Jump to content

Talk:Stefan Molyneux/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
"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)
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)

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)

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)
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)
Concur - it fails even as a reference to the subject's own words - David Gerard (talk) 14:21, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)

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)

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)

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)

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)
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)
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)

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.

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]
SPECIFICO talk 19:47, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

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)
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)
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)

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
I note that you did comment in the survey. You did so 3 minutes before I posted this comment. – S. Rich (talk) 05:33, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)
No one is saying that "his" argument should be removed. But it is undue to give an un-notable argument such a bloated section. Steeletrap (talk) 02:32, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

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)

First, I did not state "impossible" -- I didn't even remove his assertion. I conformed the text to what he actually said and put it in his voice as a primary source. Second, you need a secondary independent RS for what remains a specific, and highly improbable narrative of fact. You should discuss your views on talk -- preferably by finding RS concerning Molyneux' family (which is the fact asserted in this text) and not get into more serial reverts, which do not help improve this article. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 01:21, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Nobody is accepted as an "expert" on themselves. That's why we favor 3rd party sources. Even somebody who is a reliable source when writing about others, is not neutral when writing about themselves. Contentious material in a BLP has to be removed. The onus is entirely on those wishing to keep material, per WP:BLP. There's no obligation to disprove something on those wishing to remove it. Self-sourcing is sometimes ok for non-contenious mundane claims. But, while his family story may be entirely plausible, but it is slightly exceptional, which requires better sourcing. We can't auto-accept anything somebody says about themselves. --Rob (talk) 06:37, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Philosophy Career section

I don't think the Career section is applicable here - Molyneux does not have a career per se. I propose to remove the "Philosophy Career" heading altogether and promote "Freedomain Radio" and "Public Appearances" (current sub-headers) to the level 1 headers. --TRUTHER2012 15:32, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

It is also inappropriate given that the RfC above appears to be coming to the conclusion that he should not be described as a "philosopher". Even if he was, and had a career, I have no idea what a "Philosophy career" is. The next heading "Philosophical views" is equally dubious. The more I become familiar with this page and its subject, the more it comes across as an attempt to big up a fairly fringe political activist, albeit one who appears to have a fervent following within said fringe. N-HH talk/edits 15:44, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
The RfC is about whether "philosopher" should have any qualifiers. Also, cite a reliable source for your view that Molyneux is "fringe" or else you're just giving an opinion, not an argument. There are ample sources which refer to his views as philosophy. -- Netoholic @ 18:19, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
I know what the RfC is about. And, yes, the idea that he is a fringe figure is indeed my opinion, just as it is no doubt an opinion held by many other people, here and elsewhere. Btw no one needs to "cite a reliable source" for every observation made on a talk page, whether as matter of common sense or of WP practice. Nor are randomly culled sources, whether they prefer one interpretation or another, trump cards that secure an argument in favour of the person deploying them, in respect of talk pages or article content. N-HH talk/edits 18:37, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
"The next heading "Philosophical views" is equally dubious."
How so? His philosophical views, and his talking about them, are just about the only notable things about him.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 21:41, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, I say "dubious" rather than outright wrong. But the point is that there is genuine dispute as to whether his views as a whole can be – or are – characterised as "philosophical" at all. Plus, even if some of his areas of interest and observations might, possibly, warrant the broad description, the specific topics currently listed under the heading here are mostly more general political and social ones, eg dispute resolution, parent-child relationships. N-HH talk/edits 09:53, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Ah, you mean that they are, arguably, not proper philosophy, but pseudo-philosophy? Good point. Interesting. I'll have to think about that.
Maybe a renaming from "Philosophical views" to "views"? Or "Ideas"?--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 13:42, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
I changed the header to the more fitting "media career" but this was quickly undone. He does have a career/business in media and public speaking, but "philosophy career" is nonsense. SPECIFICO talk 15:58, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Truther's idea is probably the best. -- Netoholic @ 18:19, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done--TRUTHER2012 21:12, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Separate Freedomain Radio article

Separating the Freedomain Radio into its own article is not preferable. Molyneux and the show right now are inextricably linked, as the sources for one almost universally talk about the other. Having a separate article also does not allow us to put the controversy in context with how Molyneux's views lead to it. There is no arbitrary limit on article length, either, so that is not a concern at this point. I do question motives though, since the person that split the article up has on other occasions (The Joe Rogan Experience, The Corbett Report) questioned the notability of separate articles for podcasts alone. I can't see the logical consistency. -- Netoholic @ 18:19, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Family members

Members of an article subject's immediate family should not be named because names should be kept private. The topic of his wife also fails the standard of inclusion because she is not a public figure and notable for only one event, and that event is already documented in the article without need to reference her. --Netoholic @ 17:22, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

His wife became a public person when she contributed to the podcasts. The notability guideline you mention determines whether an article on her should be or could be created. It has nothing to do with whether the information is noteworthy. – S. Rich (talk) 17:47, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Actually, she was a public figure. The two of them did the podcasts together. There is substantial independent coverage from multiple highly reliable sources. Mentioning his wife is critical to describe the controversy, because she was a licensed therapist. If we were writing an article on Freedomain Radio alone, it would be utterly obvious that we must include it. WP:BLP1E tells us that we should not make a *stand-alone* article on her, but should instead include the content in the larger article (Freedomain Radio ) to give it context. This article, with your removal, is incredibly bias. You've kept numerous primary, near-primary, and friendly non-notable secondary sources (e.g. fellow bloggers/pundits who agree with his views), but aggressively removed something of substance from reliable sources, that don't share your bias. This hasn't been covered elsewhere. The article only mentions "deFOOed" once, in "Parent-child relationships", and it presents it as basically a matter of opinion. A regulator of therapists found Freedomain Radio provided improper advice under the guise of acting as a therapist. That's very serious. Also, I find your privacy concerns misleading. At best, you could debate naming her (since they have different last names), but you didn't just remove her name, but removed all negative information about FR. I think her name is actually important, because she gave an agreed statement of facts about statements made on FR. Also, the College of Psychologists of Ontario is the only qualified and official source that has ever said anything about anything broadcast by FR. Every other source we use, is just giving their opinion. The College of Psychologists of Ontario actually had and exercised its legal authority to pass judgement on the content of some podcasts of Freedomain Radio. You may thing my text seems unfair, but per WP:FRINGE we are not supposed to present both sides of a fringe theory fairly. When somebody advances a fringe theory, that's condemned strongly as such, we are to present just what the *experts* say. We are not to give the subject equal space/weight in defending their theory, as we do in your version (but suppressing official criticism and puppetting his own defenses). So, really, I think the only issue here, is to discuss where the text should be included, and how to word it fairly. --Rob (talk) 18:25, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
The podcasts that involve her are no longer made public, as part of the disciplinary action (see WP:BLPNAME re: concealment). This incident was a brief mention in the news, doesn't add value to the article, and so the general presumption in favor of privacy is still applicable at this time. BLP policies extend to any mention of any living person, whether as an article to themselves, a talk page, a user page, or even a section of page. Please revert per the presumption of privacy and discuss the actual value this has on an article about Stefan Molyneux. -- Netoholic @ 18:39, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Added: Family estrangement as a concept is not "fringe", even Dr. Phil endorses it if continued contact is hurtful. --Netoholic @ 19:45, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Would including the information but omitting the name be satisfactory to all parties? Gamaliel (talk) 18:43, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I've re-reverted the removal. Let's get a consensus on the question before re-adding it. I think the material should be used, but it needs revision to avoid undue emphasis. – S. Rich (talk) 18:46, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Her name, in particular, is not relevant. I would support a one-sentence criticism of "DeFOOing" that comes directly from the College of Psychologists of Ontario, but the problem that this topic has always had is that neither article has a quote of their actual findings (just a quote in Globe&Mail from the prosecutor, which is not the same, and is prejudicial). --Netoholic @ 18:58, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
The matriarchal lineage (e.g., his wife) and her contributions to this important part of his philosophy (DeFOOing) needs explanation. This is not a situation where she was contributing to some other talk show or podcast. They were in this together and context is important. More than one sentence is needed. – S. Rich (talk) 19:10, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Your sarcasm and disdain are leaking out. --Netoholic @ 19:45, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Simply trying to be helpful. But I do not have distain for him at all. Far from it. At the same time, I eschew whitewashing and undue promotion. – S. Rich (talk) 20:00, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

If her involvement in deFOOing is covered in reliable sources, and she involved herself in those discussions in the podcasts, then I see no reason to exclude that content from the article. However, I also see no specific value that her name provides that "Molyneux's wife" also doesn't provide. We are not making an appeal to authority or anything here where her name/reputation provides (or detracts) from her credibility correct? Gaijin42 (talk) 19:50, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

"Molyneux's wife, a [clinical/licensed/whatever] psychologist" works for me. – S. Rich (talk) 20:00, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
The one benefit of using her name, is that it appears in the midst of text we may wish to quote. For example: :*"In an agreed statement of facts about the podcasts, which were called "Ask a Therapist", P------- said that separation from one's family may sometimes be appropriate — for example in a case of abusive behaviour — but conceded that she didn’t assess in the podcasts whether this was always properly applied. The therapist is estranged from her own family." or there is "In the statement of facts she agreed to, P------- said that she was, "with the benefit of hindsight, naive about the use and possible misuse of information distributed via the internet."" So, if we hide her name, we have to paraphrase (risking bias debates), redact her name, or omit points. But, inclusion of her name isn't a big deal to me, and can be satisfied if someone comes up some appropriate wording. I'm mainly concerned with inclusion of reliable content about PR. --Rob (talk) 20:09, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Those quotes point to the main problem: the professional misconduct was about the fact that she participated in podcasts in which she did not/could not directly assess the the listeners, and so her advice could not be properly applied to the needs of specific persons. There was not a official statement on the validity of the specific concept of "DeFOOing", which is the only context which matters for this article. --Netoholic @ 20:35, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
I could see both contexts being appropriate for the article (assuming appropriate sourcing of course). While criticism or commentary on the deFOO concept itself is valuable, misconduct in the ballpark of medical malpractice (using the term loosely here for conversational purposes) done by Molyneux or his wife on their show is appropriate in a section dealing with the show. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:57, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
The misconduct hearing dealt with deFOOing, as in "Ms. P------- advocated a practice called deFOOing, or dissociating from one’s family of origin, the panel heard."[7] Now, we can easily remove her name from that quote, since it's at the start I suppose. But, the quotes I gave above, are are about Freedomain Radio which is a notable topic, that is at the core of this article. While you seem to think that Molyneux's thoughts on deFOOing and other things is all that matters, what reliable sources say, is that the effects of FR podcasts have on people and their families is what matters. I find it stunning we're debating using two of the most substantive and reliable sources in the entire article, in favour of using assorted primary sources, and links to fellow barely notable internet pundits. We have a reliable source discussing an authoritative body making serious assertions about Freedomain Radio. I'm not sure what would matter more to this article. --Rob (talk) 21:00, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
"The panel heard" but did not make any published determination of the validity of deFOOing itself. You're implying via guilt-by-association that because she was reprimanded on how she communicated advice, that the content of that advice was also invalid. You've got a good source there, but that authoritative body did not make any statement condemning Stefan or FDR, nor did they condemn the deFOO concept itself. --Netoholic @ 21:11, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

its more than just how. Giving theraputic or medical advice without appropriate information about the validity of that advice is more than just about "how" - that certainly gets into the "what". If a doctor advises emergency self-amputation of your foot because you complain about an infection - maybe you have gangrene on a deserted island, or maybe you have an ingrown toenail and should make an appointment. Its certainly malpractice to give advice without knowing which is which. Nobody disputes that cutting off of toxic relationships may be appropriate in some circumstances (as that article says " While family separation is sometimes appropriate in cases of abuse, she didn’t assess whether this was properly applied when she made her podcasts, said an agreed statement of facts read at the hearing." and "Your statements in support of deFOOing are not supported by current professional literature or consistent with the standards [of the college]" Gaijin42 (talk) 21:15, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

The "your statements in support of deFOOing" line is from the prosecutor - not the deciding body, and to use that quote is prejudicial and misleading. -- Netoholic @ 21:18, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
It's not misleading include a quote from the prosecutor, if it's made clear who's being quoted. We're supposed to follow reliable sources, not second guess, and censor them. --Rob (talk) 21:29, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
No one said anything about censoring, but we do choose what we include by giving due weight, and the statements of a prosecutor are generally not appropriate, as they are biased in favor of guilt and can't really be balanced. Its better to go with the final judgement, which doesn't mention or or condemn advice relating to family separation... it only says she didn't ensure the advice was properly applied to the people she spoke to. --Netoholic @ 21:57, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

"For a time, Molyneux's wife, a licensed therapist, participated on FDR shows giving advice to listeners about family relationships, but, after two formal complaints to the CPO, she was reprimanded in 2012 for not properly assessing whether the advice was being applied correctly."(Globe&Mail ref) - This is the line as I see it being most appropriately phrased to be put into the FDR section as historical background on the show (presented with about the same weight as other guests/participants that are listed). -- Netoholic @ 21:57, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

