Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

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

I've cleaned out enough of the self-sourced material and claims that I've taken the {{primary}} tag off - David Gerard (talk) 13:06, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Good to see you actually point out which sources you took issue with, rather than just the tag spam. I kinda wish you'd brought the concern areas here to discuss, but at least now I have something tangible to work with. --Netoholic @ 17:10, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

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

"then its clear the book is notable by proxy."

How so?--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 20:26, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Where is the source that shows his book was published by Mises.org? – S. Rich (talk) 20:38, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't - it was self-published. The review was. And the reviewer is notable, but a single source who is themself notable writing a review saying a self-published work is "preposterously bad" is not notability for the self-published work for Wikipedia. Hence me deleting the section - David Gerard (talk) 22:37, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Obviously I mistyped some punctuation. I was referring to the Gordon review being published by a notable publishing source (which itself has editorial responsibility to ensure the quality of the articles on their site). I have re-added the section, with another notable source confirming UPB (if you actually watch the video, skip to 3:20 to avoid the intro). -- Netoholic @ 06:06, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

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

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

"I've located this Ph.D. Philosophy dissertation"

Dissertations need to be confirmed as being Reliable before they can be used as a Reliable Source.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 05:35, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations on the most unhelpful response yet on this page. Here's an equally unhelpful reply "Its confirmed as reliable. Case closed". -- Netoholic @ 05:55, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

"Congratulations on the most unhelpful response yet on this page."

Pointing out how a source doesn't have enough to show that it is a Reliable Source, isn't helpful?

"Its confirmed as reliable"

Where? Show me.

Remember: You are the one with the burden of evidence.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 06:48, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Fencing with you is getting soooo tiring. You made a general statement "Dissertations need to be confirmed as being Reliable" when its clear I was asking for specific feedback on this source(ie... does the specific source I posted meet the guidelines for use, and does it satisfy the opponents of "philosopher". I need people that will pound the pavement and tell me their exact concerns - if you aren't going to do that, you don't need to reply at all. Make room for comments from the people that are interested in doing some work. -- Netoholic @ 13:22, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

That unpublished dissertation is not RS for WP to state that SM is a philosopher in this article. At any rate, this issue is being resolved in the RfC so any comments on that issue should be in the threaded discussion there. SPECIFICO talk 14:03, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

"when its clear I was asking for specific feedback on this source"

...and one of the things that needs to be taken into account, in determining if the source is appropriate, is the fact that dissertations aren't necessarily considered Reliable in the first place.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 07:26, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

"That unpublished dissertation is not RS" - do you understand that you aren't making an argument? You're just saying something (like Zarlan did above) but not giving any credible reasoning. "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.". I've provided the source, described its relevance, and here, I'll even do a simple google search for you to see this author has been published in several other journals. Refute this source with evidence, not your statement of opinion. --Netoholic @ 01:23, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

"That unpublished dissertation is not RS for WP to state that SM is a philosopher in this article."

It isn't even published? Well then its certainly not a RS.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 07:26, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

The bottom line is this: The RfC will determine the text. As of today, the clear consensus is to remove the assertion that SM is a philosopher. If your arguments result in a different consensus being reached when the RfC is closed, then the text will remain as is. SPECIFICO talk 01:45, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

"this author has been published in several other journals"

So what? This specific paper hasn't been published.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 07:26, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

""What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.""

Here's your evidence: WP:RS--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 07:26, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

The text will remain as is unless there is a clear consensus to change it, otherwise it remains status quo of what the lede's state was before your RfC was called. Consensus also isn't determined by democracy, so don't be so sure of the outcome just by looking at votes. Since the start of the RfC, new evidence has emerged which I've put in the article and compiled at User:Netoholic/Molyneux after some of the early people !voted. As far as I'm concerned, no one has refuted the mountain of evidence in any way... even still, I keep adding more and more things like journal/thesis references to establish that his philosophical ideas are being cited. Evidence is frankly overwhelming, and will continue to grow. In fact, I'd love to I see a couple of you opposers acknowledge the evidence fits with the standard definition of the word "philosopher" and change your votes based on my evidence. Hell, the word "speaker" in the lead has less evidence now than "philosopher" does, and yet its clear he is both. --Netoholic @ 02:05, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

We'll get an uninvolved editor or Admin to close the thread when the time comes. SPECIFICO talk 02:52, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

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

"Maybe they do or maybe they are written from multiple sources"

Thus they do not reliably confirm that a third party has stated it of him and that it isn't just WP:SELFSOURCE. Hence they are not Reliable Sources.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 20:26, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

These are not secondary RS references for the text which cited them. As a matter of fact there is still quite a lot of text in the article which is cited to similarly unacceptable sources. SPECIFICO talk 21:04, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

No - conference bios are usually authored by the subject; you would need to show that these were, contrary to usual practice, third-party works. The identical wording of the deleted quote strongly suggests otherwise. It would be OR for you to just assume on no evidence that these conference bios were in fact independent third-party reliable sourced material that substantiates your points - David Gerard (talk) 22:37, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

The same goes for any promotional text on any website, whether it's a sponsor/presenter or Molyneux' own site. ABOUTSELF applies to Molyneux' opininos and beliefs but it doesn't mean that we accept in Wikipedia's voice statements which can reasonably be interpreted as promotional statements (inflated, incomplete, or otherwise misleading) of fact. A related problem is that, without any secondary mention of for example, a "freedomfest" appearance, we cannot conclude that the appearance was noteworthy enough to be discussed in an encyclopedia. We need secondary RS corroboration of the importance of such material. SPECIFICO talk 22:44, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

That'll be the next source-checking run. I would assume if a conference has a Wikipedia article then that'll do for worth noting at this stage. If it doesn't, it goes (c.f. mentioning Strike The Root in the article, when it doesn't have an article itself) - David Gerard (talk) 22:47, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

• No one's responded to this: "We have to trust that the sources of those bios have done their job to make them accurate, because its unlikely they'd want to advertise falsely."? Even if Molyneux supplied the info, or even if the bio writer took the info from Molyneux's website, that still places an editorial burden of proof on them to ensure its accurate. Now, the degree to which they exercise that editorial control may vary, but it can be assumed that the larger the event, the more work goes into the accuracy of the bio, and the more reliable it becomes for our use. Your basic tiny lib-festival bio is maybe reliable only to confirm his appearance (and thats how I used most of them), but a bio written for The Next Web, the Bitcoin conferences, and other much larger events becomes reliable for more details about the speaker, because they have a bigger reputation on the line. -- Netoholic @ 10:22, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

"Even if Molyneux supplied the info, or even if the bio writer took the info from Molyneux's website, that still places an editorial burden of proof on them to ensure its accurate."

You are assuming that they actually check. That is WP:Original research

"Now, the degree to which they exercise that editorial control may vary, but it can be assumed that the larger the event, the more work goes into the accuracy of the bio, and the more reliable it becomes for our use."

WP:Original research

"but a bio written for The Next Web, the Bitcoin conferences, and other much larger events becomes reliable for more details about the speaker, because they have a bigger reputation on the line."

WP:Original research

Also... Given some bios for some TED talks (and who they allow to talk), you're clearly wrong.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 01:36, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Your assumptions that they aren't doing fact-checking is "original research", and in particular goes against common sense. Public events have a strong interest in presenting accurate speaker information. (Also, you're still threading your responses in an impractical way using that back-and-forth style of yours. Please respect the conversation by keeping your replies succinct.) -- Netoholic @ 02:44, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

"Your assumptions that they aren't doing fact-checking is "original research""

I am not assuming that they aren't fact-checking, I'm merely rejecting your claim that they are.

As per WP:V you are the one with the burden of evidence to demonstrate that they have done their fact-checking. I have no burden to demonstrate that they didn't.

