Talk:Stefan Molyneux - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by N-HH (talk | contribs) at 09:11, 4 July 2014 (→"self-described philosopher"). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 09:11, 4 July 2014 by N-HH (talk | contribs) (→"self-described philosopher")(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Biography

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Template:WikiProject LibertarianismPlease add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Philosophy Low‑importance

	Philosophy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

keep, 7 January 2009, see discussion.
delete, 29 October 2008, see discussion.

The following Misplaced Pages contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

Stefan molyneux (talk · contribs) / Stefan Molyneux Stefan Molyneux

Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Philosopher?

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

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

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

"Qualifications"? For you to evaluate such would be original research. You should defer to the ample sources (before you removed them) and remaining citations. Nearly everywhere Molyneux is mentioned, it is accompanied by undeniable and repeated acknowledgements that he is a philosopher, first and foremost. You might disagree, but this is not Zarlanipedia. Here we defer to the sources. You might think he is a -bad- philosopher, and perhaps you'll find sources that agree, but it is undeniable that this man makes the exploration of philosophy his life's work, based on the citations already presented and the mere existence of his published and broadcasted works. Common sense dictates he is clearly a philosopher, so removing that is akin to vandalism. If you want better sources, fine, we can argue that... but the fact of the matter is that this man is considered a philosopher. I'll be returning the article back to a sane state soon. -- Netoholic @ 07:38, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

""Qualifications"? For you to evaluate such would be original research."

Oh really? In Stephen Hawking, it is claimed that Stephen Hawking is a theoretical physicist. Is that also original research? No, it is verified by reliable sources.

Is it original research, when Daniel Dennett states that Daniel Dennett is a philosopher? No, it is verified by reliable sources.

Where are the reliable sources that indicate that Molyneux is a philosopher? Nowhere. Indeed, one of the sources cited here, that I removed due to it being Molyneux's own site, confirmed that he isn't.

"Nearly everywhere Molyneux is mentioned, it is accompanied by undeniable and repeated acknowledgements that he is a philosopher, first and foremost."

Oh, really? Try googeling Stefan Molyneux. Sure, his fans (a small, if passionate, group) often (though not always) say that. Some (including Molyneux) do admit that he is a self-proclaimed philosopher, though ...which disproves the notion that he is a philosopher.

Anyone outside of that little group, however, does not. Any mention of him, by philosophers, do not acknowledge his being a philosopher (and philosophical organizations not only don't acknowledge him, but they don't bother to make any mention of him) ...or having any real understanding of the subject. The same can be said about the thoughts about him, expressed by economists, concerning his thoughts on economy, or scientists on his thoughts on science.

"You might disagree, but this is not Zarlanipedia. Here we defer to the sources."

No. Misplaced Pages does not defer to sources. Misplaced Pages refers to Reliable Sources.

"You might think he is a -bad- philosopher, and perhaps you'll find sources that agree"

Perhaps? You clearly haven't looked for criticism against Molyneux. I haven't, but I've found practically nothing else, whenever his name is mentioned.

"but it is undeniable that this man makes the exploration of philosophy his life's work"

That is no doubt true ...but also completely irrelevant. That doesn't make you a philosopher. As I've pointed out to you before, by that logic, you could claim that all creationists are biologists and physicists.

"Common sense dictates he is clearly a philosopher"

How so?

Your, personal, common sense dictates that he is clearly a philosopher, but that is beside the point. Do you have anything that verifies that?

"but the fact of the matter is that this man is considered a philosopher."

So what? How is that relevant, in any way?

X being considered Y by a group of people, does not make X actually be Y.

That's not how things work.