This whitewashes what the sources say. You can get a good summary of what the sources say from their titles: "DeFOOing is phooey, College tells therapist" and "Therapist who told podcast listeners to shun their families reprimanded". The titles, and the overall content make clear she was reprimanded for giving bad advice to disconnect from families. You obviously disagree with the sources, but per WP:NPOV what the reliable sources say is actually what defines what neutrality is on Wikipedia. We're to reflect the sources, even if we don't agree with them. If you feel the sources are unfair, you should to take your concerns up with them not us. You can't selectively take bits from them you like to fit your perception of fairness. I'm not saying we should quote the titles in the article, but am saying that we must strike a balance in the article that reflects the balance struck in the sources. --Rob (talk) 22:35, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
The Mississauga article is directly derivative of The Globe and Mail one, not independently written, so really we're talking about just that one source. I don't get what important is missing from the line I proposed. We can't include everything, I think my line summarizes it pretty accurately. I could change "family relationships" to "family separation" if you like, I was writing to generally include the non-separation family advice she also was giving. -- Netoholic @ 22:55, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
We can't include everything important, if we stick to an artificial limit of one line. You text does not reflect Globe source properly, such as "...the College of Psychologists of Ontario found her guilty of professional misconduct because she used the Internet to counsel people to emulate her and sever ties with their families" Notice how it says she counseled people to sever ties. It doesn't just talk of her general family counseling. It's critical to give the full reason for the reprimand. --Rob (talk) 23:04, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
One line is I think a fair amount of due weight compared to the rest of the article. A paragraph was way too much. -- Netoholic @ 23:21, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Pretty good. Three concerns: 1. We need more than just "licensed therapist". If the license is as a psychologist, then say "licensed psychologist" or "psychologist licensed with the College of Psychologists of Ontario". (Does the CPO issue the licenses?) 2. "Applied correctly" sounds incorrect -- who actually applies advice? How about "not provided in accordance with professional protocols/norms/procedures" (select one)? 3. If she was issuing advice in connection with deFOOing, then that tie-in to Molyneux's thought needs to be made. (Added thought: Prosecutors are not necessarily biased – the vast majority favor the rule of law and justice; likewise, defense counsel are not biased in favor of innocence – the vast majority are committed to the rule of law and justice, and they do so by ensuring that the rights of defendants are preserved, even if the perps "did the deed".) – S. Rich (talk) 22:43, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
The article uses "therapist" three times, the phrase "psychological associate" once, and "psychologist" none. Officially, the CPO issues "Certificate of Registration". I guess could drop the word "licensed" if that doesn't count. The exact phrase in the source about her "she didn’t assess whether this was properly applied" so that's what I rephrased to "applied correctly". Just going with what the source says. Added: How's this version: For a time, Molyneux's wife, a registered therapist, participated on FDR shows giving advice about family separation ("deFOOing"), but, after two formal complaints to the CPO, she was reprimanded in 2012 for not properly assessing listeners to ensure that the advice was being applied correctly.(Globe&Mail ref) -- Netoholic @ 23:21, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
There is a big difference by giving advice on separation, and counseling to separate. It's rather typical to give advice on people going through separation. Nobody is reprimanded for that. She allegedly "advocated a practice called deFOOing". If the article is running to long, we can trim it back quickly by removing everything that's not sourced to a 3rd party reliable source. --Rob (talk) 23:27, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
It can use the word "counsel" - thats not a big change. Also, I don't get what you're "trim it back" refers to. There is no policy that says articles must be made up completely of 3rd-party RS... only that they must be based on them... and this article has plenty which form a sold base. The primary sources are minimal SELFPUB or 2nd-party (guests, appearance, etc) that go toward giving the article more breadth and are perfectly allowable. --Netoholic @ 23:58, 9 June 2014 (UTC) Added: Molyneux's wife, a registered therapist, participated on FDR shows for a time, until two formal complaints were made to the CPO resulting in a professional reprimand for not properly assessing the callers she spoke with to ensure the counsel she gave to them about family separation ("deFOOing") was being applied correctly.(Globe&Mail ref) -- Netoholic @ 06:10, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
I think 'trim it back' means slash it to a third it is now - taking down a fair bit of what could be considered low note primary supported promotional details. I don't see that much unduly promo story writing here to cause such a slash of the story. Considering the size of the article and the length of time they worked together (five years) and the official wrist slap on the wife, I don't see much problem with reporting it - my only problem was with the web links - only two - and one only from web archive, no longer hosted and [the other http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/toronto/therapist-who-told-podcast-listeners-to-shun-their-families-reprimanded/article4846791/ not exactly a worldwide link] - a local one only - so there is only weak support, minimal reporting of the story by other reporters , wiki doesn't want to/isn't supposed to become be the primary reporter of the story - so I am in two minds about this story and as wp:blp directs caution I am leaning towards taking the story down - willing to support this User:Netoholic add to the story Mosfetfaser (talk) 05:07, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Editors please note that I have recommended that the BLPN dramaboard thread be closed. Let's continue to hash it out here. – S. Rich (talk) 05:35, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Mosfetfaser, Could you clarify your concern about only one being from the web archive? The mississauga.com link is in archive.org. The G&M is not, because they restrict access. But, the G&M is a major national newspaper that's available pretty widely available in libraries (in case the story is ever taken offline). mississauga.com is locally focussed, but G&M is national, and the story is an international one (relating to the UK parents). It's also worth noting, that while the Guardian[8] did not mention the professional reprimand, it demonstrates the issue of FD deFOOing is a story of international interest. When we put this item back in the article, I think it would be good to put all deFOOing coverage together in one spot, to give proper context. Everything said pro/netural/against FR's deFOOing approach should appear together, though I'm not sure which section that would be.. --Rob (talk) 05:49, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

yes - just assessed the independent reporting as weak and not continued - its just not an international story is it, and not reported over any period of time - flash in the pan trivial coverage - didn't see the guardian story from 2008, that is why it stops to mention the 'reprimand' because it was written earlier, was it ever in the wiki article? - anyway - its a minor issue in the subjects life story - lets agree to add a sentence and be over, stop wasting time over this minor issueMosfetfaser (talk) 06:04, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
There's no mention the 2012 Globe that the complaints are related at all to UK family mentioned in The Guardian 2008 article. That's because Molyneux's wife had no part of the deFOOing story mentioned in Guardian - which is a separate topic already covered abundantly in the article, and where mention of her would be out of place, because it would imply a connection that doesn't exist. The 2012 Globe is simply not a "referendum" on the deFOO concept at all. Its not related to the earlier, more controversial incident... and no formal opinion on deFOO was issued (other than if you're a registered therapist, you shouldn't be counseling people over the internet that you can't assess per professional standards). --Netoholic @ 06:51, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
@Rob - I can fully understand why it would be easy to conflate the two incidents based on just the common thread of deFOO, but, in light of the sources not showing that the 2012 reprimand has any direction connection with the 2008 "deFOO" controversy, do you still feel the article gains anything by reporting on the wife's participation in the show and resulting professional reprimand (especially in light of the general preference toward the presumed desire for privacy)? --Netoholic @ 19:47, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
You keep on ignoring most of what the G&M article said. It wasn't only about the professional reprimand. It was about the fact that multiple families in the UK and US had complained to the G&M of having been "deFOOed". Even if we don't mention the reprimand in the same section as the Guardian deFOOing, it's still appropriate to mention the G&M and Guardian deFOOing in the same spot. The professional status of Molyneux's wife isn't the most important issue. What's signficant is the substantial coverage of criticism of Freedomain Radio's advocacy of deFOOing. It makes sense to group similar complaints together even if they're not all from the same family. You want to limit the G&M source to only that which is explicitly stated by the regulator, while ignoring all of the rest of the substantial content. --Rob (talk) 20:15, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
@Rob - The G&M 2012 article does not mention that the complaints came from the UK or US. They only say they came in 2009 and 2011, they do not mention the source. And those complaints were about her professional conduct, not the merits of deFOO. Can you point me to where in the article you're drawing this conclusion from? --Netoholic @ 20:38, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
"... several parents from Britain and the United States have told The Globe and Mail that their children consulted Freedomain Radio, then became estranged from their families."[9] --Rob (talk) 21:07, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
@Rob - But those emails to the newspaper are not said to be related to the formal complaints regarding Molyneux's wife, right? So do you want the Wikipedia article to report about the formal complaints, or about the emails sent to G&M? -- Netoholic @ 21:24, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Please just read the whole article. It goes well beyond simply stating official findings of the complaints process. It talks about the type of advice given by PR and criticism and complaints of it, just as the Guardian piece does. Commentary on PR's view of deFOOing is really what's notable here, and should be the main reason for using the G&M source. Currently we devote a whole paragraph to single incident in the Guardian. We could instead have one paragraph which mentions multiple families making similar complaints of deFOOing. If I had to choose, I would rather mention the commentary on deFOOing than the reprimand (though I think we can discuss both). --Rob (talk) 21:40, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
I'll wait for other people to comment at this point, but the single 2008 incident is the one that got extensive press and so has an extensive write-up here already. My guess is that those emails from "several parents" came into the G&M office anytime between the 2008 G&M article on the UK family and this 2012 G&M article on the reprimand, so I'm not sure what, if any, is an appropriate amount of weight to give to the brief mention in this article that was mostly about a formal reprimand. -- Netoholic @ 22:42, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

This thread seems to have been derailed long time ago. The question originally posed was, whether or not to include Molyneux' wife name as relating to *her* conduct hearing. She participated in a few podcasts, gave questionable advice, was reprimanded for it, removed the podcasts and never participated again. Case resolved and closed. Including her name in a controversial light adds no value to this article and potentially negatively impacts occupational capacity of a living person. If you want to discuss the controversies of Molyneux' DeFOO advice, that's a whole different bag of cats.--Truther2012 (talk) 14:52, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

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

The consensus appears to be against this proposal, largely due to the lack of reliable sources using this description. Number 57 11:13, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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)+
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • No - the sources aren't RSes on the question, as I said above - David Gerard (talk) 18:56, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • No There are no WP:Reliable sources to verify the claim that he is a philosopher.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 03:01, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
  • No he wrote about philosophers in his MA thesis, but there has never published anything. TFD (talk) 03:57, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • Yes - He is a historian of philosophy, by academic training, and that involves an academic knowledge of philosophy. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:35, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
  • No barring an independent RS describing him as a philosopher. We don't decide who is a philosopher and who is not, that is original research. Molyneux can call himself whatever he wants, but the world does not have to agree. We go by what reliable sources say, as we always do. Gamaliel (talk) 17:31, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
  • No Best WP:RS available (Globe and Mail) calls him only "self-described" philosopher. --Rob (talk) 17:57, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes He self identifies as a Philosopher, has demonstrated knowledge of philosophy and engages in the practice of philosophy - discussing and analyzing philosophical questions. Freeranging intellect (talk) 21:05, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

  • 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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
To call him a "political philosopher", is to claim that he is a philosopher.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 03:05, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
  • 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)
  • 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)

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)

We don't negotiate facts here. And we don't repeat promotional self-description. Bad idea. SPECIFICO talk 01:04, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
  • 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)
"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)
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)
"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 person could spend all day pointing out contradictions in ZarlanTheGreen's arguments, but for now I will simply point out that his 'rule' that a PhD is required to be considered a scientist or philosopher is simply wrong, or at least is contradicted continually across Wikipedia. For example, here is Ben Franklin - referred to as a scientist and later a physicist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Franklin. He stopped receiving schooling at age 10. If you insist on holding this ridiculous view then you have a LOT of edits to make across Wikipedia but prepare to meet resistance because very few people will agree with you. Freeranging intellect (talk) 16:24, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
"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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
"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)

"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)
"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)
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)

"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)
"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)
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)

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)
@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)
@ZarlanTheGreen: - The times NickCT (talk) 20:55, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
@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)

More replies to motivations in the survey:

@Robert McClenon:"He is a historian of philosophy, by academic training, and that involves an academic knowledge of philosophy."
A historian of philosophy, by academic training? Even if one accepts the unverified claim that his masters dissertation was about philosophers, that is still not true.
"and that involves an academic knowledge of philosophy."
No. Even being a historian of philosophy does not involve that (though you do learn a bit of it), and it doesn't make you a philosopher, either way. A historian of physics is not a physicist.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 21:39, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

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)

That's a straw man. SPECIFICO talk 13:22, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)

I took a look at WP:Consensus and WP:RfC. From what I can see, all issues and concerns (regarding the issue of whether or not Molynuex can be called a philosopher) have been dealt with ...and no new points or concerns have been raised. The discussion has been nothing more than the repeating the same arguments and I see no real point in continuing it further. I'd argue for the RfC being closed (note, however, WP:RFC#Ending RfCs concerning how this can/should be done) as we have, as far as I can see, a clear consensus (not unanimity, but that is not required) and that the article edited to remove any talk of Molynuex being a philosopher, in accordance to said consensus.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 14:07, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I have requested closure here [10]. In my experience, these requests sometimes sit on the board for an extended period. I think we need to have a formal close in order to avoid a continuation of the dispute about this. SPECIFICO talk 14:16, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Oh good ...and I do agree that we probably need a formal close, to avoid further problems.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 15:05, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

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 (see User:Netoholic/Molyneux) 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)

