![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
Currently, the first sentence of the second paragraph of the lead reads: Molyneux was formerly in the database software business and now describes himself as a philosopher. Nevermind the primary source, but I feel it does not add any value to the lead. Both of the items are described in detail further on. Database software business is really not note-worthy given the focus of the article. I mean, he also was employed in daycare business, which is probably a lot more relevant. Finally, "described himself as a philosopher" calls back to much earlier discussion of whether he is a philosopher or whether calling somebody "self-described philosopher" diminishes the claim altogether. I shall remove the sentence altogether unless I'm missing any serious reasons for it to remain. -- Truther2012 ( talk) 14:52, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Netoholic, I dont think it's the wording per se, but the importance of that information in the lead. His prior career has very little bearing on his current notability. It fits nicely in his Early Life. Same goes for "philosopher" - if we can't agree on calling him that, what he calls himself is irrelevant. Plus, without this sentence the focus is on the show, which is his true claim to notability.-- Truther2012 ( talk) 18:55, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
My argument is whether that sentence makes an article stronger or weaker as an encyclopaedia entry is concerned. The philosophy is properly addressed in the first sentence of the lead, by referring to his interests (as an author).-- Truther2012 ( talk) 16:28, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't see any RS which supports the statement that Molyneux has appeared on television, i.e. broadcast television. If anyone has RS for that, please add it to the text. Otherwise these statements will need to be removed. SPECIFICO talk 22:54, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
My edit summary was truncated so, for the sake of clarity, it should have read "Does Bill Clinton's bio say that he's a public speaker?" SPECIFICO talk 02:37, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Editors may wish to contribute to this related ANI discussion -- Rob ( talk) 03:51, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Confirmation that he attended National Theatre School of Canada is available via multiple sources which I am listing here. If there is any further doubt on this matter, please discuss.
I'm restoring the content. I don't think its necessary to have all 3 citations (especially since the About page covers his entire educational career), but I'm putting them there anyway. -- Netoholic @ 03:13, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
I would like to discuss what should, and should not be included, regarding deFOOing, and how to improve things. I think we should add
While I support naming the wife, it should be sourced in the article, and her role should be discussed. Also, there should be some discussion and consensus to do so. Last time it was discussed, most editors who had an opinion seemed opposed. I think simply naming her in the infobox, with no other discussion is pointless. I'm not editing the article for a while, so its up to others to address this, if desired. -- Rob ( talk) 15:07, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
This article reads like it was written by Molyneux's fans. It can be argued that the only reason Molyneux is even notable enough to have an article is the allegations against him for being a cult leader, yet this is not even mentioned in the article. It should be a major section, and other non notable events should be removed. I will be submitting a rework in the coming days and am hoping to get others opinions first. Byates5637 ( talk) 02:33, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree he is notable, I agree this reads like it was written by Molyneux's fans, and I also agree that the allegations of cult leadership are notable. There are a dozen websites devoted to that, and there have been articles in the UK Guardian and other mainstream media. ElizaBarrington ( talk) 05:43, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
These comments indicate that people may not have given the article much of a read-through, especially since the "cult" stuff is easily found in a large section devoted to it here. Also, to people that dislike Molyneux, neutral, matter-of-fact writing style might seem "written by his fans". Broad accusations of bias are completely useless - you need to cite precise passages and describe precise problems as you see them. -- Netoholic @ 06:42, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
This guy is mostly a youtube celebrity, nobody in the academy knows him, neither did he contribute anything to the academy. It is interesting to see that anybody can now have a wiki page. Maybe I should start one myself, Stefan Molyneux seems to have done the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.65.74.227 ( talk) 13:13, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Why is there no criticism section? This guy Stefan Molyneux is very controversial and one might say is either full of shit or a god-tier troll.
Watch him talk about White Privilege (some juicy morsels on blacks and Jews) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=auQJMLWx6og -- 184.161.80.90 ( talk) 22:17, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Criticism#Avoid_sections_and_articles_focusing_on_criticisms_or_controversies "best practice is to incorporate positive and negative material into the same section. For example, if a politician received significant criticism about their public behavior, create a section entitled "Public behavior" and include all information – positive and negative – within that section. If a book was heavily criticized, create a section in the book's article called "Reception", and include positive and negative material in that section." Gaijin42 ( talk) 22:20, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm going to make popcorn to watch the edit war on here of Moly lovers trying to keep the very encyclopedic fact of the lawsuit off of the Molyneux Wikipedia page. lol. Especially as it gets covered by more and more mainstream media, which it will be. ElizaBarrington ( talk) 22:10, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
A while back, Stefan Molyneux claimed to have been diagnosed with lymphoma, travelled to the US for treatment, and did a lot of talking about that on his shows. I vaguely recall his doctor even talking about it once. Did anyone ever verify whether or not this cancer was legitimate? Either way, it sounds like something notable. Whether he had cancer or pretended to for donation money, that sure is a big deal. I, for one, would love to know which is true.
EDIT: I've been doing some research on that, and I can't find any reliable sources that attest to the veracity of the cancer claims. Probably why you didn't mention it. 50.168.176.243 ( talk) 05:45, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Do we have secondary RS discussion of any of these speaking engagements? If not, it strikes me as undue to describe them in text. Perhaps we could move them to a list at the end of the article, similar to a bibliography. SPECIFICO talk 01:53, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
According to Horsager and freedomainradio's website, Molyneux solicits donations, which can come in a form of a one-time donation or a subscription. Calling them subscriptions would be misleading.-- Truther2012 ( talk) 21:15, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Honest question : Is any of molyneux's content, forums, videos, archives gated that requires such donations? If not, I think donations is acceptable. If there are parts of his content that is only for "subscribers" then it should be categorized as such. Gaijin42 ( talk) 22:16, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
I think neutrality demands saying like "Access to the main podcast and some downloads are free, but Molyneux solicits paid recurring subscriptions which come with access to additional content, as well as one time donations." or some such (although it may be a tad run-on and could be split into two sentences). Gaijin42 ( talk) 22:31, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
The page you referring to is called "donations". In addition we have an RS calling them donations. If it is too old, do we have another RS saying the first one is too old? Using a different term then the sources would be considered OR. And yes, donations to for-profit organizations are very common, albeit not typical. Are you familiar with Kickstarter? And yes, different level of donors in any scheme expect different level of privilege, be it content, products or other benefits. And yes, in any donation-based organization you can either make a one-time donation, subscribe to donations or pledge a future donation - regardless of the payment plan, they are all donations.-- Truther2012 ( talk) 14:56, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Gaijin42 ( talk) 16:10, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Found this link from anarcho-capitalism, not even attempting to edit it.