This is also the general practice in logic. As someone with an interest in philosophy, you should know this.

"(Also, you're still threading your responses in an impractical way using that back-and-forth style of yours."

I've already told you: I don't know what you mean by that, nor how it differs from how you or anyone else here is doing things. You keep complaining about it, yet you refuse to explain. That is quite rude and disrespectful ...which given the nature of your complaints, is rather ironic.

"Please respect the conversation by keeping your replies succinct."

You WP:ASSUME that I am choosing to be verbose? I always try to be concise. Would you stop being rude?--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 03:37, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Response RE: sources We don't accept sources as RS simply because we believe that it's in the source's interest to check facts. Maybe some sources know you believe this so it's actually in their interest to exaggerate? Maybe some sources don't have the resources to check facts. There are many reasons why WP requires us to make a reasoned evaluation as to whether a reference is RS for the content it supports. The article is full of sources and content which have been edit-warred back into the text after consensus-based removals. SPECIFICO talk 02:04, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Sigh. "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." So yes, in fact we absolutely do gauge resources by their interest to checking facts. That is one of the first lines you read in WP:RS. The problem comes when editors exert their POV to either inflate or deflate the reliability of sources in order to push their POV into an article. Its funny how the same editors on this page that rail against bad sources themselves are atrocious at finding good sources (and in some cases exceptionally bad at actually reading the sources before they go cutting information). In fact, there's not been a single new source added to this article by anyone except me in a month. My intent is pure - to get this article well sourced. The intent of the deletionists is to make it look like a hack-job. You need some balance in your editing style. -- Netoholic @ 02:48, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Your personal surmise is not the test set forth in the policy. The policy refers to the sources' reputation. However, even if you mistakenly believe that you are following policy regarding RS, it is disruptive for you to repeatedly undo the edits of numerous editors in order to re-establish your preferred version. SPECIFICO talk 03:12, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Are we getting personal? Because I think recent evidence indicates that your interactions and edit-warring with regards to BLPs are known to be "problematic". I think the topic limitation hasn't changed much, just moved you into new areas to disrupt. So I'm sorry if your accusations of bad faith against me have very little weight. -- Netoholic @ 04:50, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

"Are we getting personal?"

You are. You keep referring to your personal judgements ...and personal attacks/insinuations towards us other editors.

"Because I think recent evidence indicates that your interactions and edit-warring with regards to BLPs are known to be "problematic"."

Again: Insinuations. Insinuations that have no relevance to the strength of his/her arguments. I.e. an ad hominem. You might want to read WP:No personal attacks.

We are supposed to assume good faith and not accuse other of bad behaviour ...unless we have evidence of it. The fact that you make personal attacks is clearly evident.

"So I'm sorry if your accusations of bad faith against me have very little weight."

What accusations of bad faith?--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 05:35, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

"So yes, in fact we absolutely do gauge resources by their interest to checking facts."

No.

That quote from WP:RS says "reputation for fact checking and accuracy". None of the sources you cite have such a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, in their bio information. Thus they do not qualify.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 03:37, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Policy shopping#Recognizing policy shopping. If you have any specific complaints about specific sources in the context they are used, please inform us here on the talk page. Broad generalizations are become quite boring. At least when DavidG went through and deleted several sections/citations... he put the effort in and made it know which particular items he felt needed work. This (finally) allowed me to find additional material and references which might go to satisfy those complaints. Stop being lazy, or remove this article from your watchlist if you can't stand to do the work. --Netoholic @ 02:11, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

"If anyone has the energy to do so, I suggest we consider writing up this issue and posting at RSN so that we don't keep going around in circles on the issue of primary sources, undue material cited to what appears to be promotional text and other related issues."

I fail to see the need.

We just need to discuss and establish consensus. Consensus does not require unanimity.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 05:35, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:Policy shopping#Recognizing policy shopping."

...

No.

"If you have any specific complaints about specific sources in the context they are used, please inform us here on the talk page."

That is, while nice and maybe preferable, not actually required. You can ask for SPECIFICO to do so, but you cannot demand or expect it.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 05:35, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

You missed the word "please" there... that indicates a request not a demand. Besides, its likewise its not "actually required" that active editors of the article incorporate the feedback of editors that don't provide feedback that is of practical use. -- Netoholic @ 05:58, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I did say "or expect". Also just using the word "please" doesn't automatically make it asking. Please note that I never stated that you did demand.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 06:48, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

This section is almost entirely cited to primary source references. There's no RS which justifies the selection of this dozen or so references out of thousands of Molyneux podcasts and speaking appearances. To return to a question which was raised previously on talk -- should this section be rewritten from scratch using only those sources which provide secondary RS selection as to noteworthy issues or events? SPECIFICO talk 00:26, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

How about you locate and add some sources that you feel are better? I would, but my time is taken by all the other rapid-fire changes and complaints you're making. If you're honestly interested in improving the article, you should recognize that it all can't happen at once when I'm the only one that seems to do any source-finding. So pick your priorities, focus on one section of the article at a time, rather than the daily, random action you've been doing. -- Netoholic @ 01:33, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Is the {{primary}} template needed? About 22 of the 83 citations are Molyneux-based. – S. Rich (talk) 01:11, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

It's much more than that because a lot of the citations, although published by others, merely repeat self-description or promotional statements by SM or are primary statements by others with no indication of notability. Many editors have expressed this concern and the tag serves to invite assistance if there are stronger references out there to be found. SPECIFICO talk 01:23, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Nominate it for deletion then. His notability is established in several major national newspapers and several major libertarian sources. The article does not rely on primary sources to establish it. The Molyneux-based sources are simply exposition on noteworthy facts. -- Netoholic @ 02:10, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

The tag is not "notability" -- it is for primary sourcing, which is clearly a weakness per my comment above and the comments of many other editors on this page. Please reinsert the tag you removed. The template alerts new editors to come help improve the article with better sources. SPECIFICO talk 02:26, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

If you were truly concerned about other editors, you'd point out specific sections of concern, rather than continue to pursue the lazy path of tagging the article. Every (as far as I can tell) Molyneux source has a specific, limited purpose for its inclusion. You can feel free to discuss specific purposes, if you think they are not necessary. I think we know your purpose for the tags isn't for other editors, its to disparage the subject, something evidenced by your entire history with this article (and the Mises-related Biographies as well). -- Netoholic @ 02:54, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

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

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

"Notable yet?"

I dunno. Does this count?--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 21:39, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

@Nancymc: you Boldly the material from ZarlanTheGreen. It has been Reverted here. At this point you are invited to Discuss inclusion or exclusion of the section. – S. Rich (talk) 02:57, 9 June 2014 (UTC) 03:19, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

This material wouldn't be worthy of the article even if there was an existing section on Molyneux's views on women to give it some context here. Its a YouTube rant about another YouTube rant snipped from a longer video and discussed not even Sam Seder himself commenting, just his fill-in hosts. Its POV, raw, uncouth and inappropriate. --Netoholic @ 03:37, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

From what I heard they replayed a Molyneux broadcast. I reviewed the quoted material and it seemed accurate with what was played. So if it's POV, raw, uncouth, or inappropriate one can't complain because it came from the philosopher himself. – S. Rich (talk) 04:14, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Is the notability/reliability standard you're arguing "they replayed a portion of his podcast"? If that flies, it'd make my job a lot easier, as lots of videos/podcasts replay portions of his stuff. I don't think that's what you're really advocating though. --Netoholic @ 04:33, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not arguing notability (for or against). And reliability is a different question. I'm wondering if these guys accurately replayed Molyneux? And, of course, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. I'm responding to your comment that someone seems to be ranting. E.g., is that Molyneux we hear? If so, then we face a WP:NOTCENSORED question if we don't like what all they are saying because they are ranting with their POV, rawness, uncouthness, etc. – S. Rich (talk) 05:00, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh no, I meant the edit was "POV, raw, uncouth and inappropriate". We don't just take random snippets that people say and put them into articles. Wikipedia is not a tabloid. --Netoholic @ 05:10, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

