Talk:Cody Wilson/Archive 1

Archive 1

philosophy

I have just noticed the category tab describing Cody Wilson as an "anarcho-capitalist". This is wrong and misleading, he is a market-anarchist but not an anarcho-capitalist. He has said it outright, that he is not a libertarian in the political-sense (6:15): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTYWGrfo-ao ;in the same interview, just a few minutes in (7:26) he goes on to state he supports "markets" but opposes "capitalism". How can he logically be "anarcho-capitalist"? He has stated whom his philosophical inspirations are, key being Proudhon. Source 1, and source 2. Proudhon is the founder of Mutualism which advocated "Free Markets" and oppose what they considered to be "Capitalism". DA1 (talk) 13:13, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I've gone ahead, and added several lines along with citations of what and whom influenced Cody Wilson. And it ranges from both the left and right of Anarchism. DA1 (talk) 23:59, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

This is not the place for philosophical cathedra and original research. The sources don't support all your interpretations. A person could read and take from a lot of authors, that doesn't make him a supporter of all of their ideas. The source where he defines himself says "market anarchist" and then in the another he says "private law society" supporter (a term coined by Hans Hoppe). Focus in what he says about himself, not what you think he should say. Anyway, I proposed to merge to DD. --Sageo (talk) 10:05, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for information. And im not saying what i want him to say, because i referenced directly what he said himself, and that includes both Hoppe and Proudhon. I feel it is permitted that that information be here, i see no reason not to. The main reason being, there is confusion out there by many whether he is an anarcho-capitalist or a mutualist. Reality is, he is neither specifically but influenced by both. DA1 (talk) 13:13, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

A so deep philosophical exposition -very subjective about what theory and author should be principally mention- haven't any encyclopedical interest for the article. His importance is around Defense Distributed, not around a kind of schoolar contribution.--Sageo (talk) 01:25, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

The article is about Cody Wilson, that includes his philosophy (of anarchism, which plays a central role in his activities). He has mentioned Hoppe, Bastiat in his OWN defdist website. And he has mentioned Proudhon on numerous interviews. They are releveant. Furthermore, i question your interaction with regards to the editorial, given that you have reinstated a "merger" tag despite the fact that it was up for many days but decided to be taken down just a few days ago. You thereby effectively chose to disregard the consensus that the other editors may have come up and reinstate it? While i dont have an issue with that, i can see the presence of the same attitude in regards to removing the content of other editors such as in this philosophy dispute. DA1 (talk) 17:22, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

There isn't a consensus about incorporate a philosophical cathedra in this article. You aren't just citing the supossed influences of Wilson, in an arbitrary order, also you are expousing theories of these authors even if we don't know which ideas of the authors he follows. The content you're trying to insert is a kind of propagandistic use of the articles. --Sageo (talk) 19:55, 20 May 2013 (UTC) Stop adding again that philosophical interpretation again, that isn't the optimus form of interaction (check the history). About merge, the template was eliminated too soon, and the two who spoke against it one says that could be a borderline. --Sageo (talk) 20:03, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

So lets recap here, according to you because we apparently cannot decipher which philosopher(s) played a more prominent role in Wilson's philosophy, lets not mention any of them? That makes absolutely no logical sense. You could make the same argument for any subject individual on Wikipedia, and as such start cutting back on any and every article. DA1 (talk) 21:56, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

No, what I'm saying is that kind of detailed information isn't relevant for this article. The article already mention how he self-describe and says that there are some "anti-statis and libertarian authors" (Wilson have mention Marcuse, Foucault, Founding Fathers, many times Bastiat, Proudhon, and the "private law society" of Hans Hoppe, and the list could be widder). So, this article is a list of the authors he have read? Even in that case, why to promote theories in the article? Anyway, we don't know if he follows that theories. And even if we know that, it has encyclopecial relevance for this article?--Sageo (talk) 01:06, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

If it is brought up in nearly every interview he does, and its mentioned on his site, one would have thought maybe it does matter. But apparently it doesn't.... Yes, there are many names he mentioned. We could hypothetically list all of them, or we could none of them. Both are essentially the same, two extremes that either clog up the article or provide no mention whatsoever. Or we could opt for the sane position of, listing the most notable figures as opposed to minor figures. Proudhon is the founder of Mutualism, and Hoppe and Bastiat are key figures of Libertarianism. That's why i opted to include their names, but not the extensive list. What it ultimately does is clear the confusion for folk out there who think Wilson is an AnCap or Mutualist, when he is neither but influenced by both. Its information that clears the confusion and educates the reader. DA1 (talk) 01:58, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

