philosopher" in a qualified way, or not use it at all. 2) As was pointed out to me by Netoholic, there is at least one "good" RS which uses "philosopher" in an unqualified way, and a slew of "lesser quality" RS's which do the same. Reflecting on this, it now seems ambiguous as to whether using "philosopher" in an unqualified way is supported by RS. NickCT (talk) 07:09, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes - As per multiple dictionary definitions (see discussion above), "philosopher" is someone who "studies and/or speaks about philosophy." Molyneux clearly satisfy that definition and calls himself as such. --Truther2012 (talk) 18:56, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No - the sources aren't RSes on the question, as I said above - David Gerard (talk) 18:56, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No – although the qualifier "political philosopher" might be more reasonable, though I think political commentator is most appropriate. NaturaNaturans (talk) 00:10, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes - In fact, we must. This is a very complex question for a layperson coming to the subject fresh, and the question is prone to attract people who want to deny the use of "philosopher" because they dislike his political, ethical, or religious philosophies. I've put together an expansive page with some definitions that puts the relevant sources and quotes together in one place for viewing. As someone who is more familiar with his work than, I think, anyone else here, it is absolutely clear that his career is a philosopher (even more than author and speaker, since those are outputs of his philosophy). He refers to himself as a philosopher on his website and in almost every public appearance, and we should give appropriate respect for that because there are ample peer sources, book/news sources, and other references that confirm this. I don't think its possible for anyone opposing this question to point to any reliable sources that can refute all of this, or that convincingly assigns him a career that fits better than "philosopher", and Wikipedia would be discredited for leaving that out. -- Netoholic @ 14:12, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No There are no WP:Reliable sources to verify the claim that he is a philosopher.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 03:01, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No he wrote about philosophers in his MA thesis, but there has never published anything. TFD (talk) 03:57, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes - All I see here is intellectual snobbery on the part of people who don't like Stefan Molyneux's views or the fact that he is successful and getting more so. Stefan applies reason to current events, social phenomena such as child rearing, politics, and really any contemporary issues at all. Much as les philosophes would be doing were they around today. There is no more basis for saying that Molyneux is not a philosopher than there is for saying Sartre was not one. They were both doing the same thing with the mediums available to them in their time.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.27.147 (talk • contribs) 01:11, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. The terms "philosophy" and "philosopher" are often bandied about pretty loosely to refer to any system of thought or individual who offers their opinions on the world. In fact of course it has quite a specific academic or quasi-academic meaning and unless there is evidence that this person is widely described in authoritative and relevant sources as a "philosopher" in that more precise sense it should not be a primary description for him in this WP article, any more than we would say Wilf Lunn is a "scientist". I'm not sure he's the new Jean-Paul Sartre either. N-HH talk/edits 09:00, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. It is important to be strict about who is and isn't a philosopher. The key thing is whether the academic discipline of philosophy recognises them as such. Otherwise, people like Eric Cantona, John Lennon and Lady Gaga will be counted a philosophers. Which, in an informal sense they may be. This isn't snobbery. If there are no strict criteria, I'm a philosopher and so are you and it becomes a meaningless term. It's not about how smart you are or how much you know or how many people are interested in what you have to say. It's about how much your day-to-day work has contributed to the field of philosophy. Formerip (talk) 00:50, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. RS call him an "internet philosopher" and "cyberphilosopher." Those terms have substantively different meanings than "philosopher" (just as "semi-professional athlete" has a different meaning than "professional athlete.") Steeletrap (talk) 00:15, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Threaded discussion