ASSERT deals with how we edit articles. Talkpage discussions often involve personal opinions about what should be in articles. Hence, we see IMHO, IMNSHO, IMO, etc. Moreover, we see guidance at WP:TALK#USE that advises us to explain our opinions. So, "dismissing" opinions because they are not facts is not helpful. (Including my name as one who voted because of a personal opinion or personal definition is misplaced. I did not make any such statement. My comments were about the weight to be given in the first sentence of the lede.) – S. Rich (talk) 02:44, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
WP:TALK#USE does not say "explain our opinions", it says "explain your views" and specifically - "Stay objective: Talk pages are not a forum for editors to argue their personal point of view about a controversial issue. They are a forum to discuss how the points of view of reliable sources should be included in the article, so that the end result is neutral. The best way to present a case is to find properly referenced material." Every vote in the RfC that fails to cite material, is just an opinion and can be disregarded on that basis alone. -- Netoholic @ 03:03, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
@Netoholic: You have misrepresented my view as stated in the RfC response above. We need RS to verify any statement that SM is a philosopher. We have none. RS must be considered in the context of the content for which it is cited. There is no RS commensurate with the claim that SM is a philosopher. I stated this clearly in my brief words of opposition above. Please be careful not to misrepresent other editors' views. SPECIFICO talk 02:54, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
You don't get it. Your opinion doesn't matter at all. Neither does mine, which is why I devoted an entire page (User:Netoholic/Molyneux) to the purpose of compiling every source and every factual basis that I could find to support the statement that he is a philosopher. You don't have to guess at what my opinion is, nor decide if its a good opinion or not for the purpose of this article... because my vote is based on the preponderance of the evidence I've gathered. You have given no evidence for your opinion, and so that opinion and vote can be dismissed on that basis alone. --Netoholic @ 03:22, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Just as your opinion of what people objecting to your preferred description are basing those objections on, and whether those objections are valid or not, doesn't matter at all. You need to back off bludgeoning everyone and every comment as well as to avoid personalising this, misrepresenting what others are saying and demanding that reasoned objections from those people be "dismissed". You also seem to misunderstand WP policy. WP:RS very much does depend on context and on what the source is being used to support (see WP:CONTEXTMATTERS and most discussions at WP:RSN). As for your list, which you are asserting is some kind of objective and impartial collation of incontrovertible evidence, I'm not sure how many of them are sources we would normally rely on for anything at all – let alone for this sort of specific claim – or how many of them anyway actually assert, explicitly, that Molyneux himself is a "philosopher". I can find 1001 authoritative and/or academic sources, covering the field of philosophy, that say Wittgenstein is a "philosopher". Are there any for Molyneux? N-HH talk/edits 18:11, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Wittgenstein lived from 1889–1951. So sure, maybe if you give it a few decades we'll see how things shake out. Today what we have are several reliable newspapers, a book, the subject's on clear assertion, and dozens of secondary references. No one in this discussion has brought even one reliable source that counters any of this. Not one. Molyneux has had several philosophers on his show, and has been reviewed by both professional and amateur philosophers... not one has said "Molyneux is not a philosopher". Even his critics only address the merits of his arguments, but do not challenge his career. --Netoholic @ 09:13, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Well let's wait a few decades then, and see if he actually gets that level of accreditation rather than guessing that he will. Also Wittgenstein was obviously an extreme example, with a profile, reputation and history that Molyneux can't of course match. However, contemporary philosophers get contemporary notices and, as noted, the contemporary sources presented do not make much of a case here. They are mostly passing mentions in lower-tier sources referring vaguely to "philosophy". They are not widespread conclusions about him in authoritative publications. If we don't have decent sourcing for the claim that he is a philosopher, we certainly cannot rely on saying "Well, there aren't any that say he isn't". This is pretty flimsy stuff all round tbh. N-HH talk/edits 09:36, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
"passing mentions in lower-tier sources referring vaguely" - Um, no. On my list of sources at User:Netoholic/Molyneux#Book and news sources, I've emphasized the precise use of the term philosopher in the reliable newspapers and books that use that precise word, not "vague" at the least. --Netoholic @ 09:43, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Um, yes. You missed out the preceding word "mostly" in quoting my words. I have previously given a more precise breakdown showing quite how limited the list is in what it shows: one dubious book source that explicitly says "philosopher" and a couple of national news sources that use it but qualify the term disparaginly. Beyond that, there's loads of obscure online promotional fluff and vague uses of the term "philosophy" in proximity to his name. Not one academic or philosophy-related source that explictly describes him, without qualification, as "a philosopher". N-HH talk/edits 09:53, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Feel free to ignore the "fluff" if you like. You still have to make a convincing argument that 4 newspapers and a book (published by a major company like Simon & Schuster) are unreliable. These sources are clearly reliable for all the other statements made in them, you can't just ignore the ones your ideology can't digest. And there is nothing disparaging about saying "internet philosopher"... it only indicates where he works... exactly like saying "Canadian author" or "television cook". -- Netoholic @ 10:00, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I will, as will everyone else. And I do not have to make a convincing argument that your tiny number of cherry-picked sources are necessarily unreliable in themselves, I just have to note, as I have, that that is all you have and that we have no widespread conclusion across sources that he is a philosopher and zero individual assertions of that in any academic or philosophy-related source. Simon and Schuster publishing a book on business leadership gurus in which an author happens to use the term once in passing for Molyneux does not mean the description magically becomes a fact or that they have explicitly endorsed, let alone therefore objectively confirmed, the term. And I assume you are not seriously arguing that the description "self-described Internet philosopher" is not disparaging. N-HH talk/edits 10:06, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm amused that you accuse me of cherry-picking (which is clearly not the case, all those sources are used in the article itself).... and yet you cherry-pick what you like from them. If you think this is about "facts" per se, then you'll always be arguing about a lot of things. Nothing about WP:RS/WP:V is about "facts"... its a about what can be verified'... as in, can the reader be reasonably sure that the Wikipedia article accurately reflects the sources, that the existence of the sources and their content can by verified by the reader, and that the sources have mechanisms to facilitate accurate statements (such as being known to release corrections, etc). Sometimes, that has just got to be good enough for now so that we can just move on to other things and make more efficient use of our editing time. Letting reliable sources (even if its just a few or even one) stand on their own claims lets us do that. -- Netoholic @ 10:41, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

List of sources

My contributions aren't worth their own section but I wasn't sure where else to stick this. Netoholic asked me to look at his list of sources and I have. There seem to be three arguments in play that I am somewhat sympathetic to. To paraphrase, as I understand their arguments:

  • You should be allowed to self-identify.
  • A philosopher is someone who practices philosophy.
  • The paradox of professional identification.

As far as self-identification, I agree with this certainly, to an extent. You should be able to self-describe certain attributes to an extent, like your political affiliation and your ethnicity. But even something like the latter, we only go so far. Freddy Prinze and Tiger Woods coined terms to describe their ethnic makeup, and they are mentioned in their articles, but not as statements of fact, such as "Tiger Woods is a Cablinasian-American golfer." Do you get to choose your own profession? Only so far. On Wikipedia, we always have to watch out for people who want to inflate their credentials and call themselves something they are not. While we want to allow a person to self-identify to an extent, we also can't promote fringe viewpoints, even if those viewpoints are about someone's own self. I can't hang out a shingle and call myself a doctor, legally, without the appropriate training, credentials, and certification, and my Wikipedia article certainly would not describe myself as a doctor if I lacked those things. Now there are a great many philosophers of the past who lack those credentials, but the fact of the matter is in this day, a philosopher is academic profession and requires academic credentials. Are their philosophers who are not academics? Perhaps, but the challenge is how do we identify them as such when they exist outside this professional sphere? The closest thing I can think of to such a thing is Alain de Botton, and his article does not describe him as a philosopher.

The paradox of professional identification is the fact that credentialed philosophers generally do not refer to each other in print as "my colleague, the philosopher Joe Shmoe". But there are, in fact, plenty of sources to identify these people as philosophers if you dig hard enough. For example, I took a class with Kwasi Wiredu (and unfortunately retained little, though the fault is mine), an obscure figure to the layman who doesn't have a lot of newspaper articles being written about him. But even without referencing academic job titles and credentials, there are a number of first-rate academic sources which directly label him as a philosopher: A Companion to African Philosophy (Oxford University Press), One Hundred Philosophers (Barron's), etc. This task is harder for a philosopher who is not an academic, but this is not Wikipedia's problem to correct and we should not compensate for this by relaxing the rules on sourcing.

As such, I did not take into consideration any sources which did not directly identify Molyneux as a philosopher. Netoholic writes "context matters", but we cannot use this context to extrapolate from sources conclusions that are not directly stated, as that is original research. Yes, perhaps "these kinds of sources aren't ever likely to call Molyneux a "philosopher"", but sometimes those kinds of sources do, and it's our job to find them. Of the sources that did directly refer to him as a philosopher, there are no academic sources at all and only two newspaper articles that I find worth paying attention to. But The Globe and Mail isn't the arbiter of who is and isn't a philosopher, the philosophical establishment is. The lack of any recognition of Molyneux from them as a philosopher leads me to conclude that he is not one, and the fact that Molyneux frequents fringe media outlets and is the author of numerous self-published books raises concerns of credential inflation. While I am sympathetic to elements of the arguments above, in this case I have to lean against identifying Molyneux as a philosopher. Apologies for being so long-winded. Gamaliel (talk) 05:55, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

@Gamaliel: - I wrote further above that I disagree with any vote that sets an arbitrary restriction by saying only some reliable sources are really reliable on the philosopher point, and you seem to think The Globe & Mail and The Times are not. Is CNN only really reliable on US stories, but not on others? Dangerous precedent, because you're using your own original research to decide which reliable sources that mention "philosopher" are good enough. You haven't even given a source from academic philosophy that describes how they themselves define the label of philosopher nor that tells of how newspapers cannot be trusted to describe someone as a philosopher. You have a well-thought out opinion, but it still is not being presented with any reliable source to back it up. --- In the end only one thing matters though, and I'm curious, if his career cannot be labeled "philosopher", then what is it? He writes, he speaks, he has a show -- but about what? What is the word for his career? Added: Alain de Botton should totally be considered a philosopher, its almost tragic his article doesn't say so, and I'll be happy to gather sources to that purpose... but this arbitrary, editor original research, limitation that the label of "philosopher" can only come from academia has to be confronted. If as you said in your vote "we go by what reliable sources say" is really true, then you cannot dismiss some reliable sources just because they are newspapers. Its quite possible that newspapers like TG&M and Times are even more relevant than those academic sources because newspapers are far more widely read and responsive to the general populations. --Netoholic @ 06:33, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
It's well established that some sources are more reliable than others for certain things. Specialty publications (academic journals, for example) are considered more reliable for information regarding that specialty than general publications like newspapers. I don't think it matters particularly how reliable sources in the philosophy field determine how someone is a philosopher, what matters is that they do, and the fact that they don't label Molyneux as such tells us something about his status. If he is not a philosopher, what is he? A writer and commentator on philosophy. Gamaliel (talk) 17:22, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Although, upon inspection, it may turn out that RS don't believe that what he's commenting on is actually what was said or meant by any acknowledged philosopher. It could be that he's just a media figure who presents his views and mentions the names of various concepts appropriated from philosophy. Some RS have made scathing comments about his views. SPECIFICO talk 17:27, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
No source provided for that opinion. --Netoholic @ 18:42, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
"It could be that he's just a media figure who presents his views and mentions the names of various concepts appropriated from philosophy."
True, but his views are still philosophical views on philosophical issues.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 21:41, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
@Gamaliel: You saying that "some sources are more reliable than others" conflicts with the way you are dismissing the newspaper mentions. What you're really saying is that some reliable sources are unreliable for certain information - and that is dangerous precedent that flies in the face of what it means to be a "reliable source" and is a direct cause of editorial disagreements like this. You said in your vote "we go by what reliable sources say". Which reliable source are you using to describe his career as "writer and commentator on philosophy"? This seems to be an arbitrary designation that you've constructed, as it is not in any sources I've found. There is no central authoritarian body that defines and grants the designation of "philosopher" any more than there is a central body that gives out chef, artist, writer, etc. His absence of mention in "reliable sources in the philosophy field" is not proof of anything - he's only been in the career 9 years and works in alternate, non-academic media. In that respect, the reliable source newspapers, which do all mention him as "philosopher", are simply more current, and are the best we have. If later, reliable sources start shifting to another word for his career, we'll shift also. -- Netoholic @ 18:42, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
A "dangerous precedent"? Hardly, it's what we've always done, weigh sources while being aware of their strengths and weaknesses. Surely a work from the field of academic philosophy is a more reliable source about philosophy than a newspaper. It's not "original research" to conclude that. We go by what the reliable sources say, but we aren't beholden to a particular one and we can weigh it accordingly. You expressed skepticism about the criteria that academic philosophy uses to "define the label of philosopher", but you don't seem concerned about how a newspaper goes about doing the same thing, you want us to simply accept it. But we are not obligated to conclude that Molyneux is a philosopher if one newspaper says so and other sources do not. Gamaliel (talk) 06:00, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
@Gamaliel: - I would very much appreciate it if you wouldn't falsely characterize this as "this one newspaper says so and other sources do not" - that is patently and provably false. My compiled list at User:Netoholic/Molyneux#Book and news sources shows 1 published book and 5 articles from 4 different newspapers that directly use the word "philosopher" (with varying contexts/qualifiers... and "internet philosopher" is not some special type, its just a description of where he works, as when a paper says "Canadian author"). Will you at least acknowledge and correct your "one newspaper" statement before we proceed? Are all of those sources somehow still mistaken? -- Netoholic @ 07:26, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
You keep banging on about this list. However, even by your own admission, and presumably after some pretty hard work looking on your part, there is only one, single, cited book source – and at that a passing mention from one of those endless books about management and business "leadership" – and the rest of it is pretty weak too. Only three national newspaper articles are cited – for what they're worth in any event – each of which disparagingly qualifies the description "philosopher". By your logic of simply defaulting to one or two random sources, without any evaluation of context or provenance, we should of course in fact insist that he is described, more fully, as a "self-described Internet philosopher" or a "controversial internet philosopher". We could even start doing Google searches for "internet cult leader". Would that be acceptable? And, as noted above, where are the 100s of sources, including academic and philosophy sources, that we would find explicitly and without qualification describing Sartre, Wittgenstein, Hume etc as philosophers? The supposed evidence here is pretty flimsy when one compares it to that standard or even to any more realistic one. N-HH talk/edits 09:48, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
I think that "controversial internet philosopher" is both needlessly giving him too much credibility as being a philosopher, while simultaneously being too needlessly negative.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 13:42, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
"Hardly, it's what we've always done/.../"
...and what WP:V and WP:RS have always mandated and required.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 13:42, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

The proper solution, based on what we all acknowledge are limited (but available) reliable sources is leave "philosopher" in the lead, with the citations to the book and newspapers, so that those sources bear the weight of that assertion. Wikipedia does not need to be what is truth, just what is verifiable, and those minimal reliable source we do have satisfy WP:V. As the future unfolds, either Molyneux will be acknowledged by academic sources as a philosopher making good philosophy, or he will certainly be clearly rejected by academic sources who will instead write about his bad philosophy. At this moment, though, we have verifiable, reliable sources that state his profession and the article must reflect that. -- Netoholic @ 19:04, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Book and newspaper reliable sources that use the exact term "philosopher"

Independently published mentions of Molyneux from reliable third-party sources:

A request for closure on this RFC has been posted at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#RfC - Should Stefan Molyneux be described as a "philosopher" in the lede?. – S. Rich (talk) 03:27, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Does new source justify "philosopher" in the lede, post-RfC?