You don't know if the cites Proudhon for his theory of the state or for his economic thoughts, we neither know if he mention Bastiat for economics thoughts or for his political philosophy. I understand you want to educate people with an extensive explanation, but I believe this is not the place. The notability of Wilson is not (mainly, for now) about his philosophy of social order or economics. Now, I want to know what are the reasons for not merge this article in Defense Distributed? --Sageo (talk) 05:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Response to Third Opinion Request:

Disclaimers: I am responding to a third opinion request made at WP:3O. I have made no previous edits on Cody Wilson/Archive 1 and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process (FAQ) is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. Third opinions are not tiebreakers and should not be "counted" in determining whether or not consensus has been reached. My personal standards for issuing third opinions can be viewed here.

Opinion: One particularly wise Third Opinion Wikipedian, RegentsPark, once succinctly put the purpose of Third Opinions like this, "It's sort of like if you're having an argument on the street in front of City Hall and turn to a passer-by to ask 'hey, is it true that the Brooklyn Bridge is for sale?'." This is a Third Opinion of that kind. I do not believe the information in the edit in question is too detailed for the article or gives undue weight to the information in the edit, especially (but not only) since the article has been expanded. Three suggestions which were not in the Third Opinion request: (1) About the merge template: Wikipedia:Merging, the consensus document on merging, suggests that leaving the template up for a week or slightly more is sufficient. This one has now been up for twice that period of time and there is no movement towards merger and the weight of opinion is against merger. The tag should be removed and the dead horse should no longer be flogged. (2) Huffington Post citations are used in the article. HP has content which is original and also has content which is a mere aggregation of other sources (see the discussion here). In general HP is not a reliable source when it is acting as an aggregator, but when it does do so it's very good at identifying its sources. Those sources, if reliable, should be used instead of HP in that case. (3) The References list should be columnized by changing {{reflist}} to {{reflist|3}}.

What's next: Once you've considered this opinion click here to see what happens next.—TransporterMan (TALK) 14:26, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

OK. If we not repeat the info from Defense Distributed article, we should have only a little article, according to the wikipedian relevance of this person that is all about his project (that already have an article). That should be clear. The fact that a guy have an entry in Wikipedia doesn't mean editors can abuse and insert any detailed information. --Sageo (talk) 17:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Some information was FIRST entered on Cody Wilson article and then later added to Defense Distributed, i.e. it was "repeated" from Cody Wilson over to "DD"... removing until a consensus is reached on whether to merge is premature, as I see it, and seems others have agreed in reverting when large portions of the article was removed by Sageo and earlier on by another editor. Should an article on Steve Jobs not mention Apple? Should an article on Julian Assange not mention Wikileaks? Should... which came first, the chicken or the egg? As noted in other edits and commentary, Cody Wilson receives plenty of "press" (notability) for his own actions, well as when acting as part of Defense Distributed. Removing large portions of an article seems excessive at this point in time. 98.70.82.5 (talk) 19:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Before change my vote I'm trying to edit the article to adjust it to style manual, but this is an IP (upper mi comment) that don't let me make any change. --Sageo (talk) 19:30, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Is not about wich article was first. Is about that when in Wikipedia we have an article about a detailed issue, we shouldn't use another article for repeat detailed information of the first. That is against style manual. In talk page there is a tendecy that I will respect, but not out of the edition style. I will change my vote but at less that should be a well redacted article. And please, don't use the articles for propaganda, for or against (extend the article more than necessary to expose a cause could be seen as promotion or a way to exagerate notability of a person). --Sageo (talk) 19:32, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Copied from response on talk (98.70.82.5) page - "Article on Defense Distributed is far more "detailed" insofar as the organization, the minor details on Cody Wilson article relating to "DD" do not seem overly detailed, or relate specifically to Wilson, e.g. he received the "threats" from Stratasys, he had leased the printer, he was in contact with ATF about legalities, he was granted a FFL, he test fired the weapon after manufacturing it, etc., and references have been included or are available mentioning Wilson with little or no mention of DD. Main point is it seems a bit much to delete mass portions of an article merely due to possible material being the same or similar in another article. Would or should an article on Bill Gates not mention Microsoft? Would or should an article on Steve Jobs not mention Apple? Would or should an article on Julian Assange not mention Wikileaks?" 98.70.82.5 (talk) 19:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Wilson is not Steve Jobs or Bill Gates. We should discusse his particular relevance for this article. If there is information detailed about a project that have its own article we should avoid repeat information. Also, new events of anecdotic events are not cases for encyclopedical notability itselfs. The redution of the article is necessary, in other case is repetaing detailing content and is still a candidate for merge. --Sageo (talk) 02:41, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

"I do not believe the information in the edit in question is too detailed for the article or gives undue weight to the information in the edit, especially (but not only) since the article has been expanded."