This entry on Stefan Molyneux contains a feedback-loop of self published (and poor quality) sources which align closely with the classical idea of a soap box. You can stand on a corner with a soap box and say anything you like, and you can call yourself anything you like.
This is not saying the subject is not popular or notable to a whole group of people (on a fringe) that might listen to him on a soap box.
I am currently searching for "better sources." A primary source (a lawsuit on alleged DMCA abuse, and defamation) has this to say " At all times material to this Complaint, Molyneux made his podcasts, published statements, video clips, and other materials publicly available through various Internet sources, including, but not limited to, the Freedomain Radio website, located at the URL address www.freedomainradio.com; www.fdrpodcasts.com; his YouTube channels, “Stefbot” and “fdrpodcasts”; and his Facebook page (collectively, the “Molyneux Material”). As of the filing date of this Complaint, over 2,800 podcasts are available for free download on fdrpodcasts.com, and Molyneux’s YouTube channels host a subset of these podcasts in addition to other videos. " What I am gleaming from this lawsuit is the "prolific nature" of the subjects use of the soap box. [2]
There are additionally other "bizarrely" interrelated websites: [3] [4]
Back to the point Most of the sources point back to primary-source Molyneux. I cannot find a single credible source that does not reside on the fringe (or even lunatic fringe) or does not originate from the source itself. . [5]
This begs the question: What is to be done here? Lfrankblam ( talk) 01:22, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a list of every PDF someone makes available on the Internet, nor every vanity press publication. How are the works in the bibliography notable in the slightest aspect? Only one even has an ISBN. AndroidCat ( talk) 03:33, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
What is the next step here? Lfrankblam ( talk) 05:39, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
What about this, why don't you do a cursory edit; then please join me in building a proposed replacement in the sandbox Lfrankblam ( talk) 14:52, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
I will be trying to address the issues and concerns here one item at a time. I will make a change, document that change here, and pause
1) Changed non-fiction to Position papers, and also works
Why: A list of Non-fictional writings would the same as having a list of factual writings. The list of "self published" works are in fact either White Papers or Position papers written by the subject and then distributed by PDF. -- Lfrankblam ( talk) 23:44, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Recommendation and Opinions (please leave yours): *Delete This Section - Basis as self published work, and not notable -- Lfrankblam ( talk) 23:44, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
2) Summarized plethora of single topic videos each listed, with some pointing back to those videos, to a statement that he produces single topic videos
Why: A summary statement provides the same information as a random listing of single topic talks on the subjects own youtube podcast. Lfrankblam ( talk) 06:06, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
3) Debates changed to un-moderated debates
Why: A moderated debate would be conducted with equal balance and on neutral ground. There have been questions as to the efficacy as to how these "talks" were conducted. [6] Lfrankblam ( talk) 06:15, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
4) Removed claim made by his own autobiography. "Molyneux' website states that his Masters thesis analyzed "the political implications of the philosophies of Immanuel Kant, G.W.F. Hegel, Thomas Hobbes, and John Locke"." Lfrankblam ( talk) 06:27, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
5) How he funds. Subject funds with direct donations.
Why: Subject has one funding source, and then we have a source telling us why. We don't need to list all the ways he does not fund if we know the way he funds. Lfrankblam ( talk) 06:37, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
6) internet media presenter - Would this simply be blogger? *Yes-Blogger Any ideas here?
7) Changed Philosophical views to Views and Criticism
Why: Each of the three listed self-published views has garnered criticism. Two of the three have existing criticism and Noam Chomsky criticized the third. It is ok for the subjects viewpoints to be subject to well-founded or documented criticism if they are controversial as long as the criticism is not personal. Lfrankblam ( talk) 06:47, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
8) Professional sanction inserted (I see this has been covered but it is essential to have)
Why: The viewpoints of the subject are notable but they are controversial and they speak to a fringe. Controversial statements have ramifications. The wife being part of the podcast did so as a qualified and licensed individual expressing the same views as the podcast would have done so otherwise. The wife and the husband are therefore speaking in the same voice in the same venue with the same points. The documentation source is a leading Canadian newspaper.
9) Added refutation by Chomsky to provide balance..
10) Laundry list of activities. suggest a summary in public appearances..especially where there is redundancy or non-notable appearances in other youtube channels etc.-- Lfrankblam ( talk) 07:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
11) Satisfied and at stopping point awaiting merger discussion below Lfrankblam ( talk) 02:12, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
I removed this passage about Chomsky's "refutation". It's inappropriate to suggest Chomsky refuted anything, unless Chomsky actually discusses Molyneux, which he does not in the cited interview. We should only reference sources that actually discuss Molyneux. -- Rob ( talk) 16:40, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Chomsky "debated" Moleynuex on the topic-- Lfrankblam ( talk) 16:54, 11 November 2014 (UTC) Chomsky is also speaking to the broad topic of the sub-topic in question applies only to a "term" that Molyneux coined himself with no use elsewhere (in journals or academia)-- Lfrankblam ( talk) 02:15, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
I propose that Dispute resolution organization be merged into Stefan Molyneux. Dispute resolution organization is an original concept of Stefan Molyuex and has limited or no basis anywhere else. The Dispute resolution organization article uses pdf's and statements from Molynuex as the primary source. This idea does not stand by itself, nor is it notable or credible by its own volition. Lfrankblam ( talk) 18:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
You'll find on the original Dispute resolution organization page that there are other contributors to the "concept", most notably Rothbard. While Molyneux may have helped coin this particular term, the concept remains more universal and predates him. It deserves a "see also" link, but not a redirect. Redirecting is confusing, especially considering that Molyneux is known for more than just this one concept. -- Aletoledo ( talk) 21:13, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
'Tom Keene on Bloomberg media speaks to Rothbard every now and again, but what he does not speak to a term coined in a PDF file that "leverages" the works of a great man who has never used that term-- Lfrankblam ( talk) 00:52, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Sorry for reverting it back again without chiming in here. If the concept of DROs is used by other noteworthy people (whether or not Molyneux coined the term and developed it for the most part), it doesn't make sense to merge it with Molyneux's page because it has become a creature of its own -- Coching ( talk) 01:06, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
What notable people would that be?-- Lfrankblam ( talk) 01:18, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
The page will not be merged. Rothbard has nothing to do with the formation of this term, and that needs to be reflected (and now is reflected) in the stand alone entry.-- Lfrankblam ( talk) 01:43, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Per this recent edit and longstanding concern about primary sourced content in this article, I suggest we remove all the primary sourced content and copy it here on the talk page so that it will be readily available while we try to find independent RS references to support it. SPECIFICO talk 19:03, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
An editor deleted a sentence which was not meaningful to him, and I would say rightly so because it was unintelligible to anyone not already familiar with the viewpoints of the subject as expressed in his own jargon and lexicon of terms and acronyms. Since these terms are not ubiquitous they need to be described in plain language within the heading and also the first (two or three) sentences of any section.