As the particular snippet and edit are at issue we have a different question. Nancymc (and others) should be commenting. But there is certain irony here: WP is not a tabloid, but our philosopher has provided some grist for the tabloid mill. – S. Rich (talk) 05:18, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Maybe its just because you're new to following him as a result of hanging around this article lately, but trust me, its nothing new. He's said some "pop"-controversial things before, and like those others, its nothing notable. --Netoholic @ 05:30, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

My first edit to the article was in February 2012. He's been on my watchlist since then. And I'm not sure why you bring up notability. Per WP:N "notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a topic can have its own article." It does not pertain to the information within articles. Rather "Content coverage within a given article or list (i.e., whether something is noteworthy enough to be mentioned in the article...) is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies." [Emphasis added.] How does this UTube video come out when evaluated by weight & content standards? – S. Rich (talk) 06:01, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Can the word "notable" ever just be used in its everyday meaning on Wikipedia? Both Molyneux's rant and the rants in the response video are just not notable (as in the dictionary meaning), memorable, widely-known/referenced, nor even very interesting, which means the inclusion of said rants on Wikipedia would have very little informational value, would have over-inflated significance, and wouldn't fit with the style or tone of an article aiming to be dispassionate. Feel free to reply again with as many WP:OMGWTFBBQ as you like. --Netoholic @ 07:02, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the removal of the the block quote, though for a different reason. The quote is very "interesting". Any well known pundit/writer would have massive coverage of those comments, with them being played on TV, and would likely see the end of their career. But, Molyneux is only barely notable, and few pay attention to his comments, except other barely notable bloggers/pundits. It's not Wikipedia's job to provide coverage some might wish the mainstream media gave. Instead, we must follow what notable sources say, and they haven't said much of anything. There's a tremendous potential for POV-bias if we go over a barely notable person's sayings&writings, and pick out those things that aught to get attention, but haven't. We have to be careful to only give attention to that which has been given substantial attention by reliable sources. And when we do, we should be summarizing what they say, and not just giving a raw quote. --Rob (talk) 07:14, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

This section is inappropriate for a Wikipedia article. We can't cherrypick quotes and sections from a person's work that we choose to highlight. While we can employ primary sources, what we highlight from those primary sources should be based on what the secondary sources focus on, not what editors personally prefer to focus on. Gamaliel (talk) 14:53, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Ethics is an important branch of philosophy, and so if a philosopher declares his opinion on what he considers the fundamental root of evil, as he does in "The Matriarchal Lineage of Corruption", I think it’s important to include that in a Wikipedia article section devoted to his philosophy, or else it is incomplete. The source can certainly be changed to a direct link to Molyneux's own Youtube channel devoted to that proposition [1]Nancymc (talk) 16:13, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

If secondary sources do not consider this opinion to be of note, we should not substitute our judgment for theirs. If there are insufficient secondary sources to document Molyneux's opinions, then his opinions are not significant enough to be in an encyclopedia. Gamaliel (talk) 16:20, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Well clearly secondary sources do consider it sufficient enough to document - I discovered the excerpts from Molyneux thesis via the Majority Report. Is that not a secondary source? Nancymc (talk) 16:31, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I assumed the youtube link was to a primary source by Molyneux, I just checked again and it I was wrong. Sorry for confusing the issue and wasting everyone's time. Obviously my previous comments are moot, but I do share Netoholic's reservations. Gamaliel (talk) 16:46, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

You weren't far off. TMJ cherry-picked a section of audio from a Molyneux video that is 4 months old, and Nancymc cherry-picked a short section of that rebroadcasted audio here. The audio of him speaking is still primary source. --Netoholic @ 17:42, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Does this mean that my contribution will be restored, or are there additional objections? I think we've covered the relevance and sourcing issues. Nancymc (talk) 17:31, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

No. You should be locating and referencing what reliable sources say about Molyneux, not just using an out-of-context sound bite just because they happened to rebroadcast it. That doesn't turn it from a primary source into a secondary source. -- Netoholic @ 17:42, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

With 1,500 videos, Molyneux has provided a lot of primary source material to consider. As for this topic, we have at least one secondary source (Seder) who does not think highly of Molyneux's "Matriarchal Lineage" views. If these views can be presented in WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, not as selected quotes, the material may be acceptable. Just how noteworthy is the Matriarchal Lineage view? By the same token, how noteworthy are his other views? – S. Rich (talk) 18:36, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Should we have an entire section based on a single complaint about a single quote? This is an WP:UNDUE issue as well. I suggest the proponents of this material find alternate ways to present it or try to incorporate it into other sections. Gamaliel (talk) 18:48, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

This particular secondary source is not Seder, but his fill-in hosts, which makes it even less useful. I have been looking for a good set of reliable sources to anchor a "men's rights/feminism" section on, but I've come up short. Molyneux doesn't do much writing or speaking on the topic in a consolidated way, which probably explains why reliable secondary sources haven't been created to comment on the views. --Netoholic @ 19:35, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that because the primary host of Majority Report did not make the presentation, that therefore the source is not reliable? And this idea that "Molyneux doesn't do much writing or speaking on the topic in a consolidated way" - is that also a Wikipedia rule? How much is "enough" writing or speaking on the subject? What counts as "consolidated"? He posted an entire video entitled "Matriarchal Lineage of Corruption" in which he explains his theory that the root of human evil is women choosing to reproduce with evil men. This is a fundamental pillar of his worldview, it's interesting, it's noteworthy enough that I found it by way of PZ Myers noting it on his blog with a link to the Majority Report discussion, and unless there is some Wikipedia rule somewhere that a media source is no longer reliable if there is a substitute host, then refusing to accept the source appears to be based on something other than standard procedure. And I chose that quote because it stated most clearly and succinctly Molyneux's thesis - women having sex with "monsters" are responsible for the evils in the world. I'm beginning to suspect that the problem isn't sourcing or format or procedure, the problem is that I've expressed Molyneux's views a little too clearly and acccurately for the comfort of some. Nancymc (talk) 14:05, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

The Wikipedia rule which best applies here is WP:CONSENSUS. – S. Rich (talk) 15:58, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

If it was actually "a fundamental pillar of his worldview" then it would be much easier to find information about it. One of his books perhaps would have been dedicated to the subject, or he would have made a public speech about it, or he would have written at least an article on it. Likewise, other sources that talk about Molyneux would mention this as "a fundamental pillar". -- Netoholic @ 18:00, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I've tagged the Murphy link as SPS. (The link is his personal blog. The segment talks about third persons.) Well, WP policy says "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people,...." This policy language, IMO, is vague. Does it mean "never use the SPS when the source has information about living people." Or does it mean "never use the SPS to add information about living people to WP." I look forward to seeing comments about what this Mises Institute-related person has posted in his blog and how (or if) it can be used in this article. – S. Rich (talk) 04:57, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

