Talk:Objectivism/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14

Ayn Rand Answers by Robert Mayhew

Ayn Rand Answers is a collection of statements made by Rand in response to questions, compiled by Robert Mayhew. It is not a book that Rand herself planned or designed. Mayhew states in the introduction that, "I believe I have done a good job in editing this material. Nevertheless, no one can guarantee that Ayn Rand would have approved of editing she herself did not see. For this reason, however fascinating and useful, these Q&A should not be considered part of Objectivism." Using Ayn Rand Answers as a source for Objectivism's view of primitivism is presenting material that is not part of Objectivism as part of Objectivism. I believe that this is wrong, and that this source should be removed. UserVOBO (talk) 23:15, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

UserVobo, the product page at the Ayn Rand Institute states that the book:

"encompasses Q&As from lectures and several media interviews, spanning the years 1958 to 1981"

while noting that:

"Ayn Rand’s responses flowed from her philosophic framework, Objectivism, and her personal values. By reading this book one can gain not only new insights, but also a fuller appreciation of her thought and a sense of what she was like as a person."

There is also the caveat that I believe you are referring to where they state:

"Note that she considered her extemporaneous answers as, at their best, almost publishable or perhaps first drafts, invariably requiring editing. She did not see this edited compilation of her answers and its content, therefore, should not be considered part of her stated philosophy."

Their and your argument seems to be that since she did not have final say over the editing process, that her verbatim transcripts from speeches can not be deduced to make note on her opinions. In essence, you would be setting the precedent that no public individual could have their public words utilized unless they got the final say to edit their content after the fact of saying them (which would obviously be absurd). Moreover, the ref here is only being used to identify and corroborate the full quote, as Burn's biography already sets forth the statement that Rand believed Native Americans because of their "savagery" forfeited their property rights. I am not sure how deduce that utilizing Ayn Rand Answers as additional verification of her making such a statement makes that section WP:POV and thus worthy of a tag?   Redthoreau -- (talk) 23:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
This sort of dispute is one of the reasons I was so emphatic about the need for secondary sources. If there were third parties quoting this material and commenting on its relationship to Objectivism, then there would be no reason to question its relevance. In the absence of such sources, we get editors wrangling over the interpretation of primary sources. --RL0919 (talk) 01:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
RL0919, Jennifer Burn's in her biography Goddess of the Market already provides the analysis for the line in question and is ref'd. The Ayn Rand Answers book is merely being used as a corroborating source for the full quote in case someone is interested in the "full context" which Burn's used to make her statement. If editors here would rather provide less information and referencing to potential readers, then I guess I will have to acquiesce to removing the Answers text.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 02:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm fine with keeping the answers text in. Ink Falls 04:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Redthoreau's argument is irrelevant, since the subject of this article is Objectivism, Ayn Rand's philosophy, not her opinions on any and every subject. Both Rand and subsequent Objectivists have made it clear that she had many opinions that she did not consider to be part of her philosophy; this would be known to anyone reasonably familiar with Objectivism, though I can find the sources if required. UserVOBO (talk) 05:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Sources are critical, as I have been pounding on through this entire discussion. Since Redthoreau has cited Burns, here is the relevant passage from the page of Goddess of the Market cited in the article (adding a bit from the previous page for context):

Prompted by her fans, Rand offered a number of controversial stances [during Q&A sessions] that particularly outraged libertarians. ... In other appearances she attacked Native Americans as savages, arguing that European colonists had a right to seize their land because native tribes did not recognize individual rights. She extended this reasoning to the Israel-Palestine conflict, arguing that Palestinians had no rights and that it was moral to support Israel, the sole outpost of civilization in a region ruled by barbarism.

Note that Objectivism per se is not mentioned, nor is the term 'primitivism' used. Rather, Burns couches these comments as part of Rand's disagreements with libertarianism. So once again we have a secondary source that doesn't support the perspective portrayed in the article (that Rand's comments are related to the Objectivist rejection of primitivism). However, one important thing this passage does do is that it directly comments on and relates to one other Rand's separate comments about Indians and Israel, something that I have not seen from any other source. Based on this, I'm leaning towards the idea posed in a somewhat related discussion on Talk:Ayn Rand, that this sort of material belongs in a section on Rand's social-political commentary, not necessarily in the Objectivism article. Or given Burns' perspective, maybe something about it belongs in Libertarianism and Objectivism. Since multiple articles are involved, I also wonder if a discussion should be opened on Wikipedia:WikiProject Objectivism/Cross talk so it can be seen on all the relevant talk pages. --RL0919 (talk) 14:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
RL, I believe that your proposals could have merit. However, Karbinski has unfortunately decided to simply delete the material. Your good faith attempt at collaboration is appreciated though.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 02:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
I am sympathetic to the above and its clearly an issue with some strands of Libertarian thought. I also think its highly relevant to understanding the implications of her claims on ethics and her own attitudes. In so far as Objectivism is Rand's creation some reference belongs here (and possibly on her article as well). --Snowded TALK 05:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps a future "Implications of Objectivism" article will reveal notable and salient points on how any of this relates to Objectivist Ethics. Relationships that as of now, are yet to be revealed. --Karbinski (talk) 18:40, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Some minor changes

I'm reading through this article for the first time, and making a few minor changes for grammar's sake. I'll summarize my changes here:

  • Removed "this primacy of", as the subject of the sentence was not the ideology Rand labeled "primacy of consciousness" - the subject was simply consciousness itself.
  • Clarified clunky wording, changing "consciousness that is conscious of nothing outside itself" to "consciousness conscious only of itself", as that is more straightforward. Agree/disagree?
  • Switched "Knowledge is Identification" to "Consciousness is Identification", and provided a source (Galt's speech, and For the New Intellectual). I have never seen the former quote in Rand's writing, but the latter is ubiquitous, as in the complete quote, "Existence is identity. Consciousness is identification."
  • Changed "specific, limited identity" to "specific, finite identity" to avoid equivocation over meaning of "limited".

That's it for now. I'll add more explanation here if I find any more minor changes to make. — BRIAN0918 • 2010-02-13 22:20Z

Changes made by MechHead:

Move "1.6 Denial of indigenous land rights" to section 2.0

Resolved

Section 1.6 "Denial of indigenous land rights" seems like it is in the wrong place.

The philosophical position is undoubtedly interesting and relevant, but it doesn't seem like a core part of the philosophy and lacks the same type of categorical heading as those above (Metaphysics, Epistemology, Ethics, Politics, Aesthetics).

Without adjusting the rest of the Article too much, this section might fit under 2.0 "View of other philosophies" since much of the content isn't really about Objectivism per se, but about how Ayn Rand rejects indigenous land-claims as "primitivism, mysticism, and collectivism" - ie: the "land rights" section is an objectivist criticism of other points-of-view/philosophies.

Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Akiracee (talk • contribs) 20:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

It was completely ridiculous to make an entire subsection about that one issue, which Rand never even wrote about. The focus of the subsection was a quote from her answer to a question after a speech. I trimmed the overlong quote and moved the whole thing into the politics subsection. --RL0919 (talk) 22:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Looks good. Thanks Akiracee (talk) 23:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Sub-section as "View of other philosophies"

I added a smaller sub-section title, as I believe there is enough material to merit Objectivism's stance on the issue - which I renamed "rejection of indigenous primitivism". Afterall, there is an entire compilation of essays by Rand (i.e. Return of the Primitive) on the matter.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 03:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