Someone following the subject would know what FOO is or DeFoo or DRO, or what have you, but the super-majority of people would not.
The subject has a utopian-ideal of how things would work in theory and this applies to justice within a society, family, and the organization (or lack of organization) of a state (state-less-society). These ideals are described by others and here they need to be understood generally. Failure to do so makes this entry speak to only those who had preexisting interest in it.-- Lfrankblam ( talk) 23:11, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
A recent edit summary reads in part "(one child was encouraged to leave)" their FOO. We have no RS which states that Molyneux advised any particular individual to do so. General statements in a broadcast or podcast are not equivalent to encouraging any particular person to de-FOO and this statement is misleading and possibly harmful to Molyneux. SPECIFICO talk 14:42, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
I think we have to be very careful to attribute criticisms of the subject to the whoever made them. This is especially true for highly charged words like "cult", hence my recent revert. The word "cult" must appear in quotes, with attribution in body in addition to a footnote (neither of which were used). I'm not clear the words been used enough to justify putting it in the lede. I also found "Support for the right of children to leave their families" to be be a bad section heading. Section headings must be completely neutral. It's debatable whether children have a "right" to leave their families, and if that's what he supports. Also, its not clear if "children" refers to adult children, minor children, or both. So, let's stick to something simple for the header. -- Rob ( talk) 04:11, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
The sentence "According to The Globe and Mail, Molyneux has been sued for allegedly listening in on confidential therapy sessions conducted by his wife, without the permission of her patients." is (completely) false (at least what the Globe and Mail writes is completely false) and greatly harms Molyneux's reputation. The title of the Globe and Mail article is misleading. The article itself reveals this criticism to be based on an obvious joke of Molyneux's for anybody with a few brain cells:
The lawsuit is about alleged copyright law abuse and defamation: https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1346376/dkt-001-complaint-1401024.pdf, found here https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20141025/06550928937/anarcho-capitalist-stefan-molyneux-sued-abusing-dmca.shtml
Please read articles before sourcing them, they could be yellow journalism... Requesting deletion of the paragraph. Regarding the lawsuit, I would wait until more has developed as the techdirt article suggests it is very likely to lose. --MDR 62.141.176.1 ( talk) 19:47, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
there is Zero difference in meaning between "Sued for allegedly" and "allegations in a lawsuit". In both cases its clear that the claims are allegations, and that the allegations were presented in a lawsuit. WP:OR is a policy that applies to us, not the Globe and Mail. If they have analyized the WP:PRIMARY documents, then we use their analaysis of them. Gaijin42 ( talk) 15:39, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
He's not a philosopher simply because he whines about his problems with women all the time. Why does this joke page exist? I'm willing to bet he created it himself and has been maintaining it ever since. 92.25.123.216 ( talk) 06:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC) Stefan Molyneux is a well-documented public intellectual who has influence in many spheres of thought. Your opinion is not enough to negate his whole page. Solntsa90 ( talk) 18:48, 26 February 2015 (UTC) |
I'll add what I find below. Editors can make use of them as they feel is appropriate:
Time Magazine [8]
The IP user 99.251.52.21 has twice tried to change Molyneux's occupation as described in the lead from "blogger" to "philosopher". Based on the current contents of the article, I do not think he fits the classical definition of a philosopher. However, it is probably worth having a discussion here so that it can be decided and we can avoid constant changes to the first sentence. AtHomeIn神戸 ( talk) 05:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
" Molyneux argued that nearly all violence in the world is women's fault as a result of how they treat children" The source is written by a feminist who clearly has political motives to discredit him. Until I hear it from a primary source such as an audio recording of the conference or video I'm not going to believe it. It clearly is a bias statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dutch Ninja ( talk • contribs) 01:36, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Also of note is the quality of the page going down? there seems to be much more info on him in past edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dutch Ninja ( talk • contribs) 02:12, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Molyneux's mother was born Jewish. 0:39 mark on this video from his YouTube channel.
Thanks for posting the clip where Molyneux says his mother was Jewish. I came across that fact somewhere else previously. It's obviously reliable. He says it and goes into great detail about her. Hearing his commentary on WW II previously, I suspected he was Jewish. I don't know why Wikipedia rejects his statement about his own family. It is obvious Wikipedia is very biased in its articles on WW II. The reason Wikipedia rejects Molyneux's statement about his own family might be because he says his mother was born in Germany in 1937 and says his grandmother went to work in Dresden in 1937, the day of the allied bombing attack on Dresden. Those statements would indicate Molyneux's Jewish family led the typical life most German families led in WW II, even having a family member (grandmother)killed in a bomber attack. Of course none of this conforms with the stories peddled about how Jews were supposedly treated during WW II. You know the stories, making soap out of Jewish fat and lampshades from their skin and other ridiculous hate propaganda discredited long ago. Molyneux's German Jewish mother obviously survived the war if he was born in 1967. He says they lived in Germany throughout WW II. This completely contradicts WW II propaganda stories, including those by Wikipedia about how Germany treated Jews during WW II.```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.96.156.137 ( talk) 06:41, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
This certainly qualifies for WP:BLPSELFPUB as that his mother was Jewish, but saying much about it in the article would likely be WP:UNDUE Gaijin42 ( talk) 02:47, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Such material may be used as a source only if:
No dice. SPECIFICO talk 12:22, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for following the link. Ultimately, there was little "cogent" about that user's participation here. His view was rejected and he was TBANned soon after. Back to your point: Just because most folks are interested in their family history, that does not imply that all folks are truthful or accurate about their family histories. Please consider that wrt your statement above. I believe it invalidates that argument, so let's consider further. Obviously we do not know, and it's not our job as WP editors to know,
the truth of the matter. What we do know, however, is that Mr. Molyneux is a skilled self-promoter and that he has assiduously built the audience for his media empire. I don't want to speculate in too much detail about whether and why he might have misrepresented his lineage. I suggest you google "Molyneux Jewish" and see the kind of talk that's circulating around him. The websites you'll find, including neo-Nazi and alt-Right chat threads are certainly not RS for Wikipedia, but they do give a hint of what Mr. Molyneux must navigate in building his brand. For example, it could be that when he first broadcast anti-Semitic memes such as that the Russian Communists were largely Jewish and caused murder on a vastly greater scale than the Holocaust, that a claim of Jewish ancestry might have shielded him from being called an anti-Semite. "Some of my best friends..." "My mother was Jewish!" Now, please note that I am not accusing him of anything. I am saying that this is a reasonable possibility for so skilled a self-promoter and that we need a better source than his own possibly self-serving say-so. Oddly, in the few years since Mr. Molyneux first posted that his mom was Jewish, the political winds have shifted on the alt-Right internet to widespread and overt anti-Semitism. Various neo-Nazi's now accuse Mr. Molyneux of trying to whitewash his toxic parentage. Again, this stuff is not RS but it shows us, as editors, how complicated this content is and why we need a very strong independent RS for this assertion. Some folks believe this promotes him, others believe it deprecates him. It needs independent RS.