The blog is obviously self-published/personal, and the source from it we use is just the text of the specific blog post being referenced, so what he says in the video or elsewhere on his blog isn't relevant. His appearance on the show is a lightweight claim, easily verified since he references (embeds) Molyneux's source in his. We're not saying what they talk about, just recording that a notable guest found his appearance noteworthy. Also, its important to remember the basic purpose of WP:BLP - to protect living persons from reputational harm and avoid WP:LIBEL problems. Since his blog post doesn't present any likelihood of that, its fine. --Netoholic @ 05:44, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Taking WP:SPS literally we can't use it anywhere in this BLP. But, that aside, the relevant issue is that if two people chat with one another, and nobody other than those two people write about it, then it is obviously not noteworthy. If it was noteworthy, it would have been noted. Removal is generally better than tagging for material that should never have been added in the first place. Let's fit the content to the independent sources, not the sources to the existing content. --Rob (talk) 05:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Removal takes away the ability of current and future editors to improve this article. This isn't a disparaging claim at all, so there's no harm in letting people use it as a starting point to research and improve upon. In fact, I am pretty sure one of the other sources does mention Murphy appearing on the show, but I'd have to dig it up. This is still a young article, no need to keep trying to uproot it and toss it on the curb. --Netoholic @ 06:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Quite the opposite. It frees them to write content based on what 3rd party reliable sources say, instead of using those sources to fit the old content based on primary sources. 3rd party sources tend to speak differently of a subject than first hand accounts. They place different importance on different things. What a person thinks is hugely important about themselves might be meaningless to others, and not worthy of writing about. Trying to find new 3rd party sources to fit exactly existing content from primary sources is an exceedingly difficult and wasteful task. I also notice, that while you've cried endlessly about removal of content, and begged for tagging; you still dismissed completely the concerns of Srich32977, who took a more conciliatory (yet futile) approach of tagging. --Rob (talk) 06:34, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

The intent of BLP is to protect living persons from wild speculation - its not meant to prevent us from confirming what the subjects say about themselves (see WP:SELFPUB). If it is easily verifiable that both Molyneux and Murphy acknowledge the interview, then its not necessary to remove it on BLP grounds. Maybe you can make the case for other grounds, but not BLP. --Netoholic @ 06:46, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:SPS says "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people". A third-party sources (WP:THIRDPARTY) "is one that is entirely independent of the subject being covered". Since Murphy and Molyneux are both first-party to the event (the appearance on FDR), SPS doesn't apply. The cited blog entry itself doesn't mention third-parties, and so is fine per SPS. It falls under WP:SELFPUB. --Netoholic @ 07:09, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLPSPS is the specific standard. It gives a few exemptions. This is a self published source by Murphy that contains a self published source by Molyneux. This is a vase for wp:iar. This source reliable confirms the information that he has interviewed Murphy.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 10:09, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Why is this even a contentious issue at all? It's a partial list of people who have been on the podcast. You don't need a particular source to note that, the podcast itself is sufficient, and the fact that Murphy has his own Wikipedia article shows he has enough notability to be mentioned in what is essentially a laundry list. I really don't understand why we're even discussing this. Gamaliel (talk) 15:18, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree. It'd be fairly hard to describe the podcast without some sort of list of topics and guests generated from multiple sources - WP does after have to consolidate information to present the subject. We've discussed what sort of guidelines to use for the list, and I think the rough guideline is: 1) notable guest (determined simply as those that have Wikipedia articles); 2) where the guest has themselves noted their appearance on the show (this goes to establishing noteworthiness of FDR, not necessarily their specific appearance); and 3) where possible, use 3rd-party sources that note the appearance (best option, since it shows noteworthiness of show & specific appearance). --Netoholic @ 14:19, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Srich tagged the Awuku article as WP:SPS and WP:SYN.
The simplest argument against it being an SPS is that Awuku doesn't own the website, and is not the editor. He's listed as a contributor, and has a sizable resume of columns, which focus on varying topics (ie not just molyneux). Strike-the-root has its own editor, guest editors, and submission guidelines. There is a group blog, but this article isn't part of that, and the blog too has its own guest editors.
I'm not sure what the basis of the SYN tag is. --Netoholic @ 18:10, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

STR, as a whole, is a group blog, not a newsblog. I don't think "dressing it up" with an editor ([2]) changes the nature of it. (I looked for it on the WP:RSN, but did not find anything.) When weighing it (and Awuku) as RS, I don't think it makes the cut. (Is it a questionable source? Well, it has no reputation for fact checking.) The SYN comes in when "A" (Molyneux's 2005 essay & Practical Anarchy) is combined with "B" (Walter Block & Awuku) to imply "C" – that DROs are something noteworthy. – S. Rich (talk) 18:47, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

The blogs at STR are separate from the articles/columns linked from the home page (you can see a list of Bloggers on the sidebar there - Awuku isn't one). Awuku doesn't own the STR website, and his article is not published in the blog area, but as a column, which has an editor. Can you at least acknowledge that its not an SPS since Awuku isn't personally publishing his material on his own website? We can discuss if its a questionable source if you want, but it is not an SPS.
I honestly still don't get your point about SYN. Block and Awuku confirm that Moylneux's views on DROs are noteworthy. They make reference themselves to Molyneux's Stateless Society. There is no separate "A" that is being artificially SYNTH'd here. --Netoholic @ 19:00, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Re: whether this is a questionable source - Wikipedia:Anarchism referencing guidelines#Reliable archives lists Stike-The-Root (along with Anti-State.com and LewRockwell.com also mentioned in this article) as reliable. See the talk page for more detail on its assessment. Strike-the-Root articles are used as a reference in Netoholic @ 19:22, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

SPECIFICO changed this wording from "most" to "some". Molyneux has released 2750 podcasts freely available. The Donate page mentions that there are only "213 Donator Only Files (48 Bronze, 38 Silver, 71 Gold and 56 Philosopher King donation level Podcasts and Books)". I think this pretty squarely indicates that use of the word "most" to describe how many things he releases freely is very accurate - I'd even go so far to say that the phrase "almost all" is accurate. "Some" is jut plainly wrong and I can't see any justification for it other than POV-slanting. --Netoholic @ 20:57, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

(copied from #one of the single most influential libertarian thinkers of our times)

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 wanted to tackle this as its own point. The problem here is that if families contact a reporter directly and that reporter makes a claim about those conversations but doesn't reveal names, then the reporter has become directly involved and is now a primary source for those claims only. As no secondary, independent source mentions these family-reporter contacts, then it should not be mentioned in the article here. I do believe them, personally, and I agree the point is important, but we're essentially taking the side of the reporters and repeating information that originates only from them. I've moved (but not removed), slightly edited, and tagged this line for now, and I ask that we take the opportunity to discuss. --Netoholic @ 03:18, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

The Globe and Mail is a reliable source. Of the sources used in this article, probably only the Guardian and TorStar exceeds them in respect. This article is overloaded with primary sources, namely the subject of the article. Next, we have numerous use of "independent" sources, which are just like minded pundits/bloggers, who are sources of opinion and not fact. The G&M is a reliable source of facts (not just opinions). You've repeatedly excluded material from a reliable source for the exclusive reason you don't like what they say. By your weird logic the Washington Post wasn't a reliable source on Watergate because they didn't name Deep Throat. Respectable media routinely use sources that are not named publicly. Note, there's a big difference between not releasing a name publicly, and being anonymous to the reporter. --Rob (talk) 04:27, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Added: You're revision is a serious problem, because now you're making a contentious statement without properly attributing it in the body. The version I had stated the name of the reporter, and the publication, because the reliability of it rests squarely on their shoulders. You also failed to include the cite at the end of the sentence. We need the cites at the end of every single sentence that's contentious, even if it's the same cite used later in the same paragraph. You're basically complaining of a BLP violation when none exists, and then creating one yourself. --Rob (talk) 04:34, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to move the cite. I put the sentence into the narrative structure/timeline of the section for readability. It was awkward as it was as a stand-alone statement - too much prominence for something that isn't given a lot of space in the news articles themselves.