Considering that the RFC on calling Molyneux a philosopher in the lede closed a few hours ago, a new question is set forth: Does the non-English material from the Brazilian branch of Mises.org justify setting aside the RFC result and re-adding philosopher (as we see was done here? – S. Rich (talk) 20:26, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

RFC was closed incorrectly and incompletely. Preserve the current lede until its resolved. -- Netoholic @ 20:34, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Re-adding the term a few hours post-RFC and then re-re-adding the term after this talk page thread was opened does not comport with BRD. The RfC formalized the consensus version, and you are pushing against consensus by arguing that the RfC result was incorrect. As WP:BURDEN requires you to justify the re-addition, you should garner community support for the re-addition before seeking to overturn the RfC result. – S. Rich (talk) 20:41, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
I am in discussion with the closing admin. I also intend, if he disagrees, to pursue a review. Keep the lead in the open RFC state until it resolves. -- Netoholic @ 20:44, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
It looks like the closer disagrees: User talk:Number 57#Molyneux RfC – S. Rich (talk) 20:57, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

As for the source, it is evidence of his level of peer acknowledgement. Three Brazilian organizations (Mises, and two educational institutes Casa do Saber and IFL) sponsored the debate, which was explicitly described as a debate between the "filósofos" (philosophers). --Netoholic @ 20:44, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Your second problem is the non-English nature of the source: WP:RSUE says English sources are preferred over non-English. Even if you had posted these sources before the RfC was closed, I doubt they'd change the outcome. Assuming that is case, you should follow the guidance at Wikipedia:Closing_discussions#Challenging_other_closures and go to the notice-board. In the meantime, you ought to revert your addition. It does not help your case to add the material a few hours after the RfC was closed. And re-adding it after this BRD thread was opened does not help either. – S. Rich (talk) 20:57, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
I am giving the closer ample time to respond, as required, before taking this the AN. If the closer can see the error and incomplete nature of the close, all the better. Also, I agree english sources are preferred, and would be happy if it wasn't necessary, but since people seem to think there are not enough sources for "philosopher", in particular from peer/scholarly sources, then I will find them where I can. Besides, international acknowledgement can be seen as incredibly important to one's profession. If people are translating his work into other languages, it shows his importance in the field. -- Netoholic @ 21:08, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
This RfC was closed after a lengthy and comprehensive discussion, during which the editor now repeatedly reverting application of its conclusion seemed to have expended a huge amount of effort digging up and posting a large number of fairly marginal sources, most of which were deemed to be non-probative and barely relevant by the majority of contributors and the closing admin (the conclusion very definitely was not "we're just missing one more obscure source, which would flip this whole discussion"). To then suddenly, post-RfC, pull one more such source out of their sleeve and, as a result, unilaterally declare the RfC and its conclusion supposedly invalid because that one source was not weighed is not on. Not only does the new source add nothing to the debate and its sudden citing as a trump/game-changer suggest that Netoholic does not understand the issues or the weight of evidence here but, given the effort spent finding such sources previously, it could easily, surely, in any event have been dug up earlier and been presented before now. You can't just say, "oh, I forgot/missed one minor point, let's start this over again". Any AN/ANI discussion should presumably also now consider whether Netoholic is overinvested and being disruptive here, and look at whether they should face some kind of sanction, in respect just of this page or more broadly. N-HH talk/edits 21:49, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

ANI opened

Given that closures are "rarely changed", and given that you intend to pursue other avenues if the RfC result is not changed, I have opened an an ANI here. – S. Rich (talk) 21:25, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

The RfC question was strictly about whether he should be described as a "philosopher" in the lede without qualification. It seems that there is consensus that he is not described as a philosopher. It is still clear though that the fact that he describes himself as a philosopher is noteworthy, as major sources do mention it. This is also important because a large amount of his work is centered around discussions of philosophy and attempts to create new philosophical findings (UPB). As such, I'll be adding "self-described philosopher" to the lede. I'll be restoring mentions of his work about philosophy (such as the "philosophy writers", which is not the same as philosopher), and I'll be putting back the infobox_philosopher, if only because it allows some additional fields not present in infobox_person. The name of the template is an editor convience and is hidden from view, the only worry is in what fields and data are shown. --Netoholic @ 08:33, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

English-language sources are NOT preferred over non-English sources

Please allow me to clear up a potential misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy. English-language sources are NOT preferred over non-English sources. The main thing that matters is a source's reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. Period. Non-English sources can be more reliable than English sources, depending on the sources involved. What WP:RSUE says is "English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones, whenever English sources of equal quality and relevance are available." If one omits the part that I've just highlighted, then you risk missing the point of WP:RSUE.
Having said that, please do NOT read anything into this post other than what I just stated. I'm not familiar with this article's topic, nor am I familiar with the non-English source being cited. This is just a general comment on Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:27, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

one of the single most influential libertarian thinkers of our times

I think the lede is supposed to be a balanced summary of the rest of the article, and fairly reflect what sources say. The quote "one of the single most influential libertarian thinkers of our times" is what one person thinks. It is not reflective of the full range of opinions about him. It is unfair to have this as the only quoted assessment of him in the lede (even though it is attributed properly), and no indication of any criticism of him in the lede. So, I have removed it from the lede. I have no problem acknowledging that there are various people who share Molyneux's views, and strongly support him, but that support can not be presented without showing the detractors. I'm fine with a quote like this in the body of the article. But, it shouldn't be used to give an overal assessment of him, which is what the lede is supposed to do. Rather than trying to reflect the various pro/neutral/anti opinions of him in the lede, I think leaving that to the body, is generally the best. --Rob (talk) 04:50, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Given your concerns, which I agree with, I've moved the Tucker description into a less prominent position. – S. Rich (talk) 05:01, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Our guiding, non-negotiable policy is WP:NPOV. In the section of that policy page "Explanation of the neutral point of view", it says "neutral point of view does not mean exclusion of certain points of view, but including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight." There is no policy that says positive statements about a subject must be matched by "a balancing critical quote" - that line of thinking is exactly the opposite of what NPOV means. Since the quote that was removed is a general comment on Molyneux, not particular to any one philosophical viewpoint, it is appropriate currently for the lead, which is a general overview of the subject. it is not appropriate for the "Early life" section (and the new "Life and career" name of the section is obviously a kludge). If editors are able to locate any critical commentary of a similar general nature, then it can be considered for the lead. If they find critical commentary about particular viewpoints, then those can go in the sections devoted to those commentaries (as already exist in the article). The quote was broad, notable, and important, as it comes from an important peer source - burying it just because you don't like it is POV editing at its ugliest.
Similar articles in this subject area have quotes of recognition about the person in the lead, see Murray Rothbard, Walter Block, Friedrich Hayek, David Hume], Noam Chomsky, Joseph Sobran, Frank Chodorov, and more (these were found in just a few minutes hopping some related links). Its fairly common and natural, and produces a good, narrative article that puts the subject in the right perspective in their fields of work. -- Netoholic @ 05:19, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

The thoughts behind the quote are limited to Tucker, and are not necessarily broad. It is a noteworthy quote (not notable), and deserving of inclusion. Its' importance as a peer source is limited, because we do not see similar sourcing about his importance. Putting the Tucker quote into the lede is UNDUE, which is an element of NPOV. The people you mention are in a far different league than Molyneux. So even if I have provided a kludge, it is quick and efficient. So come up with a better solution that is equally NPOV and acceptable to the community. – S. Rich (talk) 05:24, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
WP:NPOV#Achieving neutrality: "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process. Remove material only where you have a good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage." This quote deserves strong weight both for Jeffrey Tucker speaking it and fellow notable libertarian Stephen Kinsella repeating the quote specifically on his website (which provides the citation). This content does not misinform/mislead and broadly describe Molyneux in a way that doesn't fit any specific viewpoint section. It is not my fault if people can't find similar, notable criticisms, and when they do, they are welcome to add them. Removal of sourced material (or burying in an inappropriate section) is POV editing in violation of policy. -- Netoholic @ 05:31, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
S. Rich, I'm fine with where you moved it. The end of "Freedomain Radio" would also work. It might also be good to mention the context, of Tucker giving answers to reddit questions. But, these are minor points. --Rob (talk) 06:22, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree. It is surely undue to highlight in the lead a passing off-the-cuff quote in an online video interview, where the reference also appears to be very specifically to his use of online resources to reach a younger generation rather than to his orginal insight into politics as such. In the body and perhaps with some more context is fine. N-HH talk/edits 07:10, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Note that Netoholic has re-added Tucker to the lede whereas the commentary above is against such an addition. Worse, s/he adds "The parents of one listener of his show brought concerns about this influence to the media in 2008." Is this a noteworthy item for the encyclopedia? Hardly. It is a pathetic bit of information at best. – S. Rich (talk) 05:19, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

"The parents of one listener of his show brought concerns about this influence to the media in 2008." is a reference to the 2008 part under Stefan_Molyneux#Parent-child relationships, which is significant enough to put in the lead (its been talked about before), and joining it with the Tucker comment puts them together in a way that both balances the Tucker comment with controversy, and satisfies the request to clarify "his use of online resources to reach a younger generation" from N-HH above. The edit is designed to address several concerns at once. -- Netoholic @ 05:26, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
You should look at WP:LEDE. "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points ...." Is the fact that the parents of some lost teenager called the media because their child was following the show an important point? I hope not. Moreover, you are putting Tucker back there without support from the community. And per the ANI, I suspect your attempt to circumvent the RFC results about "philosopher" are going to get you into real trouble. – S. Rich (talk) 05:41, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
I guess with other editors you've hounded to the breaking point not being too active, its my turn? You see, this is exactly why I've asked you many times to abide by non-interaction voluntarily.
Tucker quote was moved because people didn't like that it was there without some balance. I gave it that. If you don't like the wording I used, adjust it. Please spend more typing effort on the article than on talk pages and admin boards and I'll at least feel like you care about the encyclopedia more than you care about what other editors are doing. The "online philosophy show" was ALREADY in the lead and has NEVER been a disputed topic. -- Netoholic @ 05:49, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Re hounding: Pot kettle black. Re lede: I think the addition here joins two totally unrelated items falsely. The parents of deFOOing don't care about Molyneux's influence as a "libertarian thinker" which you imply when speaking of "this influence", and Tucker wasn't making a comment remotely related to deFOOing (which is the only "influence" parents complained about). Yet, you've managed to join these two totally unrelated things together, remove any explanation of what "concerns" there might be, and pretend there's an issue with just one boy. For now, let's just take the quote and this addition out of the lede. I do think covering deFOOing concerns (which sources say effected more than one family) should be done more fully in the article (as this is a major portion of the limited *mainstream* media coverage, as opposed to effusive coverage by fellow pundits). But, that's another issue, that we can hash out later, and it shouldn't be done in the lede. --Rob (talk) 07:09, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Those items are joined, loosely, not directly, by the "youth" aspect. It was test, and maybe its a bit rough still, but I haven't stopped thinking about it. The problem is that the DeFOO 2008 thing (which did only affect one identified family), and it is damn hard to describe it in the sort of succinct way that would work for the lead, which is probably why no summary of it has ever been up there. Conversely, things like certain areas of focus and even the Tucker quote are concise and of a general nature, and so are easier to fit in the lead because its very hard to place and expand upon them in the body text without undue "fluffing". I will continue to think about better ways to organize things, and even if I can't figure it out, I have every confidence someone eventually will and everything will someday appear where it is best presented... that's the normal course of editing. Its simply not worth all the blood-boiling found on this talk page. We all just have to work on it to accommodate all the concerns. If one experiment fails, another might succeed. --Netoholic @ 07:50, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

You're playing with words. There was only one *named* family (in the UK). There were multiple families in different countries over years, who do not want their names published.

  • G&M 2012 says "several parents from Britain and the United States have told The Globe and Mail that their children consulted Freedomain Radio, then became estranged from their families." and "The college began investigating after two formal complaints, one in 2009 and the other in 2011.".
  • Guardian 2008 says "The American parents who talk to me do not want their names printed,"
  • G&M 2008 says "Many relatives are loath to come forward, fearing that going public will further alienate their children."

I find it odd you want to separate the named family from the issue of other families, and the complaint, but you wish to link the case of the named family with the unrelated quote by Tucker. I'm mentioning this because you brought it up, but I'm not pushing for any big changes at the moment. I just want to clean up the lede for the moment, and the coverage of deFOOing can be left for discussion in the indefinite future. --Rob (talk) 08:23, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I know, but the mentions are very weak threads - and just because people confirmed they deFOOed, doesn't mean they have complaints about Molyneux's views or actions himself (that is only clearly of the one family mentioned in the sources). I am working on a cleaner version as we speak. You pulled the tucker quote because you felt it unbalanced the lead, and I'm trying to give it balance. --Netoholic @ 08:31, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, I tried to put in the edit I mentioned above, but I got edit conflicted, so fuck it. Here's what I had. RfC had to do with a single word in the lede, but now you got a bunch of zealots piling on removing far more. Have fun all, you win. --Netoholic @ 08:49, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Not hearing any negatives about this version, I'll be implementing it with some slight modification. --Netoholic @ 08:33, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

OK so its been a few days and people are still reverting this entry from the lead. I had put in a mention about deFOO into the lead to "balance" this quote, but twice an IP editor has removed it. A modified version was tried alongside some unrelated edits, but that was reverted without comment. So what is the end game? Are people just going to not continue discussion and remove it? Why is a positive review of someone's work characterized as "promotional" and removed, yet negative reviews are not similarly handled? Why must a positive review be "balanced" with something unrelated at all? --Netoholic @ 08:14, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

If an equally negative quote, not reflective of the overall content of the body of the article, were put in the lead, I would also object to that. The lead is a summary of what the rest of the article says, and this quote doesn't summarize anything. After the discussion, I haven't seen anybody agree with your position. You're complaint is dishonest, since I didn't remove the quote from the article. It was in two places, and I removed only the first. You were so busy edit warring over something else, you added back a second version of it but "forgot" the balancing item. --Rob (talk) 08:26, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Aren't you the one that suggested I tackled fewer items at a time? You could have put my newest balancing quote about deFOO in the lead and removed the extra line in the FDR section. I'm not out here fighting for exactly my preferred edits here. I see myself extending effort to find an actual resolution to a lot of the issues being raised, but I don't see a lot of acknowledgement nor reciprocation. --Netoholic @ 08:36, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Public appearances

I noticed this recent bot edit, which was caused by use of the {{show by date}} tag. The article says he's going to go to an event, and then the bot says he has been. Yet, we have no actual verification. Now, I can just fix this item, but it brings up a much larger issue, that should be discussed.