First, the book Return of the Primitive is not a compilation of essays about "indigenous primitivism". The original title of the book was The New Left, and its essays are almost exclusively about modern issues: progressive education, Woodstock, etc. That's why the only words from Rand you can find to quote on this are from a Q&A session, not any of her published essays. Second, the weight given to material in an article is supposed to be based on the weight it is given in reliable secondary sources. This subtopic gets very little attention in such sources; certainly not so much that it should be given as much weight in the article as subjects that have been written about much more extensively. --RL0919 (talk) 15:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
RL0919, the early comments in this thread refer to the fact that the section was misplaced as part of the "Philosophy", a point I agreed with, which is why I moved it. However, the "rejection of primitivism" clearly warrants a sub-section in Objectivism's "views of other philosophies." I am not sure how much more material you would need to agree (as I have further expanded the section with additional refs) but there is a great dearth of material by Rand or Objectivists in relation to what they deem "primitivism" and their unequivocal philosophical rejection to it. As for the book (which I have read) I am aware that Rand primarily addresses aspects of the "New Left", however ---> Peter Schwartz as an accompanying author for the book under Rand's name adds several additional essays ("The Philosophy of Privation" - "Multicultural Nihilism" - & "Gender Tribalism") that deal with the aforementioned issues. Moreover, it seems that you are setting up a paradox where if I continue to expand the section you could claim Wp:Undue for the amount of space given, however if I don't - then you can claim that the issue gets "very little attention" in secondary sources.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 23:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
The solution to this supposed paradox is very simple: find secondary sources that discuss Objectivists' rejection of primitivism (clearly not limited to "indigenous" primitivism if you are going to include material on the rejection of modern ideologies like environmentalism, feminism and multiculturalism), and use them to summarize the topic. Most of what you have added thus far is primary source quotes from Rand and various ARI editorials, which add volume but do not show secondary coverage of Objectivist views on this. In short, what the material needs is improvement, not expansion. --RL0919 (talk) 00:22, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
As a philosophy, Objectivism has wide-reaching implications. There is no paradox here, we can rustle up sources on a very wide array of topics. The reason anyone is pushing for expansion of this specific, beyond just stating the Objectivist position - as NPOV demands of the article - is just POV pushing. See the section below for those specifics that could use expansion (to name them: reason, egoism, and captialism). --Karbinski (talk) 22:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Primitivism isn't a philosophy so much as a cultural pattern. I was present at Rand's Q&A sessions where this came up. Her opinion was certainly not "racist" since it was not a prejudgement of any individual on the basis of inessential characteristics, but applied to the essential characteristcs of a whole culture; judging by other conversations, she would have agreed that there could be exceptional, worthy individuals within those cultures (who would have a hard time). It is easy to understand Rand's condemnation of primitive cultures when you consider how much she valued rational thought, productive work, etc. (essentially Renaissance values). — DAGwyn (talk) 21:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Category:Objectivists problem

Since when are all people who follow Ayn Rand's philosophy "atheists"? Rand may have been one herself, but atheism isn't an essential tenant of her philosophy as far as I know. Many conservatives who claim to be Christian admire her philosophies, right? I think calling Objectivism "a type of atheism" is misleading. Recently I saw a blog article on another site that claimed Alan Greenspan is an atheist because he follows Ayn Rand's teachings. I'm not sure if they got this from the Wiki article or not.--206.255.18.74 (talk) 16:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Theism and Objectivism cannot coexist. Objectivism puts belief in God in the category of the arbitrary. That is, an assertion without proof. A direct reference I can find is from Galt's speech, "God is that which no human mind can know, they say–and proceed to demand that you consider it knowledge–God is non-man, heaven is non-earth, soul is non–body, virtue is non-profit, A is non-A, perception is non-sensory, knowledge is non-reason." BashBrannigan (talk) 19:29, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Certainly, Objectivism rejects all kinds of mystical, faith-based "knowledge," and thus it clashes with all forms of religion. Some small fraction of the people who purport to be mostly Objectivist do manage to maintain some semblance of their pre-existing religious belief also. According to Rand and N. Branden, the resulting contradiction impairs their psycho-epistemological processes.
Since theism is entirely absent from the philosophy of Objectivism, it is technically correct to characterize Objectivism as "a type of atheism;" however, that aspect doesn't merit emphasis since it is merely a consequence of the philosophy, not a guiding principle of it. — DAGwyn (talk) 21:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Ayn had little to say about faith or God compared to how much she spoke of other subjects. However, Objectivism does not pre-clude reverence, worship or religion. "You're a profoundly religious man, in your own way. I can see that in your buildings.", said Hopton Stoddard. "That's true.", said Howard Roark - who was the hero of the Objectivist novel "The Fountainhead". Alexandria177 (talk) 18:35, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Change made under "Intellectual Impact"

The quote from the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy (under Intellectual_impact) is taken out of context and seems bias as a result. The paragraph the quote comes from reads

"The popular success of her fiction brought discipleship and the 1960s and 1970s saw the growth of an 'objectivist' movement. The influence of Rand's ideas was strongest among college students in the USA but attracted little attention from academic philosophers. Her outspoken defence of capitalism in works like Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal (1967), and her characterization of her position as a defence of the 'virtue of selfishness' in her novel of the same title (published in 1974), also brought notoriety, but kept her out of the intellectual mainstream."

To me, choosing that one sentence amounts to nothing more than cherry-picking. Why should it be shown any prominence when it is no more important than the other sentences surrounding it?

The best options are: include the sentence that immediately follows the quoted sentence (to provide context), or remove the quote altogether. I've chosen the former. --MechHead (talk) 17:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Image of the Rockefeller Atlas Statue

As I understand it, this statue (being constructed in 1937, the time Rand was publishing her first works and long before Objectivism had even been conceived) has nothing to do with Objectivism, besides the image of Atlas and its symbolism.

Having the picture as the lead image of the article creates a false association of the Rockefeller Center with Objectivism. I will therefore replace this image with one genuinely associated with the movement unless anyone has a good reason why I shouldn't.

RN - 14 October 2010

The image is on a template that appears in several articles about Objectivism, not just this one. I would recommend you discuss any changes at Wikipedia:WikiProject Objectivism/Cross talk. In particular, I think people would be interested in knowing what alternative image you had in mind. --RL0919 (talk) 22:25, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what the original poster had in mind, but certainly a gold dollar sign with two bars is a well known symbol of Objectivism and is mentioned at the end of Atlas Shrugged. That Ms Rand wore such a brooch is I think well known. Certainly when I wear such a pin, those in the know realize I am an Objectivist immediately. 86.15.46.53 (talk) 20:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

NPOV and Rand's foundation in Ethics

The presentation of the philosophy is straight forward in the article and is NPOV. However, there is an editor who insists that, contra a highlighted point in the WP:NPOV policy ("Avoid stating opinions as facts"), the ethics section be structured as: Rand's foundation for ethics is X, but authorities say its no good. Whereas stating that Rand's foundation for ethics is X is NPOV, having a clause about some authority or authorities saying its no good is EXACTLY HALF of a back-and-forth between proponents and opponents; it constitutes a POV push.
1. The opinions of scholars a,b, & c should not be construed to settle as a matter of fact that Rand's foundation for ethics is true and indisputably the only proper foundation for ethics (or vice-versa).
2. The structure of the ethics section should not be corrupted by adding one half of a back-and-forth between proponents and opponents (Reference to WP:Structure is not what is needed, deference to WP:Structure is what is needed).

