Talk:Stefan Molyneux

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Libertarianism (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon Stefan Molyneux is within the scope of WikiProject Libertarianism, an open collaborative effort to coordinate work for and sustain comprehensive coverage of Libertarianism and related subjects in the Wikipedia.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Find sources: "Stefan Molyneux" – newsnewspapersbooksscholarimagesbingnytddgwrs
Find sources: "Freedomain Radio" – newsnewspapersbooksscholarimagesbingnytddgwrs

Chomsky and "balance"[edit]

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

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

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

Dispute resolution organization - Merger Discussion[edit]

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

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

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

-'Rothbard (a well known figure in business and economics and in the mainstream media) wrote a series of academic papers and books on self-rule and governance including (adjudication under the same) starting in 1940 and continuing to the present day.' On Amazon you will find pages of books authored by Rothbard on an academic subject matter which he defined and then was used, accepted, and quoted, by academia. [1] The DRO started with Molynuex in the first sentence, ended with Molnuex in the conclusion and misused Rothbard as the rationalization.' There are indicators suggesting plagiarism, we need not go that deep into that possibility simply this term does not exist anywhere especially in the works of Rothbard.

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

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

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

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

Primary Sourced Material[edit]

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

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

Viewpoints in Plain Language vs Self Described Jargon[edit]

An editor deleted a sentence which was not meaningful to him, and I would say rightly so because it was unintelligible to anyone not already familiar with the viewpoints of the subject as expressed in his own jargon and lexicon of terms and acronyms. Since these terms are not ubiquitous they need to be described in plain language within the heading and also the first (two or three) sentences of any section.

Someone following the subject would know what FOO is or DeFoo or DRO, or what have you, but the super-majority of people would not.

The subject has a utopian-ideal of how things would work in theory and this applies to justice within a society, family, and the organization (or lack of organization) of a state (state-less-society). These ideals are described by others and here they need to be understood generally. Failure to do so makes this entry speak to only those who had preexisting interest in it.--Lfrankblam (talk) 23:11, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. Plain, specific language is far preferable to jargon that most readers will be unfamiliar with. Steeletrap (talk) 19:26, 23 December 2014 (UTC) User:Srich32977 should check this out. Steeletrap (talk) 19:26, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

BLP caution[edit]

A recent edit summary reads in part "(one child was encouraged to leave)" their FOO. We have no RS which states that Molyneux advised any particular individual to do so. General statements in a broadcast or podcast are not equivalent to encouraging any particular person to de-FOO and this statement is misleading and possibly harmful to Molyneux. SPECIFICO talk 14:42, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

In fact we have RS regarding one particular person (Weed) who was 18 at the time. – S. Rich (talk) 15:00, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Very important not to repeat such assertions here. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 15:05, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
I gather, SPECIFICO, that you agree that recent changes are problematic. I will explain and provide diffs. As of December 15 we had a somewhat stable article. With this diff we see "Critics have characterized Molyneux' philosophy as amateurish and compared him to a cult leader." added to the lead. This has two problems: 1. there is nothing to support "amateurish", and 2. only one comment from 2009 vaguely refers to him as a cult leader (also the sources are now tagged failed verify because they do not have the quote), Next, at this diff, the heading is changed to "Encouraging teenagers to abandon their families". Two problems: 1. a single 18-year old (Weed) was encouraged and 2. the language is value-laden and not used by the sources. The problem gets worse when "teenagers" is changed to "children generally" in this diff. (Again, the sources do not support this.) I revert these changes. My revert is edited here. While "amateurish" is changed to "poorly reasoned", the "children abandon" section heading is reverted to the NPOV version. The next edit changed "abandon" to leave. I again modify the lede to remove the UNDUE cult remark and unsourced plural "critics" remark and to restore the long-standing section heading here. My changes were reverted here. I maintain that these changes violate BLP. To say "critics" (plural) is unsourced and skewed to criticize Molyneux. Same holds true to say "children" when only one example is sourced. "Cult leader" is also an BLP violation because only one source uses the term (and even that source is a problem because the quote is the article is not in the RS). Comments from other editors are encouraged. – S. Rich (talk) 02:13, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I think we have to be very careful to attribute criticisms of the subject to the whoever made them. This is especially true for highly charged words like "cult", hence my recent revert. The word "cult" must appear in quotes, with attribution in body in addition to a footnote (neither of which were used). I'm not clear the words been used enough to justify putting it in the lede. I also found "Support for the right of children to leave their families" to be be a bad section heading. Section headings must be completely neutral. It's debatable whether children have a "right" to leave their families, and if that's what he supports. Also, its not clear if "children" refers to adult children, minor children, or both. So, let's stick to something simple for the header. --Rob (talk) 04:11, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Rob. I agree with your comments. I should add that the "FOO" section involves more than just the topic of children leaving their families. Also, while the British cult organization may be "following" Molyneux (from a source dated several years ago) we do not see them labeling him as a cult leader. Accordingly the edits you have made are appropriate and entirely within keeping of the BLP sanctions that this article is subject to. – S. Rich (talk) 04:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Glad to see you've come around, Srich. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 04:37, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Alleged listening in on confidential therapy sessions[edit]