Some believe that Kent Hovind has a doctorate and that Gillian McKeith has several. This doesn't change the fact that neither of them have any actual doctorate, or any degree above a masters.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 10:47, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

"That is no doubt true ...but also completely irrelevant. That doesn't make you a philosopher." - User:ZarlanTheGreen personal standard is not the deciding factor in determining whether he is a philosopher, that'd be Original Research. Whatever your standards by which you define him as a philosopher do not matter at all in this, nor do mine. The Reliable Sources (Globe & Mail, etc.) all repeat his self-published description on his official website About page and books. A WP:SELFPUB description that has no reliable source disputing it (especially with multiple supporting it) is absolutely grounds to take his self-description as accurate and reliable for inclusion here. -- Netoholic @ 04:01, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

"personal standard is not the deciding factor in determining whether he is a philosopher, that'd be Original Research."

Who's talking about any personal standard?

There is an actual, unpersonal, standard for whether or not you're a philosopher ...and it's not enough to just claim that you are one, as you seem to be implying.

"Whatever your standards by which you define him as a philosopher do not matter at all in this"

Yes they do.

By what standard do I call Stephen Hawking a Physicist? Does that standard matter?

Yes, yes it does ...because it's not my standard. It's the standard.

The same thing applies here.

"The Reliable Sources (Globe & Mail, etc.) all repeat his self-published description on his official website About page."

My point exactly.

They are merely repeating what he tells them about his educational history. Thus they are not really separate sources. The real source for those claims, in those articles, is (ultimately) just Molynuex himself.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 11:24, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

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

I'm not sure that's really necessary, just yet, but I wouldn't be opposed to it. The way I see it, the situation is quite clear. He doesn't have a Ph.D (or even a Master's degree) in philosophy, nor has he written any philosophy papers/books that have been accepted by the philosophical community, or anything like that. Thus he cannot be called a philosopher.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 13:39, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

It's clear to me as well, but I can tell you from experience on other articles that these labels are frequently misapplied and that it's often helpful to invite previously uninvolved editors to comment. SPECIFICO talk 13:45, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

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

"A Ph.D (or even a Master's degree) is perhaps one indication that someone is a career philosopher, but it is not the only criteria."

Nor is it the only criteria that I've mentioned.

Thus your complaint is invalid.

"and that moniker is repeated in virtually every source listed on this page"

That says a lot about what sources are used in this article. Not about what Reliable Sources, generally state about him. Do Philosophers see him as one of their own?--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 11:06, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

What makes one a professional philosopher? Not to be too cute, but did Aristotle have a PhD, or was it only a Master's? I dont think having a degree has anything to do with what the person does for living. For that matter, is there a list of professional philosophers that we can bounce Molyneux' credentials against? Or, at least a set of criteria of how to get on such a list. On the other hand, it would be hugely beneficial to produce some secondary (or tertiary) source calling him such (not just his 30-second speech intros). To those opposing, what would you call him? --Truther2012 (talk) 18:20, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

That argument is not "cute" it's just wrong. If Molyneux were a philosopher you would find him published alongside others who are undisputedly philosophers or you would find him called one by widely acknowledged philosophers or RS for philosphy and related topics. SPECIFICO talk 18:31, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

"Not to be too cute, but did Aristotle have a PhD, or was it only a Master's?"

Is he generally recognized as a Philosopher, by Philosophers? Well yes, he most certainly is.

...so what's your point?

"To those opposing, what would you call him? "

A person who talks about philosophy.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 11:06, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. Degrees have little bearing on one's occupation.For that matter, I struggle to come up with a single prominent philosopher who held a PhD.--Truther2012 (talk) 13:50, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

"For that matter, I struggle to come up with a single prominent philosopher who held a PhD."

Then you clearly don't know of any prominent philosophers, in the modern era.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 11:06, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

"Philosopher" as the first descriptive word in the lede is too much. He's got several non-fiction books published, but no libraries are stocking any of his books. Perhaps "popular philosopher" or "philosophical essayist" would work. His Amazon.com description says Freedomain Ratio is a "popular philosophical show", but such a description can be applied almost anywhere. Let's be more stringent and drop the philosopher from the first lede sentence. – S. Rich (talk) 19:05, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

We simply can't. If he describes himself as a philosopher, and every source repeats that, then we have to use it because to do otherwise would be original research (ie, putting the determination in the hands of wikipedia editors rather than the sources). I don't think any source uses "popular philosopher" or "philosophical essayist" or any similar derivation more consistently than simply "philosopher". --Netoholic @ 19:11, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