  • Comment. About six months ago, there was a somewhat similar RfC about Ayn Rand. Could be worth a look to see consensus on some of these arguments. Of course, consensus can always change. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:18, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Objection - I object that the opener of this RfC has been making a large number of edits (17 so far), particularly the mass removal of cited information and most disturbingly deleting words related to philosophy from the page. This is unfair to fresh editors coming here to evaluate this RfC. I'll refer people to this ArbCom so they can evaluate whether his past negative editing of biographies of living people in the same broad political subject area is being repeated here.-- Netoholic @ 14:12, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replies to motivations in the voting These look a bit weird and out of place, not being directly connected to what they reply to...
You can't use a simple dictionary definition, for the reasons I've already explained.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 03:05, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that means we just go with your gut instinct? No, we have to go with definitions, and all of them point to philosophy. Actors don't need to say they are actors or get some kind of piece of paper that says they are an actor... they just... go do acting work, and then we call them that. Same here. -- Netoholic @ 03:34, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"I guess that means we just go with your gut instinct?"
That is pure slander, and you know it! You know perfectly well that I don't go with my gut instinct (as I've explained what I mean, multiple times, and you've read it).
"No, we have to go with definitions, and all of them point to philosophy."
Your definitions.
Also, I'd like to repeat that you can't use dictionary definitions. Encyclopaedias can be a bit better. How about Wikipedia: philosopher
"A generally accepted interpretation in academia is that a philosopher is one who has attained a Ph.D. in philosophy, teaches philosophy, and has published literature in a field of philosophy or is widely accepted by other philosophers as a philosopher."
"Actors don't need to say they are actors or get some kind of piece of paper that says they are an actor..."
Yes they do. They most certainly do.
"they just... go do acting work, and then we call them that."
Molynuex hasn't done the equivalent. --ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 04:15, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do you realize just quoted an completely unsourced claim from philosopher about PhDs? Besides, Molyneux is obviously not in academia, so that qualification wouldn't apply even if it were sourced. Added: I've just went to philosopher and added the first reliable source to the article, which now contradicts your supposition that philosophers must be in academia. Also, please avoid threading your replies in such a back-and-forth way. It takes up too much space, giving undue weight to your comments, while everyone else is adhering to a more typical threading arrangement. -- Netoholic @ 04:33, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I seem to have accidentally missed signing that one comment. Thanks for fixing it.
"Do you realize just quoted an completely unsourced claim from philosopher about PhDs?"
That's beside the point.
"Besides, Molyneux is obviously not in academia, so that qualification wouldn't apply even if it were sourced."
How does that make any sense?
You can't call yourself a physicist without a degree or any published papers, just by saying "I'm not in academia".
"Also, please avoid threading your replies in such a back-and-forth way."
What are you talking about?
"while everyone else is adhering to a more typical threading arrangement."
How does it differ from mine?--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 20:26, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To call him a "political philosopher", is to claim that he is a philosopher.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 03:05, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at those "peer sources" (this is in reply to Netoholic). None of them actually call him a philosopher, and plenty of them are biased.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 03:05, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I point out, there are many words that describe him, and all come back to philosophy as the core and most generally correct word... its the word he uses himself and you've given no sources that refute that, while I've given many that confirm it. Empirical evidence trumps all. -- Netoholic @ 03:34, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"there are many words that describe him, and all come back to philosophy"
Irrelevant. None of them are "philosopher". Even if they come back to "philosophy" (which is WP:Original research and possibly WP:SYNTH), they don't come back to "philosopher".
"its the word he uses himself"
He admits that he is "self-proclaimed" ...which confirms that he isn't a real or in any way recognized philosopher.
"Empirical evidence trumps all"
Yes, and in this case it trumps your claims.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 04:15, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If we have a cite for self-proclaimed, that would be enough reason to say "self-proclaimed" - David Gerard (talk) 13:07, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't, I've specifically looked for that phrase. It only appears on "RationalWiki" and a couple youtube comments. This is why "philosopher" with no qualifiers is the only route we can go... its what he uses when he introduces himself in public appearances, its what all the secondary sources use. --Netoholic @ 16:56, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"There isn't, I've specifically looked for that phrase. It only appears on "RationalWiki" and a couple youtube comments."
Clearly you didn't really make any effort to look, then. It appears in Freedomain Radio's site, for a start.
"its what all the secondary sources use."
That is clearly, and demonstrably, untrue. Even the sources that you claim to confirm his being a philosopher, don't actually use the word philosopher ...except when they are WP:SELFSOURCE or otherwise deeply biased.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 20:26, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Come on, ZarlanTheGreen, this is plain madness: You can't use a simple dictionary definition All we have is English language here. If a word means X, we use it as X. We cannot possibly just make up another definition contrary to what a dictionary says, especially, by using an open source recently edited Wikipedia page.--Truther2012 (talk) 17:30, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
1. There is nothing in http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/physicist that says anything about degrees ...yet you need one to be a physicist. Please explain why that is, and how using the dictionary definition for philosopher is okay, when it clearly isn't okay for physicist.
2. Please read WP:DICTIONARIES. It explains why you can't use dictionaries, in a lot of circumstances (like this one).--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 20:26, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did a source check. The Trust Edge does not call Molyneux a "philosopher" anywhere in the entire text of the book. The Next Web is a news site about websites, and is not a RS on philosophy. We might be able to RS "cyberphilosopher" from Globe and Mail, so I've left the text there (though I'd happily remove it, and if anyone else wishes to I'll entirely support it) - David Gerard (talk) 22:45, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why should that book be considered a Reliable Source? I tried googleing the man, but I couldn't get a page that wasn't his own, or about that specific book. I see him described (in his own website, and a site of unknown reliability) as being a business strategist, keynote speaker and author. That's not really enough to make him a Reliable Source for saying that Molynuex is a philosopher. So unless you can show the book to be a Reliable Source, the actual content of the book is irrelevant.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 01:36, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion, we say "host of the philosophy show Freedomain. That way he gets "philosophy" in the first sentence and avoids explicitly saying he "is a philosopher" with undue emphasis. – S. Rich (talk) 23:47, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We don't negotiate facts here. And we don't repeat promotional self-description. Bad idea. SPECIFICO talk 01:04, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely we can find plenty of sources that mention Freedomain Radio being a philosophy show. We also have sources that say he's a philosophical (political, ethical, and theistic) author - and sources that say he's a philosophical (political, ethical, and theistic) speaker. At some point, just calling him a "philosopher" (which agrees with his self-description and several reliable sources) makes clear sense. All of the specific of his philosophical views are expanded later in the article. The exact state of his academic credentials is already in the article as well. We're not making an extraordinary claim here. -- Netoholic @ 04:05, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Absolutely we can find plenty of sources that mention Freedomain Radio being a philosophy show. We also have sources that say he's a philosophical (political, ethical, and theistic) author - and sources that say he's a philosophical (political, ethical, and theistic) speaker."
Yes.
"At some point, just calling him a "philosopher" (which agrees with his self-description and several reliable sources) makes clear sense."
No.
No it doesn't.
There is no evidence that he is a philosopher ...and, more importantly, there is not a single Reliable Source that says that he is one.
Your bit of WP:Original research is not grounds for calling him a philosopher.
"We're not making an extraordinary claim here. "
Well given that it is a claim, for which there is absolutely no evidence...--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 01:36, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
ZarlanTheGreen, I am still not clear why are you opposed to calling things and people by what they are. Physicist is someone who does physics, philosopher is someone who does philosophy, a cook is someone who cooks, and a maid who cleans floors. These are words that are used to describe one's occupation. No one ever argued that Molyneux had a PhD, which, by the way stands for Doctor of Philosophy, and not just a philosopher. No one ever argued that he is part of academia, he is simply a guy who studies and writes on the subject of philosophy and hence... a philosopher.
Your reference to WP:Dictionaries, is completely irrelevant, as the dictionaries here are not used as a source, but rather a reference for the definition of the word (which is, ahem, they are usually used for). And, maybe one day, you will be able to change that to mean a PhD, or whatever (thus eliminating every single one of actually prominent philosophers), but then the dictionaries will reflect that change. In the meantime please let's use words as what they mean, not what you want them to mean.--Truther2012 (talk) 15:56, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Physicist is someone who does physics"
No. A physicist is someone who has a PhD in Physics, has published scientific physics papers in respected peer-reviewed physics journals or something like that. Yes someone who does proper professional physics research would, of course, count. A four year old who is investigating issues of physics in kindergarten, however, is not a physicist. You could call them "a cute little physicist", but that doesn't make them literally or officially a physicist.
"a cook is someone who cooks"
That is a completely different category. You are comparing apples to oranges.
"These are words that are used to describe one's occupation."
No they are not.
"Your reference to WP:Dictionaries, is completely irrelevant, as the dictionaries here are not used as a source, but rather a reference for the definition of the word"
Which means that the dictionaries are used as a source for what philosopher means ...thus meaning that WP:Dictionaries applies perfectly. You might say something like "but it's not used as a source in the article". In case you do (note: This is not an accusation that you do, but if you do...):
The WP:The rules are principles. You are not allowed to stick to the letter of the law, to the detriment of the spirit of the law (Letter and spirit of the law). The spirit/purpose/reason is the important part, not using the letter of it to WP:wikilawyer.
"(which is, ahem, they are usually used for)."
Then why do encyclopedias exist? Why do, e.g., medical dictionaries exist?
Dictionary definitions are not exhaustive or entirely precise. "And while dictionary definitions are usually reasonably precise, they are not quite mathematically precise for every word."
"(thus eliminating every single one of actually prominent philosophers)"
Any evidence for that?--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 07:26, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is not whether SM has a particular academic degree. His work is not what acknowledged philosophers consider philosophy. In other words, we cannot demonstrate any mainstream view that he is a philosopher. Yes, he has followers who call him a philosopher, but that view is not shared by RS references in philosophy. WP must reflect mainstream views documented by RS. At any rate, we will see how this RfC plays out. So far there appears to be a strong consensus for removing the word from the lede. We will also need to change the infobox template, which is currently the one used for philosophers. SPECIFICO talk 17:41, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"We will also need to change the infobox template, which is currently the one used for philosophers."
Oh, I dunno. I'm not sure that would need to be done, or that it should be done.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 07:26, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've provided ample evidence (User:Netoholic/Molyneux) that he is a philosopher, called a philosopher, and his original philosophical ideas are being cited in journals and theses. Also, I think you misread the RfC... it says "philosopher (without qualification) in the lede". There will definitely be a prominent reference to philosophy in the lede, the matter is about "qualification". -- Netoholic @ 18:55, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All this time I thought, the RfC was about whether or not we call someone who "studies and talks about philosophy" a "philosopher". And no, we don't need "a mainstream view" to demonstrate that a round object is a ball, we just use definitions (like the ones usually found in dictionaries).
On a serious note, to address all this "let's not call things by their proper names" rhetoric, I propose that we include the following statement, or something along these lines, in the lead: 
...philosopher, however, mainstream philosophy fails to acknowledge him as such...
This way, I believe, we both stay true to the definition and provide a bucket-full of RS supporting the second part of the statement.--Truther2012 (talk) 19:04, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"I've provided ample evidence"
...that has been pointed out to either not actually support what you claim it supports, or to not actually qualify as Reliable. You've provided ample evidence, but as it's invalid evidence...
"Also, I think you misread the RfC... it says "philosopher (without qualification) in the lede". There will definitely be a prominent reference to philosophy in the lede, the matter is about "qualification""