While mentioning his public appearances is entirely legitimate, we should only be covering specific public appearances if there is independent coverage of the appearance. We should not be reporting on things that have only been reported on by Molyneux himself or the event organizers (as in this case). First, some of the sources are simply unreliable. You can have a web site showing an event will take place, and it doesn't actually happen, or doesn't happen quite as planned (but organizers don't update the web site, because it becomes moot after). Right now, we have multiple cases, where we cite web sites that speak of a past event in the future tense, so we don't actually know what happened. But, even if we accept an event promotion cite as 100% reliable, it doesn't show that an event is actually notable. If nobody but those involved in it wrote about it, then by definition, it is not notable. I'm not asking for "GNG" level notability here. I'm merely asking for a single unpaid independent mention of the fact. That's it. That's a very low standard of verification to ask for. Heck, I'll accept passing mention in the "What's happening section" of the local paper. But, I don't accept anything written by participants, organizers, and promoters. --Rob (talk) 19:57, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

In terms of article development, I think WP:noteworthy items, such as important public appearances, should be added. The simple fact that he appears, as per the organizers, is easily verified and I think they are RS in this regard. How much is said about the appearance is a weight issue. I linked "noteworthy" because the issue is an article content matter, not a notability issue. – S. Rich (talk) 20:08, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
There's nothing noteworthy about many of the appearances that are listed and sourced to promotional or primary sources. Which appearances do you think are "noteworthy" despite having no independent mention of them. Millions of public speeches are delivered every day of the week. Let's pare this down to appearances that have been sufficiently important to receive some form of independent coverage. SPECIFICO talk 00:09, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
I have trimmed those items that were only covered by Molyneux or the host of the event/appearance. I assumed if the source has a different name, it's independent. I've also left TV, radio, and podcasts alone, as I think it takes a little more thought to go through those, giving the visibility of some of them. I'd be fine with any/all being re-added if we can get an independent source. --Rob (talk) 03:13, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

If the event is notable, then the appearance of notable guests and speakers is very likely noteworthy. A primary source from either the guest or the convention can be enough to confirm the basics of the appearance (the date, location, speech topic, etc.), unless there is some basic disagreement (say if a guest claims to have appeared, but the convention doesn't confirm or vice versa). As Srich said, if there is any information beyond the basics of the appearance (say any external reaction), then that should come from a 3rd-party source. I'll draw everyone's attention to the large chart at San Diego Comic-Con International#Locations and dates, which has a large list of guests which is largely sourced from the convention's own materials. Being that this is a major Wikipedia article, I think some precedence is well-established that primary sources for guest appearance information is acceptable.
With regards to Molyneux, the specific event's chosen to include in this article are ones that are notable (they are wiki-linked to the event's article). His appearances are generally confirmed by the existence of YouTube videos of his speeches at these events, but in order to satisfy complaints about using those as references, I changed them to references from the convention organizers themselves. If people want, I can double-ref every appearance (organizer webpage/release & Molyneux YT link) or we can just accept the organizer's statement to keep the refs under control (and avoid the appearance of advertising his videos). Where its possible, independent sources can be used, and I welcome assistance in locating those from editors who wish to demonstrate that they are truly balanced in their approach to this article. If you are unable (or unwilling) to locate better independent sources, then please use an inline "citation needed" tag rather than taking dramatic steps like removing whole sections, which can lead to good information being lost. -- Netoholic @ 09:19, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Not every appearance of every notable person at a notable event is necessarily something noteworthy. If nobody independent noted it a single time, than we should not be the first to do so. Also, as just one example of the unreliability of some of the sources, this promotional release was used as proof he attended NYC Liberty Fest. However, the promotion was released *before* the event, and has never been updated since. So, there's no actual evidence that the event went ahead as planned, and he gave the talk he was supposed to. Yet, the article used to say he did in fact go. I also object to us using self-made YouTube videos to verify facts. Anybody frustrated about Wikipedia not covering something important to them, that's ignored by the media, can pull out their video camera, post it to YouTube, and suddenly it's "verified". Seems like an end-run around original research. I'd be fine with a video source if it was produced by a reliable source (e.g. video of a news show covering something). --Rob (talk) 09:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
In the cases where only a pre-event announcement exists from the organizers, I can add 2nd reference (likely a video) that confirms the event happened and shows Molyneux's attendance (this satisfies WP:V]. What we also have are later announcements that mention his attendance to earlier events (for example, if he is announced as attending a 2013 event, and that announcement mentions a different 2009 event, then that appearance in 2009 has now been mentioned by a 3rd party, and is noteworthy by your definition). This can become an ugly, complex web of mentions, and a bit tiring for both editors and readers to meander through if we use a ton of extraneous references repeatedly. I've found a new 3rd party source (OLP) that fixes your problem on 3 appearances, so after I make my edit, let's see which appearances you still can't find 3rd party mention of, and I'll point them out to you or add them if needed. --Netoholic @ 10:05, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Why must you mix in multiple unrelated changes, all of which are contentious?[11] Instead, pick a change you have the most chance of getting support on, and try to get consensus. If you seek all or nothing, guess what you'll get? Anyways, I assume you are referring to this Ontario Liberty Party pdf as your 3rd party source. That's just another promotion. It's not showing noteworthyness of anything. When promoting a speaker, the host will typically ask the speaker to provide a mini-profile that they'll use. It's not the same as a reliable independent source. Generally promotional material is not a good source for much of anything. --Rob (talk) 10:47, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
I typically make one major edit per day to address any problems raised. This lets me focus and tie together changes, and is meant to avoid persistent revert warring. Why must you revert major edits that have been asked for and delivered, especially by giving nearly no explanation? Look, if you just want to turn the article to trash because you hate the guy, then you're doing exactly what one would expect by reverting multiple changes wholesale within seconds of being posted. If you actually seek improvement, then you'd look them over, and let them mull for a day. We're talking about items that have been in this article for like 5 years now in some cases. IT CAN WAIT A DAY. I replied here multiple times before posting. I said what I was going to post, waited a while, and then posted. You could offer the same respect. Let my edit sit a day, discuss concerns with it, and make your change in due time if I don't get back to you. THAT is collaboration. Its what people do when they actually want a better article. --Netoholic @ 10:54, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
You said on talk what you were going to do, got no support whatsoever, and did it anyhow, knowing it would be objected to. You undid the work of multiple editors over multiple days in a single edit, but didn't like your edit being reverted. You keep on trying to do the same edits over and over, making meaningless alterations, that nobody but you, considers a compromise. You have to accept that no editor, not me, not you, gets final approval of an article's changes. If you focused on making a smaller number of improvements that you could get consensus on, you'd have more success. --Rob (talk) 11:28, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Deletion of sourced information does not deserve recognition to be called "work". If you actually wanted to work on this article, you'd have tried finding sources to address your concerns, rather than blasting out whole sections. I also want to get the article to a stable form that can be submitted for GA/FA status... and that can't happen when newbies with a grudge show up and start axing out stable sections. So yeah, I take a bit more offense to reverts than other people here, because my edits represent a significant investment of my time in locating new sources and attempting to address the legitimate concerns. Highlighting text and tapping "Delete" isn't something to be proud of, and neither is hitting "Undo" to revert someone. -- Netoholic @ 11:52, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Lead still: "promotes" and "libertarian anarchism"

In respect of this edit, while I agree that "promotes" can probably be fairly used in this phrasing, I would take issue with the idea of suggesting that he promotes "libertarian anarchism". I appreciate the point the phrasing is attempting to make but, firstly, it is a prima facie tautology as there is, in terms of pure English at least, no other kind of anarchism. Secondly, he should not be described outright as a supporter of anarchism as that political idea is usually understood and the qualification fails to make that point sufficiently. N-HH talk/edits 22:42, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

There is a simpler argument against this whole rephrase of the lede mentioning "libertarian anarchism" - it is thoroughly unsupported by sources. It is entirely an original research construct and is not representative of how he is described. It is needlessly wordy and awkwardly written, which is a result of the POV push being attempted. --Netoholic @ 08:33, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Respectfully, N-HH, do you know what a tautology actually is? A tautology is a phrase that says the same thing twice, in two different forms. "Libertarian" does not mean the same thing as anarchist. Many libertarians do not identify as anarchists and many anarchists do not identify as libertarians. Steeletrap (talk) 17:01, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
I concur with Netoholic's reasoning. If he is not described this way in reliable sources then us doing so is WP:OR. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:06, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Er, yes I do know what a tautology is thanks. I also know that words such as "anarchism" and "libertarianism" are used with different meanings in different contexts and by different people, which merely adds to the problems here. Anyway, perhaps more pertinently in terms of comprehension, did you understand or even notice that I said "prima facie" and "in terms of pure English at least", before I then went on to talk, separately, about anarchism as a political idea? Anwyay, I see the anarchism part has now been removed. If anyone intends to put it back, they might want to explain what the combined phrase "libertarian anarchism" actually refers to or means and provide some sources that describe Molyneux as an advocate of it as opposed to, say, "authoritarian anarchism" or "libertarian fascism". N-HH talk/edits 23:31, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Have a look at the WP articles and talk pages on those subjects. Political views come in all flavors and colors. I don't think "anarchist libertarian" is redundant, although I don't know whether SM describes himself with those words. SPECIFICO talk 23:37, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry, can people stop talking to me as if I'm an idiot? I really don't need to be educated about the meaning and usage of the terms anarchism and libertarianism any more than I need to have the definition of tautology explained to me. Nor would I rely on most WP pages on politics to enlighten me about much I'm afraid. And there is no substantive WP page on the actual concept/term in question of Libertarian anarchism – which is of course a different phrase from "anarchist libertarian" in any event – precisely because it is a problematic non-term; the disambiguation there directs people to the more obvious precise options, eg anarchism proper or the libertarian concept of anarcho-capitalism. N-HH talk/edits 23:46, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
My comment was intended only to disagree with your statement that "it is a prima facie tautology as there is, in terms of pure English at least, no other kind of anarchism." SPECIFICO talk 00:23, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm not aware of a kind of anarchism that is known as "authoritarian", which is more or less the exact antonym of "libertarian" in basic English, hence the comment of mine you quoted, which seems to be a rather uncontroversial and banal statement really. All anarchists are libertarian in that sense. The use, especially in the modern US, of the specific term "Libertarianism" to describe a radical individualist political philosophy usually placed on the right-wing, albeit one sometimes vaguely associated with broader anarchism, is a separate matter. And if that's actually the single-word term we mean, that's the term we should use – indeed the opening sentence was changed accordingly, until Netoholic reverted all the "philosopher" stuff and the undue Tucker quote back into the lead, under the misleading and deceptive description "updates". N-HH talk/edits 10:37, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Removal of that one word did not improve the poor structure and misleading construction of the lead. The change you originally complained about was POV/original research, so its not worth debating semantics when the whole thing was a fantasy of one editor that wasn't based on any sources. I realize you have a particular view on what "libertarian" and "anarchism" mean, but its not relevant here because in this case, very few sources (in fact none off the top of my head) use the word "anarchist" or "anarchism" in reference to Molyneux, but they very often use the straightforward words of the longstanding lead (author, speaker, host, self-described philosopher, libertarian). --Netoholic @ 10:58, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
It's not my "view" of what libetarianism and anarchism mean, I'm simply pointing out how the terms are used in reality. I admit it's partly a side point, but it was relevant to the lead as was briefly, plus I was challenged on my comprehension. Anyway, the problem with your edit in turn is that, in claiming to address that problem, you have also sneaked in again huge reverts of content which are clearly against consensus. And, more generally, we don't just seize what we can from sources – especially those that happen to favour our perspective and interpretation – and throw it all randomly against a page, while declaring that this is what WP policies on sourcing, verifiability and original research by definition entail. Some judgment has to be exercised, and consensus obtained, about how to prioritise and present the mass of information that will be found across sources. N-HH talk/edits 12:38, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
"I'm simply pointing out how the terms are used in reality" - The only reality that matters is the sources. Arguing for a regional definition of a word is like arguing for a regional spelling... it just tires out people. The solution is to just use what the sources use and move along. If you're talking about a North American libertarian, then I've seen "libertarian" mean they believe anything in a wide range of government structures from anarchy to minarchy to large governments and, I suppose, even dictatorships (as long as they uphold individual and economic liberty). So "libertarian anarchist" is not a tautology -- but it is still clearly not appropriate for this article as sources do not describe him as that. --Netoholic @ 19:24, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

In any case, policy is VERY CLEAR. This is a BLP. The content has been objected to on reasonable grounds. There is not reliable sourcing, nor consensus for its inclusion. That's the end of the story for now. Find sourcing, and get consensus, but continuing to snipe at each other about this issue is just going to get the two of you in trouble. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:57, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

  • WP:BLPREMOVE Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced;
  • WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORETo ensure that material about living people is written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies.