"and every source repeats that"

Not to be rude, but that is utter and pure nonsense.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 11:06, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

They are not, however, RSes on whether or not he is actually a philosopher. This article is a puff piece as is, hanging on very light threads of notability; you're stretching way too far from too little material in an attempt to justify completely unreliable sources like mises.org - David Gerard (talk) 21:43, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Un"desireable" to a socialist maybe, that doesn't mean unreliable on the topic of libertarian political philosophy, a topic on which Mises is preeminent. Added: By the way DavidG, Can we use your RationalWiki as a potential source? Its entry on Molyneux even describes him as a philosopher. --Netoholic @ 22:16, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

This is a content issue to be determined by WP:CONSENSUS. (Also, I think David knows full well that rationalwiki is not RS.) – S. Rich (talk) 22:28, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

"Un"desireable" to a socialist maybe, that doesn't mean unreliable on the topic of libertarian political philosophy, a topic on which Mises is preeminent."

Pre-eminent? According to whom?

Also, regardless of whether they are or not, using them as a source about people who support them, will often be a problem, as there are issues of bias and conflicts of interest.

"By the way DavidG, Can we use your RationalWiki as a potential source? Its entry on Molyneux even describes him as a philosopher"

I'm sorry but it clearly doesn't. It calls him a self-proclaimed (i.e. not genuine) philosopher. Thus it clearly states that he isn't a philosopher. As does any other source, that calls him self-proclaimed.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 11:06, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Three citations are given for "philosopher". 1. Casey Research is an investment advice firm. They say Molyneux runs a philosophy show and is interested in philosophy. 2. Paul Sawyers knows about technology and is a blogger (the TNW page he writes on is titled "blog"). 3. Globe & Mail says "cyberphilosopher" and uses the term philosopher once ("Philosopher King") and philosophy/philosophical 4 other times, but it does not come out & say he is a philosopher. (Of the 3, the G&M is the best because it is a WP:NEWSORG.) In all, the sourcing for this part of the WP:BLP is weak (e.g., "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources.") We can use the term philosopher to describe Molyneux, but without such prominence. – S. Rich (talk) 03:22, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

"We have -zero- sources that conflict with these accounts of his career focus."

Career focus? That's not what we are discussing.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 11:06, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Without strong RS, we can't say it at all. We don't relax WP's standard for less "prominence" in the article. This comes up all the time among media personalities who are self-styled psychologists, economists, philosophers, etc. None of the references are RS for the declaration that he's a philosopher, even in a footnote. SPECIFICO talk 04:05, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Could we just call him something along those lines of "self-described philosopher"? It is accurate and still contains "philosopher" in it.--Truther2012 (talk) 13:50, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Works for me, might seem deprecatory to the fans though - David Gerard (talk) 17:10, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

In order to do that, we would need RS which calls him a "self-described philosopher". We can't strike a compromise which disregards core WP policy. SPECIFICO talk 17:18, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Hm. Suppose we find a source where he calls himself a "self-described philosopher". Can we then call him a "self-described self-described philosopher"? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:50, 13 May 2014 (UTC).

That disagrees with his self-description and all the other sources. The word "self-described" would have to be removed from the article immediately due to BLP policy, because that puts a contentious, negative spin on his work. I considered "philosophical author" or other such construction (in order to semi-satisfy the elitist snobs that take issue with "philosopher"), but that too doesn't match the sources and so we can't use it. Only "philosopher" works here. --Netoholic @ 18:07, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I came across these little nuggets on Dictionary.com:

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

...at Merriam-Webster:

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

...and from Cambridge:

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

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

That's a dictionary. It doesn't count. I looked up physisist. Not a word about any degrees there either ...yet you generally can't call someone that, unless they have a Ph.D in Physics.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 13:08, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

@Zarlan: You don't need a degree to be a physicist either. Michael Faraday - "Although Faraday received little formal education, he was one of the most influential scientists in history." -- Netoholic @ 17:18, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

"You don't need a degree to be a physicist either. Michael Faraday - "Although Faraday received little formal education, he was one of the most influential scientists in history.""