I believe wholeheartedly that the papers are reliable sources for events they independently report on, but when reporters make claims about unnamed families, for which no evidence exists except for their say-so, that reporter becomes a primary source. Sources can be both reliable and unreliable (see WP:SECONDARY, 2nd half of the paragraph for "secondary source"). A reporter saying someone has contacted them is a first-hand witness to information no one can confirm or refute. I agree its done often in journalism, but that doesn't mean its valid for WP to make such a primary claim. --Netoholic @ 05:01, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

PLEASE do not remove tags for BLP concerns prematurely. You are fostering this edit-warring environment by doing so. If someone reports a potential source problem, give the issue some time for people to discuss. --Netoholic @ 05:06, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

You've now resorted to your own personal definition of words. A good newspaper will hire good reporters that can be trusted. They'll also employ fact checkers and editors who review what the reporter says and does. It might be nice, but is quite rare, for a newspapers to turnover all of their names and raw data for others to review. We can use a reliable source, even if their claims aren't universally accpeted, by way of attributing who is making the claim in the body of the article. All we're doing is saying what the G&M is saying. Notice the hypocrisy. We have a the statement "probably the single most influential libertarian thinker of our times" for his ability to teach young people in the digital age." in the article. Now, did Jeffrey Tucker personally conduct a survey and release all the raw data for others to review. No, he just gave his personal opinion, based on nothing but personal experience, worded as a fact. Now, we are able to use it, because it's in quotation marks, and attributed to Tucker. By the same token, we can use the G&M quote, because it's in quotation marks and attributed to the G&M and the reporter. Both quotes are contentious. The main difference is the G&M is actually a reliable source of the fact, not just the opinion; G&M is a vastly more notable and respected source; G&M is more than one person, so claims can be verified internally; and G&M is making a testable claim (if they lied they could be sued for defamation). But, the only thing that matters to you, is the the G&M sounds bad, and the Tucker quote sounds good. So, you want the Tucker quote in the lead, and the G&M excluded for no reason other than bias. --Rob (talk) 05:28, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Tucker is off-topic, and the justifications for that are completely different than this newspaper. You forget that the root function of WP:BLP is to protect living people from reputational harm, so standards for disparaging (or likely disparaging) content have stricter standards than neutral or positive comments. I would appreciate it if you would discuss the topic at hand, and not try to guess at what you think my "bias" is. My only "bias" is to create a top-quality article on Wikipedia. --Netoholic @ 06:05, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually, if you read WP:BLP it explicitly states that it doesn't matter "whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable". This is to prevent people from abusing BLP to promote a subject, by systematically removing all the negative material, but using a lower standard of sourcing to keep in the contentious friendly material. You're whole strategy for this article has been to do exactly what BLP disallows. I'm not sticking to the narrow point you want, because I've simply grown sick and tired of the overall pattern. This pattern can't be looked at one item at a time. It's not ok to employ one standard for promotional quotes and claims in one discussion, and then have an entirely different set of standards in another discussion. There has to be a consistent adherence to policy and guidelines throughout the article. --Rob (talk) 06:13, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I know you've "simply grown sick and tired" because your frustration is dripping all across this page. Tagging and discussing, rather than outright deleting, your sentence was a bit of a test. You reverted immediately, rather than leave the the tag and let discussion happen. I think it is evidence of your desire to have it both ways. You want to delete my edits, but keep your own. You want to hide all traces of issue tags... do you just not think ^{[better source needed]} or ^{[non-primary source needed]} have a purpose? At least now we can say I tried to be conciliatory towards you, and you have no signs of reciprocating. That's fine, but at least I know where you stand. I find it ironic you project an agenda onto me, but I think you're really talking about your handling of this article. I know from experience, you'll burn out fast taking a stance like this. --Netoholic @ 07:00, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Posted to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard --Rob (talk) 07:46, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

• Consensus from there seems to be that the report is reliable. I went ahead and incorporated it into the section, along with satisfying a longer-term goal of mine to put the references on the lines they support rather than bunched at the end. The Times-2009 definitely deserves to be the star source of the section, as its comprehensive, written a few months after the controversy, incorporates a lot comments from the son, and also covers the other families aspect. Feel free to review it all. -- Netoholic @ 10:42, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

@Srich32977:: This is a minor point, but the sources disagree on the description of his pre-philosophy career, and its probably because of various dates they come from. He initially was mostly a programmer, but was also in a management/sales role.

• Toronto Star 1997: "Stefan and his staff crunch out the programming"
• Times 2009: "Molyneux was recently able to quit his job in software"
• Molyneux (FDR About page): "I left my career as a software entrepreneur and executive"

I'd prefer that the lead just simplify this and say he "left a software career". Details will be in the main body, the lead shouldn't imply that he was only a programmer. --Netoholic @ 21:39, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I added because "software career" was vague. Could be sales, software engineering, software development, or management. His "entrepreneur & executive" is self-serving, the Times is vague, so I'd recommend engineering or development as the modifier. – S. Rich (talk) 02:31, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree that "entrepreneur" is self-serving, but he performed all those roles - programming (unsure if development or engineering), management (Toronto Star 1997: "his staff"), and sales - that's why leaving it non-specific as "software career" is the right answer. --Netoholic @ 02:43, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

How about "In 2005 SM left his career in the software industry to become a ...." – S. Rich (talk) 02:53, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

He didn't really have what's objectively and independently called a "career" -- we are told that he and his brother created one product and sold it to various corporations for a relatively brief period, following which the Molyneux' company appears to have been absorbed without a trace of its product or brand. We have no RS as to the terms of the "sale" of the company or whether it was successful. Many companies are liquidated by "selling" their remains, parts of which may be useful to some other operating company but are neither useful nor valuable in their entirety to the company being sold/liquidated. SPECIFICO talk 03:06, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't in 2005 (more early 2006, but I don't think we have a current RS to establish that date), but saying "left a career in the software industry" is fine by me. And SPECIFICO, you're dead wrong again. I get that it can be satisfying to minimize someone you dislike, but cmon now. We have two reliable Toronto newspapers that note both the early and late phases of his career. What happened in between is only lightly covered and not very noteworthy to our article (but I guarantee sources do exist for those years if you really want to push this). --Netoholic @ 03:19, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

At the moment, we have a rather clumsy way of describing how Molyneux collects money, that seems to contradict, because they come from different sources, that disagree. First, we have a very flattering version of him giving away stuff, in a unique way, which helps him strive to excellence. This is sourced to David Horsager who apparently isn't notable enough for a Wikipedia article, and seems very enamored with the subject. This first source suggests (but isn't explicitly saying) Molyneux relies solely on donations. Next, we counterbalance this, by a somewhat negative statement about charging extra for premium content, based on the primary source of Molyneux's web site. The reader is left wandering what is so special about somebody giving away some web content for free, and charging for premium content. I think https://freedomainradio.com/donate/ is a particularly bad source (it feels ORish to use). But, it's deceptive not to mention he does charge, after we suggest he doesn't charge like others. I also think there's a problem with anything remotely specific, since I'm sure this is something that can change, and I don't like the idea of editors going to his web site, and seeing how he's charging today. The Guardian[3] did a nice simple job of covering it. They state Molyneux says he doesn't charge, and then mention that critics point out that he in fact does charge for premium content. So, you've got a highly reliable third party source giving both sides. Note, I'm not necessarily saying David Horsager can't ever be used as a source (notability<>reliability), but stating the obvious: the Guardian is infinitely superior. When two sources cover the same item, and aren't consistent with each other, we need to favour the more reliable source. --Rob (talk) 20:58, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Horshager doesn't have to be notable to be a reliable source, but he does write and speak about trust in business. He's not "enamored", Molyneux is just 2 pages out of the book. The significance of the Horshager reference is to indicate that Molyneux doesn't use typical revenue streams (like inescapable, involuntary advertising) and instead relies on donations, that's all. Horshager doesn't explicitly saying or even imply that ALL content is freely available, just that Molyneux's method is unconventional and based on voluntary funding, which matches his general philosophy of that voluntary interaction is best. Having premium content/levels is still voluntary donations. Even if there is confusion from Horshager, its explained in the very next sentence that there is some content that only donators have access to. Added: The Guardian[4] isn't very helpful because it only describes that people can pay for "special levels of access", whatever that means. The FDR-Donate page is more currently and descriptive. Keeping a small selection of content for premium donators, but that's hardly controversial... and in fact very common. What is different, though, about FDR is that everyone in the world can listen to the vast majority of FDR content for free and without advertising. Those who do pay, do so as voluntary donations and are rewarded with some extra material. --Netoholic @ 21:59, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I guess scare quotes are now a thing, is that what we call an NPOV edit? --Netoholic @ 02:58, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Molyneux appears to have coined his own word, "donators" to refer to persons who pay for use of his site. The use of quotation marks to indicate that the word has been taken from the indicated context is not what's meant by "scare quotes." Furthermore, there's no policy or guideline on WP that tells us the use of quotation marks violates NPOV or any other principle. In fact, the quotes are a neutral way of presenting SM's usage. If one were, on the other hand, to use (sic) it would indicate the editor's judgment that SM's usage is incorrect -- a view that I. and presumably none of us here, wish to state. Please undo the removal of the sentence which describes access to freedomainradio.com content. SPECIFICO talk 12:26, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