The sentence "According to The Globe and Mail, Molyneux has been sued for allegedly listening in on confidential therapy sessions conducted by his wife, without the permission of her patients." is (completely) false (at least what the Globe and Mail writes is completely false) and greatly harms Molyneux's reputation. The title of the Globe and Mail article is misleading. The article itself reveals this criticism to be based on an obvious joke of Molyneux's for anybody with a few brain cells:

“I’m in the vent system, listening, and I’m – she calls it heckling, but I don’t really call it heckling, I just call it providing suggestions about how things should go and that the people should donate to Freedomain Radio,” he says in the podcast.
“I mean, it takes them a while to figure what on Earth that is, but I do, sort of, try to put my two cents in and Christina says that sometimes can be distracting and so on. But even with the combined weight of her, directly in front of them, and me, my ghostly voice floating in through the vents, they still have trouble making the kind of personal changes that really have a positive effect on their lives.”

The lawsuit is about alleged copyright law abuse and defamation:, found here

Please read articles before sourcing them, they could be yellow journalism... Requesting deletion of the paragraph. Regarding the lawsuit, I would wait until more has developed as the techdirt article suggests it is very likely to lose. --MDR (talk) 19:47, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Two issues are at play here: First, we've got to go with what the Globe and Mail has written because it is a reliable source. Second, we can't go out and analyze what the lawsuit complaint actually says. The complaint is a primary source court document, and using it in the article would be original research. Now the material may be useful, but is Mike Masnick a reliable source when it comes to commenting on the lawsuit? – S. Rich (talk) 20:59, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
I second S. Rich, the lawsuit document is at best merely a statement. It's filing is public record and could probably be considered, but what it says could be 'Moonpies in outerspace with laser beams' or the most eloquent and perfectly truthful bit of text you've ever read. There's nothing verifiable or true about what's said in the lawsuit as it's just a statement filed to the court. Also saying the globe and mail is not neutral and is critical does not automatically make it unusable. A negative report about someone is not automatically unusable or non neutral. Also his listening in on confidential therapy sessions was also iirc part of the sanction his wife recieved was it not? I remember there being some mention in her formal reprimand and sanctions regarding that but it was a minor infraction compared to what the bulk of it was. FlossumPossum (talk) 21:24, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Alright, if we say that Globe and Mail is a reliable source, then we have to read it. It does not say "sued for allegedly listening in" but "The allegations are part of a lawsuit" which is a small but important difference, considering it is in fact about an alleged misuse of the DMCA, which the Globe and Mail itself states (or rather, it is very, very unclear on what the charges actually are). On the second point I have to thank your for educating me about no original research, I did not know this applies.
Then FlossumPossum brings up an important point: "what it says could be 'Moonpies in outerspace with laser beams' or the most eloquent and perfectly truthful bit of text you've ever read. There's nothing verifiable or true about what's said in the lawsuit as it's just a statement filed to the court." But the Globe and Mail is just based on that statement! "Mr. Molyneux has not filed a statement of defence and could not be reached for comment. Ms. Papadopoulos and her lawyer declined to comment." On the prior sanction: No, it was not. It was about her giving advice on the internet. So in a way very public but never labelled as official therapy. --MDR (talk) 13:40, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────there is Zero difference in meaning between "Sued for allegedly" and "allegations in a lawsuit". In both cases its clear that the claims are allegations, and that the allegations were presented in a lawsuit. WP:OR is a policy that applies to us, not the Globe and Mail. If they have analyized the WP:PRIMARY documents, then we use their analaysis of them. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:39, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

redacting blp violation[edit]

Could you both please stick to specifics and not offer your opinions of Molyneux? Let's deal with content at the level of text and sources. Is there article text that fails verification or is undue? Are there RS not adequately represented here? In either case, those would suggest ways to improve the article. SPECIFICO talk 19:13, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Contested deletion[edit]

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... (your reason here) --Mississippi4music (talk) 19:20, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Stefan as a larger amount of subscribers than many other youtube personalities found on wikipedia, such as Mississippi4music (talk) 19:20, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Contested deletion[edit]

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because it is of importance. -- (talk) 19:30, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Article does not qualify for speedy deletion[edit]

The criterion cited for the speedy deletion (CSD A7) states:

"The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines."

Claims have been made about importance and notability, and therefore qualification for speedy deletion cannot be claimed. If deletion is desired, this needs to go through the normal, "non speedy' articles for deletion process, WP:AFD. I'm removing the tag. Marteau (talk) 19:53, 21 April 2015 (UTC)