1. Ph.D's did not exist at the time. Frankly, he was as awarded as you could get, in terms of academic degrees, for his field, given the period in question.

2. He was educated by established scientists. (see Michael Faraday#Adult life)

3. He frequently and successfully published his scientific work, in peer review.

4. He was widely acknoledged by the established scientists of his day. He was made Fellow of the Royal Society, was twice offered to become President of the Royal Society (refused both times) and was elected a foreign member of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences and the French Academy of Sciences

Thus he clearly qualifies, under the requirements that I have pointed out to you, multiple times. I have never stated that a Ph.D is the only way to become a philosopher or physicist. On the contrary, I have pointed out that there are other ways to become one. Multiple times.

A far better example would be Ewart Oakeshott:

He genuinely had no formal degrees in History, yet he did publish multiple papers in respected journals and revolutionized the study of swords (especially medieval swords). Hence he is a well respected amateur historian ...and fully qualifies, under the requirements that I have pointed out.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 20:26, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

External Links

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

Links normally to be avoided

Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject, one should generally avoid providing external links to:

...

Social networking sites (such as Myspace and Facebook), chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), Twitter feeds,

Open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors. Mirrors or forks of Misplaced Pages should not be linked.

...

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

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

Per Misplaced Pages:EL#Minimize the number of links - "More than one official link should be provided only when the additional links provide the reader with significant unique content and are not prominently linked from other official websites." The Stefan Molyneux Facebook and Twitter pages are separate from the Freedomain Radio ones, and are not linked from the official website. Also, per Misplaced Pages:EL#EL12, the MisesWiki does have "a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors." --Netoholic @ 18:09, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Social sites, such as Facebook and Twitter cannot be considered as External Links (or official websites). --Truther2012 (talk) 20:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:ELOFFICIAL, official links override this concern. WP:LINKSTOAVOID says: "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject, one should generally avoid providing external links to:" --Netoholic @ 23:37, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Truther2012 is right. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. I've removed them again - David Gerard (talk) 08:54, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Newspaper article texts for editor reference

"Hugh Molyneux is the salesman in the family. His brother Stefan is the computer expert. Together, they have created Caribou Systems Corp., a Willowdale software company that in two years has made more than $1 million in sales and landed such high profile clients as Bombardier, Nortel, and General Mills. These Companies want Caribou to provide them with a computer software package that manages the reams of environmental and chemical data they collect for their properties - such as what and how much hazardous materials are stored in a factory or underground storage tank. They also want a system in which this information could quickly be retrieved through a company's internal computer network anywhere in the world."
...
"The brothers work on their projects in a small, busy office in an office park along the Don River Valley. But the Molyneux brothers never intended to be partners, and the truth is, their roles in the company also do not reflect their initial careers. True, Stefan did become addicted to programming as a teenager, spending his Saturday afternoons in his school computer lab. But he thought it was a phase. He wanted to be an actor, and was accepted to the National Theatre School in Montreal. "First of all, the technology wasn't that good at the time, and secondly the people going into computer science then weren't exactly the kind of people I would be aching to spend four years with,"he said. But Stefan never entirely forgot computers. After pursuing an acting career, as well as writing poetry and fiction, and getting a master's degree in history, he returned to programming a few years ago." -- Burg, Robert (May 26, 1997). "Their software keeps tabs on site data". Toronto Star.