You or anyone else can use the site absolutely free, without donation. A few privileges and a small amount of content are reserved for donations at various levels. This does not mean that it is a "pay site". This distinction is made clear on the site, the major newspapers that mention it, and the book reference. Your interpretation is the only basis of the scare quotes, which means its irrelevant and has been appropriate removed. --Netoholic @ 19:21, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Source: "Molyneux is an Irish-born author who grew up in England and Africa before coming to Canada 25 years ago."

"Settling in" is the common phrase used to indicate someone moved and stayed. Saying he moved to Canada is ambiguous (did he move after that again?). In this case, Molyneux went to Canada and has remained there (the source is a local Canadian paper).

As for the calculation around how to handle "25 years ago", I would much prefer we simply take the year of the article (2003) and subtract 25 years to get 1978 and use that in the article as "around 1978". Going further as SPECIFICO did by calculating Molyneux's age at the time is too much WP:OR and potentially introduces inaccuracy (we don't know the month of the move, or even really the exact year). --Netoholic @ 21:07, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

"coming to" is too similar to the copyrighted source (in fact, its directly the same). "Settling in" does not imply he moved there alone, that's silly. All it indicates is that he moved there, and stayed, which is 100% correct. -- Netoholic @ 16:48, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

There is no copyright violation to use an English word in context. Settling has been rejected because it sounds as if he did so autonomously rather than being brought to Canada as a child. If you have a third option, such as moving to Canada with his family, or whatever, then by all means propose it. Please review WP:OWN. It would be wise to step back from minutiae of language, particularly words of which you're the author. SPECIFICO talk 16:54, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

The source does not say whether he moved there alone or with his family. Settling in is a neutral phrase which does not imply one over the other at all, while also avoiding use of the precise words from the source. The rest of your comment is unproductive accusation and is disregarded. -- Netoholic @ 17:05, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Added: The other very good reason we can't use "coming to Canada" is because Wikipedia is not Canada-centric. The newspaper can use those words, since they are a Canadian paper, but in Wikipedia we avoid such construction (ala WP:WHATPLACE) by speaking about subjects from an external frame of reference. -- Netoholic @ 18:37, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me to have a personal life section with just some basic info, as is standard on wiki bio pages. So far it just references that he has <personal information about immediate family removed>, lives in Canada, and runs Freedomain Radio full time. Any other info that it should include? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dzgoldman (talk • contribs) 02:21, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Molyneux has discussed the difficult family situation he faced as a child and has related that narrative to some of his current views. It is in the archived FDR video #676 here. That material would help fill in some important details and perspective. SPECIFICO talk 02:25, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

That section included information (about leaving a software career, etc) that was already present in the 2nd paragraph of the lead and in the Early life section. Information about his immediate living relatives should not be included unless it has significant coverage in secondary sources as being noteworthy information related to Molyneux himself, otherwise we adhere to the presumption of personal privacy per WP:BLP. WP:BLP policy also applies to talk pages, so please don't include details of his immediate family here either. -- Netoholic @ 03:24, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Straw man.

Let's stick to the issue. SPECIFICO talk 11:55, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Netoholic has once again shown why a topic ban is called for. Netoholic censored completely harmless information that Molyneux himself has personally released. The Globe and Mail reported the full name of Molyneux's wife who was once a FR co-host. Not only has Netoholic removed that name in the past (a debatable issue, I won't get into to), now User:Netoholic has decided simply stating he has a wife on the talk page is prohibited. Molyneux openly discusses his family, and uses it to demonstrate his positions publicly. His wife has been covered by major national media. I am not going to bother arguing what should go into the article (it's impossible to sustain any improvement not approved by Netoholic). But, when Netoholic starts censoring any contrary opinion on the talk page, surely that has to be the red line. --Rob (talk) 13:24, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

It's good to err on the side of caution when dealing with sensitive personal information. The fact that he has a family at all does not qualify as sensitive personal information, however. Gamaliel (talk) 17:09, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

The fact he has family does not, in itself, qualify as noteworthy information, either. --Netoholic @ 17:18, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Uh, this is a biography. family and relationships is a very normal part of biography articles, particularly when one of the main topics a person is notable for is their opinion on families, he has worked with that family regularly on his show, and has discussed his family in public venues numerous times. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:22, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

That's correct. More importantly: This article is largely sourced to primary references and Molyneux' self description. It's very odd that we should exclude his reflections on his own family experience, which he directly relates to his views on various subjects covered in the article. We can do so without making any statements about Molyneux' relatives, just relate his feelings and experiences concerning his personal life. SPECIFICO talk 17:45, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Editors are reminded that we discussed this issue in June at Talk:Stefan Molyneux/Archive 2#Family members. – S. Rich (talk) 17:50, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

The subject is not "family members." That is a straw man. Please refer to the heading of this thread. SPECIFICO talk 18:04, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

The "Personal life" section (in the form the novice editor put in) is a non-starter because it included software career details already mentioned in two places in the article (Early life and 2nd paragraph of lead). A "Personal life" section will always be prone towards violating the privacy of personal information. His wife's career details have been discussed on this talk page before, and the included mention of younger members is inappropriate. We can expand upon his philosophies related to family in the appropriate existing sections, but without mentioning specific living members. If he does it, that's his choice. If Wikipedia does it, it has to be done only when solidly relevant and based on noteworthy mention from other sources. -- Netoholic @ 18:08, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Let's go point by point:

-"software career details already mentioned in two places": The year that he started to work full-time at FDR was not mentioned. Even if it were, that was only one part of the personal life section and isn't a reason to remove it.

-"A "Personal life" section will always be prone towards violating the privacy..." The fact that it could be "prone" to violating privacy doesn't mean that it actually is in this case. As several other users have pointed out, simply mentioning that a person has a family is standard.

- "without mentioning specific living members" Why not? We aren't mentioning them by name. Why did you remove my reference to his wife and kid on this talk page, when you mentioned them yourself?

-"solidly relevant" - Doesn't it qualify as solidly relevant when Molyneux himself regularly deals with parenting/family issues and uses his personal life as an example?Dzgoldman (talk) 02:47, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

"simply mentioning that a person has a family is standard" - Historical biographies maybe, but not with regards to living persons.