It is a combination of both 1 & 2. If it was written neutrally as the content is presented in the criticism section and not so immediate in the ethics section as to preempt fleshing out of the argument being reported - then it wouldn't be such a blatant POV push. The article without this bit added into the ethics section already satisfies such criteria as per NPOV. Karbinski (talk) 13:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Its not just any authority making the statement as you well know and is referenced and valid material. This particular text was agreed sometime ago as part of balancing here "contribution" to Philosophy. I see no reason for its removal. --Snowded TALK 13:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


If that section is going to present Rand's assertions on contentious philosophical matters, then it should not leave an impression that Rand's viewpoint is the only authroity worth mentioning, and should have balancing perspectives (especially since Rand's assertions are largely dismissed by academia and, thus, are a minority viewpoint); this is demanded by the neutrality policy. In accordance with WP:STRUCTURE, I have added and reiterate my support for such balance.
Specifically, the material reads, "According to Rand, ...'the fact that a living entity is, determines what it ought to do'". Why would any encyclopedia leave an impression that Rand's view on this crucial assertion is the only one worth discussing? I find that structure misleading and non-NPOV. Why you endeavor to remove validly-sourced alternative viewpoints is a bit confusing to me. BigK HeX (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
For an example of how things are done well (neutral in prose and in structure) see the Ethics section in the Stanford Encyclopedia [1]. --Karbinski (talk) 14:04, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
@Snowded: Not just an authority, Nozick is something else? The material referenced is reported validly in the criticism section (Its clear that cutting this won't exclude ANY verifiable content). Here in the ethics section, in contrast to the original stable version and the Stanford entry, its POV pushing. --Karbinski (talk) 14:04, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
@BigK HeX: It doesn't present Rand's asserstions as athorative. As in the entire article, everything is qualified as what she said/wrote (her/Objectivism's view), so as to report just that. The only content that tries to present opinion as fact is this reiteration of what is presented neutrally in the Criticism section. If any of Rand's views are reported in such a way as to suggest it is something much more than simply the content of her philosophy (in the philosophy sections), then the answer is to qualify it correctly, and NOT start a back-and-forth as per policy. Please note that the article exists for no reason other than to report Rand's view on ethics and other topics covered in her philosophy - You'll find that the article that covers this crucial issue doesn't even mention her. --Karbinski (talk) 14:03, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, the statements are qualified, but an impression of authority is created as the writing does not give the context described by WP:NPOV where, "in articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, views may receive more attention and space. However, such pages...must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view".
I would agree that the style persists throughout the entire article. In my view, this creates numerous POV issues of varying degree, but I found the discussion of the is-ought gap to be egregious enough to go ahead and address. BigK HeX (talk) 14:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Concur, and please stop edit warring Karbinski, I know its an old habit but best to break it now --Snowded TALK 14:37, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
"in articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, views may receive more attention and space. However, such pages...must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view". This is not an article concerning a viewpoint about what Objectivism is. It is an article on what Objectivism is. There is a difference. The article does not exist to contrast Rand with Plato, or to defeat Hume - its to report to the readers what Rand's philosophy is, as an encyclopedic summary. The article is not a work of scholary, saying Rand was right here and wrong there, or either extreme. The majority view of what Rand's philosophy is is exaclty what this article reports. Therefore: "Capitalism is true" / "Capitalism is false" are out and "Objectivism holds that Capitalism is true" is in! --Karbinski (talk) 14:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
If you think articles on topics that have well-sourced critiques should not include those critiques where relevant, then I suggest you take that up with the WP:UNDUE policy page. Until such time that the policy is overturned, article sections that only cover "what Objectivism is" are a violation of policy by excluding significant viewpoints. BigK HeX (talk) 15:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
A simple comparison of how the argument is fleshed out in the Stanford entry and how this edit desired by both Snowded and BigK HeX is thrust into the early prose - written with the bias that Rand is to be dismissed on this topic - shows the differece between neutral and POV push. --Karbinski (talk) 14:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
The edit you keep deleting merely notes the significant viewpoints at the relevant point in the text, as demanded by NPOV policy. I've not seen that you have a policy to support your edit and your persistence does not seem warranted. BigK HeX (talk) 15:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
No, the original content merely denotes the significant viewpoint in an appropriate place in the article structure-wise. The edit you kept insisting upon is merely a POV push. --Karbinski (talk) 13:21, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Pretty odd comment, seeing as the most recent edit that I find to be less problematic than older versions is YOUR edit. BigK HeX (talk) 17:03, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Criticism Section

I note that the IP has gutted the criticism section here. Personally I believe it should be restored to the way it was. Thoughts? TallNapoleon (talk) 21:03, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I think you are misreading the edit history if you think IP 160 did this. BigK HeX‎ (talk · contribs) moved several criticisms out of the "Criticism" section into topical sections (e.g., criticism of Objectivist ethics into the ethics section). There were some objections to this approach (including, implicitly based on edits, from IP 160) and there is some discussion of it above. The result of the discussion seemed to settle into having most of the criticisms incorporated into other sections. A few were left behind in a rump criticism section labeled "Broad criticisms". Since most of the criticisms left there were not really "broad", I moved them into the appropriate topic areas. The bits remaining that didn't fit into the existing topical areas happened to be criticisms of Objectivism's psychological impact, so I retitled the section accordingly. So the upshot is that the section was indeed "gutted", but the material was mostly just moved, not removed. --RL0919 (talk) 23:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Moves were generally OK, but any removal of material or dumbing down should be discussed here. --Snowded TALK 14:38, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Follies of youth

I think it is about time for talk page discussion about the inclusion of the comment about Objectivism appealing to "those in a post-adolescent stage" (quoting Andrew Corsello in a GQ article), which has been added and removed multiple times by various parties as far back as late October. Things to consider:

  1. Is commentary from GQ appropriate content for an article about philosophy?
  2. Is this an opinion more widespread than just Mr. Corsello? If it is, then it should be possible to find similar statements from other sources.

My own opinion is that the answer to (1) is no, GQ is not the sort of source we would typically expect to find in a philosophy article, particularly when the article is tagged as "humor" on the magazine's own website. I doubt that Corsello's opinion on Pragmatism or Predicate logic would be considered appropriate article content. But for (2), I'm quite sure that others have expressed similar opinions, so there should be more appropriate sources to use for documenting this general viewpoint. --RL0919 (talk) 16:36, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the criticism is far more widespread than Corsello. BigK HeX (talk) 17:35, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Does Corsello have any significance outside of writing humour for GQ? Why are his opinions important enough to include without support? BashBrannigan (talk) 03:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
No answer forthcoming from those whose will it is to include this bit of synthesis based on a humor piece for a popular magazine. --Karbinski (talk) 14:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Here we have a writer relating his personal frustrations arising from his personal experience with personal acquaintanceships. Lets take a peak at what a secondary source is considered:

In scholarship, a secondary source is a document or recording that relates or discusses information originally presented elsewhere. A secondary source contrasts with a primary source, which is an original source of the information being discussed; a primary source can be a person with direct knowledge of a situation, or a document created by such a person. Secondary sources involve generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of the original information

As well, no where does Corsello state what has been added to the article. It is not verifiable. Lets consider that: what has been added to the article isn't verifiable by the source cited. Even if Corsello had stated that: he nor GQ humor pieces are a reliable source for such a claim. That an editor believes the opinion may be widespread in no way sets aside the normal concerns for including content. Wiki editor research into how widespread the opinion seems won't cut it either - the purpose here is to *report on the topic what is relevant and verifiable*. --Karbinski (talk) 14:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
That is an asanine interpretation of "primary source". EVERYONE'S point-of-view is a "primary source" under such a contorted definition, which is pretty nonsensical. The topic for this article is Objectivism, and thus, the only primary source is basically Ayn Rand. Views on the philosophy from anyone who didn't develop the philosophy (i.e., pretty much everyone except Ayn Rand) are secondary sources. BigK HeX (talk) 14:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
"In scholarship, a secondary source is a document or recording that relates or discusses information originally presented elsewhere." Okay, if I'm so far off the mark as claimed. Please identify the information Corsello discusses that was originally presented elsewhere. I'd ask that someone who wants this WP:SYN included to identify where Corsello "maintains that it is a philosophy that mainly appeals to those in a post-adolescent stage, most of whom eventually reject it," but even if he had put that forward, how is he or GQ's humor section editor to be considered a reliable source on this matter? --Karbinski (talk) 14:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I know Objectivism is a little off the beaten track as far as proper academic secondary research goes, but I agree with the perspective above which holds that we can do better than humour columns in men's magazines. Skomorokh 15:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


I was the original poster of this sentence. I think that Corsello's article while being tagged as "humour" and "books" on the webpage, was actually written in the books section of the magazine. The fact that a columnist is funny, doesn't detract from serious points made. I agree that this view of Rand's ideas holds wide currency, so I've posted another columnist who holds a similar view. There must be countless more sources from people who hold this view of Objectivism. - Not sure how to sign this off - RichG1985 —Preceding unsigned comment added by RichG1985 (talk • contribs) 00:31, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Rich, I appreciate your effort at shedding light on an issue of interest within the topic area, but Wikipedia is, or at least aspires to be, an encyclopaedia based on the accumulated knowledge developed by responsible professionals in journalism and scholarship. Giving voice to every blowhard with an opinion column is not within that remit. For now, I have removed the more blatantly objectionable sourcing, leaving the writers from The New Republic and Reason, but even these are opinion pieces, not objective summaries of the state of the literature. Skomorokh 01:40, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