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

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

Debate championship event

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

No, the source that's currently there is about him debating the winners of that championship who were visiting his college, not competing himself. The main purpose in using the da Costa reference is to show he attended Glendon College (within York University) and that debate was part of his education (details which aren't mentioned on his SELFPUB "About" page, but are mentioned elsewhere). To a some small extent, it illustrates some of the early origins of his political philosophy. -- Netoholic @ 19:52, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

It's a RS for him attending Glendon College. Not for what he studied there, though ...and I have yet to see any source that claims that he has studied philosophy...--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 11:08, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Viewpoints section

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

I get the feeling that you're not satisfied with sourcing unless every sentence fragment has numbered source associated with it. Sometimes, we write sections combining the information from several source, then link them all at the end of the section or nearby. I can guarantee that every comment in that section has a source, with secondary RS given preferential placement, and WP:SELFPUB RS as sparingly as possible. You just need to read the related/nearby sources a bit better. --Netoholic @ 21:10, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to go through point by point now, but just to start at the top, this section is sourced to a primary source and a blog. SPECIFICO talk 21:25, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

You're under the mistaken belief that the content of his writings can't be used on Misplaced Pages. That's wrong. Primary sources can be (and in some cases must be) used per WP:PRIMARY: "A primary source may only be used on Misplaced Pages to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source." As long as great care is taken not to interpret or analyze the content of the source, we can use it for brief summaries. --Netoholic @ 21:49, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I concur. This person is of marginable notability at best, and the article reads very like it has been puffed up by fans based on a very few thin strands of notability. I think it might be straw poll time.— Preceding unsigned comment added by David Gerard (talk • contribs)

Straw poll

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

Non-binding straw poll to roughly estimate consensus on direction

Yes

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

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

So you consider that one removable?

Or, in general, shall we leave the fans to their real-world fanfic? Honestly, this article is more hagiographic than the articles about J-Pop bands - David Gerard (talk) 21:50, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

If there are particular items that need changing, then discuss and/or change & discuss them in particular. A broad indictment of the article is not helpful.
Again, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Neoholic has worked to improve the article, and I think will continue to collaborate in the improvement.
Anchoring the straw poll with a lopsided question shows the need for caution. For more, see WP:Straw polls and WP:VOTE.

– S. Rich (talk) 22:43, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

"Again, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS."

Is there anyone here who disagrees about that?

"Neoholic has worked to improve the article"

No one has said that he/she didn't have good faith (WP:ASSUME). That's not the issue here. I remember an editor that was very passionate about kendo and some other martial arts articles, and whose good faith and good intentions were never in any doubt ...who is now blocked.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 13:08, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Srich, the poll is not a broad indictment. It's a proposal to remove improperly sourced content. Do you feel that improperly sourced content should be left in a BLP article? Metacomments and handwaving are not going to make this article better. Unfortunately recent edits which improved the article and conformed it to policy have been reverted. SPECIFICO talk 14:05, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Improving means contributing, not just erasing. Erasure and blasting articles with issue-tags is lazy work. So far, despite a lot of talk here, none of the people in this straw poll section have done any work to find different/better sources. Don't like that he's called a "philosopher" - find an indisputable and preeminently reliable source that contradicts the sources that say he is a philosopher. Dislike the fact that multiple sources call it "the largest and most popular philosophy show" - find a great source that contradicts that and add the "controversy" to the article. Hell, add something positive to say about the article subject if you come across new information... I sure have added a lot of non-positive items to this article, for balance, and because they are true and accurate things. Unfortunately, this talk page is rapidly becoming an unsafe place for me to communicate because my comments keep being moved or deleted. If you have an issue with any content in the article that I've added, drop me a message. I will do the hard work & research to fix the issue as best I can. -- Netoholic @ 18:32, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

"Improving means contributing, not just erasing."

That is utter and complete nonsense.

So if people "contribute" loads of unverified statements, vandalism, link spam and/or other such things that are not allowed, under Misplaced Pages policy, then that person is a contributor?

People like that tend to be corrected and their edits reverted. They are not praised. In fact, if they persist, they get blocked. Are you saying that the system that Misplaced Pages has, concerning this, is wrong?

Also, would you then say that people who do their duty of enforcing Misplaced Pages policy by removing such content are worthless?

Would you say that ClueBot NG is worthless and/or does nothing to improve Misplaced Pages?

"none of the people in this straw poll section have done any work to find different/better sources."