"Doesn't it qualify" - No, strictly speaking, what Molyneux feels is important is irrelevant here. Facts about him are relevant if secondary, reliable sources consider it relevant, or if they are noteworthy enough to be included in the article here without violating the presumption of privacy as described in WP:BLP. -- Netoholic @ 03:51, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

You personally don't find the existence of his wife noteworthy. But, the G&M found her quite noteworthy. She was talked about more than Molyneux, and it made clear how FR, Molyneux, and her were all interconnected. It involved events from 2007-2012 (not a "one off"). His wife is a lot more important to FR than trivia about Molyneux's early years. This article is as much about FR as it is about Molyneux (making both substantial contributors relevant). It's utterly absurd that we don't mention someone who was a major contributor for years. The fact he has a daughter may or may not be worth mentioning (we'd need a better source first). But given Molyneux is happy to openly publicly write about her, then it's perfectly within policy to mention the topic at least on the talk page, to gather consensus. Please do not continue to disrupt the talk page by altering comments of others. --Rob (talk) 11:49, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

That is a well-reasoned point. By the same token, Molyneux' statements in the archived FDR video #676 here relate directly to the development and substance of his thinking on familial relationships (cited in the lede as a key interest) and should be included in the article. Not statements about other people. Statements about how he feels that his experience shaped his thinking. SPECIFICO talk 12:26, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

On some part of that, I agree on principle, but find better sources, then we can talk. Go back and read the talk section about his parents/Germany. That stuff is far more relevant, and people rejected its inclusion. --Netoholic @ 12:50, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

No, I think we've discussed the topic of his wife on this talk page already, and generally found that the potential damage to her professional career does not warrant the inclusion of what amounts to minor trivia from years ago. Molyneux has made it clear, by unpublishing material she participated in, that they desire privacy to avoid career complications, which Wikipedia BLP policy agrees is good enough reason to support leaving it out. As for the child, did you really just cite a Facebook post as a source? Come back to us when better sources talk about his progeny as being significant and noteworthy information. --Netoholic @ 12:50, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I have not used Facebook in the article, and have not argued for its inclusion. I used it, to show that Molyneux is publicly open about the topic of his daughter, and it's not in any way private (in terms of the daughter's mere existence). So, mentioning he has a daughter is ok for a *talk* page. It won't go into the article, without proper sources. You're misrepresenting past discussion of the wife. You had some support in excluding her name. You had no support in excluding all mention of her. You certainly have no support for trying to censor this talk page of all mentions. I appreciate you didn't censor my mention of both here. I suppose you figured out you were edging for a ban, and as usual, pulled back just enough. Even though I want proper inclusion about the wife, I will not attempt to edit this article, until the problem of article ownership is properly addressed. Please do not confuse the fact this article has been left with all of your bias as an indication that anything you've done has any consensus of any kind. No other editor has the level of time and dedication you have, to ceaselessly revert and argue with people, to always get there way. Consensus occurs when there's actual agreement. --Rob (talk) 13:53, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

i think it‘s fair to say that the article would look significantly different if it were to reflect the consensus of editors who have participated over the past 3-4 months. SPECIFICO talk 14:46, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, its a good thing we have policies and good sense to prevent the sort of hit-piece you both seem to be looking for. I think Truther's last comment in the Family section summed up the status of this pretty well. Mentioning the wife's name and her participation is potentially hurtful to her professional career and so should be avoided in respect for privacy... and so without being able to name her and describe those circumstances, mention of his wife is largely irrelevant otherwise. I'll note that your last comments have a heck of a lot of talk about me personally, but you haven't brought any relevant sources or argument towards inclusion of the family details. As such, I think we can safely table this discussion until you bring those things forward. -- Netoholic @ 18:35, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

The matter concerning Molyneux' wife was covered in widely circulated RS press. What text from the BLP policy do you believe prohibits use of material sourced to RS news media? SPECIFICO talk 18:53, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

You keep referencing past conversations about inclusion of *name*. But, you're revert, which led to this thread, was censoring the mention of the mere existence of the wife and daughter, without names. You also censored both facts from the talk page, making it impossible to have a proper conversation. We can not form a consensus and resolve issues, when a single editor not only dictates article content, but also any discussion about the article. I'm not sure of the purpose of finding yet more reliable sources, when you've already blocked full usage of the most reliable of the available sources. --Rob (talk) 19:45, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

You keep using the word "censor" but using that word as a tactic is nothing more than neuro-linguistic programming. I removed an unsourced mention of his immediate family, which amounts to be trivia (lots of people have spouses and kids)... and mere trivia when it comes to living persons is inappropriate per WP:BLP. -- Netoholic @ 20:11, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

So, how do we have a conversation about inclusion of the wife and kid in the article, if we can't even mention their existence on the talk page? --Rob (talk) 20:29, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

You just did. -- Netoholic @ 20:30, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Reminder: WP:CIVIL EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:51, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I Invite anyone to wiki the first few living people they think of and see if there is a personal life section. Yes, it's standard, and not just for historical bios (not sure where that idea came from). But according to Netoholic, mentioning that he has a wife and a kid makes it a "hit piece." Dzgoldman (talk) 16:27, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

The thing about "the first few living people they think" is that the first people someone thinks about is generally going to be far more famous than Molyneux. That greater level of fame means there are generally far more sources that talk about the family of famous people, and likewise increases the chance that the family members are themselves more notable by association. Molyneux's wife is only mentioned in sources for a temporary association with the show that, if we mention it now, is potentially damaging to her professional employment and so we must avoid it per WP:BLP policy. There is no grounds for any mention of a non-notable child. Keep in mind, this can change and if his family is written about in the future, mention of it will be included. It is not Wikipedia's job to exhaust every bit of trivia about a person, but to weigh the benefit to knowledge vs. the trivial vs. the negative impacts. -- Netoholic @ 17:38, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

This is a straw man. Nobody has asserted what it denies. SPECIFICO talk 17:47, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

That's productive. -- Netoholic @ 17:59, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

This article is clearly written by a fan. A quick glance at the edit history shows that its celebratory tone is maintained principly by one editor. I can hardly believe that this straightforward observation is so controversial, given the considerably more even-handed coverage given to Stefan Molyneux in other media. I've seen "written by a fan" templates added to other wikipedia articles for less than this. 94.194.106.107 (talk) 16:22, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Can you identify any specific changes you would make to the article? Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 16:41, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes! I will produce a list with some suggested rewordings, plus information omitted or with unnecessary prominence. I'm aware of WP:BOLD but previous experience with internet anarchism articles has left a sour taste in my mouth, so I'd like to build consensus on changes first, with the hope they won't be summarily reverted. Thanks 94.194.106.107 (talk) 16:52, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Can someone explain to me how indicating the number of podcasts released is "undue detail" about a podcast? We're not using the template currently, but number of episodes is a standard field in Template:Infobox podcast, so it seems to be generally considered relevant information. -- Netoholic @ 19:36, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Since the above was left unanswered, I replaced the podcast episode count in the article, but it was reverted again with the suggestion "Use talk to discuss details". Since I did that before my revert, and am continuing to do so, that comment seems disingenuous. I'll give it another day or so for him or others to comment, and if no reasonable explanation for the removal is given, then I'll be putting it back. -- Netoholic @

I was not aware of this previously, but due to WP:NEWBLPBAN all BLP articles are subject to DS. Be aware. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, yet again, it falls upon me to try and get some explanation as to why significant information has been removed, this time in the public appearances section [5][6][7]. So User:SPECIFICO or User:Thivierr, feel like explaining? The information is sourced from places like RT, Reason, JRE, and others which are not controlled by Molyneux himself and clearly reliable for this sort of information. The appearances are noted only as dry, factual information, with no commentary about the content or quality of those appearances. Mini-bios of Molyneux in several other places mention these appearances, as well. -- Netoholic @ 17:24, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

The text recited various non-noteworthy primary-sourced statements concerning Molyneux' media activities. Don't reinsert it without prior explicit consensus here. SPECIFICO talk 17:41, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

When multiple source note something, it is note-worthy, and primary sources are not banned on Wikipedia, they just have to be used carefully (which they are in this case by only noting the appearance, not the content). Most of these appearances have been in this article since it was created, so you're on the "bold" side of WP:BRD (and were reverted), and so you need some more compelling argument to support the removal of this information. -- Netoholic @ 17:51, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Something is noteworthy when somebody not directly involved notes it. --Rob (talk) 22:42, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, so here goes just a few:

• www.infowarscom/alex-jones-on-rts-adam-vs-the-man-bin-laden-dead/ ^{[unreliable fringe source?]} Alex Jones on RT’s Adam vs. the Man: Bin Laden Dead] (mentions other guest Molyneux)
• 10 Most Influential People in the Alternative Media (2011) (mentions RT appearances)
• Schiff Radio Guest Host (Molyneux bio mentions appearances on RT (3 shows) and JRE)
• An Open Letter To Joe Rogan by Jeff Berwick (Mentions JRE appearances)
• Reason TV and RT especially do not require some outside indication of noteworthiness. They are established news organizations performing interviews of Molyneux, which is more than sufficient to reflect in the article.