Gaijin42 (talk) 20:04, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, there are of course BLP issues here but there are also other issues besides, re consensus, edit-warring and undue weight, relating to various pieces of content. As for Netoholic's comments above immediately after mine, they so miss the point as a response to anything I said I'm happy to leave them floundering there. The only valid point is one that has already been made and which I have never disputed anyway, eg that no sources appear to describe him as a proponent of "libertarian anarchism", whatever that would mean (the fact that the term should not be in the lead, or anywhere else, is one thing we agree on, although my reasons for opposing inclusion are broader; no one actually seems to be arguing for it to go back now it's been, as noted, removed, and since trimmed back even further). N-HH talk/edits 23:08, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

"self-described philosopher"

The addition of the phrase "self-described philosopher" to the lede by Netoholic without discussion strikes me as an inappropriate end run around the consensus established by the RFC. Also, earlier on this page Netoholic wrote "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." So why is it appropriate now? Gamaliel (talk) 17:50, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

This issue, and the same editor behavior, was discussed a few days ago here. – S. Rich (talk) 17:58, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree "self-described" is fraught with possible negative connotations and should not be used. Also the reinsertion of the "philosopher" infobox, another removal of article improvement tags, and yet another re-insertion of primary sourced personal life narrative and speaking engagements weaken the article in my opinion. SPECIFICO talk 18:03, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, here we are at the crux of the logical problem inherent in the RfC... If he can't be called a philosopher "without qualification", then what qualification is the right one? The RfC was not "should we ban the word philosopher from the article". Surely, since almost all the major sources make mention of him being a (self-described/internet/cyber-) philosopher, then there is some significance to the fact that he calls himself a philosopher. If someone called themselves a doctor, but had insufficient training or professional recognition to actually be one, then the fact that he calls himself a doctor is noteworthy. So going forward the solution is not removal of phrases that include the word "philosopher", but rather correctly stating the phrase. Suggestions welcome. -- Netoholic @ 18:32, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

The real crux is that we have yet to find sufficient good sources about SM. There are no "major sources" -- they all appear to be tainted one way or another. SPECIFICO talk 18:41, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
You're right, the RFC did not ban the word entirely, but it should also be clear that this is a contentious issue and a qualified version of the word should not be inserted or edit-warred over without discussion here. Gamaliel (talk) 18:43, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
[insert] The "doctor" example is particularly inapt, since (depending on the context) calling oneself a physician might not only be noteworthy but also criminal. SPECIFICO talk 18:54, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I personally don't see "self described" in this instance as a negative. He does describe himself that way. If that self-description is covered somewhere reliable, I don't see a problem with it. (If not, it might get into either weight or the self-serving bits of SPS/autobio). Would a wording change fix the objections? Perhaps a separate sentence simply saying "M describes himself as a philosopher and advertises his show as the biggest philosophy podcast on the internet" or some such be acceptable? @Netoholic : The Dr analogy is flawed because doing so is a crime and puts people at direct risk if they take incorrect medical advice - therefore a false (or self declared) claim in that type of field has much greater inherent notability imo. There are many professions which are also done by amateurs regularly though, and someone describing themselves as such is not necessarily important - in Molyneux's case however, he is attempting to build his entire career/persona around that activity so it does seem appropriate in his bio to say he does so. @Specifico - I agree, the sourcing on this article is very weak, to the point where I could be swayed that he may not be meeting sufficient sourcing to satisfy BLP and GNG Gaijin42 (talk) 18:48, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

"M describes himself as a philosopher and advertises his show as the biggest philosophy podcast on the internet" I think this is an excellent suggestion and if the sources concur it might be a way to bridge the divide here. Gamaliel (talk) 18:56, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
IMO this is acceptable language, but should not be in the lede. (Or at least not in the first sentence.) Placing it there will produce more edit warring and round-in-circles discussion as to UNDUE, the infobox, categorization. – S. Rich (talk) 19:01, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Agreed, having it in the first sentence seems inappropriate, both due to the RFC and grammar issues. Gamaliel (talk) 19:04, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
We mention the show in the last para of the lede. Since my proposed wording mentions the show, that seems like an appropriate spot to me (although perhaps a bit earlier would be acceptable too) Gaijin42 (talk) 19:15, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
The wording needs a tweak for accuracy (he doesn't say "biggest philosophy podcast" precisely), but that 2nd para is exactly where I what I was thinking of when I read the suggestion. I'd go with "Molyneux describes himself as a philosopher, and his online philosophy show, Freedomain Radio,...". Various forms of "The Largest Philosophical Conversation in the World" tagline have been in the main Freedomain Radio section, but people kept objecting to them. -- Netoholic @ 19:24, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Does SM in fact call himself a philosopher?

I looked on the splash page of Freedomain and it calls him a "self-described philosopher" so maybe he is a self-described self-described philosopher and those words can go back into the article in the Freedomain section. However the infobox-philosopher is for philosophers and this article should not display infobox-philosopher. SPECIFICO talk 19:27, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Stating that it is the largest is inappropriate. Stating that M describes it that way himself on the other hand... (but we should perhaps indicate that the claim is without verification) . The current tagline on the freedomain.com is "The largest and most popular philosophical conversation on the world" and "the largest philosophy conversation in the world" @Specifico : Agree that the infobox should not be the philosopher one. in his about page he does claim to have a degree focusing in the history of philosophy and says "I am a rigorous philosopher" so I think that is sufficient for the "self-described" claim or the proposed wording above. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:32, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
:: We shouldn't "indicate the claim is without verification" because that's the opposite of how Wikipedia sourcing works. We put in the article claims that are verifiable and sourced - we don't indicate a lack of something. Infobox_philosopher has parameters that Infobox_person does not. Using it is strictly convenience for presentation purposes - end readers can't see what the template is named, there is no external indicator that it's being used, all they see is the information output. He does still work/write in areas related to philosophy, even if people think he's not a formal philosopher. --Netoholic @ 19:40, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
It is verifiably sourced that he makes some claims. There are not sources that validate if those claims are true or not. I believe you can add arbitrary fields to any infobox for them to display cant you? Gaijin42 (talk) 19:41, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
The sources that describe him as a philosopher (without qualifiers) indicate the claim is more likely valid than not. And I don't want to jump thru hoops when Infobox_philosopher gives us the necessary fields already. --Netoholic @ 19:45, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
The claim that I am saying is not verified is that his show is the largest. I think there is already agreement above to say he describes himself as a philosopher in some fashion (exact wording/location TBD) Gaijin42 (talk) 19:46, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
That's why I tried putting the quoted official tagline of the show into the article. Its what the show uses to describe itself, a bit like any other advertising tagline/catchphrase you'd find (Category:Advertising slogans). But people objected to it on grounds of advertising, when really it was just there to document what the tagline of the show is. There aren't any reliable sources that dispute the claim itself, but several sources that repeat it (in one form or another), and so can indicate its more likely valid than not. --Netoholic @ 20:06, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
That's beyond tenuous. Did you write: "His advertising tagline is ..." Let's just move on from this. SPECIFICO talk 20:11, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Yep, the exact phrase that I put in there and was removed is: to which the show's tagline refers - "The Largest and Most Popular Philosophical Conversation in the World". --Netoholic @ 20:25, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
I think we're rounding the corner at preposterous and heading for ridiculous. The text which was (properly) just removed suggested that the tagline referred to a verified fact. SPECIFICO talk 20:39, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Like many things removed too quickly from the article, the right solution then is to adjust it, not delete it. Add a period and change it to a standalone sentence. Deletion is too easy, correction is better but requires effort. --Netoholic @ 21:00, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not comfortable with the wording Netoholic inserted into the article. It deviates too far from the language suggested by Gaijin42 and the cited source doesn't appear to back up that specific wording. The closest thing on that page is someone else describing him as "A self-described philosopher". What about basing it on something Molyneux himself said on that page: "I left my career as a software entrepreneur and executive to pursue philosophy full time through my work here at Freedomain Radio." We could say something like "Molyneux left a career in computer software to peruse philosophy full time though hosing his podcast Freedomain Radio." Gamaliel (talk) 14:55, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Not only does the FDR-About page say "I am a rigorous philosopher", but his social media profiles (see User:Netoholic/Molyneux#Molyneux himself) use the word "philosopher" directly as well, which matches the newspaper accounts that mention his career as "self-described/internet/cyber- philosopher". I think saying he "describes himself primarily as a philosopher" is pretty accurate and isn't really in dispute. I didn't initially want to use a citation in the lead, in order to keep it clean per guidelines, but if we must, then I think the FDR-About page is the probably the best citation to use (since that page also has the quote by someone else you mentioned, and his site links to his social media accounts, where people can see he restates his self-defined career). I never thought mentioning his software career was that noteworthy for the lead, but it might be a good lead-in in some form of what you suggested. -- Netoholic @ 18:35, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Peoples statements about their beliefs may be worthy of presentation in an encyclopedia (assuming, as has yet to be proven in the current instance, the individual is WP:NOTABLE). However a person's self-characterization in the course of their business communication with customers is an entirely different matter. But, we've been over that already, haven't we? SPECIFICO 18:42, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Saying that he "describes himself primarily as a philosopher" is a bold statement and huge overinterpretation of the source cited, or indeed the evidence as a whole. Netoholic needs to stop repeatedly inserting this, against consensus, just as they need to stop repeteadly inserting the "philosopher" inbox in the same edits and making other massive, contentious changes; especially while asserting, eg by saying "per talk" in edit summaries, that their latest edits somehow deal with the concerns raised, despite actually being the same old stuff recycled. N-HH talk/edits 09:10, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
The source cited shouldn't really even need to be there in the lead per WP:CITELEAD. The lead, effectively, uses ALL the sources of the entire article. In particular, several national newspapers repeat his self-description as a philosopher. That he describes himself as a philosopher is probably the most verifiable fact in the entire article. --Netoholic @ 09:25, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
I know, hence why I referred to the "evidence as a whole" as well as the cited source. You'll also note that the actual words used include the key word "primarily" – which is the main reason I described the statement as "bold" – which you've quietly elided in trying to justify it. Plus of course, there was the criticism of your general approach to this page, which relates in part to your apparent interpetation of an RfC conclusion that he should not be described as a philosopher (without qualification) in the lead as meaning that he should be described as more or less a philosopher every which other way. You may wish to study the rules of logic a bit harder if that's what you've really concluded. N-HH talk/edits 10:03, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
I concur. The use of the word "primarily" was the main problem I had with the edit. It does definitely seem like an "overinterpretation of the source". Also I share your other thoughts as well. Is "primarily" really the most accurate way to interpret the cited source? The language seems more like a counterargument to the RFC than a reasonable extrapolation of his statements in the source. Gamaliel (talk) 16:33, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
@Gamaliel: - Can you be more specific about what your issue is with "primarily"? I thought it was a very accurate word, since he describes himself as such, as reported by the national newspaper sources. He describes his career/focus in other ways, but primarily philosopher. Do you think the word is disparaging? or do you think its inaccurate?
The last version I had removed the word entirely - "Molyneux left a career in technology, and now describes himself as a philosopher." - but that was removed in the wholesale, kneejerk reverts lately. Let me know if it addresses your concern or not. --Netoholic @ 02:50, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
A man might view himself "primarily" as many things other than his profession, such as a husband, a father, a citizen of a particular country, a member of an ethnic group, etc. I don't think it's disparaging, but I do think that it is more of an extrapolation from the source material than I am personally willing to go. Gamaliel (talk) 15:13, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

precise publication dates in bibliography

The following was C&P'd from my talk page. – S. Rich (talk) 22:39, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Desire for consistent formatting doesn't outweigh accurate information. Some of his books give a publication date of "month year", others say "month day, year". Please revert your changes to the bibliography section to preserve accurate detail. -- Netoholic @ 20:53, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Other than self-published books, I have never seen a book which gives the day of the month of release. In fact, most give only the year. The day of the month adds nothing useful to the reader. SPECIFICO talk 21:17, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Mixed m-d-y, m-y, or just year are all acceptable per MOS:DATEUNIFY (as long as other aspects like long vs short month names are consistent). If the source gives a precise publication date, it should not be arbitrarily removed by us. --Netoholic @ 22:08, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

These examples are all year only (except for journals). There is nothing inaccurate in giving a month year citation, or even year alone. I was not being arbitrary – I think the concept of false precision is helpful when it comes to presenting data to the readers. (And when they go online to read the work they will see the "precise" date.) – S. Rich (talk) 22:49, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I see a free online self-published book like a blog post, in that it's subject to quickly released updated versions, in a way a traditional book wouldn't be. For example, someone might release a correction the day after initial release. So, as far as we know, we should identify the precise version being referenced. The only way to tell if the exact date matters is if the publisher (which is the author in this case) uses the precise date. This isn't a case of false precision because each book presumably was really released on that date, and one day could make a difference. Now, given that this is just a listing of books, and not a citation supporting a fact, I don't think it really matters one way or another. --Rob (talk) 01:31, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Molyneux himself is inconsistent in the date formatting. (Sometimes with dmy & sometimes my.) The works are described as "The Freedomain Library", and lists them as Volume one, two, three, etc. This suggests a permanence to the particular versions. And these versions are several years old now. If or when revised versions come out (with new dates) they can be added to the bibliography. IMO the simpler year only or month & year only display looks better and it provides the reader with enough/the essential (e.g., summary style) information. – S. Rich (talk) 01:47, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
I understand that there is only one version of each book available, and I'm sure there will never be two versions, days apart, listed on the web page at the same time. What I'm thinking of, is suppose he released something on Jan 1, then finds an error, and releases it on Jan 15, removing all references to the Jan 1 version. Now, say we cite the incorrect version, which is the only version that supports our cite. It's really no different than when we give the date in a newspaper citation. It's rare for a newspaper to release the same article title under two dates in the same month, but it can happen. Anyhow, I realize it's an unlikely problem, and it's particularly unimportant if we don't use the books as sources. So, I'm fine either way. --Rob (talk) 01:59, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  1. @Srich: We can't know why some books use m-d-y and some only m-y. Maybe its like Rob says, he issued a correction at some point a few days later, as Rob thinks is possible. I do know for sure that Against the Gods had at least two releases (one without a foreward, and one with it), so this could be the case. Its just not up to us to guess or leave out potentially relevant information for something as pointless as it "looks better".
  2. @Rob: In fact, some of the books are used as citations, for example this RTR one gives some early life information, others in the UPB and atheism sections. The whole reason the Bibliography section uses cite_book template is to be used for these kinds of references. -- Netoholic @ 02:41, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Assessment