You're suggesting that bad sources, sources that do not qualify as Reliable Sources and thus are not allowed on Misplaced Pages (need I remind you that WP:V is one of the five pillars?), are okay as long as better sources cannot be found?

That's not the way it works.

You are shifting the burden of evidence.

"Hell, add something positive to say about the article subject if you come across new information..."

Why? The article should reflect what the Reliable Sources way about him. Not be a text that takes sides. (see WP:NPOV)--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 02:59, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Concur. BLPs are not fan hagiographies, and Netoholic's understanding of sourcing rules is severely problematic - David Gerard (talk) 22:40, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

@David Gerard: You know, I'm going to start getting upset if you keep describing me as just an obsessed "fan". I found the article, found it was lacking, know something about the subject, and started meaningfully contributing. Also, I care a lot about sourcing rules... actually, I care more about facts... and sourcing rules are just a means towards establishing facts for the uninformed. I don't go to a badly sourced wiki page (like -philosophers-) and delete every unsourced sentence. The reason it sits in such an unsourced state is because there are certain facts that everyone with knowledge about the subject can accept without strict sourcing. I have a lot of knowledge about Molyneux, and so I accept as fact many things. Yes, no PhD. Yes, makes some bad arguments. Yes, still pretty obscure compared to even the goddam Kardasians. ... but also... Yes, committed to the study of philosophy. Yes, producing tangible philosophical output... output that is being heard by more people daily than Aristotle reached in his life and several hundred years after... and being heard more daily than any other modern philosopher out there is. I can respect that. His extensive use of online media makes him a brand new kind of philosopher... and the same online media make his peers and students different than in the past as well. It also makes him hard to pin down in sourced forms that used to work fine for old school philosophers. -- Netoholic @ 07:10, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

"I don't go to a badly sourced wiki page (like -philosophers-) and delete every unsourced sentence. The reason it sits in such an unsourced state is because there are certain facts that everyone with knowledge about the subject can accept without strict sourcing."

That means that you are therefore accepting the definition of what a philosopher is, in philosophers ...thus meaning that you accept that we cannot call Molynuex a philosopher.

"Yes, committed to the study of philosophy."

"Study"... the meaning of that word can be differ radically...

"Yes, producing tangible philosophical output..."

No.

"and being heard more daily than any other modern philosopher out there is."

That is nothing more than an appeal to popularity.

Please avoid blatant fallacies.

Jenny McCarthy has been listened to, concerning vaccines, far more than any modern Ph.Ds or MDs in medicine. Does that mean that Jenny McCarthy is an authority on vaccines?

No.

No she most certainly isn't.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 01:36, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Molyneux blog material

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

Sweeping statements are totally unhelpful. If there are specific concerns, list them and we'll address them. Per WP:ABOUTSELF, "Living persons may publish material about themselves". The passages that use his self-published sources as reference all either revolve around his background, his current activity, or are worded to describe his political and philosophical beliefs. No claims of truth are being made, only statements about himself and his viewpoints. I hope this helps. If you see some section that doesn't fit this, let me know. --Netoholic @ 08:03, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I will add in-line tags to the particular items. At present I suggest looking at Familial relationships. His blog post goes beyond talking about himself or his activities. Just as WP:NOTBLOG restricts our user pages to biographical material, we are restricted by SPS from posting stuff related to the subject matter in which he is an expert. Why? Because that subject matter has not been published by third-party publications. – S. Rich (talk) 15:31, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

The newspaper articles in that section are the third-party publications that discuss the subject matter. The only point in his blog citation (and the mention of the books/articles) is to show sourcing of the views, not the views themselves. The text about his views on familial relationships is primarily based on the text from the newspapers. To illustrate, if the starting phrase "In articles, blog posts, and his books On Truth and Real-Time Relationships" was removed, the rest of the text of that section is derived solely from the newspapers. --Netoholic @ 15:40, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

The claims themselves need to be of notability to note - David Gerard (talk) 22:39, 24 May 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 5 7 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 Misplaced Pages 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