So is it settled then, that my edits were not biased or undue in any way? In that case, i shall reinstate my edit. Thank you. DA1 (talk) 08:00, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

That discussion is not about your information, was about detailed info of DefDist, instead your information is a kind of original synthesis, you are suggesting readers that economics of mutualism are the basis of his ideas [note: Proudhon wasn't a "left-libertarian market anarchist", that is a reconstruction that no all schoolars will accept, that is a-historical, only a posteriori interpretation of a sector] and Austrian School [many schoolars probably rejects that definition of "right-libertarian", first, Austrian School is a descriptive method of social sciences not a political propose itself, and then libertarianism use to be related with Nolan Chart that rejects "left-right" characterization; even Bastiat is extemporary of libertarianism and Austrian School] - that also could be considerated a propagadistic use of a Wikipedia article for political ideas that the sources don't mention [note: the sources used mention some authors, but not detail because what, with the exception of Hoppe]. Also you are rejecting the discussion here, that is not a good practice. Please retire your editions. --Sageo (talk) 19:29, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

merge discussion

• Oppose He gets coverage on his own, not related to the organization it is suggested his article be merged to. Whoever tagged the article for merge should've started the discussion on the talk page. Dream Focus 18:22, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose borderline, as I probably wouldn't have started this as a separate article yet, but he meets notability and there's enough interest to sustain them as separate, given that they already are. It's also likely that he's on the upward curve of interest at present. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:41, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
• Merge Encyclopedical relevance around DD, for now --Sageo (talk) 09:47, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Numerous news and technology stories I'd read mentioning Cody Wilson was the reason for searching for more information about him and thankfully finding an article about him on Wikipedia. Some of these articles (from what I recall atm) have made little or no mention whatsoever of "DD" (e.g. this story--> http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/plastic-gun-maker-rebukes-nanny-state-article-1.1342166), others mention his name in the headlines, or along with the organization he founded while stating "he" printed the gun, "his" gun, "he" thinks, "he" does, etc. He has sufficient or better, likely becoming more so, notability to warrant an article of his own. 74.235.196.179 (talk) 04:34, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Wilson gets coverage just on his own. SoTotallyAwesome (talk) 21:37, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Hatreon.us

He currently runs a site called 'Hatreon.us' as well and there is no mention in the article. https://www.whois.com/whois/hatreon.us he is the publicly registered admin and owner. Think that might just happen to be notable when you're the owner of the crowd funding platform of choice for the alt-right and neo-nazi groups. 65.29.77.61 (talk) 18:26, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

3D printed doesn't imply only plastic, functioning gun needs metal firing pin & bullets

"Defense Distributed gained international notoriety in 2013 when it published plans online for the Liberator, a functioning pistol that could be reproduced with a 3D printer,[7][8][9] allowing it to pass through metal detectors without detection.[10]"

2nd paragraph above. 3D printers are now available that use other materials besides plastics, including metal that would be detectable. The "functioning pistol" described in the sources sounds like a plastic, 3D printed gun body that uses a metal nail for firing pin, and of course bullets. Suggest editing above to correct inaccuracies, short description, leave link to separate Wiki page.Deepfrieddough (talk) 14:22, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Lying about age and friend of "victim" information missing

I notice that the page appears to be missing relevant information that the "victim" was lying about her age on the Sugar Daddy website and that also it was her friend that warned Cody to flee the country in the first place. I assume this information is fine to add? Ergzay (talk) 21:01, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

What is SugarDaddyMeet?