I mean, I could go and find some more examples if you like, but I think its beyond clear that his public appearances are absolutely noteworthy. And to reiterate, right now all we have is a list of appearances - no attempt is being made to discuss the content or impact of those appearances (for that we would need more solid secondary sources, of course). But dry, factual information about when/where he has appeared is clearly noteworthy in several contexts. -- Netoholic @ 02:27, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Those are not RS. It's just mutual backscratching among blogs and self-published media. SPECIFICO talk 02:56, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

They are not being used as sources, they are being used on this talk page to demonstrate external noteworthiness. Your comment about "mutual backscratching" is inappopriate and judgemental - its not your job to evaluate whether it is appropriate that they consider his appearances noteworthy, only to verify that they do. -- Netoholic @ 04:56, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Since no one had responded to my last comment and since I found a 3rd party source that makes note of the significance of several TV and podcast appearances, I replaced the removed appearances, but it was reverted again with the suggestion "Use talk to discuss details". Since I did that before my revert, and am continuing to do so, that comment seems disingenuous. I'll give it another day or so for him or others to comment, and if no reasonable explanation for the removal is given, then I'll be putting them back. My suggestion is that if there are problems with individual appearances, that they broken down here, but I think its clear that there is broad external interest in where/when he has appeared, and appearance information is both very informative and extremely commonplace in similar biographical articles. -- Netoholic @

You've repeated yourself many times. You are citing non-RS references and you appear not to understand what constitutes a primary source. Several editors have responded to your concerns but none have agreed with your views or edits. SPECIFICO talk 19:35, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Not sure how you can claim I am repeating myself, when pretty much every time I come here I add more and more sources and new information to the discussion. What is unproductive is your broad generalizations and casting of aspersions. Pages about podcasts and TV shows often have a list of guests, and the show episode notes themselves are generally considered reliable sources for that information. They are primary, but highly reliable and uncontroversial when used only to note appearance (they would not be reliable for, say, commentary on what was discussed in the appearance). My recent edit that you reverted included a new 3rd-party source that mentioned several appearances. Are these sources as amazing as I'd like? Probably not, but they are good enough for this section of non-controversial appearance information. -- Netoholic @ 19:59, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

The coverage for these appearances is exceptionally WP:ROUTINE. Saying someone appeared on a show on a particular date is not of lasting WP:10YT encyclopedic value. Its ridiculous to include it. Just think how many hundreds of thousands of entries we could put in for people who are are actually notable as speakers. How many appearances has Clinton had, or the Dali Lama, or Neil Degrasse Tyson. Save it for the appearances that are actually exceptional and notable, not just every time some other blogger gave a hat tip. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:42, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I just did this revert. I removed the remaining remnants of this edit which contained several negative contentious claims with very poor sourcing. Before adding this kind of material, we need truly third party independent coverage of it. That excludes videos of Molyneux himself. A single blogger writing about it, isn't sufficient. I realize there is already an enormous amount of positive material that's also badly sourced, but we can't solve the problem of promotion by including poorly sourced negative material. There's still plenty of material that can and should be added from reliable 3rd party sources, including the Guardian and The Globe and Mail. That's the direction the article should go in. We should not be watching Molyneux's videos and writing what we think about them here (e.g. by describing them as "controversial" or "unconventional" without attributed quotes. Rob (talk) 17:05, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

An "enormous amount of positive material" - could you be more specific? This is the sort of broad statement that gets people's passions enflamed about the subject. There is precisely one purely positive statement in this article (Tucker quote) and that is noteworthy by virtue of 3rd-party acknowledgement. The noteworthy criticisms of Molyneux (Gordon review and deFOO articles) are present. The rest of the article is dry information (education, appearances, show stats) with no particular positive or negative implications. Factual data has no positive or negative value, unless you are biased, in which case even neutral information can feel "positive". Until you start getting specific about what you feel is "positive material", its hard to take your contributions seriously. -- Netoholic @ 20:14, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Neutral material can be positive or promotional if it is presented in excess, such as a lengthy resume of an individual of minor notability, a bibliography that lists every single paper published by a scientist, etc. Gamaliel (talk) 20:23, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Same goes for listing the individuals who visited the podcast, the self-published books, the self-styled "Chief Technology Officer" of what appears to be a two-man business, etc. etc. If I open a vegetable store in Beverly Hills, I would not expect to have a WP article discuss how I sold asparagus to George Clooney and Anjelica Huston. If my store were critically acclaimed, discussed by mainstream reviewers and the like, that would be a different matter. SPECIFICO talk 20:35, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Asparagus-based strawman. Talk about the subject itself, not made-up examples that you can then easily self-"refute". -- Netoholic @ 21:41, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

The converse of that argument is that neutral information can be negative if it is excluded in excess. Omission of, say, particularly relevant/representative items of a bibliography. The goal of the article is to present information weighted so that it is accurate and descriptive. I think we have generally accomplished that, in that the list of guests of the show touches on the most oft-cited, independently notable, indicative of the various subject areas, and frequency of appearance on the show. The recent wholesale removals of his media appearances is likewise a negative spin, since it removes an entire aspect of his notoriety. -- Netoholic @ 21:41, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it's not a Straw man. It's Reductio ad absurdum and the greengrocer analogy is entirely isomorphic with the primary content throughout this article, all of which has no value other than to inflate the narrative of this marginally notable individual. Like Mr. Molyneux, the grocery is supported by "contributions" which help inform the choice of what products to feature. The solution, as Thivierr has said, is to locate RS information which would guide us as to the mainstream view, not the fans' view, of what if anything is notable about Mr. Molyneux. SPECIFICO talk 23:13, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

The most mainstream view of him is what is represented in his media appearances - like the ones you removed. There is no "fan's view here - nothing in this article is somehow fan-only content. The philosophical views in the article come from out of what is discussed appearances in media and other public venues. Your accusations of some sort of fan-bias fall flat, and in fact, by removing media appearance information, you make the more cloistered around what you claim are fan views. -- Netoholic @ 08:16, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Have to agree with Specifico here. Molyneux is of marginal notability. The fact that actual reliable sources do not discuss him in any length is not an excuse to lower the standards of sourcing. Its an excuse to gut the article of everything that isn't actually well sourced, and stop making this a WP:PSEUDObiographical promotional brochure. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:45, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

The sourcing of this article is better than many others. It deserves GA status in fact. The problem is that if you have a bias against the topic of an article, suddenly your standards become very strict on that page. Specifico doesn't source *any* of his edits. Check them out. he's never added a source to this article, and I can't find any in his edits to other articles. If someone is concerned about sources... don't you think they'd actually *use* them sometimes? -- Netoholic @ 22:16, 11 September 2014 (UTC)