Comment. About six months ago, there was a somewhat similar RfC about Ayn Rand. Could be worth a look to see consensus on some of these arguments. Of course, consensus can always change. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:18, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Objection - I object that the opener of this RfC has been making a large number of edits (17 so far), particularly the mass removal of cited information and most disturbingly deleting words related to philosophy from the page. This is unfair to fresh editors coming here to evaluate this RfC. I'll refer people to this ArbCom so they can evaluate whether his past negative editing of biographies of living people in the same broad political subject area is being repeated here.-- Netoholic @ 14:12, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
- Good luck with that - David Gerard (talk) 20:46, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages: 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

@David Gerard: The Trust Edge Page 26, paragraph 2, last line: "Being humble has made him one of the most trusted philosophers of our time". Please revert this. I hope you're more careful with your source checking in other instances. -- Netoholic @ 23:34, 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)

I'd say "cyberphilosopher" is very non-notable and thus clearly falls under WP:UNDUE.--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 Misplaced Pages. For example, here is Ben Franklin - referred to as a scientist and later a physicist: https://en.wikipedia.org/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 Misplaced Pages 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 . 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)

Misplaced Pages 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)

Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages'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. Misplaced Pages 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: The Trust Edge (book) - "Molyneux is the innovative host of Freedomain Radio, the largest philosophy podcast on the Internet...", "Being humble has made him one of the most trusted philosophers of our time" The Times The mother and son torn apart by web 'cult' that destroys families (newspaper) - "A teenage follower of a controversial internet philosopher tells Tom Whipple how he walked out on his family and why he now despises them" The Globe and Mail How a cyberphilosopher convinced followers to cut off family (newspaper) - "cyberphilosopher", "says his lifelong calling is philosophy", "Molyneux describes FDR as a philosophical website with libertarian leanings" The Globe and Mail Therapist who told podcast listeners to shun their families reprimanded (newspaper) - "A self-described Internet philosopher, Mr. Molyneux is behind hundreds of posts, podcasts and videos on his website, Freedomain Radio, that discuss a range of topics from a libertarian mindset." Leamington Courier Leamington mother blames internet for son's disappearance (newspaper) - "Barbara Weed's son Tom left after spending time on a website called Freedomain Radio, hosted by Toronto-based philosopher Stefan Molyneux." Odessa American LibertyFest West 2012 promotes rights of individuals (newspaper) - "Stefan Molyneux, a philosopher, author and podcaster"

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

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

The Trust Edge (book) - "Molyneux is the innovative host of Freedomain Radio, the largest philosophy podcast on the Internet...", "Being humble has made him one of the most trusted philosophers of our time"
The Times The mother and son torn apart by web 'cult' that destroys families (newspaper) - "A teenage follower of a controversial internet philosopher tells Tom Whipple how he walked out on his family and why he now despises them"
The Globe and Mail How a cyberphilosopher convinced followers to cut off family (newspaper) - "cyberphilosopher", "says his lifelong calling is philosophy", "Molyneux describes FDR as a philosophical website with libertarian leanings"
The Globe and Mail Therapist who told podcast listeners to shun their families reprimanded (newspaper) - "A self-described Internet philosopher, Mr. Molyneux is behind hundreds of posts, podcasts and videos on his website, Freedomain Radio, that discuss a range of topics from a libertarian mindset."
Leamington Courier Leamington mother blames internet for son's disappearance (newspaper) - "Barbara Weed's son Tom left after spending time on a website called Freedomain Radio, hosted by Toronto-based philosopher Stefan Molyneux."
Odessa American LibertyFest West 2012 promotes rights of individuals (newspaper) - "Stefan Molyneux, a philosopher, author and podcaster"

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.