OK fair enough Skomorokh, I just think that it's a very widespread opinion (shown by Onkar Ghate's rebuttal of it) - http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/index.php?news=4115 so should have some mention on here with some kind of source. RichG1985 (talk) 12:17, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I've replaced the online opinion column version with one that is mostly sourced from books. --RL0919 (talk) 20:54, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

It's really kind of dumb anyway—"post-adolescent" might have been meant as perjorative, but actually those are the years when people often start seriously searching for the answer's to life's big questions, i.e. philosophy to live by. Since Objectivism provides the broadest, most coherent, and most accessible system of that kind, of course it appeals to many. If there was meant to be an implication that it appeals only to adolescents, that's demonstrably wrong: at one time the article contained a long list of successful, professional, well known adults who said they were influenced by Objectivism. (It seems that since then somebody decided that only academics matter.) — DAGwyn (talk) 07:37, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Impact list

We've got another dispute brewing over the inclusion of a list of scholars influenced by Rand, most recently removed here. In the diff, BigK HeX (talk · contribs) asks for sources, but I'm not sure that's the most important issue here. I expect most of these could be sourced. But do we really need/want such a lengthy list of names in the article? I think it would be better to source the general statement, and then either omit the list entirely or include only the most prominent names. A list of 60 names, many of them not particularly notable, doesn't seem like a helpful thing to have in the article. Succinctly put: WP:NOTDIRECTORY. --RL0919 (talk) 19:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree and its a problem we have had before. Any article should really have 10-15 tops and all should be prominent. Take some of the country articles with lists of famous people, again there are normally under 20--Snowded TALK 20:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I, too, am concerned about notability and WP:NOT, but these are matters that collaboration usually decides. We shouldn't even get that far if there's not even a source here discussing these people and how Rand has been a major influence in their lives. Finding a list that of people associated with Objectivism and then slapping together a bunch of names from those lists is WP:SYN, as far as I can tell. BigK HeX (talk) 04:40, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
OK, you asked for it. IP 160 re-added the full list with a single gigantic footnote to source it all. --RL0919 (talk) 02:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
The templates within the article list individuals already, and many scholars are already named within the article. Perhaps split it into two reduced sentences, one mentioning scholars of the Objectivist tradition included with the reporting of institutes (if they are not mentioned already as having written entire books on Objectivism), and another in the impact section mentioning those not associated with any institute. First cut should be all those that wouldn't survive a "citation needed" flag, and second would be those with only self-proclaimed influence as source. My two cents anyhow. (actually first cut might be those without their own article?) --Karbinski (talk) 18:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
This has sat unaddressed for almost a month now, probably because no one has wanted to tackle the ridiculous super-gigantic footnote. So I'm going to remove the less notable entries from the list (as indicated by the names not having associated articles, per Karbinski's suggestion) and break up the footnotes for the remainder so they can be properly reviewed. --RL0919 (talk) 03:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Introduction of Ayn Rand

I would like to change the introduction of Ayn Rand (currently "the Russian-American philosopher and novelist Ayn Rand") to also include the Rand's gender, as this is far from obvious from reading the name and is of a similar (or greater) importance as the geographical origin.

Proposal: "the female Russian-American philosopher and novelist Ayn Rand"

I bring this to the discussion page, as there is a vocal utterance against boldness in a comment near my proposed change. Eroen (talk) 19:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, there is a very prominently placed photograph of her in the upper right, which seems to obviate the need. Also it uses feminine pronouns pretty quickly. But maybe this would be good for mobile users? TallNapoleon (talk) 02:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't think that is done typically, but it seems like a pretty unobjectionable edit. BigK HeX (talk) 03:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand the relevance in adding more descriptive qualifiers. I'm not even sure the existing descriptor of "Russian-American" is significant enough to be in the lead. I realize that these statuses might be considered by some to be relevant to the development of her ideas, but in that case why not add "Jewish" and "heterosexual" to the descriptors? For the purposes of the lead of this article, I think "philosopher and novelist" is sufficient. --RL0919 (talk) 12:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I'd defend the status quo on the grounds that unlike her ethnicity, sexuality and even gender, her nationality (specifically the contrast between her experiences of the two nations) had a defining impact on the development of her philosophy. Skomorokh 12:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Good article status

What happened to the good article status we had a few months ago? I don't see any explanation for why it was demoted. TallNapoleon (talk) 02:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Ayn Rand had (and still has) GA status, not this article. --RL0919 (talk) 04:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Oops! Sorry, got confused as to where I was. TallNapoleon (talk) 07:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Original Research Tag

When did this article get tagged for OR? And Why? The tag goes away - I think if it is warranted then the reason or reasons can be articulated here on the talk page. If this is because of the citation needed tag on the NB stuff, it is overkill - plus there is no need for NB biography on a discussion of Objectivism so we can just snip that content. --Karbinski (talk) 22:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I didn't understand why the tag was added also. BashBrannigan (talk) 02:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Pseudophilosophy

Why is this not categorized as Pseudophilosophy? Ayn Rand is rejected by just about each and every philosopher and scholar in academia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.187.8.149 (talk) 03:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Because there are loads of reliable sources describing her as a philosopher. Seriously, we've had this debate a million times; let's not reopen it. TallNapoleon (talk) 04:16, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough..

But the criticism section should definitely outweigh the "intellectual impact", which is an absolute piece of nonsense:

"Rand's philosophy has had a significant impact on the work of a range of notable academics and scholars, including: Martin Anderson,[128] Petr Beckmann,[129] Andrew Bernstein,[130] Harry Binswanger,[131] Nathaniel Branden,[132] Edith Efron,[133] Allan Gotthelf,[134] Robert Hessen,[135] Erika Holzer,[136] John Hospers,[137] David Kelley,[138] James G. Lennox,[139] Liu Junning,[140] Edwin A. Locke,[141] Tibor Machan,[142] Charles Murray,[143] Leonard Peikoff,[144] Douglas B. Rasmussen,[145] George Reisman,[146] John Ridpath,[147] Murray Rothbard,[148] Peter Schwartz,[149] Chris Matthew Sciabarra,[150] George H. Smith,[151] Tara Smith,[152] and Walter E. Williams.[153] In recent decades, annual conferences have been conducted featuring lectures by such academics and scholars, highlighting their recent work.[154]"

These are the notable academics and scholars? Lets go through the first ten, shall we?

Martin Anderson - Acquaintance of Ayn Rand

Petr Beckmann - Acquaintance of Ayn Rand

Andrew Bernstein - Author of "conservative manifesto"

Harry Binswanger - long time associate of Ayn Rand

Nathaniel Branden - Former romantic partner of Ayn Rand

Edith Efron - Part of Ayn Rand's circle, and contributor to her magazine

Allan Gotthelf - Heavy involvement inwith Ayn Rand and the Objectivist movement

Robert Hessen - A stub of an article, from the author of something called "In Defense of the Corporation"

Erika Holzer - Member of Ayn Rand's inner circle

John Hospers - Personal friend of Ayn Rand

Comes off pretty desperate, no? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.187.8.149 (talk) 18:57, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

--

Atlas Shrugged was, according to a poll, the second most influential book to the American people after the Bible. I'm super serial! Also, say what you will about the tenets of National Socialism; at least it's an ethos!

Also, Bob Barr, Steve Ditko, Terry Goodkind, Alan Greenspan, Anton LaVey, Stefan Molyneux, Ron Paul, Neil Peart, Murray Rothbard, Paul Ryan, Kay Nolte Smith, L. Neil Smith, John Stossel, Clarence Thomas, and Jimmy Wales.