SPECIFICO
talk
20:22, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Was he found guilty or not? I can't find a source. I think it should be removed if no one can find an answer as it's an allegation and not a fact which wikipedia should base its articles on. -- Mralan101 ( talk) 00:39, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
The term "philosopher" according to modern definitions certainly wouldn't include Molyneux, ever since the "professionalization of philosophy" during the 20th century. But given that Alain de Botton is called "philosopher", Wikipedia's standards are generally slack. Fans of Molyneux really do consider him a philosopher, whereas Alain de Botton is only titled as such by television networks to appeal to consumers. So if, in a throwaway comment, we allow Alain de Botton the title of philosopher on Wikipedia, ought we not to take Molyneux's fans pleas into consideration? After all, they really think he is a philosopher, and his work really forms the core of many people's personal philosophies, whereas De Botton is merely one of many cultural commentators who drift in and out of the lives of the mildly intellectually curious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User: 72.79.221.54| 72.79.221.54]] ([[User talk: 72.79.221.54|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/ 72.79.221.54|contribs]])
The various citations we see to Molyneux's YouTube clips violate
WP:ELNO,
WP:SOCIALMEDIA,
WP:UNDUE, etc.. WP is not a soapbox, so let's edit them out. –
S. Rich (
talk)
02:57, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
This bit has repeatedly been removed from the article due to its primary sourcing and the possibly self-serving and context of the unproved and dubious claim. "Some of my best friends..." Better yet "My mother..." We should find an independent secondary Reliable Source for this statement to establish its noteworthiness and verify it for inclusion in this BLP. Please discuss here and do not put it back in until we can find RS for this per WP:WEIGHT. SPECIFICO talk 16:12, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
As you know, my first post in this section gives several reasons to reject that content. Now I'll again politely remind you read the current talk page and archived discussions of this extraordinary claim about his mother per WP:EXHAUST &ff.
Read the archives: If you are a new editor to an article, be sure to read the archives. Not only are content disputes valuable examples of talk page behavior, but they contain a lot of expert knowledge surrounding the topic. You may quickly find your questions and/or objections have already been answered if you try searching all the archives for that article at once using the prefix parameter.
SPECIFICO talk 03:39, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
This particular video, in which he's discussing war and uses the Jewish Clan (hmmm?) thing to glide intro to his theme for the lecture, is not covered in any RS I have seen and from Youtube view counts, it's one of his least popular bits. If we want to cite more of his self-published opinions, about his mom or anything else, why not pick one of the videos where the counts are ten times as large? While we're here, what do you think of his claim that the family lived peacefully in Nazi Dresden until near the very end of WW2 and would have lived happily ever after if not for the Allied bombing? How many Jewish families, living openly and "going to work" as he says, lived comfortably in Dresden from 1937 until 1945? He states it as a fact. That's an "extraordinary claim" off the bat. It isn't even the main point of his video. More of a modulation from "Welcome I'm Stefan" to "My Subject is War." Are you familiar with his videos? There are hundreds of more significant personal assertions in them. How does the sentence about the Jewish ("Clan") mother relate to the preceding sentence in this article? Also, what is a Clan? Is that a religion? SPECIFICO talk 23:43, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm probably editing this completely wrong. But honestly I just don't care. I've read this exchange between SPECIFICO ( talk) and Bus stop ( talk) and for the first time in several years decided to actually write something. Not at all about the article, but about the argument going on between these two. This argument is the reason why Wikipedia is The Free Encyclopedia that hardly anyone can edit. In order to make "useful changes" to an article you have to; 1) Know 50 billion writing formatting/submission policies, 2) Be willing to have an extensive argument with an article "owner" for an extended period of time. Madness. That is all I wanted to say. Please continue the crazy discussion on making an extremely minor adjustment to an article that most people don't care about, where a source is clearly recorded stating the obvious which whilst unverifiable is in all likelihood completely true. The Free Encyclopaedia that anyone can edit - Bollocks. XXXOOO logiboy123 ( talk) 21/02/2017 See! I had to do a Google search just to lookup how to create a link to a user, just to write this post on the talk page discussion. MADNESS! Took me an hour to write just this and why do I get the feeling my comment will be removed ASAP? Just not worth it. —Preceding undated comment added 00:52, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
This ain't one of those. We don't piece together what we guess to be noteworthy or true about a blogger. We need RS. Find some and we can say anything at all that RS have verified. The 1 in a million chance that all his "Jewish Clan" lived happily out in the open in Nazi Dresden throughout WW2 is plenty of reason to "doubt its veracity" -- that's why we use secondary independent RS on Wikipedia to sort out what's true. Extraordinary claims need verification. You have none. Let's skip the "identity politics stuff -- it sounds like mumbo-jumbo and I have no idea why it's relevant to WP policy. "Just the facts ma'am." Your opinions about Nazi's have nothing to do with this. Yes, the Nazi's identified just about every Jew who lived openly as Molyneux claims. Who knows, maybe his father was an SS officer and they later told the kids that the family was Jewish to hide the facts. We have no idea as to the facts. How many other irrelevant self-promoting details should we cherry-pick from Mr. Molyneux thousands of hours of self-published, promotional videos? Do you believe that He meets WP:GNG? The more time that passes, now that the de-FOO accusations have subsided, the less of a case can be made for any article at all. But there's no rush to AfD the article, just to stick to what secondary independent RS have to say. This is a broad problem with fringe personalities and ideologies that attract fanatical fans to WP seeking to bolster various articles. It's a policy issue, not a Stefan Molyneux issue. SPECIFICO talk 04:12, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
This page should not be speedily deleted because... this has been proposed in the past multiple times by anti-Molyneux single-issue activists. It has been debated and concluded multiple time. This is a bio page on a notable person, if you have any doubts read WP:BIO again! -- Truther2012 ( talk) 13:38, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
Currently, the first sentence of the second paragraph of the lead reads: Molyneux was formerly in the database software business and now describes himself as a philosopher. Nevermind the primary source, but I feel it does not add any value to the lead. Both of the items are described in detail further on. Database software business is really not note-worthy given the focus of the article. I mean, he also was employed in daycare business, which is probably a lot more relevant. Finally, "described himself as a philosopher" calls back to much earlier discussion of whether he is a philosopher or whether calling somebody "self-described philosopher" diminishes the claim altogether. I shall remove the sentence altogether unless I'm missing any serious reasons for it to remain. -- Truther2012 ( talk) 14:52, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Netoholic, I dont think it's the wording per se, but the importance of that information in the lead. His prior career has very little bearing on his current notability. It fits nicely in his Early Life. Same goes for "philosopher" - if we can't agree on calling him that, what he calls himself is irrelevant. Plus, without this sentence the focus is on the show, which is his true claim to notability.-- Truther2012 ( talk) 18:55, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
My argument is whether that sentence makes an article stronger or weaker as an encyclopaedia entry is concerned. The philosophy is properly addressed in the first sentence of the lead, by referring to his interests (as an author).-- Truther2012 ( talk) 16:28, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't see any RS which supports the statement that Molyneux has appeared on television, i.e. broadcast television. If anyone has RS for that, please add it to the text. Otherwise these statements will need to be removed. SPECIFICO talk 22:54, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
My edit summary was truncated so, for the sake of clarity, it should have read "Does Bill Clinton's bio say that he's a public speaker?" SPECIFICO talk 02:37, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Editors may wish to contribute to this related ANI discussion -- Rob ( talk) 03:51, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Confirmation that he attended National Theatre School of Canada is available via multiple sources which I am listing here. If there is any further doubt on this matter, please discuss.
I'm restoring the content. I don't think its necessary to have all 3 citations (especially since the About page covers his entire educational career), but I'm putting them there anyway. -- Netoholic @ 03:13, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
I would like to discuss what should, and should not be included, regarding deFOOing, and how to improve things. I think we should add
While I support naming the wife, it should be sourced in the article, and her role should be discussed. Also, there should be some discussion and consensus to do so. Last time it was discussed, most editors who had an opinion seemed opposed. I think simply naming her in the infobox, with no other discussion is pointless. I'm not editing the article for a while, so its up to others to address this, if desired. -- Rob ( talk) 15:07, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
This article reads like it was written by Molyneux's fans. It can be argued that the only reason Molyneux is even notable enough to have an article is the allegations against him for being a cult leader, yet this is not even mentioned in the article. It should be a major section, and other non notable events should be removed. I will be submitting a rework in the coming days and am hoping to get others opinions first. Byates5637 ( talk) 02:33, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree he is notable, I agree this reads like it was written by Molyneux's fans, and I also agree that the allegations of cult leadership are notable. There are a dozen websites devoted to that, and there have been articles in the UK Guardian and other mainstream media. ElizaBarrington ( talk) 05:43, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
These comments indicate that people may not have given the article much of a read-through, especially since the "cult" stuff is easily found in a large section devoted to it here. Also, to people that dislike Molyneux, neutral, matter-of-fact writing style might seem "written by his fans". Broad accusations of bias are completely useless - you need to cite precise passages and describe precise problems as you see them. -- Netoholic @ 06:42, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
This guy is mostly a youtube celebrity, nobody in the academy knows him, neither did he contribute anything to the academy. It is interesting to see that anybody can now have a wiki page. Maybe I should start one myself, Stefan Molyneux seems to have done the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.65.74.227 ( talk) 13:13, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Why is there no criticism section? This guy Stefan Molyneux is very controversial and one might say is either full of shit or a god-tier troll.
Watch him talk about White Privilege (some juicy morsels on blacks and Jews) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=auQJMLWx6og -- 184.161.80.90 ( talk) 22:17, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Criticism#Avoid_sections_and_articles_focusing_on_criticisms_or_controversies "best practice is to incorporate positive and negative material into the same section. For example, if a politician received significant criticism about their public behavior, create a section entitled "Public behavior" and include all information – positive and negative – within that section. If a book was heavily criticized, create a section in the book's article called "Reception", and include positive and negative material in that section." Gaijin42 ( talk) 22:20, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm going to make popcorn to watch the edit war on here of Moly lovers trying to keep the very encyclopedic fact of the lawsuit off of the Molyneux Wikipedia page. lol. Especially as it gets covered by more and more mainstream media, which it will be. ElizaBarrington ( talk) 22:10, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
A while back, Stefan Molyneux claimed to have been diagnosed with lymphoma, travelled to the US for treatment, and did a lot of talking about that on his shows. I vaguely recall his doctor even talking about it once. Did anyone ever verify whether or not this cancer was legitimate? Either way, it sounds like something notable. Whether he had cancer or pretended to for donation money, that sure is a big deal. I, for one, would love to know which is true.
EDIT: I've been doing some research on that, and I can't find any reliable sources that attest to the veracity of the cancer claims. Probably why you didn't mention it. 50.168.176.243 ( talk) 05:45, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Do we have secondary RS discussion of any of these speaking engagements? If not, it strikes me as undue to describe them in text. Perhaps we could move them to a list at the end of the article, similar to a bibliography. SPECIFICO talk 01:53, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
According to Horsager and freedomainradio's website, Molyneux solicits donations, which can come in a form of a one-time donation or a subscription. Calling them subscriptions would be misleading.-- Truther2012 ( talk) 21:15, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Honest question : Is any of molyneux's content, forums, videos, archives gated that requires such donations? If not, I think donations is acceptable. If there are parts of his content that is only for "subscribers" then it should be categorized as such. Gaijin42 ( talk) 22:16, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
I think neutrality demands saying like "Access to the main podcast and some downloads are free, but Molyneux solicits paid recurring subscriptions which come with access to additional content, as well as one time donations." or some such (although it may be a tad run-on and could be split into two sentences). Gaijin42 ( talk) 22:31, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
The page you referring to is called "donations". In addition we have an RS calling them donations. If it is too old, do we have another RS saying the first one is too old? Using a different term then the sources would be considered OR. And yes, donations to for-profit organizations are very common, albeit not typical. Are you familiar with Kickstarter? And yes, different level of donors in any scheme expect different level of privilege, be it content, products or other benefits. And yes, in any donation-based organization you can either make a one-time donation, subscribe to donations or pledge a future donation - regardless of the payment plan, they are all donations.-- Truther2012 ( talk) 14:56, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Gaijin42 ( talk) 16:10, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Found this link from anarcho-capitalism, not even attempting to edit it.