Notability

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

This article has survived the notability check back in 2009 when it survived AFD, at a time when the article was short, atrocious, and POV. In the last month, I have tripled the character count and citations from 10k/24 refs (a lot bad) to 30k, 62 refs (all relevant and reliable). Despite two people that keep putting back the issue tags, NEITHER of them as actually ADDED a new source or information. They are not interested in improving the article, only keeping the tag spam in place to deface it. -- Netoholic @ 21:58, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

This appears to be yet another personal attack on this talk page. You've also been placing nonsubstantiable claims of vandalism on user talk pages, as well as some strange claims that editing this talk page constitutes acceptance of notability - David Gerard (talk) 23:17, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Noting a pattern of tendentious editing is not a personal attack. You've shown no interest in actually being part of improving this article, and your only actions are to continuously restore a notability tag that's been inappropriate since 2009. You also seem very concerned about the sources on this article, yet your edits on other articles show you have no particular qualms about adding unsourced claims to articles of weak notability. Now, do you want to actually address why you claim this article is non-notable? -- Netoholic @ 23:39, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is pretty much never accepted as a valid argument. I'm very interested in improving this article, by removing all the stuff with sources that are not up to BLP standard, as Zarlan has explained to you at length above - David Gerard (talk) 12:33, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

@David Gerard: "do you want to actually address why you claim this article is non-notable?" -- Netoholic @ 16:58, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I am not entirely convinced of his notability; most of the RSes are about the cult accusations. I'm open to persuasion. But given the paucity of high-quality sources even now, I consider the tag appropriate - David Gerard (talk) 22:48, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

"I am not entirely convinced of his notability; most of the RSes are about the cult accusations."

Well... I wouldn't exactly call people like David Koresh or Sun Myung Moon non-notable, although RSes mainly just talk about them being cult leaders.

How exactly is he not notable?--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 01:36, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I think the notability tag should be removed. He's gotten significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. There's definitely a focus on the cult accusations, but that goes beyond WP:BLP1E. There's also the Reason TV interview about a completely different subject. —Torchiest _edits 03:42, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Are there any recent RS discussions of the cult accusations? If not that material should be removed from the article. The tag helps invite editors to search for good sourced material. It's not an AfD, just an indication that it's questionable. SPECIFICO talk 04:24, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

There was something of a followup in late 2012 here. I would suggest changing the tag from {{notability}}, which is not at issue, to {{refimprove}}. —Torchiest _edits 05:15, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

"Are there any recent RS discussions of the cult accusations? If not that material should be removed from the article."

Recent?

Misplaced Pages is not a newspaper and notability is not temporary.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 01:36, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Improving sourcing

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

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)

UPB book

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

"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 Misplaced Pages. 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)

Dissertation located that uses UPB's philosophical framework

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

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

"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)

speaking/employment bios

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

"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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Misplaced Pages: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)

"Misplaced Pages: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)

Public speaking section

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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 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)

Men's rights activism

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

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)

Bold, Revert, and now, Discuss "The Matriarchal Lineage of Corruption"

@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. Misplaced Pages 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." 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 Misplaced Pages? 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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 Misplaced Pages: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.

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:

Bombing of Dresden in World War II#Reconstruction and reconciliation: "On the morning of 13 February 1945, the Jews remaining in Dresden were ordered to report for deportation on 16 February. But as one of them, Victor Klemperer, recorded in his diaries: "... on the evening of this 13 February the catastrophe overtook Dresden: the bombs fell, the houses collapsed, the phosphorus flowed, the burning beams crashed on to the heads of Aryans and non-Aryans alike and Jew and Christian met death in the same firestorm; whoever of the was spared by this night was delivered, for in the general chaos he could escape the Gestapo.""
Behind the Headlines: in a Twist of Fate, Bombing of Dresden Saved Jewish Lives
The Song is Over: A Jewish Girl in Dresden - A moving story of German Jews saved by the firebombing of Dresden.
And many more by simply Googling - Jewish escape bombing Dresden. Competence is required, laziness with regards to looking up sourcing is grating.

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 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." 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 " 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 - 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)

WP:BLPN#Stefan Molyneux wife naming has been opened.

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 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." --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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages'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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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? 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 Misplaced Pages'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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

@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".
@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}}, 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)

: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DXshfD3s6g

Categories: