Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:15, 25 August 2013

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Objectivism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Objectivism. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Objectivism at the Reference desk.

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting.

	Objectivism was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result December 3, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed

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

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Atheism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Atheism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of atheism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AtheismWikipedia:WikiProject AtheismTemplate:WikiProject AtheismAtheism Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. For more information and how you can help, click the link opposite: If you would like to participate, you can edit this article and visit the project page. Quick help Project's main talk page Article layout Links to atheism-related information · List of free online resources Writing about religion · Article development Citing sources · Verifying sources · About original research Assume good faith · Be civil Recent activity Core articles the "Atheism" article Articles recently added to Category:Atheism To do edit history watch purge Join WikiProject atheism and be bold. Add a userbox to your page ({{User WikiProject Atheism}} or {{User WPA2}}) and attract potential members. Help with articles. See this month's adopt-an-article. Help out with this to-do list. Be consistent Use a "standard" layout for atheism-related articles (see layout style, "The perfect article" and Featured articles). Add Atheism info box to all atheism related talk pages (use {{WikiProject Atheism}} or see info box) Ensure atheism-related articles are members of Atheism by checking whether ] has been added to atheism-related articles – and, where it hasn't, adding it. Maintenance, etc. Find sources for all positions of an article (see Citing sources and atheism references). Try to expand stubs. Ideas and theories about life, however, are prone to generating neologisms, so some stubs may be suitable for deletion (see deletion process). Watch the list of atheism-related articles and add to accordingly. Always write for an encyclopedia. Articles to improve Agnosticism Create Articles on notable atheists Expand an atheism stub Immediate attention State atheism needs a reassessment of its Importance level, as it has little to do with atheism and is instead an article about anti-theist/anti-religious actions of governments. False choice into False dilemma: discuss whether you are for or against this merge here Clarify references in Atheism using footnotes. Secular movement defines it as a being restricted to America in the 21st century. Template:WikiProject Libertarianism Objectivism (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Objectivism, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.ObjectivismWikipedia:WikiProject ObjectivismTemplate:WikiProject ObjectivismObjectivism Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Philosophy: Aesthetics / Metaphysics / Epistemology / Social and political Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Aesthetics Metaphysics Epistemology Social and political philosophy Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Skepticism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Template:WP1.0

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Objectivism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15Auto-archiving period: 3 months

Article Cross Talk

Use of cross-talk page

There doesn't seem to be much use of the Objectivism cross-talk page lately. I'm the only one who has used it since February. Is it still relevant? --RL0919 (talk) 20:41, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps not. Although I love it, I have to say it now seems like an esoteric feature. Karbinski (talk) 14:25, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

No criticism section?

How can this be? An article without a section devoted to criticism, despite the fact that criticisms of Rand's Objectivism are in no way scarce? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CapitalistOverlord (talk • contribs) 08:17, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Did you mean for this to be a reply to the RFC above? Because that is precisely what is being discussed up there. Crazynas 08:35, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I doubt it. I've seen more than one talk page where someone complained that X should be in the article, when in fact X was in the article and they just didn't see it. But you could take this as an implicit argument favoring a separate criticism section, because there is a subset of readers who won't find the criticisms if there isn't a boldface header called "Criticisms". For whatever that's worth. --RL0919 (talk) 22:53, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree with Capitalist Overlord. I don't think it would be at all unreasonable to have a section devoted to criticism. I recognize that various critics of the Objectivism might be mentioned in the article. But these criticisms ought to have their own section, just as numerous other philosophies and religions have sections devoted to elaborating on their critics. Articles that do not have a charitable section devoted to criticism run the high risk of turning into POV articles. Mountainman420 (talk) 10:13, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I also support having a Criticisms section. It appear to me that there is sufficient support for us to go ahead and make one.

Yes, it's true that we're supposed to avoid having Criticisms sections, but it's my understanding that once a topic has enough criticism, then it warrants the section (and also having a 'Criticisms of' article is to be avoided, unless there is much more criticism). It's my understanding that the guidelines for drawing the lines here is pretty vague, but having a Criticisms section for Objectivism would be consistent with the vast majority of other topics with a similar amount of existing notable criticisms.

I wish CapitalistOverlord put his/her comments in the previous section, but anywho, here's how the debate appears to stand now:

Support

Adjwilley , 1Z , Byelf2007 (recent) , Karbinski , 71.94.185.174 , CapitalistOverlord , Mountainman420 (recent)

Oppose

Noleander , BigK HeX , Crazynas , Brian0918 , DAGwyn , Adam9389 (recent)

Byelf2007 (talk) 3 May 2012

Sections

I think it is pretty obvious that the long sub-sections describing aspects of Rand's philosophy should have a beginning paragraph that endeavors to give an overview of the lengthy material that follows. Obviously this page is heavily edited by fans of Rand and seems to have a tendency to dive into the proselytizing, but I still don't think this Wiki article should drop this writing convention. Is there anyone who disagrees that the subsections, such as those on Ethics or Politics, should open with an overview paragraph? BigK HeX (talk) 02:37, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. Byelf2007 (talk) 3 November 2011

Criticism in the lede.

Editor Byelf2007 moved a large section of the article into the lede. The lede is supposed to summarize the content, not be the content. In addition, this editor also wishes to add criticism into the lede (and has been reverted at least twice). The argument for having criticism in the lede was that it was "commonplace". I reverted pointing out that criticism is not present in the articles on Communism, Existentialism, Capitalism, Libertarianism, Marxism, Anarchism, etc. Other articles simply provide a summary of the philosophy and leaves criticsm to the body. Finally, the current lede is preposterously and weirdly POV and needs changing in some way. I considered reverting the edit, but do not wish to engage in an edit war. Opinions? BashBrannigan (talk) 02:08, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Changing it to "reception". Byelf2007 (talk) 21 February 2012

The last paragraph in the lede should just be deleted. Its a full philosophy as verifiable by reliable sources. What secondary sources do we have that discuss its mainstream standing? I know of none, so I take the view that the fact that Objectivism's historical lack of mainstream attention given its absolute rejection of the maintream is not notable enough for the lead. If I'm wrong lets just stick to what the secondary sources have to say instead of labouring to make the point. --Karbinski (talk) 20:18, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

actually what was it 3 years ago, there were citations in the leads questioning it's status as philosophy. however, npov was ignored, and the material was removed by mass consensus. the article really should strive for npov, now it is just a one sided b.s. session.--Buridan (talk) 13:07, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The lede has, for most of the time, correctly identified Objectivism as a specific philosophy, just as the Ayn Rand article has identified Ayn Rand as in part a philosopher, except for brief moments when opponents of this philosophy have tried to mischaracterize the subjects, only until editorial consensus restored the text. The article presents a fairly neutral exposition of the designated subject, which is certainly a systematic and extensive philosophy (according to the normal meanings of these terms), as well as an influential one in the real world. To ensure NPOV, in additional to striving for a straightforward description of the subject, relevant criticism has been included, without disrupting the descriptive flow. The article is organized like that in order to paint a clear, but brief, picture of what the philosophical ideas actually are. It is "one sided" only to the extent that it concentrates on the intended subject, just as the article on diesel engines concentrates on describing the characteristics of its subject and doesn't consume much space in discussing alternatives. "NPOV" does not mean attempting to tell readers what you think they should think about the subect, nor to muddy the description so that they have trouble grasping the essence of the ideas. So long as readers get a sufficiently clear picture of the subject itself, they can evaluate it for themselves, perhaps with the aid of further research. Evidently, Buridan's evaluation is that it is all "b.s.," but that is his own POV, not an objective fact.

That said, there is no doubt that Objectivism is highly controversial, because it disputes several widely held beliefs. That property is significant enough that it deserves brief mention up front, which also prepares the ground for inclusion of criticisms in the expository text. So I have added just that minimum characteristic to the lead sentence. — DAGwyn (talk) 02:37, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, Byelf2007 just undid my attempt to estabish the controversiality property in the lead sentence, on the grounds that it was not NPOV. Actually it is purely descriptive of an easily demonstrated attribute, not expressing any POV, and indeed was trying to help justify inclusion of the amount of criticism that the article already contains, which doesn't really convey the magnitude of opposition of the intellectual mainstream to Objectivist ideas. The article must not turn into a debate instead of a description, but to the extent that it contains possibly edifying criticisms, there should be some basis for their inclusion. (Some of the existing criticism isn't particularly edifying, but was included as a compromise among warring factions.) — DAGwyn (talk) 02:57, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree we should mention it's controversial in lede. It's a problem if we put in the word "controversial" before explaining *what* it is. However, we could just add a short blurb at the end of "this has always been controversial". Another option is just to put the old paragraph or similar back it. It's not "criticism in lede" to mention the criticisms and very very briefly summarize them, and doing thusly is quite common on this site at present. Byelf2007 (talk) 05 May 2012

quote: "I agree we should mention it's controversial in lede." As do many. But...
...But Wiki policy suggests more than just a mention. All of the the most important points—including any prominent controversies should be summarized. Given that there are so many controversies, they should at least be suggested, —perhaps just summarize a few, then explain that there are too many to list? See: Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (lead section): "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies. "
--68.127.82.20 (talk) 22:38, 24 June 2013 (UTC)Doug Bashford

Criticism section - Yes or no?

A couple of users have recently stated that they support a Criticisms section, which once again makes ascertaining which position has majority support among users currently interested in the issue difficult. I support having the section on the grounds that (a) there is enough criticism in the article already to warrant one and (b) that there is a lot more criticism that will eventually be integrated into the article (I'm going to be looking into that soon). I'd like to hear what other users have to say about this. Byelf2007 (talk) 05 May 2012

This appears to be part of a POV agenda to change the article from a description into a debate. See my comments above (added just after this section was created) for a discussion of why the organization is better as we have had it for a long time now. Note also that there is not a consensus for such a change. — DAGwyn (talk) 02:41, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm okay with the way it is, and, yes, we would have to have consensus for the change. However, I still very much like the idea of having a criticisms section because it would allow the reader to see all the criticisms in one place, which would be convenient for them if that's all they're interesting in checking out when they go to the article.

What if we add a criticism section without making any other changes--the criticisms would therefore be in the article in various spots in the relevant sections and also in a section with just the criticisms. This would keep the article's current approach to criticism while also having them all in one section. I think this would be good because it would allow the reader to read all the criticisms in one place. At present, if the reader just wanted to read criticisms, they'd have to go through the article. Is this an acceptable compromise? Byelf2007 (talk) 05 May 2012

I don't care if there is a Criticism section or if the criticisms are incorporated into other sections. But if you are suggesting the article should do both, and would therefore have a significant amount of redundant material, then I would oppose that. One or the other, please. --RL0919 (talk) 03:19, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

That's a good point. However, I still think it's problematic for the reader to not have criticisms have a heading. How about this: We put a "Criticisms" subsection for "Epistemology" "Ethics" and "Politics". That way, the criticisms are in the relevant sections, there's no redundancy, and it's clear for the reader where the criticisms are. Quite frankly, I'd be surprised if anyone has a problem with this, so I'm going to go ahead and be bold and put it in. Anyone who objects can go ahead and revert it (as well as explaining their reasons for doing so on talk). Byelf2007 (talk) 06 May 2012

The criticism portion currently does fine. Just taking a look at existentialism, positivism, empiricism, and a few others, I saw no sections devoted specifically to a illustrating the criticisms of that body of thought. While I do not agree with Objectivism, it would appear that the insistence on a criticism section larger than what is currently available is unnecessary. Also, judging that the current section poses specific issues had with the theory with a link to begin one's search, a larger section is unneeded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eddiecoyote (talk • contribs) 06:07, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

A Philosophy, or a Personality Cult?

Most real philosophies have differing if not feuding "branches." But seemingly because Rand's fans hold her words as the last word in Objectivism akin to religious scripture, there seems to be no such analogy in Objectivism. While Rand's words obviously have prime historical value, time and time again in this article, (and in the Talk section,) her words are seen as the ultimate unquestioned authority, even for modern issues, preventing evolution to drastically changing times (such as the dying or dead American frontier-economy).

But the term "Objectivism" was selected, rather than say; "Randism," and it's claim to being a philosophy (rather than say, a Randish cult or fan club) suggests that such absolutism and absolute conceptual authority should not be the case. Thus, everybody here has heard terms like "Randroid," etc. This seeming contradiction (and/or Rand's abnormal authority) should be more clearly enunciated and then explained.
--68.127.82.20 (talk) 23:35, 24 June 2013 (UTC)Doug Bashford

Amateur

There's already been discussion on the Ayn Rand talk page about this. We have many sources calling her philosophy "popular", and an extremely high-quality one that narrows it down further to one of the three kinds of popular philosophy: amateur.

I don't wanna repeat myself, so if you got something to say, say it there, not here. MilesMoney (talk) 03:09, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, there's a discussion on the Ayn Rand page, but it's clearly not finished. You should not forcing "amateur" into this page until it's concluded. The page should be left as it has been for a long time, but you are also clearly willing to edit war and not respect other editors by waiting . BashBrannigan (talk) 03:15, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

The characterization of "amateur" is an opinion-type description. The term can be used lower down in the text, supported by the RS, and properly described as a "in the opinion of....." type statement. But, in accordance with WP:UNDUE, it is clearly inappropriate in the lede. – S. Rich (talk) 05:24, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Srich, you need to read the source. It's not an opinion or an insult. MilesMoney (talk) 05:30, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

The discussion at Talk:Ayn Rand#Again, not a philosopher is relevant and I do encourage other editors to participate there. However, Objectivism is not the same thing as Ayn Rand. Even if the article about Rand ended up describing her as an "amateur", the philosophy she started has since been pursued by others who are undoubtedly professionals. Some are mentioned in this article; for example, Tara Smith and Allan Gotthelf. So applying the term in this article would require support beyond what it would take to apply it to Rand personally. --RL0919 (talk) 16:12, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Just to remind you of a point you once raised, the high-quality source specifically referred to her philosophy as amateur, indirectly referring to her as amateur. You're doing that original research thing again, where you misinterpret sources, and I won't put up with it. MilesMoney (talk) 17:04, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Just because you throw around WP terms like "original research" doesn't mean you are using them correctly. Do you wish to deny that professional academics have promoted Objectivism after Rand's death? There are sources to show that. Huffing and puffing about what you will "put up with" doesn't change that. It also doesn't make one source that you happen to like the sole definitive source for describing the subject. --RL0919 (talk) 18:14, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

• Former good article nominees
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Atheism articles
• Mid-importance Atheism articles
• B-Class Philosophy articles
• Mid-importance Philosophy articles
• B-Class Aesthetics articles
• Mid-importance Aesthetics articles
• Aesthetics task force articles
• B-Class metaphysics articles
• Mid-importance metaphysics articles
• Metaphysics task force articles
• B-Class epistemology articles
• Mid-importance epistemology articles
• Epistemology task force articles
• B-Class social and political philosophy articles
• Mid-importance social and political philosophy articles
• Social and political philosophy task force articles
• B-Class politics articles
• Mid-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• B-Class Skepticism articles
• Mid-importance Skepticism articles
• WikiProject Skepticism articles