Byelf2007 (talk) 31 May 2011

So the first ten "notable academics and scholars" are just a bunch of acquaintances of Ayn Rand.

Lets go through the next batch of 10:

Bob Barr - Libertarian Republican

Steve Ditko - Comic Book Artist

Terry Goodkind - Fantasy writer

Alan Greenspan - The FIRST person listed that actually has any merit!

Anton LaVey - Founder of "Church of Satan" and notable occultist (excellent inclusion!)

Stefan Molyneux - Libertarian blogger

Ron Paul - Libertarian promoter (who hates the government, yet has been IN government since the 70's), holds the most conservative voting record of any member of Congress since 1937.

Neil Peart - A drummer (from a GREAT band, I'll give him that) but who *actually* identifies as a LEFT leaning libertarian (Ayn Rand is far right libertarian) .. this shouldn't even be here.

Murray Rothbard - Free Market advocate who argued that taxation represents coercive theft on a grand scale .. also a student of Ludwig von Mises - interesting how Rand disciples dismiss academics for being trained by their "leftist" professors.. but when you study under a RIGHT-wing professor, all of the sudden, they become notable scholars!

and then we stop at Paul Ryan.. the somewhat-far (I wouldn't say extreme, although some would) right-wing economist who plans to end medicare (our most popular social program, even when you poll conservatives) as we know it, while of course lowering taxes on the wealthiest.. without even balancing the budget for decades anyway

This IS influence, but its not influence on "notable" scholars and academics in any way shape or form. That part of the description should be taken down, not these list of names itself.. it is a clearly pathetic attempt to "puff up" her impact and is way outside what should be considered a neutral POV.

I mean look at the list.. these are ALL people who were *already* predisposed to her style of thinking.. and used her work as a stepping stone towards right-wing political and economic positions.

Also, what kind of measure of influence is a list that the Bible is listed #1 on? Even Ayn Rand condemned organized religion.. so I don't understand how you thought that would strengthen your argument. I remember that the Modern Library did a user top 100 and besides two books and the entire top 10 was full of Ayn Rand and L Ron Hubbard books. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.187.8.149 (talk) 22:19, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

reply:

Your (unsigned) response is so bad, it's difficult to know where to begin. I'll give this my best shot.

"This IS influence, but its not influence on "notable" scholars and academics in any way shape or form."

Notable by what standard?

"I mean look at the list.. these are ALL people who were *already* predisposed to her style of thinking."

Are you sure? Or, is it possible they changed their beliefs because of her writing?

"Also, what kind of measure of influence is a list that the Bible is listed #1 on?"

It was a poll that asked Americans what book had the biggest impact on their way of thinking.

"Even Ayn Rand condemned organized religion.. so I don't understand how you thought that would strengthen your argument."

Well, it's the second-most influential book according to the American people. So, clearly, her writings are influential (The Fountainhead also got a respectable showing, making her combined total about the same as the Bible. Do you think the Bible is influential?).

Also, how is it relevant that Rand condemned religion? Let me see if I understand you. I think you're saying:

(a) Ayn Rand condemned religion

(b) A poll that asked Americans what book had the biggest impact on their way of thinking had the Bible at the #1 spot.

(c) The same poll showed that Rand's book Atlas Shrugged was #2.

(d) Therefore, Rand's works aren't substantially influential to the American people.

Huh?

"I remember that the Modern Library did a user top 100 and besides two books and the entire top 10 was full of Ayn Rand and L Ron Hubbard books."

What the hell does that have to do with anything?

By the way, the poll I'm talking about was conducted by the Library of Congress, not "the modern library," whatever that is.

Byelf2007 (talk) 3 June 2011

If you have a point, make it. Otherwise, see WP:NOTFORUM. TallNapoleon (talk) 04:25, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

> The point is, you have both failed to explain how personal friends, comic book writers, drummers, and libertarian bloggers qualify as "notable scholars and academics".

Sure you are doing the Rand movement a great service here, but its shit like this why people think Wikipedia is pure garbage compared to real encyclopedias like Britannica.. especially when you come to these pages and see that the people who defend these articles are so deprived, they have never even heard of the modern library! I mean seriously, have you never read a book in your life? Even upon graduating high school, I must have read a dozen different books with their logo on it..

Britannica will always be the trusted choice in encyclopedias because unlike Wikipedia you will NEVER find the head of a "Church of Satan" cult being passed off as a notable scholar.. The amount of intellectual dishonesty on Wikipedia is getting frightening.. I've got my eye on the Islamic Golden Age as well, which is unrepairable because of a similar problem. The people editing the articles are nothing but apologists who show no concern for academic integrity.

reply:

" The point is, you have both failed to explain how personal friends, comic book writers, drummers, and libertarian bloggers qualify as "notable scholars and academics". "

I don't care about that. Rand's books are influential to about 15% of the US population. Enough said.

Byelf2007 (talk) 5 June 2011

So you DONT care about academic integrity. I get it. Thanks for the confirmation though.

Your argument comes down to majority rules? The more mainstream the appeal = the *BETTER* the influence to you? Has it never occurred to you that some types of influence could be BAD, not good?

About a billion and a half Muslims find the Quran to be influential. According to your logic, if your work is influential to 15% of a population, you have achieved great influence.

Well, 97% of those in Iraq are Muslim. Does that mean Iraq is the scholarly capital of the world just because a particular book had such tremendous mainstream influence? Welll.. according to your perverted twist on logic, yes.. it would! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.228.3.70 (talk) 17:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

--24.228.3.70 (talk) 17:28, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

reply:

"So you DONT care about academic integrity. I get it. Thanks for the confirmation though."

No, I simply don't care how influential Rand was to scholars with respect to this article, just the general public.

"Your argument comes down to majority rules? The more mainstream the appeal = the *BETTER* the influence to you? Has it never occurred to you that some types of influence could be BAD, not good?"

No, I'm arguing that it's influential, whether good or bad. I never said that which is influential is good.

"Well, 97% of those in Iraq are Muslim. Does that mean Iraq is the scholarly capital of the world just because a particular book had such tremendous mainstream influence? Welll.. according to your perverted twist on logic, yes.. it would!"

This assessment of my views doesn't make any sense. Christianity is popular in America, so by your (incorrect) assessment of my views on influence, America must be the scholarly capital of the world as well, but, then, Islam is popular in Iraq, too. They can't both be the "scholarly capital of the world"...

Byelf2007 (talk) 6 June 2011

>>>>>>>

"No, I simply don't care how influential Rand was to scholars with respect to this article, just the general public."

Well that's you. My whole point is that average joes do not have the authority that rhode scholars do.

"No, I'm arguing that it's influential, whether good or bad. I never said that which is influential is good."

Which I already stated myself, several times in fact. Ayn Rand had tremendous influence, but only in the libertarian scene.. this is not the same influence that, say Aristotle had which continues to influence multiple fields in academia to this day. Guys like John Locke.. these are examples of tremendously influential philosophers.. Guys like Immanuel Kant (despite Ayn Rands inability to grasp his ideas) synthesized two competing schools of philosophical thought and opened up doors for virtually every philosopher to come. Yet Rand basically asked 20th century philosophers to abandon all that progress, resulting in her becoming an outcast in the philosophy community.. quite similar to the way a creationist would be an outcast in today's scientific community.

But you argued that since 15% of Americans found Rand's work influential, that is "all that maters". NO, that is not all that matters. I can point out multiple countries that have much higher rates of adherence to a certain book.

in Iraq, 97% of people consider the Quran the most influential book. Iran, 98%. Turkey, 97%. Yemen, 98%..

I could go on.. point being your method (percent of adherence / total population = influence) fails to measure the QUALITY of the influence and only measures quantity. So what good is it? One could argue these people were "influenced" but I would argue were simply "manipulated" and cleverly persuaded into believing something.

But I see that the list I initially brought into question has already been tidied up in the article, so that is much appreciated.