Recent edits seemed to have resolved the source problems. If there are specific problems, they should be tagged in-line. The article has been assessed B-class for biography (which may be generous). The next step is a Good Article evaluation, so let's see exactly what is needed to meet the GA criteria. Setting aside the question of stability, editors ought to consider whether their edits help achieve GA. – S. Rich (talk) 04:38, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Stability is the major concern here. Too many flat deletions that become too hard to keep track of, when using inline tags is preferable. The people removing items from the lead need to remember that there will be minimal citations there, as that section is meant to be a summary of the main body, which does have the citations. Honestly, the level of daily deletion of topics from this page is nearing vandalism levels. Its utterly disrespectful to past and potential future editors to be deleting rather than tagging specific problems. --Netoholic @ 05:46, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
I would not characterize any of the edits as vandalism in any fashion. I assessed as B class because I think it meets the criteria. If there are specific problems, then editors should cite those problems. But we should recognize that the contributors to this article are all working on the WP:POLE and we will eventually get it straight. My comments are an effort to remind editors of the overall goal of creating a worthwhile result. – S. Rich (talk) 05:54, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleting entire passages only on the basis of sourcing isn't helping set the pole straight - its cutting the pole, so that it never can reach its full potential. When someone tags a passage with something like {{Better source}}[better source needed], then not only me, but any potential reader in the next few months could potentially improve that sourcing. People right now are deleting on the basis that they think I personally will just readd it when I find a better source, but that places the burden only on past editors, while ignoring the potential contributions of future ones. --Netoholic @ 06:02, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Your frustration comes from working in the wrong order. You start with whatever the subject writes about themselves and insist it all must remain in the article, sourced only to the subject, and promotional sources. If challenged, you insist everything must stay until independent sources can be found. You should work in the reverse direction. Start with third party reliable sources, and write content based on them. Then, there's no problem. The only way to know something is independently sourced is to actually have that independent source. It's silly to just assume everything a subject does will be independently covered by somebody somewhere, and the claims will all be cited one day. Also, when you find a reliable third party source, it's a mistake to try make it fit existing content, when you should actually fit the content to the source. When an article is heavily overweighted with primary sources, removal is the most effective method. I don't want to clutter an article with numerous tags throughout. As we've made real improvement, adding tags on some of the remaining issues may bear fruit (as opposed to immediate removal). I've added a tag to the "Strong atheism" section, which is based only on Molyneux and the forward to his book. Half the section is a quote from Molyneux. There's no independent commentary. --Rob (talk) 06:39, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Articles must be based on third-party reliable sources in order to establish notability (which is clear we have already, so that is moot), but individual items within the article may use primary or secondary to establish noteworthiness, depending on the context. A primary source would, say, be a direct link to one of Molyneux's videos. A secondary source would be a blog post that mentions (and maybe links or embeds) that video, usually with some extra commentary. This secondary source is a third-party/independent source, though, since they were not directly involved in the video itself, and by noting it makes it noteworthy. An announcement from event organizers is a primary source about the event, but is an independent source for other details they give about Molyneux himself, and in doing so makes those other details noteworthy. Molyneux posting a video of his speech is primary source for his part in it, but he is an independent source about the event itself (mostly, it confirms the event took place as announced). Now, we have to watch for conflict-of-interest aspects, but simple noting of his attendance is not very controversial. Also, don't worry about cluttering with tags. I see only 3 passages you deleted, and when I put them back, I'll put in 3 tags. --Netoholic @ 07:12, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Blog posts and self-made YouTube video pretty much define what is dubious as a reliable source and worthless for noteworthiness. Again, I suggest you start with good sources, and base the content on that, instead of forcing sources to match poorly sourced content by straining the English language and bending policy beyond credulity. The root of this conflict is you're working in exactly the wrong direction (fitting sources to content, not content to sources). --Rob (talk) 16:05, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
On this topic, the repeated removal of article improvement tags is preventing additional editors from seeing the need for help here. Because all the problems to which the tags refer are documented on the talk page, there is no policy-based excuse for removing the tags. I ask the editor who removed them to undo that action. The problems have certainly not been resolved and the article remains poorly sourced. SPECIFICO talk 16:32, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
I endorse many of Rob's comments. And I find it irksome to see minor edits get reverted simply because one bit of style (dates of publication) is not to your liking. Another example is reverting the edit on Mr. Ha's name. Every source in the article was listed by last name first, except for Ha. I looked at his G&M profile and saw the "contact" email address used wasTHa@G&Mdotcom. A pretty good indication of what his surname is. And then this back & forth disrupts even the m-d-y date formatting. Alas, maybe we need page protection. – S. Rich (talk) 16:37, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Srich, I endorse Page Protection. Please undo your unjustified removal of the article improvement tags so that the template will notify new editors to review the talk page discussions of the poor sourcing and other BLP issues. SPECIFICO talk 17:05, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
I suggest you tag the individual items of concern. Then editors will know exactly what the concerns are and they can be resolved by edits or better sourcing. Revert your removal of the Willowdale wikilink. You misapply UNDUE because linking the particular neighborhood, which is sourced, is actually proper Wikification. UNDUE deals with viewpoints and the proper balance of viewpoints presented in the article. – S. Rich (talk) 17:14, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
It's a stupid irrelevant miniscule detail that adds nothing remotely encyclopedic to the article. What neighborhood was Alfred Nobel's first office located in? Check his personal bio and report back. As to the article improvement tags, they are so amply justified by the talk page that their removal can only be understood as "ownership" or wiki-politicking. If you disagree with the general principle that article improvement tags are useful in attracting editors to help resolve the problems, I suggest you address those concerns on the appropriate site-wide forum and seek the elimination of these devices. This article is a textbook example for their useful application. Please reflect on your action. SPECIFICO talk 17:35, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
As far as what details should appear, it helps to imagine it in the context of a full, well-rounded featured article (as should be the goal of every article). Since this is a newspaper source, details like the neighborhood that the newspaper thought were noteworthy are very likely noteworthy in a featured article. Those details may seem too specific in the current form of the article, but look to the future. UNDUE does not apply here - that would only apply if we wanted to include extraneous information about his brother, like say his education or title, for example. --Netoholic @ 19:26, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Much ado about nothing. When date formatting/ordering and neighborhood linking are the major issues of the article, we'll know we're close to Feature Article status. --Rob (talk) 03:21, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Page protection requested

Request submitted. – S. Rich (talk) 18:37, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

A real shame. Rather than trying to stick with one substantive edit a day, SPECIFICO seems keen to do long strings of contentious edits without allowing breathing time for others to evaluate. Then, while I've been pretty diligent in the last few weeks to stick to one major edit per day, Thivierr reverts my edit wholesale within moments, rather than looking it over to only address the parts that concern them. In particular, it looks like he's broken 3RR today. I wish that people would focus on one issue at time, and work it forward. We actually made some progress on the lead, but it keeps being set back because changes to the lead are casualties in these wholesale reversions. --Netoholic @ 19:05, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Not a shame. Even after I point out how these wholesale edits disrupt the very minor MDY format, you persist. You've put in the stuff you want and push against what others, note plural, feel are improvements. I think both of you are at 3RR, but I think your edits have less justification. – S. Rich (talk) 19:27, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
I definitely have not broken 3RR, he has though. On the MDY thing, the discussion #precise publication dates in bibliography favors using complete dates, and so in my edit I put them back. Neither of the two that disagree with you think its a minor issue. When I say people should voluntarily stick with one edit per day, I mean to inspire them to focus only on what their top priority is for that day. There just needs to be less overall urgency with regard to this article, and more downtime that allows people to see what's going on or even just get away and take a break. Frankly, the slowing down of things was very welcome while SPECIFICO was on his recent break. I really wish we could get back to that. --Netoholic @ 19:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Don't try to bullshit me. The discussion on dates in the bibliography did not favor complete dates. You want them. Specifico & I don't. Rob was happy either way. But given that Rob has reverted back to the M-Y format, it looks like he actually prefers them. As for focus, I was gnomishly fixing the dates & Ha's surname placement, but you couldn't leave my efforts alone. (At least you left Ha alone in 2 of 3 reverts.) – S. Rich (talk) 20:09, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
@Srich32977: I hope I can clear up a misunderstanding with regards to Ha's name. The only thing I ever did with his name was change your |author=Ha, Tu Thanh to the more specific template parameters |last=Ha|first=Tu Thanh. Other than the removal of specific publication dates from the books, I have no issues with your citation cleanups, and actually do appreciate them. --Netoholic @ 02:36, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
I endorse Srich's statement here. He stood back from the article, as many of us have done, and instead chose to focus what should have been recognized as constructive, uncontroversial clean-up. Instead, like virtually every other editor here, he was met with tendentious objection. SPECIFICO talk 20:59, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Editors can comment on Srich's PP request here [12] SPECIFICO talk 23:09, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Freedomain Radio vs freedomainradio.com

This has to be the most ridiculous new dispute you guys have come up with. That wording "host of Freedomain Radio" has been incredibly stable for months, and the description of Freedomain Radio is in the next paragraph and in its own section. Any implication that there could be confusion about it being an actual broadcast radio show is ridiculous, and unsourced. --Netoholic @ 20:27, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

You didn't just change this one small thing, you made a change to multiple items, none of which had any support. You once again, put the promotional quote "probably the single most influential libertarian thinker of our times" in the lede with no balance, despite a consensus of editors against it. You for the umpteenth time added back "philosopher", despite the rfc you lost, the unanimous endorse of the rfc, and umpteen discussions. But, you're edit description and this blurb on the talk page, only mentions the one little item you hope might get some support. What is the point of other editors even bothering with editing this article, if you're just going to wipe their contributions out wholesale. Just a reminder 3RR is a limit, not an entitlement. Don't think you can constantly revert war without be blocked. It takes real arrogance to pretend WP:BLPREMOVE protects you when you remove both this supposed BLP violation while also throwing in other unrelated changes, that you've been POV pushing for quite a while. --Rob (talk) 22:14, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
I would appreciate it if you'd raise specific concerns in the sections regarding those items. This section is about the unwarranted change today from "Freedomain Radio" to "freedomainradio.com". You're not offering any opinion on that, so your post in this section is unwelcome and misplaced. --Netoholic @ 03:48, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
You are the one who chose to group multiple unrelated changes under a single edit description that was incomplete and dishonest. I agree, it's good to break up different matters. Next time, do a separate edit for each item, and start a separate discussion for each. As the person who's adding material, it's actually you're job, not mine, to start the appropriate discussion, and gather a consensus for support for your contentious additions. I find it pointless to add to sections that already have a lengthy discussion, with a well established consensus, which is exactly opposite to yours. --Rob (talk) 04:10, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
WP:BE BOLD tells me it not my job to ask permission when adding new sourced information. My additions aren't externally contentious -- they are only that way to the editors that dislike the subject of this article and troll it. If a few weeks later you come along and delete a section, and are reverted to place the sourced section back into the article, WP:BRD advises to leave the article in status quo while you open discussion about your bold removal.
(since you refuse to discuss the show name change today, I will) In this case, the bold change was the removal of "Freedomain Radio" from the lead sentence - a show name that is true to sources and been in the article for several weeks - a show name that is not externally contentious in any way, shape, or form. When they were reverted on BLP grounds, SPECIFICO and Srich continued to revert rather than BRD. --Netoholic @ 04:27, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Let's just go back to "and host of the Freedomain Radio online broadcasts." and be done with this. – S. Rich (talk) 23:46, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
There's no problem with the current version. His enterprise is more than just the podcasts. The website is the center of his publication and distribution of his work in various media and the touchstone for the presentation of his ideas. For this reason, I think that the version you suggest is too narrow. There's certainly no BLP problem here. SPECIFICO talk 00:01, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
I've added Freedomain Radio to the lede for belt and suspenders. I hope we can move on to other matters. SPECIFICO talk 00:13, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
The relationship between the show and the domain name is explained in its own dedicated section of this article, and does not need to be expounded upon in the lead. Its unnecessary and redundant. Also, the Alexa stats also need to go. There is no source which describes the Alexa rating of freedomainradio.com as having any noteworthiness, so including it is an UNDUE misuse of a primary source, and I suspect it was added by SPECIFICO to the lead as a way to disparage the site exactly because the site is not high rating. The primary location of the show is YouTube, freedomainradio.com is a supplemental community/archive. The show is not "played" on freedomainradio.com and Molyneux does not "host" or "present" freedomainradio.com. This is just like trying to rename "The Young Turks" to "www.tytnetwork.com". That you all have been around this article this long and still don't grasp the basic nature of what the sources describe is mind-boggling, and suspicious. --Netoholic @ 03:48, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the BLPN notice. 1. Obviously "Generally this means cases where editors are repeatedly adding defamatory or libelous material to articles about living people over an extended period." is not the problem. And an independent editor has questioned the need for the discussion there. 2. No diffs were provided in response to that editor's request. 3. The particular problem (as per the section heading here) seems to have been resolved. 4. This discussion is devolving into other issues which BLP is not concerned with. – S. Rich (talk) 04:19, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Reverted. The edits are defamatory because they completely misrepresent the show as being called "freedomainradio.com" when the sources all Say "Freedomain Radio". The website (like many, many others related to other shows) is supplemental/archives. When you are taking away the name of his main brand/project, you are being defamatory. Also, the Alexa stats were added to defame the website, because it itself is not high traffic. No source mentions any significance to the site rankings of freedomainradio.com, so this is misuse of a primary source in order to defame the site. --Netoholic @ 04:31, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Alexa traffic ranking should be removed for the simply reason that it is an inherently unreliable source, with the possible exception of huge sites, that are hard to manipulate stats for (like Wikipedia). I'm laughing at you complaining that it's a primary source. At least Alexa is independent of the subject. You're perfectly fine with using http://www.fdrpodcasts.com/ as a citation for the 2,700 podcast statistic. If Alexa is a primary source in the same way VidStatsX.com is. Both sites gather information from others, and present it. Both are independent of those they report on. But, both are generated automatically, and it's questionable to present them, if we don't have somebody writing about the statistics, to show they are actually noteworthy. Though I agree with Alexa's removal, there was no potential for defamation. A ranking of 40,405102,401 out of 1 billion sites is actually not that bad. --Rob (talk) 04:49, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
VidStatsX is not used in the article for ranking, only for numbers of videos & subscribers. Many sources mention the number of videos and/or subscribers the show has, but those sources are always going to be out-of-date. They do, though, point that the how many podcasts/videos/subscribers is a noteworthy detail, and so using a source like VidStatsX just enhances and keeps it current. I'm not quite sure if VidStatsX counts as primary or secondary, but it is independent (to avoid linking to their youtube page itself for the numbers). No sources mention the freedomainradio.com Alexa rating though. As far as using fdrpodcasts for the number of podcasts, same reason. Independent sources mention that the number of podcasts is a noteworthy detail, and so using the primary source carefully to augment that is fine per WP:BLPPRIMARY (second sentence). --Netoholic @ 04:59, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I object to use of the phrase "online broadcasts" - this phrase is not in any source, which is why I removed it many days ago. At various points, Freedomain Radio' was a (audio) podcast primarily and then it was also the name given to freedomainradio.com, as well. The word now based on current source most often refers to the YouTube channel, and very rarely to the live-streamed call in show. Websites are obviously not broadcasts. Podcasts and stored YouTube videos are downloadable/play-on-demand, not broadcast in a conventional way. The live-streamed call-in show could be called a broadcast, but no sources refer to it as such. The best answer is to simply leave it is "host of Freedomain Radio." (with the link to that section, which explains all the aspects of the show). To guess that anyone would seriously be confused about it not being actual radio is not our job, and we can't just invent new ways of describing something that aren't in the sources - especially not in the lead sentence. I will volunteer to help clear up any confusions you think there are, but it'll be in the Freedomain Radio section, not the lead, which is meant to be concise --Netoholic @ 05:14, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