This entry on Stefan Molyneux contains a feedback-loop of self published (and poor quality) sources which align closely with the classical idea of a soap box. You can stand on a corner with a soap box and say anything you like, and you can call yourself anything you like.
This is not saying the subject is not popular or notable to a whole group of people (on a fringe) that might listen to him on a soap box.
I am currently searching for "better sources." A primary source (a lawsuit on alleged DMCA abuse, and defamation) has this to say " At all times material to this Complaint, Molyneux made his podcasts, published statements, video clips, and other materials publicly available through various Internet sources, including, but not limited to, the Freedomain Radio website, located at the URL address www.freedomainradio.com; www.fdrpodcasts.com; his YouTube channels, “Stefbot” and “fdrpodcasts”; and his Facebook page (collectively, the “Molyneux Material”). As of the filing date of this Complaint, over 2,800 podcasts are available for free download on fdrpodcasts.com, and Molyneux’s YouTube channels host a subset of these podcasts in addition to other videos. " What I am gleaming from this lawsuit is the "prolific nature" of the subjects use of the soap box. [2]
There are additionally other "bizarrely" interrelated websites: [3] [4]
Back to the point Most of the sources point back to primary-source Molyneux. I cannot find a single credible source that does not reside on the fringe (or even lunatic fringe) or does not originate from the source itself. . [5]
This begs the question: What is to be done here? Lfrankblam ( talk) 01:22, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a list of every PDF someone makes available on the Internet, nor every vanity press publication. How are the works in the bibliography notable in the slightest aspect? Only one even has an ISBN. AndroidCat ( talk) 03:33, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
What is the next step here? Lfrankblam ( talk) 05:39, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
What about this, why don't you do a cursory edit; then please join me in building a proposed replacement in the sandbox Lfrankblam ( talk) 14:52, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
I will be trying to address the issues and concerns here one item at a time. I will make a change, document that change here, and pause
1) Changed non-fiction to Position papers, and also works
Why: A list of Non-fictional writings would the same as having a list of factual writings. The list of "self published" works are in fact either White Papers or Position papers written by the subject and then distributed by PDF. -- Lfrankblam ( talk) 23:44, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Recommendation and Opinions (please leave yours): *Delete This Section - Basis as self published work, and not notable -- Lfrankblam ( talk) 23:44, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
2) Summarized plethora of single topic videos each listed, with some pointing back to those videos, to a statement that he produces single topic videos
Why: A summary statement provides the same information as a random listing of single topic talks on the subjects own youtube podcast. Lfrankblam ( talk) 06:06, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
3) Debates changed to un-moderated debates
Why: A moderated debate would be conducted with equal balance and on neutral ground. There have been questions as to the efficacy as to how these "talks" were conducted. [6] Lfrankblam ( talk) 06:15, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
4) Removed claim made by his own autobiography. "Molyneux' website states that his Masters thesis analyzed "the political implications of the philosophies of Immanuel Kant, G.W.F. Hegel, Thomas Hobbes, and John Locke"." Lfrankblam ( talk) 06:27, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
5) How he funds. Subject funds with direct donations.
Why: Subject has one funding source, and then we have a source telling us why. We don't need to list all the ways he does not fund if we know the way he funds. Lfrankblam ( talk) 06:37, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
6) internet media presenter - Would this simply be blogger? *Yes-Blogger Any ideas here?
7) Changed Philosophical views to Views and Criticism
Why: Each of the three listed self-published views has garnered criticism. Two of the three have existing criticism and Noam Chomsky criticized the third. It is ok for the subjects viewpoints to be subject to well-founded or documented criticism if they are controversial as long as the criticism is not personal. Lfrankblam ( talk) 06:47, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
8) Professional sanction inserted (I see this has been covered but it is essential to have)
Why: The viewpoints of the subject are notable but they are controversial and they speak to a fringe. Controversial statements have ramifications. The wife being part of the podcast did so as a qualified and licensed individual expressing the same views as the podcast would have done so otherwise. The wife and the husband are therefore speaking in the same voice in the same venue with the same points. The documentation source is a leading Canadian newspaper.
9) Added refutation by Chomsky to provide balance..
10) Laundry list of activities. suggest a summary in public appearances..especially where there is redundancy or non-notable appearances in other youtube channels etc.-- Lfrankblam ( talk) 07:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
11) Satisfied and at stopping point awaiting merger discussion below Lfrankblam ( talk) 02:12, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
I removed this passage about Chomsky's "refutation". It's inappropriate to suggest Chomsky refuted anything, unless Chomsky actually discusses Molyneux, which he does not in the cited interview. We should only reference sources that actually discuss Molyneux. -- Rob ( talk) 16:40, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Chomsky "debated" Moleynuex on the topic-- Lfrankblam ( talk) 16:54, 11 November 2014 (UTC) Chomsky is also speaking to the broad topic of the sub-topic in question applies only to a "term" that Molyneux coined himself with no use elsewhere (in journals or academia)-- Lfrankblam ( talk) 02:15, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
I propose that Dispute resolution organization be merged into Stefan Molyneux. Dispute resolution organization is an original concept of Stefan Molyuex and has limited or no basis anywhere else. The Dispute resolution organization article uses pdf's and statements from Molynuex as the primary source. This idea does not stand by itself, nor is it notable or credible by its own volition. Lfrankblam ( talk) 18:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
You'll find on the original Dispute resolution organization page that there are other contributors to the "concept", most notably Rothbard. While Molyneux may have helped coin this particular term, the concept remains more universal and predates him. It deserves a "see also" link, but not a redirect. Redirecting is confusing, especially considering that Molyneux is known for more than just this one concept. -- Aletoledo ( talk) 21:13, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
'Tom Keene on Bloomberg media speaks to Rothbard every now and again, but what he does not speak to a term coined in a PDF file that "leverages" the works of a great man who has never used that term-- Lfrankblam ( talk) 00:52, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Sorry for reverting it back again without chiming in here. If the concept of DROs is used by other noteworthy people (whether or not Molyneux coined the term and developed it for the most part), it doesn't make sense to merge it with Molyneux's page because it has become a creature of its own -- Coching ( talk) 01:06, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
What notable people would that be?-- Lfrankblam ( talk) 01:18, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
The page will not be merged. Rothbard has nothing to do with the formation of this term, and that needs to be reflected (and now is reflected) in the stand alone entry.-- Lfrankblam ( talk) 01:43, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Per this recent edit and longstanding concern about primary sourced content in this article, I suggest we remove all the primary sourced content and copy it here on the talk page so that it will be readily available while we try to find independent RS references to support it. SPECIFICO talk 19:03, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
An editor deleted a sentence which was not meaningful to him, and I would say rightly so because it was unintelligible to anyone not already familiar with the viewpoints of the subject as expressed in his own jargon and lexicon of terms and acronyms. Since these terms are not ubiquitous they need to be described in plain language within the heading and also the first (two or three) sentences of any section.