>>>>>>>>> --24.187.8.149 (talk) 00:50, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Notable Scholars and Academics Paragraph

Lets discuss this paragraph, if it needs modification or removal... --Karbinski (talk) 09:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

If any of the given citations are direct evidence that the individual was influenced, we need to improve the citation or drop the entry. High quality original research is still OR. To claim any particular individual's entry is *properly* sourced, we need a reliable secondary source that reports how that individual is influenced, *not* evidence the OR is true. An influence being discussed in a secondary source establishes notability - and, any debates on notability should be based on the context and quality of the source. --Karbinski (talk) 10:03, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

^ "This user is an advocate of Objectivism and considers Ayn Rand an intellectual hero." ^
This page needs to be edited by neutral parties who are interested in making wikipedia more accurate and legitimate.. NOT Ayn Rand disciples who are only interested in glorifying her legacy. Look at this article's history.. it is plagued by Ayn Rand apologists such as yourself and the guy I was attempting to reason with earlier.. editing out ALL the criticisms and inflating the living shit out of the intellectual impact section. At one point in time, the criticism was just a single paragraph based on a single criticism! I'm sure you guys were thrilled, and I'm sure if you had your way there wouldn't be a single mention of anything negative, would there?
Ayn Rand had influence.. there is NO denying that. But she is rejected by just about everyone in academia and the article should reflect this, not attempt to sweep it under the rug. Just about each and every philosophy department worldwide has rejected her ideas. Her work is a laughing stock amongst intellectual circles throughout the globe.. Most *real* encyclopedias entries even give you the impression that she was no more than a pseudo-philosopher.. and I bet I can find college kids in introductory philosophy courses that can obliterate her theories.
Yet the apologists here insist on fabricating this article to appear that Ayn Rand's philosophy is infallible as the word of god, and that it had all this tremendous impact on "scholars" everywhere. In reality, her influence was strictly limited to mostly right-leaning libertarians who were seeking justification for acting purely out of greed and selfishness.
"Please don't post your personal philosophical views on my talk page - I'm not interested" - Ayn Rand Apologist Extraordinaire, Karbinski.
Typical Rand disciple. Uninterested in philosophy in general.. defensive and hostile towards those who request you defend your position.. and it all ends the same way with you people when you are backed into a corner. You either stop responding entirely, or resort to the old "AYN RAND SAID SO, SO THERE!!"
Kudos to the that Philogo fellow for putting a well deserved tag of shame on your discussion page. --24.228.3.70 (talk) 17:00, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
This page is for discussing improvements to the article, not for discussing other editors. Please focus your comments on that and refrain from personal attacks. This list of "notable academics and scholars" needs to be reviewed and poorly sourced entries removed. As far as the general tone of the section, it starts off with an explicit statement that "Academic philosophers have generally dismissed Rand's ideas and have marginalized her philosophy." This is an accurate and well-sourced summary and the rest of the section can and should be generally consistent with it while still acknowledging that she does have a small following within academia. Constructive suggestions for how to revise the article are welcomed. --RL0919 (talk) 17:45, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
But the editors are the MAIN problem here. Just take a quick look at this article's history. Over and over again, the frequent editors (mostly all proud Ayn Rand enthusiasts) attempt to fluff up the positive aspects while removing negative aspects. I urge everybody to compare even a few histories of this article and see for yourself just how many attempts were made to minimize criticism.
Yes, that section begins by stating that Ayn is rejected by academia, but it is far from consistent after that. Especially since it fails to elaborate at all, as in why and to what extent her ideas are rejected in academia. Even in the criticism section, this kind of stuff is barely addressed. Following that initial claim, the article almost attempts to refute itself, by going on and on about all these "notable academics and scholars" that on closer inspection.. include just about anybody who at one point in time claimed they liked her book. --24.187.8.149 (talk) 19:45, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
And your proposed improvements to the article are ... what exactly? Just complaining that people who like Rand's ideas edit the article isn't a solution for anything. People often edit on topics that they have a personal interest in, and that isn't going to stop happening. Instead of soapboxing, try proposing specific changes, or making changes yourself (if you can do so in a neutral fashion). --RL0919 (talk) 20:05, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Any more personal attacks or off-topic postings and I'm going to take this to WP:ANI. I would like to remind both Byelf and our IP that this page is under an Arbitration Committee ruling which will be enforced. IP, you have made no constructive suggestions as to how the article could be improved. Instead you have chosen to come here and fling insults. I strongly recommend that you suggest actual changes that you would like to see made to the article, or that you leave. TallNapoleon (talk) 20:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Now this delicious piece of irony. Libertarian activists threatening to resort to Wikipedia's form of government intervention.. in order to silence dissent.. the very creator of this committee doesn't consider himself a self-avowed "Objectivist to the core" does he?

How am I supposed to work with people that outright refuse to defend their positions? Especially when they already have a long history of trimming the criticism section?

I do appreciate the editing that has already made progress though.. but I fear there is no way to expand the criticism section without hurting feelings.

--24.187.8.149 (talk) 00:57, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Nice try, but I'm neither a libertarian nor an objectivist. Reported to ANI. TallNapoleon (talk) 03:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
How to work with people: state your goal. For example, if there is a paragraph you want to discussed, create a new section and invite discussion. --Karbinski (talk) 09:33, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Notable Scholars and Academics Paragraph (Take Two)

Lets discuss this paragraph, if it needs modification or removal... --Karbinski (talk) 09:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

If any of the given citations are direct evidence that the individual was influenced, we need to improve the citation or drop the entry. High quality original research is still OR. To claim any particular individual's entry is *properly* sourced, we need a reliable secondary source that reports how that individual is influenced, *not* evidence the OR is true. An influence being discussed in a secondary source establishes notability - and, any debates on notability should be based on the context and quality of the source. --Karbinski (talk) 09:33, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Is your concern that it is a list of Wikipedia entries without outside references? Does this break the rule of Wikipedia referencing itself? Are you concerned that there is no contextual foundation for a list? I seem to remember Barbara Branden's book had a list of people influenced by Rand. It's reasonable to debate the inclusion of this list, but a debate about whether Rand had influence is absurd. There's a story in Greenspan's biography (p.323) of the time he was approached by Putin's chief economic advisor who asked him if he'd be willing to discuss Ayn Rand with some of his friends on his next trip to Russian. BashBrannigan (talk) 23:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


If Rand's influence on them is well-sourced in their own articles, then they can stay, I think. Also, I don't think anyone here is denying Rand had substantial influence; the question is how big the list should be, and also one of WP:WEIGHT and proper sourcing. TallNapoleon (talk) 00:56, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, I'm not challenging the facts, nor their references. I'm interested in trimming the list down to only those where the influence is discussed in secondary sources, apart from just reporting that individual X was influenced. I'd like to be specific, but I don't, at least not yet, have access to the sources in use. If we are just referencing other lists, then we can leave it to the references to list things. --Karbinski (talk) 08:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Criticism

It is currently bouncing around.

Did we have consensus that it should be integrated where possible? I ask as I think that change came about in the midst of other efforts. Personally I think BigK HeX's last version is the way to go (integrated where possible). --Karbinski (talk) 10:09, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't care whether the criticism is integrated or in a distinct section. And despite the periodic invocation of WP:STRUCTURE, there isn't any firm policy one way or the other. (Read the section that shortcut links to. It explicitly says, "specific article structures are not, as a rule, prohibited".) But I would like there to be some firm consensus about this particular article that we can follow, so it doesn't keep going back and forth. If we can come to that among just the regular editors here, great. If not, then we should do an RfC. --RL0919 (talk) 13:32, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
NPOV seems pretty clear that it is preferable to integrate criticisms, in the policy on structure.
Really, I could probably go further to say that NPOV likely demands even more due to WP:UNDUE, since Objectivism itself is a minority viewpoint largely dismissed within the relevant field (philosophy). A more rigorous approach to Wikipedia policy would prompt editors to be more inclined to note contentions with mainstream philosophers ["these pages should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view"].
On a slightly related note ... I haven't scanned the page closely, but even in my casual editing I found multiple Randian-style assertions presented as uncontested fact. But more importantly, academic analysis of Objectivist assertions seems lacking, which would violate WP:UNDUE. BigK HeX (talk) 19:21, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Majority and Minority view points within the context of the topic at hand - BigK Hex. This is not the Philosophy article, where a minority view point like Objectivism receives little or no coverage. This is the Objectivism (Ayn Rand) article, the topic to be reported on is what is notable about Objectivism. I'm not even aware of any minority / majority view points on the subject - what Objectivism is, is uncontroversial. --Karbinski (talk) 11:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Yeah... you would cover Objectivism in the Objectivism article. The point is that WP:UNDUE would demand that mainstream regard for Objectivism be noted, and additionally that any notable mainstream analyses of Objectivist assertions be noted where relevant. ["these pages should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view"] BigK HeX (talk) 14:37, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
When reporting how Objectivism has influenced or does influence (that is, how it is regarded), it needs to be NPOV, verifiable, and notable - no argument there. --Karbinski (talk) 16:06, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

reply: Sorry about that. You put "NP:Structure" instead of "WP"

byelf2007 (talk) 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Words and their meaning