  • I came here from the BLP noticeboard. Barely glancing at the issue above it seems that some editors want to mention that Stefan is the proprietor of the website that hosts this podcast while other editors want to mention that he is the actual host of the website. Kind of a issue over how to appropriately right this. Is this a fair assessment?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 05:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Not quite. As I mention above, "Freedomain Radio" is the name for a YouTube channel, a website, a podcast, and a live-streamed call-in show - originating from the work of Stefan Molyneux. It is explained further its own section in the article, but the most common (and short/simple for the lead sentence) description is "host of Freedomain Radio" because it encompasses the entire "brand" and is used in the sources almost universally. --Netoholic @ 05:34, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
The youtube channel seems to be filled with his podcasts. What else does it have? He is the owner of the website, the host of the Freedomain radio podcast, and The host of the free Freedomain radio call in show, Correct?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 05:56, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
The YouTube channel is titled Freedomain Radio and has standalone videos (commentary, public speeches) and recordings of the call-in show. The call-in show is titled Freedomain Radio. Audio-only versions from his YouTube videos and call-in shows are additionally published as the Freedomain Radio podcast. The website is titled Freedomain Radio is supplemental/archives/links and community forum. --Netoholic @ 06:02, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Here is what I propose. This article should mention He is the host of the online broadcast Freedomain Radio and he is the owner of Freedomainradio.com.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 06:10, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
The article covers that all in the Stefan Molyneux#Freedomain Radio section. The dispute is around the lead sentence, where we want to be both concise and accurate. Likewise, the website does not "brand" itself on its url (it is not like Ask.com). Its url is a technical aspect only - its title is Freedomain Radio. --Netoholic @ 06:32, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
It's unclear if you are disputing the accuracy of my statement. If you are not then it can be worked into the lead. Which would handle your concerns and I assume perhaps handle theirs. As far as the weblink I would use the URL in the infobox and use the titled version in the external links section. Just my personal preference.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 06:36, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, your statement is inaccurate. The site is not called "Freedomainradio.com", it is called "Freedomain Radio". URL in infobox is standard, using the titled version is standard in the article body, including lead and External Links. --Netoholic @ 06:39, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
At this point I'm going to just walk away. It actually is accurate to say he owns Freedomainradio.com when he infact does. This also disambiguates it from Freedomain Radio the show that he hosts. They may be apart of the same brand but they are separate products. The same disambiguation helps in the infobox. This is my position on the subject. This is not a BLP issue. This is subject to consensus. We'll just have to see what other editors have to say. Good day.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 07:38, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Sure, and its explained already in the dedicated section. It is extraneous to mention it in the lead sentence, when its in its own section AND in the infobox already. The article already says that he owns the website, that fact is just not important enough to be in the lead, and definitely not supported by the sources to replace the official title of the site with the url in the article body. --Netoholic @ 07:44, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Looks like Netoholic has made a workable fix here. I'm happy with it. Let's move on. – S. Rich (talk) 16:29, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Technically I was early, I forgot to look at the clock, so I had to self-revert. But glad to see it works, and if no one else puts it back, I will later tonight. -- Netoholic @ 16:32, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
It's now been done. If someone objects, they should say so why here. – S. Rich (talk) 16:40, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
It's good enough[13] to stop fighting over. Calling it on online show avoids a mistaken notion that it is an actual radio show. Also, just as a note to Netoholic, if you have to look at the clock just before you make an edit, and delay your edit till after a set time, then you've already broken WP:3RR, which states "Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as an edit-warring violation.". We've both violated the rule, both been warned, and both should expect blocks if we repeat it, regardless if the exact timing of edits. --Rob (talk) 20:17, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Oh stop trolling me. Everyone's behaving like children, including me. My reverts were on BLP and BRD grounds to what should have been the status quo version, but I don't see a lot of people recognizing that, and I step back daily. In fact for weeks I have been sticking to one edit a day (until recently when you've started complaining that I do too much in my one edit). Srich, who is a big proponent of BRD, certainty didn't abide by it yesterday. You keep bringing broad diatribes about me into discussions meant to be about specific topics, and you didn't inform anyone that the main photo was going to be deleted, so caused several people to rush at the last minute. Specifico, well, I can't say what I want to, but let's say I've just given up on him being actually constructive in any manner on this article. I don't think its helpful to keep hounding me here after we've found a solution. If people were less combative and less insistent on preserving their bold edits rather than let things sit in status quo while we discuss and come up with solutions, we'd all be a lot less stressed and could get some real work and agreement done. -- Netoholic @ 20:44, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Can we remove the BLP template from here and mark the BLPN as resolved? If not, what are the objections to the present version?? – S. Rich (talk) 16:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

No. SPECIFICO talk 16:25, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Because? – S. Rich (talk) 16:41, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
I'll try to write alternative text that presents the content, the brand and the website and differentiates them while indicating that they share the brand. Give me 24 hours. No need to rush these things. I realize that you spend a lot of time on the computer but not all editors are on WP on so frequent a basis. There's already been plenty posted which you can review to get a sense of the shortcomings of the version you inserted. SPECIFICO talk 17:18, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
OK Done. I do think the web traffic stats are a useful measure to include in the FDR section, if not in the lede. SPECIFICO talk 21:34, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
(SPECIFICO's edit) There is no source for calling it a "'Freedomain Radio' brand" - that was a term I used here to explain to editors. The note I put in, and was accepted by Srich to address his concern about confusion, was sufficient and did not embellish with original research as you are doing. This should be immediately reverted. You even fucked up the address calling it "freedomain.com", its "freedomainradio.com", and that URL is already in the infobox and External Links - it doesn't need to be in the note. --Netoholic @ 21:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
OK I fixed the URL. Could you try to be polite? Some people are offended by uncivil discourse. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 21:49, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
No you didn't fix it. I am offended by people that make up shit to try and attack page subjects. --Netoholic @ 22:05, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Per your suggestion, I've changed the word "brand" to the word "name". SPECIFICO talk 21:52, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Still not accurate. Freedomain Radio is an online show, with related aspects as detailed in my original note. Your entire edit to the lead still needs to be reverted to the version I suggested and Srich agreed with. --Netoholic @ 22:03, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

If you feel strongly, please establish explicit consensus on talk. There was no such consensus about the version Srich inserted for you. SPECIFICO talk 22:07, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

  • We already have consensus for my version of the lead sentence. It was my suggestion, Srich implemented and said above that he's happy with it, and Rob said above that its good enough. You'll need to establish a consensus to make any substantive change. I just don't know what you're fighting for here. --Netoholic @ 22:14, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
There's no fighting. I'm trying to discuss a clear complete way to describe the channels and nomenclature of Molyneux' media of delivery. 3 editors among everyone who's been active here the past 2 months is not "consensus" when I've made a clearly reasoned objection with an alternative. Either we can work out something which is explicitly the consensus, not a quick majority head count, or we can post an RfC as was necessary to remove the unqualified "philosopher" description, which also had only a few supporters, from the lede. In the long run it's going to be much easier not to have to post frequent RfC's there are changes in the article. I hope you'll agree to refrain from reverting while we work this out. There's no ruch. It's more important to get it good and stable. SPECIFICO talk 22:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
"There's no ruch.[sic] It's more important to get it good and stable" - ok so then why are you insisting on changing it when 3 editors agreed on a version that was acceptable? That was the stable and agreed version before you made your change. Why not revert in good faith, and post your suggest here rather than potentially having inaccurate information in the most important sentence of the article? The URL still isn't even fixed and I would be justified in reverting for that inaccuracy alone. --Netoholic @ 22:54, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Netoholic, you're at 5RR in less than 24 hours on this article. I suggest you voluntarily roll back your most recent rounds of reverts and take a step back. SPECIFICO talk 23:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

"Everyone's behaving like children...." Quite so. May I do something grown-up? It may be a small step, but I'd like to remove the BLP template and mark the BLPN thread as closed. The discussion here is (mostly) about editing concerns, nothing more. – S. Rich (talk) 02:24, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Can't agree with that yet. SPECIFICO's recent edits mucked the lead sentence up. Freedomain Radio is a "show", per sources. The note we agreed to clarified things, but the main text needs to say "show". Describing it as "He distributes his work in various media using the name Freedomain Radio." is not at all in agreement to the sources. It is SPECIFICO's own slanted construction. --Netoholic @ 02:55, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Known For

In the infobox, we have "Known For" equal to "Voluntaryism, dispute resolution organizations, secular ethics, strong atheism". This looks funny. Maybe just maybe he's known for writing about DROs, but he's not known for DROs. If somebody writes about football, but has never played, and never been part of a football organization, we don't say he's known for football. Also, in the case of "strong atheism", the related section has no 3rd party sourcing (just Molyneux and someone who wrote a forward for him). So, we can't even say he's known for writing about "strong atheism". It's important to note, that merely proving that somebody has once done something, doesn't mean they are "known for" it. There are lots of things we have sources saying he's done through his life. We don't list them all (nor should we). I think the field is actually unneeded, since we list what he's really known for in his "occupation". But, if we do use this field, there should be some criteria, based on 3rd party sources. --Rob (talk) 08:09, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Please, assist your fellow editors and help research the Strong Atheism section. It has enough starting points I think. I would welcome any help, at all, from anyone, who would even once research and add some sources to this article. As I'm sure you're aware, I'm a tad busy with all manner of other things. If you can't devote the time to research, then perhaps you could at least triage and figure out which article issues you want fixed first. As far as the ugliness of the presentation, blame those that kept reverting the better infobox template which used fields appropriate for the type of work he describes himself working within. --Netoholic @ 08:42, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Please stop adding poorly sourced material, and then you won't have to beg assistance in sourcing. Also, please stop referring yourself in the plural. --Rob (talk) 08:48, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
I add sourced material. Judging it poorly-sourced is debatable, but I would have more respect for it if it came from someone who was also finding new sources.
Also, what's this about plural? You used "we" 8 times in your original post in this section. I don't actually mind, sometimes I use "we" when speaking for past, current, and potentially future editors. Things you do today, like removing sourced material you think is poorly-sourced rather than tagging it for improvement, affect all those editors. --Netoholic @ 09:20, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Unless I'm mistaken Rob is hinting at an actual BLP issue. But then I'll Rob speak on that matter himself.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 10:31, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
My reference to "plural" is your constant pretense to be speaking for editors (plural), when you are only speaking for one editor (yourself). In every dispute you try to cast things as though you're representing editors in general. As I see it, you've been the only editor defending re-adding large amounts of poorly sourced material. --Rob (talk) 13:55, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
If it was so obviously poorly-sourced, I would not add it. There are plenty of sources I don't push for and ten times more sources that I've never added in the first place. I've even removed some that I added myself because I found out later that they were poorer than I thought initially. Its one thing to have a healthy discussion on the quality of sources, but another matter entirely to accuse me of wrong-doing just because we disagree about the quality of a source. Besides, being poorly-sourced is not grounds for immediate removal - we have things like {{better source}} as an option, as well. BLP policy says that things that are open to challenge should be marked by inline tags, and that only things that are contentious must be removed immediately. I don't see your removals having anything to do with those sections being actually contentious in any context, though obviously they are challengeable (as you indicate by challenging them). --Netoholic @ 16:01, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Again Rob can speak for himself but my interpretation of his comments is that he does find this contentious. Strong Atheism for instance was written about well before Stefan started. Placed in the infobox currently as written one could assume that he coined the concept when he's only advocated for the concept. But again Rob should make that clear if that is his position.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 00:41, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Much of this infobox content is inappropriate. One editor has repeatedly edit-warred the "infobox philosopher" back into the article after it was removed in accordance with an RfC which closed with the decision that Molyneux should not be described as a "philosopher." Over the past month, most of the editors who were active before that time appear to have given up and left the article. If you care to volunteer here, I suggest you review the archives of the article and talk page. SPECIFICO talk 01:06, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Honestly I personally think that discussion here should be solely limited to Rob's claim above. Everybody seems annoyed. Handling these issues separately would probably be the way forward. I would assume the reasons for the edits highlighted by Rob above are different from the reasons of the editor who made edits against the consensus. That could really lead this conversation to spin out into an incoherent mess. Rob's concerns should be addressed. That is not to say that your concerns shouldn't be addressed, Specifico but Rob opened this. I'd ask the same in a thread opened up. Why don't you open one up below and see if we can get yours addressed.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 01:29, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
It's already been addressed. It's just that there's a single editor who denies the outcome. Please review the archives if you are interested in helping out here. Don't assume anybody is annoyed. That's not really on topic. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 01:33, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
The RfC is here. The question was about using the word philosopher (without qualification) in the lede. The infobox was mentioned twice: Once by Specifico indicating he thinks it needs to go, and once by Zarlan who said he wasn't sure that needed to go. And you know what I think about it. If your justification for removing it is based on the RfC, then I'd say you are on shaky ground. The infobox made good sense when we used that infobox, its not in the lede, and the name of the template is not even shown to readers. He works in philosophy, even if you think he sucks or that he's still an amateur, and that infobox had the right fields to use. Removing it was pedantic. --Netoholic @ 01:47, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
From the atmosphere here I described the mood as annoyed. I'm not interested in reviewing anything particularly in the archives or discussions that have ended. I'm an uninvolved editor. I'm not interested in your case against anyone else or their case against you. As uninvolved I can engage you or any other editor without any bias by already being involved. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 02:10, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

What I would say here is if Specifico is right then that is Tendentious editing. If Netoholic is right then there might be reason to open another RFC. I would recommend either going to wp:ani or opening another RFC. Personally I would just open another RFC.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 02:15, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

ALLCON: I'm concerned about the parameters of the infobox. This discussion, the results of which may impact editing decisions here, is posted FYI: Template talk:Infobox person#Change Notable work(s) to Notable work. – S. Rich (talk) 04:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stefan_Molyneux/Archive_2&oldid=1137204181"