I think you don't quite understand which meaning of "qualification" that is used there. Words can have multiple meanings ...and more importantly: SPECIFICO is the one who made the RfC.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 07:26, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"On a serious note, to address all this "let's not call things by their proper names" rhetoric"
We are the ones who are saying that we should call things by their proper names ...which is exactly why Molynuex cannot be called a philosopher. He does not qualify as being one. The meaning of philosopher does not include people like him.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 07:26, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Mainstream philosophy fails to acknowledge" Kim Kardassian too, would we put that in her article? No, absence of evidence can't be used as evidence of absence. But actually I have posted evidence that he's been cited by peers within political philosophy, ethical philosophy, and atheist philosophy -- and that this is in line with the word he uses to describe his own career. -- Netoholic @ 19:20, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It appears likely that the RfC will determine that we will not call him, without qualification, a philosopher. We can consider alternative statements regarding what he calls his philosophy podcast or his discussions there. First things first, however. Let's wait until the RfC is closed. If there is further contention and edit-warring as to the lede, we may need to do another RfC. SPECIFICO talk 19:15, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Kim Kardassian too, would we put that in her article?" Does Kim Kardashian claim to be a philosopher or any other kind of academic title, whilst being unacknoledged by academia? If not, then this is hardly relevant.

"But actually I have posted evidence that he's been cited by peers within political philosophy, ethical philosophy, and atheist philosophy"
User:Netoholic/Molyneux#Peer sources doesn't list a single incidence of a philosopher actually referring to Molyneux as a philosopher. Not one. Anywhere. The only sources that call him a philosopher (none of which are in User:Netoholic/Molyneux#Peer sources) are either WP:SELFSOURCE or deeply biased.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 07:26, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"If there is further contention and edit-warring as to the lede, we may need to do another RfC."
Nah. If the RfC doesn't work, I'd say go with a WP:DRN.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 07:26, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification: I didn't mean to say that we repeat this RfC, which will resolve the issue addressed in it. There may be other issues with the lede, however, and they should be discussed and resolved in a structured discussion rather than more edit-warring. SPECIFICO talk 13:20, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some more replies to survey motivations:

@91.125.27.147:
"Stefan applies reason to/.../"
Arguably. That is not a fact.
"There is no more basis for saying that Molyneux is not a philosopher than there is for saying Sartre was not one."
Sarte was not only widely recognized and respected by other philosophers, but he also had a degree in philosophy. Your argument is thus completely invalid.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 09:15, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@NickCT:
"there is at least one "good" RS which uses "philosopher" in an unqualified way"
Oh? Which one?--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 09:15, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@ZarlanTheGreen: - The times NickCT (talk) 20:55, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can only read a pre-paywall snippet of that, but all I can see is the term "controversial internet philosopher" which, together with the apparent tone of the piece as excerpted, reads a little disparagingly to me – to say the least – not as an assertion that Molyneux is a "philosopher" as commonly understood. Regardless, even if it was more than that, is one source a trump card? For Plato, Hegel, Sartre etc, and despite the odd claims below about the "paradox" of how people who are genuinely regarded as specialists or experts never supposedly get acknowledged or described as such on the record, there are hundreds of such notices. N-HH talk/edits 21:35, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, "internet philosopher" like "cyberphilosopher" "self-described philosopher" or similar qualified uses of the word once again rely on various promotional or casual writings of observers with no bona fides for the assertion. They also, in my opinion, come off sounding a bit disparaging or mocking. It will be far better, accurate, and easy to reliably source the assertion that SM is a self-published author and a singularly prolific podcaster. SPECIFICO talk 21:46, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@SPECIFICO and N-HH: - I don't really find this source overly convincing either. It is the Times though (fairly credible), and to a certain extent, using the qualifier "internet" in calling someone an "internet X" (e.g. internet entrepreneur) doesn't always mean you can't just call the person an "X" (e.g. an entrepreneur) in an unqualified way.
That said, I'm not really convinced... NickCT (talk) 12:13, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The paradox of excellent sources

There is a paradox when you get to the level of peer journals and thesis (and to a degree, books) - its very unlikely anyone calls the people they cite by the common name for their occupations. Someone doing a journal article about the Great Depression is highly unlikely to describe one of his sources as "economist John Jenkins" or "farmer Dusty Dryspell". No, he'll cite the last name, first initial, source, and date of publication for whatever past work he's referring to in the journal, and discuss their ideas in the context of economics and agriculture.
Anyone making the complaint that these kinds of sources don't call Molyneux a "philosopher" is making a demand for evidence which cannot be met -- the more reliable and reputable the source, the less likely they are going to use the precise word you're making demands to see. Context matters. When someone is writing about political philosophy (libertarianism), metaphysical philosophy (atheism), or ethical philosophy (UPB), and they cite Molyneux, they are confirming that he has produced ideas with tangible philosophical value - which is the definition of a philosopher. They simply do not need to (or would ever) specifically call him a "philosopher" in the context of a journal article. --Netoholic @ 09:34, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's a straw man. SPECIFICO talk 13:22, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"There is a paradox when you get to the level of peer journals and thesis (and to a degree, books) - its very unlikely anyone calls the people they cite by the common name for their occupations."
...
Not in the world I live in.
"Someone doing a journal article about/.../"
Well no. It would be superfluous, in that situation.
"the more reliable and reputable the source, the less likely they are going to use the precise wording you're making demands to see."
The only sources where it would be unlikely to see the wording, are the type of sources where the wording would be unnecessary. The fact that he'd be published and recognized would be the relevant issue, instead.
Thus your complain about us making demands of evidence that cannot be met, is completely erroneous.
"Context matters."
Precisely.
"When someone is writing about political philosophy (libertarianism), metaphysical philosophy (atheism), or ethical philosophy (UPB)"
...that doesn't automatically make them a philosopher/peer. The issue is where/how they write, and whether or not they are a respected philosopher.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 09:07, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be happy to make it objective. Link me one of your academic papers and I'll do a citation check to see how professions you identify by name. -- Netoholic @ 22:59, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is a pretty blatant attempt to attack a fellow contributor on a talk page, rather than talk about the subject of the article. Please desist in personal attacks on fellow editors - David Gerard (talk) 23:11, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, it really isn't. He self-identifies as a peer-reviewed, academic journal writer. Hell, he could pick any random journal article from the Molyneux page and do the same thing. I figured that asking him about how he handles his own writing could prove enlightening to the discussion and perhaps speed along agreement. I'll point out that you are neither addressing the subject of the article, nor this observation about journal citations being invariably useless for the purpose of giving a specific, quoted name for an occupation. -- Netoholic @ 23:55, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"No, it really isn't. He self-identifies as a peer-reviewed, academic journal writer."
He has not made any such claims here, nor used any such authority as support for his position. That would count as an argument from authority fallacy. Regardless of the truth of the claim, it would still be a fallacious and invalid tactic. Thus the truth or falsehood of the claim, is completely irrelevant.
"I figured that asking him about how he handles his own writing could prove enlightening to the discussion and perhaps speed along agreement."
That is an appeal to information about an editor, that is irrelevant to the arguments they make, in order to evaluate the arguments they make. In other words, and ad hominem fallacy, also known as a WP:Personal attack. It is also asking for a complete abandonment of any shred of privacy.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 09:07, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Flawed voting reasoning