I thought it might be a good idea to open a discussion of a recent edit by Zenomax, June 18. "Principal" was changed to "belief" and "man's mind" was changed to "human mind". I'm not certain it was improper to make these changes, but I think it's worth discussing.

First, The editor gave as a reason that "man's" was sexist, which I don't consider a proper reason as it's an opinion. Others may believe objections to "man" are just the result of trendy political correctness. Far as I know, "man" still means "human". I think the question isn't whether Wikipedia should bend to PCness... it shouldn't... but whether "man" is no longer part of the common vernacular for "humanity".

Second, changing "principal" to "belief" is a different issue. It seems like the effect of this edit is to change the meaning: belief implies "opinion", while "principal" implies a choice made as to import. Since this is an article about objectivism, it can't be up to an editor to decide between its being a "principal" or a "belief". The question in this case is whether there is a cite for Objectivism using "principal". If so, than "principal" should stay.

Opinions?BashBrannigan (talk) 16:41, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

On man vs. human- The edit first blanks out "man's widest ... ideas" to just "... ideas", this is a destruction of what is being reported. Content and accuracy should not be sacrificed to the opinion of "using the word man to refer to humankind is sexist". Later in the same edit, the people(viewers of the art piece) become the subject displacing the work of art as the focus of Rand's view - again wiping out content in favor of a PC opinion. --Karbinski (talk) 08:17, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
On principle vs. belief - I think the intention was to qualify the principle as being of the Objectivist view against taking it for granted that the stated principle is indeed true. Fair enough if that was the intent, but the edit does alter the meaning slightly. I think idea would be more neutral than belief. --Karbinski (talk) 08:17, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
She/he was Bold, I'm going to Revert (the man vs human part), Discussion is already under way (WP:BRD). --Karbinski (talk) 08:17, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure how you can PC the bit on the purpose of a work of art without butchering its meaning, it is Rand's view that is being reported here, and her view may not be communicable in PC terms. Would a direct quotation solve the problem? Perhaps the best solution is to resist attempts to straight-jacket the article into PC language? --Karbinski (talk) 08:35, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
If we aren't quoting Rand, we should make an effort to use gender-neutral language, which is the correct academic convention nowadays. "Human", "person", "people", etc are all perfectly serviceable words. TallNapoleon (talk) 20:01, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Taxation and Copyright/Patents

The criticism of x is irrelevant without first reporting on x, and where x=patent law or taxation in a fully free society => its not important detail within an overview of Rand's politics. The article, appropriately does not elaborate on these areas of applied Objectivism. If it did, then criticism's of those areas of applied Objectivism would be relevant. --Karbinski (talk) 10:53, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Uh... who deemed it as "not important"? Critics seem to see Rand's support of government-enforced monopolies as pretty significant. BigK HeX (talk) 18:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
The material is sourced and seems to have a fair parity of notability in third party reviews of Objectivism. I'm reincorporating it. BigK HeX (talk) 18:39, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
I think the correct solution in this case might be to mention Rand's defense of copyright law beforehand, rather than remove the criticism. TallNapoleon (talk) 21:30, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
The lack of importance should be self-evident from a review of the section:

-Derived from Ethics and epistemology is the non-initiation of force (two paragraphs) -Ellaboration on Individual Rights -Necessity of Government and Objective Rule of Law -Capitalism as a moral system -Objectivism in the political landscape What you have with taxation and patents are details - and adding them to the article is too much detail. The existence of sources is meaningless here, VOS for taxation and CUI for patents if nothing else. Critics think its important? - there isn't even any criticism of the taxation bit. As for the critic - singular - of the patent bit, that critic took the effort to criticize doesn't speak to the importance of this detail. If there is criticism out there, and I'm sure there is, of what was said about numbers in ITOE, we don't rush to clutter the epistemology section with first the unecessary detail of the Objectivist view on numbers and then the unecessary detail of what a critic had to say about it. --Karbinski (talk) 23:31, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

As per WP:BRD, the bearden of proof lies with those wanting to keep the content. How are these details important for the article? That critics did what critics do does not answer the question. --Karbinski (talk) 23:31, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Why is it important to the article? Because it's an article explaining Objectivism. Both taxes and IP are a part of Objectivism. Why does it matter if we can't find criticisms of certain parts of Objectivism Byelf2007 (talk) 1 July 2011
What we ought to be looking for is secondary sources, whether critical or not, that discuss these subjects. That is the standard Wikipedia approach to determining whether a topic is significant enough to include. If numerous sources discussing Objectivism treat these as important aspects, then we should discuss them here. If they are rarely mentioned, then we can ignore them -- including them would be giving undue weight to minor topics. Intellectual property (patents and copyrights) and taxation are two different subjects, so we should address them individually. I've investigated intellectual property but haven't gotten to taxation yet, so I'll put the results in a subsection below. Feel free to add information about your own research there. --RL0919 (talk) 13:51, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
On the editing and BRD, I'll note that the material in question has been in the article since at least August of last year ([2]) and has since been specifically involved in a number of edits (some from me personally). Of course, that doesn't mean its inclusion is justified, but I think that does have a bearing on BOLD-REVERT-DISCUSS. BigK HeX (talk) 18:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Sources about Objectivist views on intellectual property

There is of course too much material about Objectivism to read or re-read every source word-by-word, so I looked for related index terms (copyright, patent, intellectual property) and skimmed sections that seemed most likely to contain discussion of that topic. So if I say a work doesn't contain discussion of it, that doesn't preclude a passing mention or footnote that I missed. I found that the following overviews of Objectivism contain no apparent discussion of intellectual property: Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand (Peikoff), The Vision of Ayn Rand (Branden), Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical (Sciabarra), On Ayn Rand (Gotthelf), Ayn Rand (Machan), Objectivism in One Lesson (Bernstein), The Philosophic Thought of Ayn Rand (Den Uyl and Rasmussen), and With Charity Toward None (O'Neill). I also looked at sections/essays on Rand's ideas in some more general works, none of which discuss her views on intellectual property: On Classical Liberalism and Libertarianism (Barry), Philosophers of Capitalism (Younkins), The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Only by turning to books devoted to discussing Objectivist political and ethical views was I able to find any discussion of this topic: Moral Rights and Political Freedom (Smith), A Life of One's Own (Kelley), and The Capitalist Manifesto (Bernstein) do not discuss intellectual property, but there is a section about it in Then Athena Said (Touchstone). If you were to shrink those proportions (a few pages among thousands of pages of material) to the scale of our article (currently less than 6000 words, which is reasonable for an encyclopedia article), the result is that we would not be discussing it. --RL0919 (talk) 13:51, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

