Talk:Patri Friedman

Notability
The original Patri Friedman page was deleted in July 2006 due to vanity article concerns. This new version is meant to focus primarily on those items which truly are notable and verifiable. When in 2008 "seasteading" went from a goofy libertarian science-fiction-y idea to a goofy libertarian science-fiction-y idea with billionaire funding, Patri became a minor celebrity. Mentioned in Wired, Gizmodo, NPR, named one of the "sexiest geeks alive", etcetera. Real media coverage of Patri and his project is now present, undeniable, and likely to increase. That makes him notable.

In creating this new version of the page, I stripped everything that seemed frothy and irrelevant in the prior one. For example, it didn't seem to me that having recorded a single song on a single to-be-published album really justified adding a "nerdcore artist" category tag. There's lots of room for expansion, but let's try to keep it all as wiki-worthy as possible as we go. --Blogjack (talk) 03:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's a graph of blogs mentioning Patri Friedman; also the basic criterium is: "a person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.". Joepnl (talk) 17:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Personal History
Would a little bit of personal history be appropriate? He's a graduate of Upper Merion Area High School in King of Prussia, PA. Physicsman1965 (talk) 18:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess it would, be bold! Joepnl (talk) 02:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Fine as long as you have a reputable source for that. Skomorokh  07:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I was one of his teachers. It's on his home page: patrifriedman.com/aboutme/academics.html, as well as his LiveJournal: http://patrissimo.livejournal.com/profile.  I could also scan his yearbook photo... or does that violate copyright? Physicsman1965 (talk) 02:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Getting a picture on Wikipedia is almost impossible, but this article deserves one. There's nothing wrong with adding factual info from his own homepage of course. Joepnl (talk) 03:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the guidance. I created the section, and am awaiting a reply on the Media copyright questions page concerning scanned yearbook photos.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Physicsman1965 (talk • contribs) 03:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I uploaded the picture with the rationale that no other publicly available data (other than school records which are privileged under US federal law) show that he went by a hyphenated name in high school. I'm hoping that this is a good enough rationale. Physicsman1965 (talk) 04:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Deleting poker information - the results are not noteworthy, do not relate to anything that would distinguish the results from an average casual poker player, and I have found no precedent for including results like his in a person's wiki page. ~Michael —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.2.28.194 (talk) 18:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * How in the world is 4 cashes in the WSOP not noteworthy, or distinguished from an average casual poker player? Lots of poker players who are known for something else have their poker results included in their Wikipedia pages, for example Ben Affleck and Gabe Kaplan.  68.45.109.136 (talk) 12:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Name
Patri is an odd name. Any info on its origin?Lestrade (talk) 23:49, 2 July 2010 (UTC)Lestrade

External links list is spammy
If these are references, they should be inlined. If they're not, they're just linkspam. Most are also of blog-quality or are tangential, not RSes detailing biographical information on the subject of the BLP - David Gerard (talk) 13:24, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Patri Friedman. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://sexiestgeeksalive.com/patri-friedman-centerfold/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 13:46, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Alleged neoreactionary views section and neoreactionary label
With the controversy over this section and Friedman himself editing out the label in the first sentence of the article, I figured we should have a talk section. I have the same concerns as Blogjack that this section isn't notable or neutral.

Pein's very short take is speculative ("appeared to be an effort to cover toxic ideas") and seems only loosely based on the source material:

- Pein claims "In a Facebook post, he called for 'a more politically correct' neoreactionary movement with room for women and nonwhites"

- In the actual Facebook post, Friedman said, "I'm currently taking notes on 'a more politically correct dark enlighenment'" and "[For neoreactionaries] [t]o blame or exclude [minorities] is stupid, bigoted, and erroneously focuses on the people rather than the system."

And then we are including our own interpretation of Friedman's post, namely changing Friedman's statement that he is happy that Yarvin inspired "an entire school of red pill political philosophy" to him "praising" Yarvin for inspiring "an entire school of red pill political philosophy".

If we keep this section, I propose rewriting it to:

"According to Corey Pein, "Friedman wanted to improve the image of neoreaction by using TV-ready, buzzword-laden euphemisms like 'competitive governance' rather than referring directly to the Moldbuggian ideal of corporate dictatorship. In a Facebook post, he called for 'a more politically correct' neoreactionary movement with room for women and nonwhites, in what appeared to be an effort to cover toxic ideas with the veneer of tolerance and the language of campus liberalism." Pein was referring to Friedman saying, "I'm currently taking notes on 'a more politically correct dark enlighenment'". In the same Facebook post, Friedman said he was happy neoreactionary Curtis Yarvin had inspired "an entire school of red pill political philosophy" and also critiqued neoreactionaries, saying neoreactionaries "[bundle] valuable ideas about state safety and stability with undisguised racism, sexism, and elitism that repulses almost everyone" and "Everyone suffers from bad governance, *especially* minorities, who are fellow victims and potential allies. To blame or exclude them is stupid, bigoted, and erroneously focuses on the people rather than the system."

If we aren't going to add his full view on the matter, I don't think it is actually notable, and should just be removed entirely. (Apologies for not signing. This is LordDiscord (talk).)


 * Friedman says he isn't a neo-reactionary, but it is possible Friedman is wrong? After all, it's hard to see ourselves as others see us. Friedman told Reason magazine, "In a well functioning 'liberal' (enlightenment values, not libertarian) society, as we had in the '80s & '90s, pushing for more freedom makes sense. But when there are paramilitary extremist groups fighting in the streets that lack of basic civil harmony seems like a bigger problem than government spending." Friedman shares with the neo-reactionaries the idea that freedoms can be suspended if social harmony and government fiat is the goal. He shares their fear of social unrest. Chisme (talk) 20:24, 8 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree with you that he might be wrong, which is why I didn't include it as an issue with the section.


 * I disagree with your interpretation of that quote. First, Friedman only says that we shouldn't be pushing for more freedoms, not that we should suspend freedoms. It's possible this is a dog whistle, but I don't think it's our job to make that interpretation. Second, his idea of what "freedom" means might be different than yours. His only example of what freedoms we shouldn't be pushing for is cutting government spending. My understanding is that this is not a part of libertarianism that neo-reactionaries have a problem with.


 * I went to his Twitter to see if he made more comments on the recent protests, and he has several. It's possible I missed a few, but the ones I saw addressing it:
 * - Said that the protests are due to structural pressures and that solutions must restore trust. His only example was tackling police violence.
 * - Said that he has mixed feelings on protesters and police, and expressed concern for people brawling in the streets.
 * - Expressed opposition to qualified immunity.
 * - Shared and quoted from the article "How to Make this Moment the Turning Point for Real Change" by Barack Obama (where Obama calls for things like "independent bod[ies] that conduc[t] investigations of alleged misconduct"), adding only "Obama is a builder at heart".
 * - Said that cops, police departments, and cities should be more civilly or criminally liable for wrongdoings.


 * In totality, he seems to be favorable toward protecting civil liberties even if it causes an increase in government spending (through civil suits and cost of reforms), the opposite of your interpretation.


 * I agree he has shown clear signs of fearing social unrest, but that's not unique to neo-reactionaries.


 * I think the paths from here are: (1) Finding another source explicitly making the claim (2) Reviving the section with edits (such as what I made in my original comment here if others are okay with it) or (3) Keeping the section closed. LordDiscord (talk) 17:12, 10 August 2020 (UTC)


 * It's not up to you or me to decide whether Friedman is a Neo-reactionary. As per Wiki rules, we have to cite reliable sources on this and all other matters. Corey Pein is a reliable source. The quote comes from a book Pein wrote, Live Work Work Die: A Journey into the Savage Heart of Silicon Valley, which was published by Metropolitan Books in 2017. This is by any definition a reliable source. Chisme (talk) 20:16, 17 December 2020 (UTC)


 * This is off-topic. I never claimed it was not a reliable source, nor did the other users taking issue with the section. If the section is revived, I think it should be used as a source. Indeed, in my proposed rewrite, I used it as a source. The only reason the source should probably not be included is that the entire section seems not notable and not neutral (Blogjack shared the same concerns), not that the source is not reliable. I did think that we should include Friedman's actual words on one claim if we decide that the section is notable due to neutrality concerns and due to the primary source already being cited. Most importantly, I thought we needed to remove our own interpretations. Regarding the neoreactionary label, I agree with you, it is not up to us to determine. I was the user taking the position earlier that we should not be making this determination based on an interpretation of a Reason Magazine quote, we needed an explicit claim. Right now our only reliable source is Corey Pein, who did not claim Friedman is a neoreactionary. My positions are that we should not bring back the label without a source that explicitly calls him a neoreactionary and that the section should not be revived without edits. LordDiscord (talk) 07:50, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Neo-reactionary views, part 2
This article, "Special Issue: Post-Neoliberalism? Software, Sovereignty and the Post-Neoliberal Politics of Exit" from Theory, Culture & Society, an academic journal, makes a convincing case for Friedman being a Neo-reactionary. I'm going to include this term in the intro of this article. Chisme (talk) 15:41, 19 October 2022 (UTC)


 * The article never claims he is a neo-reactionary, and it is not our role to judge whether associations/funding/comments make him a neoreactionary. The journal only claims he is associated with the project ("co-founder of The Seasteading Institute, a start-up, again originally funded by Thiel, where many NRx ideas are supposedly prototyped")." Unless if there is a reliable source directly calling him a neoreactionary, please take this to the talk page before adding. LordDiscord (talk) 16:19, 9 January 2023 (UTC)


 * We now have two reliable sources for Friedman being a neo-reactionar, Corey Pein and Smith and Burrows. The sources speak for themselves. I'm restoring this. Chisme (talk) 17:55, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * "where many NRx ideas are supposedly prototyped" is not a claim that he is a neo-reactionary. If you want to include a section that says he supposedly prototypes neoreactionary ideas, this would be a good reliable source. The sources speak for themselves. LordDiscord (talk) 01:12, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Is Friedman a Neo-reactionary (NRx). Listen to the sources speak:


 * From Smith, H. and Burrows, R. (2021) [|Software, sovereignty and the post-neoliberal politics of exit. Theory, Culture and Society], 38 (6). pp. 143-166. ISSN 0263-2764: "As we have already noted, Friedman is another NRx entrepreneur-cum-philosopher backed by Thiel’s dollars, and the co-founder of The Seasteading Institute, an organization supposedly busy designing per-manent (almost Lovecraftian) cities at sea – seasteads – prefigurative gov-corps outside the territory claimed by democratic governments. They are just one example of an NRx envisioning of the emergence of a complex patchwork of small, and competing, gov-corps – autonomous gated communities, city-states, even ‘off-world’ communities (think ElonMusk). (The "Abstract" intro of this paper reads, "This paper examines the impact of neoreactionary (NRx) thinking – that of Curtis Yarvin, Nick Land, Peter Thiel and Patri Friedman in particular – on contemporary political debates manifest in ‘architectures of exit.") Chisme (talk) 19:19, 4 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Regarding the Corey Pein quotes: "Friedman wanted to improve the image of neoreaction", "he called for 'a more politically correct' neoreactionary movement"; Neither of these claim he is a neoreactionary.
 * Regarding the Smith and Burrows quotes: "Friedman is another NRx entrepreneur-cum-philosopher", "This paper examines the impact of neoreactionary (NRx) thinking"; Only the first one implies it. The second claims he has some neoreactionary thinking, not that he is a neoreactionary.
 * From Wikipedia: "If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out", "Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care". I don't think one source that implies he is and one source that just says he wanted to "improve the image of neoreaction" are nearly enough to add this label. Compare that to the label "libertarian", which a quick search shows at least a dozen results clearly calling him a libertarian. Same for anarcho-capitalist.
 * Also, Wikipedia does say to take the subject's statement into account. If there were multiple sources, I would say to add it despite this, but there is only one source. I would be good with including this if we included "alleged" and that Friedman denies it, as per their example (because there are multiple sources talking about the connection):
 * Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. It is denied, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. It should state only that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that the affair actually occurred.
 * LordDiscord (talk) 15:50, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * LordDiscord (talk) 15:50, 15 December 2023 (UTC)


 * From Pein, Corey (2017) Live Work Work Die: A Journey into the Savage Heart of Silicon Valley. (Page 221): "Friedman wanted to improve the image of neoreaction by using TV-ready, buzzword-laden euphemisms like 'competitive governance' rather than referring directly to the Moldbuggian ideal of corporate dictatorship. In a Facebook post, he called for 'a more politically correct' neoreactionary movement with room for women and nonwhites, in what appeared to be an effort to cover toxic ideas with the veneer of tolerance and the language of campus liberalism." In 2014, Friedman praised neoreactionary Curtis Yarvin for inspiring "an entire school of red pill political philosophy."


 * Your campaign to disassociate Friedman from the neo-reactionaries is unrelenting, I see. All I'm asking is for you to read objectively what others have written about him in regard to neoreaction. The signs are all there. And let's remember he is funded by Theil, who bankrolls the neo-reactionary movement. How much evidence do you need before you the the misty curtains part and you can see the obvious? I guess the question we need to ask is, "Does Friedman himself realize his is a neo-reactionary?" Probably not, but that doesn't mean he isn't one. Chisme (talk) 21:15, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not a campaign and my position is not to disassociate him entirely, I simply disagree that the sourcing is reliable enough to add a contentious label to the top of the article. I would not object to reviving a neoreactionary section, since the one source does clearly imply it, and there are at least four reliable sources discussing him in relation to neoreactionaries.
 * As for evidence, we were discussing that a long while ago; I agree with the comment you made at the time that it's not up for us to decide. Thiel has bankrolled a lot of neo-reactionaries, but he has also donated funds to a lot of people who I don't think are neo-reactionaries: Mitt Romney, Ted Cruz, Chris Christie, Justin Amash, Paul Ryan, etc. Him donating funds to Friedman is not good evidence. LordDiscord (talk) 22:25, 15 December 2023 (UTC)