Someone following the subject would know what FOO is or DeFoo or DRO, or what have you, but the super-majority of people would not.
The subject has a utopian-ideal of how things would work in theory and this applies to justice within a society, family, and the organization (or lack of organization) of a state (state-less-society). These ideals are described by others and here they need to be understood generally. Failure to do so makes this entry speak to only those who had preexisting interest in it.-- Lfrankblam ( talk) 23:11, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
A recent edit summary reads in part "(one child was encouraged to leave)" their FOO. We have no RS which states that Molyneux advised any particular individual to do so. General statements in a broadcast or podcast are not equivalent to encouraging any particular person to de-FOO and this statement is misleading and possibly harmful to Molyneux. SPECIFICO talk 14:42, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
I think we have to be very careful to attribute criticisms of the subject to the whoever made them. This is especially true for highly charged words like "cult", hence my recent revert. The word "cult" must appear in quotes, with attribution in body in addition to a footnote (neither of which were used). I'm not clear the words been used enough to justify putting it in the lede. I also found "Support for the right of children to leave their families" to be be a bad section heading. Section headings must be completely neutral. It's debatable whether children have a "right" to leave their families, and if that's what he supports. Also, its not clear if "children" refers to adult children, minor children, or both. So, let's stick to something simple for the header. -- Rob ( talk) 04:11, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
The sentence "According to The Globe and Mail, Molyneux has been sued for allegedly listening in on confidential therapy sessions conducted by his wife, without the permission of her patients." is (completely) false (at least what the Globe and Mail writes is completely false) and greatly harms Molyneux's reputation. The title of the Globe and Mail article is misleading. The article itself reveals this criticism to be based on an obvious joke of Molyneux's for anybody with a few brain cells:
The lawsuit is about alleged copyright law abuse and defamation: https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1346376/dkt-001-complaint-1401024.pdf, found here https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20141025/06550928937/anarcho-capitalist-stefan-molyneux-sued-abusing-dmca.shtml
Please read articles before sourcing them, they could be yellow journalism... Requesting deletion of the paragraph. Regarding the lawsuit, I would wait until more has developed as the techdirt article suggests it is very likely to lose. --MDR 62.141.176.1 ( talk) 19:47, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
there is Zero difference in meaning between "Sued for allegedly" and "allegations in a lawsuit". In both cases its clear that the claims are allegations, and that the allegations were presented in a lawsuit. WP:OR is a policy that applies to us, not the Globe and Mail. If they have analyized the WP:PRIMARY documents, then we use their analaysis of them. Gaijin42 ( talk) 15:39, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
He's not a philosopher simply because he whines about his problems with women all the time. Why does this joke page exist? I'm willing to bet he created it himself and has been maintaining it ever since. 92.25.123.216 ( talk) 06:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC) Stefan Molyneux is a well-documented public intellectual who has influence in many spheres of thought. Your opinion is not enough to negate his whole page. Solntsa90 ( talk) 18:48, 26 February 2015 (UTC) |
I'll add what I find below. Editors can make use of them as they feel is appropriate:
Time Magazine [8]
The IP user 99.251.52.21 has twice tried to change Molyneux's occupation as described in the lead from "blogger" to "philosopher". Based on the current contents of the article, I do not think he fits the classical definition of a philosopher. However, it is probably worth having a discussion here so that it can be decided and we can avoid constant changes to the first sentence. AtHomeIn神戸 ( talk) 05:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
" Molyneux argued that nearly all violence in the world is women's fault as a result of how they treat children" The source is written by a feminist who clearly has political motives to discredit him. Until I hear it from a primary source such as an audio recording of the conference or video I'm not going to believe it. It clearly is a bias statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dutch Ninja ( talk • contribs) 01:36, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Also of note is the quality of the page going down? there seems to be much more info on him in past edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dutch Ninja ( talk • contribs) 02:12, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Molyneux's mother was born Jewish. 0:39 mark on this video from his YouTube channel.
Thanks for posting the clip where Molyneux says his mother was Jewish. I came across that fact somewhere else previously. It's obviously reliable. He says it and goes into great detail about her. Hearing his commentary on WW II previously, I suspected he was Jewish. I don't know why Wikipedia rejects his statement about his own family. It is obvious Wikipedia is very biased in its articles on WW II. The reason Wikipedia rejects Molyneux's statement about his own family might be because he says his mother was born in Germany in 1937 and says his grandmother went to work in Dresden in 1937, the day of the allied bombing attack on Dresden. Those statements would indicate Molyneux's Jewish family led the typical life most German families led in WW II, even having a family member (grandmother)killed in a bomber attack. Of course none of this conforms with the stories peddled about how Jews were supposedly treated during WW II. You know the stories, making soap out of Jewish fat and lampshades from their skin and other ridiculous hate propaganda discredited long ago. Molyneux's German Jewish mother obviously survived the war if he was born in 1967. He says they lived in Germany throughout WW II. This completely contradicts WW II propaganda stories, including those by Wikipedia about how Germany treated Jews during WW II.```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.96.156.137 ( talk) 06:41, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
This certainly qualifies for WP:BLPSELFPUB as that his mother was Jewish, but saying much about it in the article would likely be WP:UNDUE Gaijin42 ( talk) 02:47, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Such material may be used as a source only if:
No dice. SPECIFICO talk 12:22, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for following the link. Ultimately, there was little "cogent" about that user's participation here. His view was rejected and he was TBANned soon after. Back to your point: Just because most folks are interested in their family history, that does not imply that all folks are truthful or accurate about their family histories. Please consider that wrt your statement above. I believe it invalidates that argument, so let's consider further. Obviously we do not know, and it's not our job as WP editors to know,
the truth of the matter. What we do know, however, is that Mr. Molyneux is a skilled self-promoter and that he has assiduously built the audience for his media empire. I don't want to speculate in too much detail about whether and why he might have misrepresented his lineage. I suggest you google "Molyneux Jewish" and see the kind of talk that's circulating around him. The websites you'll find, including neo-Nazi and alt-Right chat threads are certainly not RS for Wikipedia, but they do give a hint of what Mr. Molyneux must navigate in building his brand. For example, it could be that when he first broadcast anti-Semitic memes such as that the Russian Communists were largely Jewish and caused murder on a vastly greater scale than the Holocaust, that a claim of Jewish ancestry might have shielded him from being called an anti-Semite. "Some of my best friends..." "My mother was Jewish!" Now, please note that I am not accusing him of anything. I am saying that this is a reasonable possibility for so skilled a self-promoter and that we need a better source than his own possibly self-serving say-so. Oddly, in the few years since Mr. Molyneux first posted that his mom was Jewish, the political winds have shifted on the alt-Right internet to widespread and overt anti-Semitism. Various neo-Nazi's now accuse Mr. Molyneux of trying to whitewash his toxic parentage. Again, this stuff is not RS but it shows us, as editors, how complicated this content is and why we need a very strong independent RS for this assertion. Some folks believe this promotes him, others believe it deprecates him. It needs independent RS.
SPECIFICO
talk
20:22, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Was he found guilty or not? I can't find a source. I think it should be removed if no one can find an answer as it's an allegation and not a fact which wikipedia should base its articles on. -- Mralan101 ( talk) 00:39, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
The term "philosopher" according to modern definitions certainly wouldn't include Molyneux, ever since the "professionalization of philosophy" during the 20th century. But given that Alain de Botton is called "philosopher", Wikipedia's standards are generally slack. Fans of Molyneux really do consider him a philosopher, whereas Alain de Botton is only titled as such by television networks to appeal to consumers. So if, in a throwaway comment, we allow Alain de Botton the title of philosopher on Wikipedia, ought we not to take Molyneux's fans pleas into consideration? After all, they really think he is a philosopher, and his work really forms the core of many people's personal philosophies, whereas De Botton is merely one of many cultural commentators who drift in and out of the lives of the mildly intellectually curious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User: 72.79.221.54| 72.79.221.54]] ([[User talk: 72.79.221.54|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/ 72.79.221.54|contribs]])
The various citations we see to Molyneux's YouTube clips violate
WP:ELNO,
WP:SOCIALMEDIA,
WP:UNDUE, etc.. WP is not a soapbox, so let's edit them out. –
S. Rich (
talk)
02:57, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
This bit has repeatedly been removed from the article due to its primary sourcing and the possibly self-serving and context of the unproved and dubious claim. "Some of my best friends..." Better yet "My mother..." We should find an independent secondary Reliable Source for this statement to establish its noteworthiness and verify it for inclusion in this BLP. Please discuss here and do not put it back in until we can find RS for this per WP:WEIGHT. SPECIFICO talk 16:12, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
As you know, my first post in this section gives several reasons to reject that content. Now I'll again politely remind you read the current talk page and archived discussions of this extraordinary claim about his mother per WP:EXHAUST &ff.
Read the archives: If you are a new editor to an article, be sure to read the archives. Not only are content disputes valuable examples of talk page behavior, but they contain a lot of expert knowledge surrounding the topic. You may quickly find your questions and/or objections have already been answered if you try searching all the archives for that article at once using the prefix parameter.
SPECIFICO talk 03:39, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
This particular video, in which he's discussing war and uses the Jewish Clan (hmmm?) thing to glide intro to his theme for the lecture, is not covered in any RS I have seen and from Youtube view counts, it's one of his least popular bits. If we want to cite more of his self-published opinions, about his mom or anything else, why not pick one of the videos where the counts are ten times as large? While we're here, what do you think of his claim that the family lived peacefully in Nazi Dresden until near the very end of WW2 and would have lived happily ever after if not for the Allied bombing? How many Jewish families, living openly and "going to work" as he says, lived comfortably in Dresden from 1937 until 1945? He states it as a fact. That's an "extraordinary claim" off the bat. It isn't even the main point of his video. More of a modulation from "Welcome I'm Stefan" to "My Subject is War." Are you familiar with his videos? There are hundreds of more significant personal assertions in them. How does the sentence about the Jewish ("Clan") mother relate to the preceding sentence in this article? Also, what is a Clan? Is that a religion? SPECIFICO talk 23:43, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm probably editing this completely wrong. But honestly I just don't care. I've read this exchange between SPECIFICO ( talk) and Bus stop ( talk) and for the first time in several years decided to actually write something. Not at all about the article, but about the argument going on between these two. This argument is the reason why Wikipedia is The Free Encyclopedia that hardly anyone can edit. In order to make "useful changes" to an article you have to; 1) Know 50 billion writing formatting/submission policies, 2) Be willing to have an extensive argument with an article "owner" for an extended period of time. Madness. That is all I wanted to say. Please continue the crazy discussion on making an extremely minor adjustment to an article that most people don't care about, where a source is clearly recorded stating the obvious which whilst unverifiable is in all likelihood completely true. The Free Encyclopaedia that anyone can edit - Bollocks. XXXOOO logiboy123 ( talk) 21/02/2017 See! I had to do a Google search just to lookup how to create a link to a user, just to write this post on the talk page discussion. MADNESS! Took me an hour to write just this and why do I get the feeling my comment will be removed ASAP? Just not worth it. —Preceding undated comment added 00:52, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
This ain't one of those. We don't piece together what we guess to be noteworthy or true about a blogger. We need RS. Find some and we can say anything at all that RS have verified. The 1 in a million chance that all his "Jewish Clan" lived happily out in the open in Nazi Dresden throughout WW2 is plenty of reason to "doubt its veracity" -- that's why we use secondary independent RS on Wikipedia to sort out what's true. Extraordinary claims need verification. You have none. Let's skip the "identity politics stuff -- it sounds like mumbo-jumbo and I have no idea why it's relevant to WP policy. "Just the facts ma'am." Your opinions about Nazi's have nothing to do with this. Yes, the Nazi's identified just about every Jew who lived openly as Molyneux claims. Who knows, maybe his father was an SS officer and they later told the kids that the family was Jewish to hide the facts. We have no idea as to the facts. How many other irrelevant self-promoting details should we cherry-pick from Mr. Molyneux thousands of hours of self-published, promotional videos? Do you believe that He meets WP:GNG? The more time that passes, now that the de-FOO accusations have subsided, the less of a case can be made for any article at all. But there's no rush to AfD the article, just to stick to what secondary independent RS have to say. This is a broad problem with fringe personalities and ideologies that attract fanatical fans to WP seeking to bolster various articles. It's a policy issue, not a Stefan Molyneux issue. SPECIFICO talk 04:12, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
This page should not be speedily deleted because... this has been proposed in the past multiple times by anti-Molyneux single-issue activists. It has been debated and concluded multiple time. This is a bio page on a notable person, if you have any doubts read WP:BIO again! -- Truther2012 ( talk) 13:38, 30 August 2016 (UTC)