@MartinezMD:Cody Wilson had sexual intercourse with a 16-year-old girl he found on the website SugarDaddyMeet. What is the purpose of this website? As of today, the article calls SugarDaddyMeet "a website that matches older men with younger women." Is "matches" the right word? The article makes it sound like SugarDaddyMeet is match-making service. The "match" is a little unequal, no? One side pays and the other doesn't. Should we be naive? The whole thing sounds kind of mercenary to me -- you know, like the John pays the harlot. Anyhow, taking into account what happened after he was "matched," Cody Wilson acted like a John. Chisme (talk) 21:19, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

This is original research. It is speculation. It is not in the sources. Your comment here doesn't belong on the talk page - BLP is very clear about talk page speculation on BLP's. I deleted your comment per WP:NOTAFORUM, but you've chosen to revert it. Please explain how your speculations are appropriate to the talk page of a BLP. Anastrophe (talk) 22:24, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

I was the one who reverted, and I was typing up a LONG explanation about WP policies WP:neutral, WP:BLP, WP:NOR. when I went to publish your edit destroyed my reply. Wish you had read the the comment applied to my reversion so I wouldn't have lost it. MartinezMD (talk) 22:29, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Intermediate edits by other editors does not "destroy" your edits. Not my problem that you lost them. You just made an edit while I was editing this response. It didn't destroy my edit.

Let me flesh this out for you. You wrote:"Cody Wilson had sexual intercourse with a 16-year-old girl he found on the website SugarDaddyMeet". False. Speculation. Cody Wilson is alleged to have done that. He has not been found guilty in court of law. You've stated it as fact, which is a violation of BLP. "Should we be naive?" No, what we do is report what sources say, and leave our personal assumptions out of it. "Cody Wilson acted like a John." Again. Speculation, assuming facts not in sources or evidence. Entirely inappropriate to a BLP, or its talk page.

Nice of you to claim that you were going to 'educate' me on WP policies, but I suggest your refresh your understanding of BLP and OR. This entire thread should be deleted. We don't use a talk page of a BLP to conflate speculations about alleged incidents/behavior into bald statements of fact. Anastrophe (talk) 22:34, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

One further comment - to clarify, my 'you' is referring to user chisme, in all places. It is...confusing to say the least that chisme posted - and pinged you for some reason - then you reverted my reversion. Don't know what the relationship is between you and chisme - ultimately not relevant. But that's what led to the confusion. Apologies for misattribution. Anastrophe (talk) 22:43, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Oh, this is craptastic. I haven't kept up with the article. Most of what I've written above is utterly off the mark. Now I'm hoping someone will remove this entire discussion, simply because I'm an ass. Apologies to Chisme. Apologies to MartinezMD. Anastrophe (talk) 22:47, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

LOL. It's okay. I was angry for a minute and now laughing. I'm just trying to explain to Chisme that although what he's written might be the case, it cannot stand because of the BLP, Neutral, NOR, and RS policies. MartinezMD (talk) 22:49, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

My objection is to one little word -- "matches." I trust everyone here knows what a sugardaddy is. Woman don't sign up to SuggarDaddyMeet to find old men who will mentor them or offer them thoughtful advice about how to face the future. No need to get your dander up. I'm just looking for a better word than "matches" to describe this site. "Connects" maybe. Chisme (talk) 01:20, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with the word "match". It is neutral. The younger woman/girl was looking for someone; the older man was looking for someone. Regardless of their motives, they were matched. MartinezMD (talk) 12:32, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

I suppose my objection to the word comes from its association with matchmaking. As the Wikipedia article says, "Matchmaking is the process of matching two or more people together, usually for the purpose of marriage..." Marriage wasn't the purpose here, obviously. The Wikipedia article does note that "the word is also used in the context of sporting events such as boxing, in business, in online video games and in pairing organ donors." Perhaps the article should be amended to say it is also used in the context of prostitution. Chisme (talk) 16:05, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't think you'll have to worry with the connotation of the word, given the name of the website. MartinezMD (talk) 20:24, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Alt-right Category

This article has previously been listed in the Category:Alt-right category and that was recently changed to Category:Alt-right activists, but neither of those are accurate. Wilson is not alt-right, unless we start loosely defining "alt-right" to mean "any radical who is not left." Wilson considers himself an anarchist, and there are other documented sources in this article that concur with that description, but that's not the definition of alt-right. Additionally, there are no documented sources indicating he is alt-right, nor actively associates with any known alt-right figures, other than the fact that some of them used his site, Hatreon. But attracting alt-right figures and being one are not the same. For now, I'm going to remove the category since there aren't any sources to indicate that he is alt-right, and sources actually seem to indicate otherwise. If that's not adequate, please indicate supporting reasons for bringing it back. Butlerblog (talk) 14:09, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree on alt-right activists. There's no reliable source suggesting that. The general category alt-right might have come from the Hatreon section. I think there would need to be more sourcing to include that category to this article. MartinezMD (talk) 18:31, 17 December 2020 (UTC)