  • Those votes that describe their personal opinion/definition of a philosopher can be dismissed (per WP:ASSERT - Assert facts, not opinions) - (SPECIFICO, S.Rich, Truther2012, NaturaNaturans, TFD, 91.125.27.147, N-HH, Formerip, Steeletrap)
Wikipedia is based on verifiability, not claims of truth by its editors. Verifiability is based upon what reliable sources say, not the opinions of editors.
  • Those votes that imply that the available reliable sources cannot be used for the "philosopher" assertion can be dismissed. - (SPECIFICO, NickCT, David Gerard, ZarlanTheGreen)
We are not told to evaluate whether a source is reliable in one part but unreliable in another - to do that would shatter the very notion of reliable sources. A source is either reliable, or it is not. It cannot be reliable for one statement (calling Molyneux an author) but unreliable for another statement (calling him a philosopher). Imagine if we treated all reliable sources like this: is CNN reliable for news items related to one topic, but unreliable for stories on other topics? Which? Who decides?
  • Those votes that demand only "authoritative" or "academic" sources to confirm the "philosopher" assertion can be dismissed. - (SPECIFICO, N-HH, Formerip)
Wikipedia has no arbitrary barrier for what sources are allowed on certain subjects. I'll absolutely concede that some sources are more authoritative' than others on a certain topics, and WP generally prefers to use the most authoritative sources over lesser ones, but in the absence of mention in those quality sources, we base our articles on the reliable sources (newspapers, books) that are available.

What we have is both subject who states quite regularly and clearly that his career is a philosopher, and an adequate number of reliable sources that repeat that. This is not a statement about how good, bad, or well-known he is - only a recognition of the consensus of several sources. The denial of his stated profession is contentious unless people can provide reliable sources to dispute his claim. There are none presented, and so we literally cannot say anything different. -- Netoholic @ 00:12, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

Notability tag is back. Has the notability of the subject been not established by now? The very links in the tag (Find sources: "Stefan Molyneux" – books · scholar · JSTOR · free images) gain multiple results. I am not advocating that this is a GA, but the subject is definitely notable and there are plenty of RS that demonstrated that. What is missing? --Truther2012 (talk) 21:46, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article has survived the notability check back in 2009 when it survived AFD, at a time when the article was short, atrocious, and POV. In the last month, I have tripled the character count and citations from 10k/24 refs (a lot bad) to 30k, 62 refs (all relevant and reliable). Despite two people that keep putting back the issue tags, NEITHER of them as actually ADDED a new source or information. They are not interested in improving the article, only keeping the tag spam in place to deface it. -- Netoholic @ 21:58, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be yet another personal attack on this talk page. You've also been placing nonsubstantiable claims of vandalism on user talk pages, as well as some strange claims that editing this talk page constitutes acceptance of notability - David Gerard (talk) 23:17, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Noting a pattern of tendentious editing is not a personal attack. You've shown no interest in actually being part of improving this article, and your only actions are to continuously restore a notability tag that's been inappropriate since 2009. You also seem very concerned about the sources on this article, yet your edits on other articles show you have no particular qualms about adding unsourced claims to articles of weak notability. Now, do you want to actually address why you claim this article is non-notable? -- Netoholic @ 23:39, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is pretty much never accepted as a valid argument. I'm very interested in improving this article, by removing all the stuff with sources that are not up to BLP standard, as Zarlan has explained to you at length above - David Gerard (talk) 12:33, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@David Gerard: "do you want to actually address why you claim this article is non-notable?" -- Netoholic @ 16:58, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am not entirely convinced of his notability; most of the RSes are about the cult accusations. I'm open to persuasion. But given the paucity of high-quality sources even now, I consider the tag appropriate - David Gerard (talk) 22:48, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"I am not entirely convinced of his notability; most of the RSes are about the cult accusations."
Well... I wouldn't exactly call people like David Koresh or Sun Myung Moon non-notable, although RSes mainly just talk about them being cult leaders.
How exactly is he not notable?--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 01:36, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the notability tag should be removed. He's gotten significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. There's definitely a focus on the cult accusations, but that goes beyond WP:BLP1E. There's also the Reason TV interview about a completely different subject. —Torchiest talkedits 03:42, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any recent RS discussions of the cult accusations? If not that material should be removed from the article. The tag helps invite editors to search for good sourced material. It's not an AfD, just an indication that it's questionable. SPECIFICO talk 04:24, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There was something of a followup in late 2012 here. I would suggest changing the tag from {{notability}}, which is not at issue, to {{refimprove}}. —Torchiest talkedits 05:15, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Are there any recent RS discussions of the cult accusations? If not that material should be removed from the article."
Recent?
Wikipedia is not a newspaper and notability is not temporary.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 01:36, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Improving sourcing

I'm removing self-sourced items - this is not up to BLP requirements on sourcing. e.g. one bad review in a non-reliable source doesn't make a self-published book worth a two-para section; a quote, saying it has been called the most popular philosophy podcast, that turns out to be an identical quote from two conference bios, conference bios almost always being supplied by the speaker - there's probably quite a lot more work to get this down to reliable third-party sourcing, rather than reading like an advertisement for the subject - David Gerard (talk) 12:46, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've cleaned out enough of the self-sourced material and claims that I've taken the {{primary}} tag off - David Gerard (talk) 13:06, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good to see you actually point out which sources you took issue with, rather than just the tag spam. I kinda wish you'd brought the concern areas here to discuss, but at least now I have something tangible to work with. --Netoholic @ 17:10, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

UPB book

Since this book was critically reviewed by a notable philosopher (David Gordon (philosopher)) and was published by a notable source Mises.org, then its clear the book is notable by proxy. I'll be re-adding that section, I'll also be adding some additional instances where UPB as a philosophical construct has made notable appearances. -- Netoholic @ 17:10, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"then its clear the book is notable by proxy."
How so?--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 20:26, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the source that shows his book was published by Mises.org? – S. Rich (talk) 20:38, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't - it was self-published. The review was. And the reviewer is notable, but a single source who is themself notable writing a review saying a self-published work is "preposterously bad" is not notability for the self-published work for Wikipedia. Hence me deleting the section - David Gerard (talk) 22:37, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously I mistyped some punctuation. I was referring to the Gordon review being published by a notable publishing source (which itself has editorial responsibility to ensure the quality of the articles on their site). I have re-added the section, with another notable source confirming UPB (if you actually watch the video, skip to 3:20 to avoid the intro). -- Netoholic @ 06:06, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dissertation located that uses UPB's philosophical framework

Subotić, Siniša (2014). Evaluacija inkluzivne obrazovne reforme u osnovnoj školi (PDF) (Ph.D.) (in Serbian-Latin). Dr Zorana Đinđića 2, 21000 Novi Sad, Serbia: The Library of the Faculty of Philosophy, University of Novi Sad. Retrieved May 26, 2014. {{cite thesis}}: Unknown parameter |publicationplace= ignored (|publication-place= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: location (link) CS1 maint: unrecognized language (link)

I've located this Ph.D. Philosophy dissertation which devotes two sub-chapters towards proving UPB in the affirmative, then applying that framework to the rest of the thesis. If I read this right have been successfully defended accepted. Unfortunately, its slow going since I'm relying on Google Translate since its written in Serbian. I've added the citation to the section, of course, to establish UPB notability. To those that were hesitant about the "philosopher" issue due to lack of citations by peers, opinions on the usefulness of this source? -- Netoholic @ 06:51, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"I've located this Ph.D. Philosophy dissertation"
Dissertations need to be confirmed as being Reliable before they can be used as a Reliable Source.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 05:35, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations on the most unhelpful response yet on this page. Here's an equally unhelpful reply "Its confirmed as reliable. Case closed". -- Netoholic @ 05:55, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Congratulations on the most unhelpful response yet on this page."
Pointing out how a source doesn't have enough to show that it is a Reliable Source, isn't helpful?
"Its confirmed as reliable"
Where? Show me.
Remember: You are the one with the burden of evidence.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 06:48, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fencing with you is getting soooo tiring. You made a general statement "Dissertations need to be confirmed as being Reliable" when its clear I was asking for specific feedback on this source(ie... does the specific source I posted meet the guidelines for use, and does it satisfy the opponents of "philosopher". I need people that will pound the pavement and tell me their exact concerns - if you aren't going to do that, you don't need to reply at all. Make room for comments from the people that are interested in doing some work. -- Netoholic @ 13:22, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That unpublished dissertation is not RS for WP to state that SM is a philosopher in this article. At any rate, this issue is being resolved in the RfC so any comments on that issue should be in the threaded discussion there. SPECIFICO talk 14:03, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"when its clear I was asking for specific feedback on this source"
...and one of the things that needs to be taken into account, in determining if the source is appropriate, is the fact that dissertations aren't necessarily considered Reliable in the first place.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 07:26, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"That unpublished dissertation is not RS" - do you understand that you aren't making an argument? You're just saying something (like Zarlan did above) but not giving any credible reasoning. "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.". I've provided the source, described its relevance, and here, I'll even do a simple google search for you to see this author has been published in several other journals. Refute this source with evidence, not your statement of opinion. --Netoholic @ 01:23, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"That unpublished dissertation is not RS for WP to state that SM is a philosopher in this article."
It isn't even published? Well then its certainly not a RS.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 07:26, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The bottom line is this: The RfC will determine the text. As of today, the clear consensus is to remove the assertion that SM is a philosopher. If your arguments result in a different consensus being reached when the RfC is closed, then the text will remain as is. SPECIFICO talk 01:45, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"this author has been published in several other journals"
So what? This specific paper hasn't been published.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 07:26, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
""What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.""
Here's your evidence: WP:RS--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 07:26, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The text will remain as is unless there is a clear consensus to change it, otherwise it remains status quo of what the lede's state was before your RfC was called. Consensus also isn't determined by democracy, so don't be so sure of the outcome just by looking at votes. Since the start of the RfC, new evidence has emerged which I've put in the article and compiled at User:Netoholic/Molyneux after some of the early people !voted. As far as I'm concerned, no one has refuted the mountain of evidence in any way... even still, I keep adding more and more things like journal/thesis references to establish that his philosophical ideas are being cited. Evidence is frankly overwhelming, and will continue to grow. In fact, I'd love to I see a couple of you opposers acknowledge the evidence fits with the standard definition of the word "philosopher" and change your votes based on my evidence. Hell, the word "speaker" in the lead has less evidence now than "philosopher" does, and yet its clear he is both. --Netoholic @ 02:05, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We'll get an uninvolved editor or Admin to close the thread when the time comes. SPECIFICO talk 02:52, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

speaking/employment bios

David Gerard removed a number of these sources by saying "the quote is from a conference speaker bio, these usually being supplied by the subject" or "a conference bio for this claim constitutes a self-source". This is original research on David's part in evaluating these sources based on his guess that they come from the subject. Maybe they do or maybe they are written from multiple sources, that is not our place to debate or guess. None of them say Molyneux supplied the bio, and they are all written in different ways. We have to trust that the sources of those bios have done their job to make them accurate, because its unlikely they'd want to advertise falsely. I'll be restoring those sources, and the information the article gains from them. -- Netoholic @ 17:10, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Maybe they do or maybe they are written from multiple sources"
Thus they do not reliably confirm that a third party has stated it of him and that it isn't just WP:SELFSOURCE. Hence they are not Reliable Sources.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 20:26, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
These are not secondary RS references for the text which cited them. As a matter of fact there is still quite a lot of text in the article which is cited to similarly unacceptable sources. SPECIFICO talk 21:04, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No - conference bios are usually authored by the subject; you would need to show that these were, contrary to usual practice, third-party works. The identical wording of the deleted quote strongly suggests otherwise. It would be OR for you to just assume on no evidence that these conference bios were in fact independent third-party reliable sourced material that substantiates your points - David Gerard (talk) 22:37, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The same goes for any promotional text on any website, whether it's a sponsor/presenter or Molyneux' own site. ABOUTSELF applies to Molyneux' opininos and beliefs but it doesn't mean that we accept in Wikipedia's voice statements which can reasonably be interpreted as promotional statements (inflated, incomplete, or otherwise misleading) of fact. A related problem is that, without any secondary mention of for example, a "freedomfest" appearance, we cannot conclude that the appearance was noteworthy enough to be discussed in an encyclopedia. We need secondary RS corroboration of the importance of such material. SPECIFICO talk 22:44, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That'll be the next source-checking run. I would assume if a conference has a Wikipedia article then that'll do for worth noting at this stage. If it doesn't, it goes (c.f. mentioning Strike The Root in the article, when it doesn't have an article itself) - David Gerard (talk) 22:47, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No one's responded to this: "We have to trust that the sources of those bios have done their job to make them accurate, because its unlikely they'd want to advertise falsely."? Even if Molyneux supplied the info, or even if the bio writer took the info from Molyneux's website, that still places an editorial burden of proof on them to ensure its accurate. Now, the degree to which they exercise that editorial control may vary, but it can be assumed that the larger the event, the more work goes into the accuracy of the bio, and the more reliable it becomes for our use. Your basic tiny lib-festival bio is maybe reliable only to confirm his appearance (and thats how I used most of them), but a bio written for The Next Web, the Bitcoin conferences, and other much larger events becomes reliable for more details about the speaker, because they have a bigger reputation on the line. -- Netoholic @ 10:22, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Even if Molyneux supplied the info, or even if the bio writer took the info from Molyneux's website, that still places an editorial burden of proof on them to ensure its accurate."
You are assuming that they actually check. That is WP:Original research
"Now, the degree to which they exercise that editorial control may vary, but it can be assumed that the larger the event, the more work goes into the accuracy of the bio, and the more reliable it becomes for our use."
WP:Original research
"but a bio written for The Next Web, the Bitcoin conferences, and other much larger events becomes reliable for more details about the speaker, because they have a bigger reputation on the line."
WP:Original research
Also... Given some bios for some TED talks (and who they allow to talk), you're clearly wrong.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 01:36, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your assumptions that they aren't doing fact-checking is "original research", and in particular goes against common sense. Public events have a strong interest in presenting accurate speaker information. (Also, you're still threading your responses in an impractical way using that back-and-forth style of yours. Please respect the conversation by keeping your replies succinct.) -- Netoholic @ 02:44, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Your assumptions that they aren't doing fact-checking is "original research""
I am not assuming that they aren't fact-checking, I'm merely rejecting your claim that they are.
As per WP:V you are the one with the burden of evidence to demonstrate that they have done their fact-checking. I have no burden to demonstrate that they didn't.
This is also the general practice in logic. As someone with an interest in philosophy, you should know this.
"(Also, you're still threading your responses in an impractical way using that back-and-forth style of yours."
I've already told you: I don't know what you mean by that, nor how it differs from how you or anyone else here is doing things. You keep complaining about it, yet you refuse to explain. That is quite rude and disrespectful ...which given the nature of your complaints, is rather ironic.
"Please respect the conversation by keeping your replies succinct."
You WP:ASSUME that I am choosing to be verbose? I always try to be concise. Would you stop being rude?--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 03:37, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Response RE: sources We don't accept sources as RS simply because we believe that it's in the source's interest to check facts. Maybe some sources know you believe this so it's actually in their interest to exaggerate? Maybe some sources don't have the resources to check facts. There are many reasons why WP requires us to make a reasoned evaluation as to whether a reference is RS for the content it supports. The article is full of sources and content which have been edit-warred back into the text after consensus-based removals. SPECIFICO talk 02:04, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." So yes, in fact we absolutely do gauge resources by their interest to checking facts. That is one of the first lines you read in WP:RS. The problem comes when editors exert their POV to either inflate or deflate the reliability of sources in order to push their POV into an article. Its funny how the same editors on this page that rail against bad sources themselves are atrocious at finding good sources (and in some cases exceptionally bad at actually reading the sources before they go cutting information). In fact, there's not been a single new source added to this article by anyone except me in a month. My intent is pure - to get this article well sourced. The intent of the deletionists is to make it look like a hack-job. You need some balance in your editing style. -- Netoholic @ 02:48, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your personal surmise is not the test set forth in the policy. The policy refers to the sources' reputation. However, even if you mistakenly believe that you are following policy regarding RS, it is disruptive for you to repeatedly undo the edits of numerous editors in order to re-establish your preferred version. SPECIFICO talk 03:12, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are we getting personal? Because I think recent evidence indicates that your interactions and edit-warring with regards to BLPs are known to be "problematic". I think the topic limitation hasn't changed much, just moved you into new areas to disrupt. So I'm sorry if your accusations of bad faith against me have very little weight. -- Netoholic @ 04:50, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Are we getting personal?"
You are. You keep referring to your personal judgements ...and personal attacks/insinuations towards us other editors.
"Because I think recent evidence indicates that your interactions and edit-warring with regards to BLPs are known to be "problematic"."
Again: Insinuations. Insinuations that have no relevance to the strength of his/her arguments. I.e. an ad hominem. You might want to read WP:No personal attacks.
We are supposed to assume good faith and not accuse other of bad behaviour ...unless we have evidence of it. The fact that you make personal attacks is clearly evident.
"So I'm sorry if your accusations of bad faith against me have very little weight."
What accusations of bad faith?--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 05:35, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"So yes, in fact we absolutely do gauge resources by their interest to checking facts."
No.
That quote from WP:RS says "reputation for fact checking and accuracy". None of the sources you cite have such a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, in their bio information. Thus they do not qualify.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 03:37, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone has the energy to do so, I suggest we consider writing up this issue and posting at RSN so that we don't keep going around in circles on the issue of primary sources, undue material cited to what appears to be promotional text and other related issues. The article can't get on solid ground with all this material obscuring whatever is truly noteworthy and encyclopedic. SPECIFICO talk 00:12, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Policy shopping#Recognizing policy shopping. If you have any specific complaints about specific sources in the context they are used, please inform us here on the talk page. Broad generalizations are become quite boring. At least when DavidG went through and deleted several sections/citations... he put the effort in and made it know which particular items he felt needed work. This (finally) allowed me to find additional material and references which might go to satisfy those complaints. Stop being lazy, or remove this article from your watchlist if you can't stand to do the work. --Netoholic @ 02:11, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"If anyone has the energy to do so, I suggest we consider writing up this issue and posting at RSN so that we don't keep going around in circles on the issue of primary sources, undue material cited to what appears to be promotional text and other related issues."
I fail to see the need.
We just need to discuss and establish consensus. Consensus does not require unanimity.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 05:35, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Wikipedia:Policy shopping#Recognizing policy shopping."
...
No.
"If you have any specific complaints about specific sources in the context they are used, please inform us here on the talk page."
That is, while nice and maybe preferable, not actually required. You can ask for SPECIFICO to do so, but you cannot demand or expect it.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 05:35, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You missed the word "please" there... that indicates a request not a demand. Besides, its likewise its not "actually required" that active editors of the article incorporate the feedback of editors that don't provide feedback that is of practical use. -- Netoholic @ 05:58, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I did say "or expect". Also just using the word "please" doesn't automatically make it asking. Please note that I never stated that you did demand.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 06:48, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Molyneux and DROs

"DROs, as organizations, have been around long before Molyneux" - cite a source for that? There have been similar ideas, but per dispute resolution organization, Molyneux's work is an novel iteration and the name "dispute resolution organizations" is original to the context of stateless society, which is why The Stateless Society is so oft-cited. -- Netoholic @ 03:13, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The American Arbitration Association is a dispute resolution organization, founded in 1926. If Molyneux's version of dispute resolution organizations is different or unique, then an article about his concept with more precision, conciseness, et al. is required in accordance with WP:TITLE. In the alternative, perhaps his ideas can be incorporated into Dispute resolution or Alternative dispute resolution. – S. Rich (talk) 03:23, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is one way to describe the AAA, but that is not the usage of "dispute resolution organizations" as being a firm operating within the context of stateless society that was originated by Molyneux. I agree DRO's can probably be mentioned on those pages, but it is a functionally different meaning deserving of its own article because of the different context. --Netoholic @ 03:49, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If there was a better term to describe Molyneux's idea that would be great. But as it stands, "dispute resolution organization" is generic and the Project should describe them in a generic sense. Moreover, what is the tie-in with what he thinks and the various Dispute_resolution_organization#Examples_in_practice? Arbitration agreements are enforceable in courts. Some of those organizations serve, in a practical sense, as adjuncts to the courts. Indeed, many judges will order that ADR be undertaken as part of the litigation process. These are not "stateless society" type activities. – S. Rich (talk) 04:02, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't write the current DRO article, I think some aspects in it are misplaced. I've rewritten the lead there to clarify the purpose of the page as being distinct from present-day dispute resolution (which are more often called "arbitrators" or "mediators"). -- Netoholic @ 04:23, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The current DRO article has problems. Among other things, it does not comply with WP:UCN in that it involves too much of Molyneux's version of dispute resolution. In fact, by trying to say that Molyneux "invented" (or whatever) the concept of a DRO, the term (in that article) verges on neologism. Because of "similar ideas", DRO looses its' uniqueness. If Molyneux has a concise or better name for his ideas that does not spill out into already existing ideas, then let's use that. (Let me try this. If the AAA article said "The American Arbitration Association is a dispute resolution organization that ...." would it be proper to link dispute resolution organization to the Molyneux version? Sorry. Absolutely not.) – S. Rich (talk) 05:09, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is more a conversation that should happen on that talk page. Molyneux used "Dispute Resolution Organization" with initial caps in his article, but more current mentions of his concept are lowercased, and the phrase now has a distinct meaning in libertarian discussions. He coined the phrase in the stateless context, building upon ideas presented from before, and its now been mainstreamed into anarcho-capitalist theory. For the purposes of Molyneux's article, we just need to touch on the concept as he described it, as that is being cited as a source in journals, etc. -- Netoholic @ 05:16, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If a new Dispute Resolution Organization (Stefan Molyneux/whatever) page is to be created so that his version can be explained, then good. But as the generic dispute resolution organization (and Dispute Resolution Organization) article already exists, efforts to steer it into Molyneux's version are not helpful to the project. – S. Rich (talk) 05:25, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Steer"? The lead's version from before today had Molyneux's ref as its sole citation, my cleanup was to help clarify. Again, this is a topic for THAT talk page and how the editors there want to handle it. For Molyneux's page, I think we're all set. -- Netoholic @ 05:33, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, no steerage is involved. I've cleaned out a lot of the "non-DRO" related material from the dro article. E.g., AAA. Judicate, etc are not conceptual organizations in a stateless society and mention of them was not tied into Molyneux's theory, so mention of them is not appropriate there. I've got the article on my watchlist. – S. Rich (talk) 00:57, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The lead's version from before today had Molyneux's ref as its sole citation"
The lead isn't supposed to have any refs. It is supposed to be summarising what is already verified in the body. Thus any mention of what refs are used in the lead, is irrelevant.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 09:07, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, Bob Murphy wrote Chaos Theory in 2002, a few years before Stefan Molyneux even began blogging, let alone self publishing. It's described on Wikipedia as "A short work composed of two essays on market anarchy; one discussing the production of defense services, and one describing the provision of private criminal and civil justice." For that matter, very little Stefan Molyneux puts out is original. — Olathe (talk) 20:52, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FDR Material sourced to Horsager book

I have again reverted the text which fails verification and attributes to Molyneux a statement made by Horsager, author of the cited book. WP cannot state that those words are Molyneux own. The text is a BLP violation and fails verification. It should not be reinserted in the article. SPECIFICO talk 22:56, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If he says something about his preferences and beliefs in a direct quote in this reliable source, we have the necessary verifiability to say he prefers/believes it. The direct quote of Molyneux in the source is "I get instant feedback. I know right away if it was good or not based on how many donations come in for that material" and "Your business model needs to be aligned with your content and your approach". There is nothing in the BLP policy that says any different - BLP policy is to protect against things LPs didn't say. I think we need a little less zealotry. -- Netoholic @ 02:57, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The cited reference does not show Molyneux stating that user response helps him stay "true to his philosophy". This text fails verification, it falsely attributes these words to Molyneux, it's a BLP violation and violates policy. SPECIFICO talk 13:21, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Concur - it fails even as a reference to the subject's own words - David Gerard (talk) 14:21, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the line per this feedback, making it clear what part is Molyneux belief and which part is statements from the source. -- Netoholic @ 19:18, 1 June 2014 (UTC) ADDED: Its been snap-reverted by SPECIFICO (and put back to the version he complained about) even though I changed it based by feedback from both him and DavidG. -- Netoholic @ 19:21, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The re-inserted version takes two words of Molyneux and uses them in a different context not stated by Molyneux. This is a BLP violation. Moreover, once any edit has been reverted, it is best practice to seek explicit consensus on talk before reinserting the same or similar text. Please reveiew BLP, SYN and RS. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 19:37, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You have to be clear... what "two words" and why don't you just make a minor edit to the affected words rather than a snap-reversion? Also "once any edit has been reverted, it is best practice to seek explicit consensus" is ironic, since there was consensus that change was needed, yet you snap-reverted to the version that was against consensus. -- Netoholic @ 19:48, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's clear to me that your edits violate fundamental WP policy as to WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:BLP. Molyneux did not state: "the immediate feedback allows [him] to gauge the quality of his work, and that this approach fits with his philosophy of 'voluntary virtue is the best ideology'." I suggest you read the WP content-sourcing links and you should be able to see that your edit does not conform. I don't think I can be any clearer. 20:01, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Here are the direct quotes from Molyneux as given in the text of the book:
  • “I get instant feedback. I know right away if it was good or not based on how many donations come in for that material.”
  • “Your business model needs to be aligned with your content and your approach.”
  • “voluntary virtue is the best ideology,”
So, when you say "Molyneux did not state" these ideas, I have no clue what you're talking about. -- Netoholic @ 05:28, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zwolinski

The Zwolinski sentence in the new "Reception" section is important to the article in that it presents the view of a published academic concerning some of Molyneux' podcasts. The Cato page presents Zwolinski's view to document what Molyneux read and criticized on his podcast. Zwolinski's blog post is RS as to the fact that he criticised Molyneux and the reference is not used to make any statement of fact about anyone other than Zwolinski. The material should not have been reverted and the edit summary on the revert is mistaken. SPECIFICO talk 18:32, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Undue weight - a single sentence in its own section. Out of context - at present, there is no mention of feminism in the article nor any mention of Molyneux's response to Zwolinksi's article. Poorly sourced - citation is from a group blog. I like the Zwolinski response and it might work fine in some context, but citing an off-hand comment about feminism is not encyclopedic. -- Netoholic @ 19:18, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Men's rights activism

Notable yet? Extensive Youtubing on the topic, but is now appearing at A Voice for Men's June conference - David Gerard (talk) 10:54, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, yeah, he has philosophical views on the topic like he does on many things (not "men's rights" per se, more that he opposes the typical state-driven methods of feminists), but he's not done (any/much) writing on the topic, nor have their been strongly notable secondary mentions of his works on the topic. There are other topic areas that are much more notable a deserve focus first, such as his views on Bitcoin, peaceful parenting, his "Truth about..." series, and expansion of the DRO section to be more broadly about his views on voluntaryism/stateless society. Unfortunately, my time is pretty-well-booked with things like locating ever more sources that mention his career as "philosopher", and scratching my head trying to figure out what sources the issue tag spam at the top of the article is all about. -- Netoholic @ 17:43, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article Improvement Tags

Article improvement tags and in-line cleanup tags are WP's mechanism for notifying editors that their participation is needed to help resolve possible problems or policy violations in articles. The tags should not be removed until the issues are resolved, and it is disruptive to do so. Tags are a mechanism for article improvement. SPECIFICO talk 17:09, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Improvement tags are an excellent mechanism for fixing article problems when used appropriately. Unfortunately, they can be misused a convenient "procedural" way to disparage the subject of an article. For example, if an editor dislikes a particular person or viewpoint, spamming the article with tags can be a subtle way to make the subject seem non-notable or generally "has issues", and a way to intimidate editors to stay away from improving it just to avoid getting into a conflict area. I would love to think such tags are being used appropriately and fairly to actually help improve the article. One way to find this out is if there is evidence that the editors placing the tags are actually interested in helping address the problems they are flagging. For example, if an editor repeatedly places a {{primary}} or {{BLP sources}} tag to a maturing article like this one, complaining that better sources are needed, is there any evidence that they are raising specific, actionable objections on a source-by-source level, rather than making blanket statements that help no one focus on the problem areas? Is there any evidence that the goalpost doesn't just keep moving as better sources are added? Is there any evidence that they themselves are looking for better sources for the article to replace the ones they object to?
So yes, used by editors that show evidence of wanting to improve the article, tags are helpful. Repeated use by editors that don't assist in improvement or don't properly communicate their specific objections is unwelcome and disruptive, and the tags are removed rightly because they were placed inappropriately.
I am encouraged to see more use of in-line tags and {{BLP sources section}}, since that's at least a more targeted response to problems rather than a lazy top-of-page template... but still not getting enough specific information on source-by-source basis, nor does there seem to be an effort to locate better sources rather than just flag and run. -- Netoholic @ 18:19, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Several editors have placed section and article improvement tags on this article. You've reverted them over and over, in violation of WP policy (your opinion above to the contrary notwithstanding.) I suggest you restore the tags. SPECIFICO talk 18:26, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My statement above is a reflection of the excellent guidance provided by Wikipedia:Tagging pages for problems. Its particularly helpful for proceeding in this situation, namely "If you identify a issue with a page, and yet the issue is trivial or has a straightforward solution, it's usually best to fix it yourself!" and "Anyone who sees a tag, but does not see the purported problem with the article and does not see any detailed complaint on the talk page, may remove the tag.". If you can't give a clear explanation of a specific problem here on the talk page or in the |reason= parameter of an inline tag, then the issue tag can be appropriately removed. On an additional note: avoid using quips in edit summaries to describe your issue, since they aren't apparent to future editors. -- Netoholic @ 18:55, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following links document talk page threads with respect to the concerns which various tags are meant to help resolve. The tags should be restored and there should be no further removal of these tags without explicit consensus that the associated problems have been resolved. Removal of article improvement tags is bad for WP and it is unfair to Molyneux, who deserves to have as good an article as possible, given the available references.

[3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]
SPECIFICO talk 19:47, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, you're misrepresenting the status of several of those discussions, especially since some mention that tags were removed by the people that inserted them, content that the problems were solved. Second, some of those discussions have me posting the last comment, and the discussion has gone stale for several days. Third, you are still failing to give specific, clear, actionable reasons for your insertion of the tags recently. If you put a tag in right now, its your responsibility to make it clear what's needed, and you also have to explain why you cannot make the necessary improvement yourself rather than just drive-by-tagging. -- Netoholic @ 20:45, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're repeatedly removing the tags against the consensus of all other concerned editors. They need to stay there until specifically addressed by fixing the problems, which the article does in fact have. I made my concerns specific and removed the material of concern; you restored material of concern, which the tags were there concerning. I have restored the tags per this and other talk page discussion, and consensus of all but a single editor. Please do not remove the tags until the concerns are addressed by edits, to the consensus satisfaction of the concerned editor base on the talk page. - David Gerard (talk) 22:34, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The addition of the tags and the above statement still does not include any specific, clear, or actionable concerns (making a non-specific reference to past discussions does not count). The tags will be removed on my next edit unless you denote specific sections, citations, or phrases that you consider problematic. Lazy drive-by-tagging without substance is disruptive and unwelcome. -- Netoholic @ 22:47, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudo-philosophy

There is such a thing. I understand that philosophy is more obscure than other disciplines. But if science is differentiated from pseudo-science by a commitment to empiricism, philosophy is differentiated from sophistry by a commitment to logic. Molyneux's arguments do not conform to basic principles of logic.

Take, for example, his "proof" for objective ethics in his book:

1. Choices are almost infinite. 2. Most human beings make very similar choices. 3. Therefore not all choices can be equal. 4. Therefore universally preferable choices must be valid.

That's completely absurd. He is seriously saying that the fact that people can make various choices, and that those choices differ, establish that some choices must be "universally preferable" and (morally) valid. Steeletrap (talk) 17:52, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so what is your point? The purpose of this talk page is to determine the ways to make the article on Molyneux more informative while adhering to WP standards. How does your statement add anything to that process? If you can come up with any RS supporting this, please add that to the article.--Truther2012 (talk) 18:04, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is not appropriate for the talk page, which is supposed to be about improving the article not debating about his views. There are plenty of places (on eh web) you can go instead where you'll either find answers or confirmation of your interpretation. If you don't feel you can be objective about improving the article due to your disagreement with his viewpoints, then you probably shouldn't edit the article. -- Netoholic @ 18:10, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not debating his views. I'm not saying he's right or wrong. But he does not use the logical standards employed by mainstream philosophers. That's just a fact. I am not saying we should abandon RS standards. But I am saying he would not be regarded a "philosopher" by academics, because he rejects the methodology of philosophy. Steeletrap (talk) 22:11, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So, then, you are actually commenting on the question raised above in the RFC (above) about using the term philosopher in the lede. Why don't you do your !vote and say No and add your commentary to the !vote. When you do so, you can also remove the various remarks in this section. (Besides, proving Molyneux right or wrong here is not helpful.) – S. Rich (talk) 00:18, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Argument against god's existence

Is the ostentatious, hyper-indented block quote really necessary? The argument attributed to Molyneux regarding the logical problems with god's omniscience/omnipotence combo is not original to him. It has been around for thousands of years; and indeed, occurs independently to almost everybody at some point, including intellectually curious (and incurious) children. Molyneux's particular formulation of the argument is neither novel nor notable. Unless we can find RS to the contrary, we should say he's an atheist who believes the concept of god is incoherent, and leave it at that. Steeletrap (talk) 00:21, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Everything is a remix. If we removed everything from articles that was not "original", we'd have a very tiny encyclopedia. Molyneux's "square circle" analogy comes up quite frequently in his discussions of this topic (and is also used in the UPB book) to illustrate logical contradiction for people new to philosophy, so the quote is an appropriate representation. The article is never in a final version, so its assumed that new and better ways to present his views will be worked out. Non-POV contribution and locating of reliable sources is what is called for, not bold personal assertions. --Netoholic @ 00:37, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish family

Since SPECIFICO believes that its impossible that a Jewish family could have been in Dresden or left on their own, I give these:

Molyneux is an expert in his own family history, he has a MA in History, gives an account that is in line with other reliable accounts, and gave this speech to a roomful of students, faculty, and other speakers. To throw doubt on it with no evidence, and based on what seems like limited knowledge of the truth of Germany at the time, is unhelpful. Real history is not black & white. Also, the entire section is sourced to Molyneux, so all the "Molyneux stated..." bits are extraneous. I'll be restoring the section in my next edit. --Netoholic @ 01:13, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stefan_Molyneux&oldid=611611253"