That's interesting research but that list is skewed pretty heavily towards fairly pro-Rand POV sources. That is harldly a representation of objective 3rd party academic critiques. BigK HeX (talk) 19:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
How exactly is Objectivism's take on patent law (or taxation) an issue of pro/anti POV? I'm pretty sure everyone is agreed Rand wrote the essays she wrote, and meant what she wrote. The burden of proof rests upon those wanting to include the detail - how is this content an encyclopedic report on what the secondary sources give weight to? --Karbinski (talk) 20:42, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
See Rand's "Patent's and Copyrights" in "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal" and "Government Financing on a Free Society" in "The Virtue of Selfishness"; do other people write about this much? No? Does it matter? No. It's a part of Objectivism. Therefore, it needs to be included in this article. The "secondary source" argument would apply to whether or not there should be an Objectivism article at all. But, while I'm at it:
byelf2007 (talk) 2 July 2011
Byelf2007, if "it's a part of Objectivism" were sufficient to justify inclusion, then this article would be the size of a book. The point is not that there are no sources at all, but rather that we are expected to keep things in proportion for an encyclopedia article. If you are going to cite a small number of articles as justification for inclusion, then you need to balance that against the overall volume of material about Objectivism. Rand wrote one essay about patents and copyrights, out of over 100 essays, and she isn't the only author of material about Objectivism. This is why I turned to the coverage given in overview works. If Leonard Peikoff did not think the Objectivist view on intellectual property was a significant enough topic to cover in his 400+ page book presenting Objectivism, then that's a clue to what a much shorter encyclopedia article should contain. That Branden, Sciabarra, Gotthelf, Machan, etc., made similar judgments, makes it easy to see what experts think the relative importance of the topic is. --RL0919 (talk) 15:50, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
RL0919, You claim that if our article comprehensively covered Objectivism, is would be the size of a book. This is ridiculous. It's like 95% comprehensive already. Peikoff's book includes a lot of "And other people say this, and here's why it's wrong". Objectivism is a philosophy. Therefore, it covers what the nature of reality is, what the nature of knowledge is, what the nature of values are, and how people should express those values. If we covered all of Objectivism, we wouldn't have an article the size of a book--we would have an article slightly bigger than how big it would be if the info we're debating were included. The information we have on metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics is complete. We don't need to have every statement Rand made on how a country should work, because philosophy only pertains to the "big" questions. However, she said you shouldn't be allowed to build a dynamite factory in a crowded area, because you're increasing the risk of harm to others. Should we include that? I think so, but I think it's perhaps a little too specific, so maybe we shouldn't include that. But the question of whether or not there should be TAXES is an incredibly important question with respect to politics, obviously. We don't need 3 paragraphs on it. We can just mention Rand opposed taxes because she saw it as an initiation force, because it obviously is. As for IP, not only is whether or not ideas can be property another fundamental political question, but Rand believed that ALL property is fundamentally intellectual. Therefore, if we don't have her views on IP in this article, then we shouldn't have anything about property in it. Do you think Rand's views on property are important enough to put in an Objectivism article? "Rand wrote one essay about patents and copyrights, out of over 100 essays" So what? Her views on Apollo 11 aren't a part of Objectivism. Her views on taxes certainly are. "and she isn't the only author of material about Objectivism" So what? It's her philosophy. Her views are all that count when we talk about what her philosophy is. "If Leonard Peikoff did not think the Objectivist view on intellectual property was a significant enough topic to cover in his 400+ page book presenting Objectivism, then that's a clue to what a much shorter encyclopedia article should contain." So your argument is "If Peikoff didn't include it in his book, we probably shouldn't include it in our article". Why? Peikoff should've included it in his book if he wanted it to be a comprehensive explanation of the philosophy (which is how it was promoted). Just because he didn't doesn't mean we should lower ourselves down to his level. How about we actually explain the philosophy comprehensively (or at least its essential points, and what counts as property should count, so that covers taxes and IP). We just need a couple more paragraphs, not 400 more pages. byelf2007 (talk) 3 July 2011
You are fundamentally missing the point: Wikipedia articles are supposed to focus on what is considered important by the outside sources that cover a topic, not what we personally believe is important. That's why what Peikoff and all the others did or did not choose to include is relevant. All this argument for why you believe this or that is important has zero basis in Wikipedia policy. --RL0919 (talk) 00:29, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Even so, there are plenty of outside sources which cover these issues. How are these issues then not notable by wikipedia standards? I can go ahead and find more outside sources if you like. byelf2007 (talk) 4 July 2011
BigK HeX, I focused mostly on overview/summary works because I wanted to understand the relative attention given the topic within overall presentations of Objectivism. Many such works written to date have been from Objectivists or sympathizers, but I can't control that. If there are other works that you believe are relevant in this circumstance, feel free to present your own research findings or at least name the additional works so that others could attempt to review them for discussions of intellectual property. (And for what it is worth, I have no pre-established preference for whether this topic is discussed in the article or not. I'm just presenting the result I found in the literature and the natural conclusion that follows from that within Wikipedia policy.) --RL0919 (talk) 15:50, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm fairly neutral on inclusion, though I suspect that opinion on Rand's stance WRT patents is seen as significant. I was just observing that if we are sampling from the literature that it's probably better to stick to more objective assessments (and almost certainly avoid giving much weight to those who may come off as near-sycophants like Peikoff). BigK HeX (talk) 17:54, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
If you have sources that show this significance, please let's bring them forth. As to what literature should be reviewed, I did not include or exclude anything based on its POV, nor would I support a practice of refusing to consider a source on such a basis. But in this case it really makes no difference whether you look at supporters or critics, because both are aligned in saying little about Rand's views on IP. --RL0919 (talk) 00:29, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Should we include that? I think so, but I think it's perhaps a little too specific, so maybe we shouldn't include that.

User:byelf2007

Byelf2007's consideration here for a 3rd item, is the core question for both taxation and patent law. I propose we look to the community for guidance.

What we ought to be looking for is secondary sources, whether critical or not, that discuss these subjects. That is the standard Wikipedia approach to determining whether a topic is significant enough to include. If numerous sources discussing Objectivism treat these as important aspects, then we should discuss them here. If they are rarely mentioned, then we can ignore them -- including them would be giving undue weight to minor topics.

User:RL0919

And there, RL0919 has pretty much covered it. Defer to the amount of coverage given by secondary sources that share the articles topic, Objectivism. Not research and/or opinion devoted to the specific in question.

I think there are ways to integrate the content concisely and with great brevity - as examples attached to the existing text or find quotes for quote boxes - that avoid giving undue weight - something stand-alone sentences and paragraphs does not achieve. --Karbinski (talk) 17:58, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Is that more what you had in mind... I think that in a paragraph that discusses racism, affirmative action, I should source it still but it is important I think. Crazynas t 02:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
That is certainly closer to the brevity I think it deserves. I looked for a better place to hook it in - where the context enables even greater brevity by omitting the reason (state sponsored theft) - but found none. I wouldn't mind trying a quote box as an alternative (I'll edit later if no one else proposes something), but if it doesn't work out - the only hair left to split is we have two sentences in a row that start with "Rand holds...". --Karbinski (talk) 14:57, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Now we've just messed up the end of the section, where the sub-topic is Objectivism in the current political landscape. The taxation bit can perhaps be saved by moving it to a quote box. While something on Intellectual Property may be appropriate, the legal issue of patent law and on top of that criticism, is too much. The reader is being given an overview, and then boom - First-to-file is moral - no it isn't - her views on anti-trust are confusing. Technical concerns of undue weight left aside, its just poor quality and breaks the flow. First-to-file and antitrust are not the stuff of a philosophical overview. What has been added to the article is: Rand considered X moral, critic Y disagrees where X is extremely specific. The issue is not even should IP be protected by the state, not even if there should be patents, its the how patents should be implemented. Its not overview material. Antitrust is totally from left field, and the criticism is that its confusing - one might ask confusing how? - but then again the reader has been given no information on what Rand had to say about antitrust laws. This is all just blades of grass in the forest - no different than taking a concept, any concept discussed by Rand in detail in terms of her theory of concepts, and plugging it into the epistemology section - yes Rand wrote it, yes its part of Objectivism, yes critics responded --> no it does not belong in the article. Further reading is expected if the wikipedia reader wants to delve into the topic further. --Karbinski (talk) 10:45, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

More content may be appropriate to cover IP, but with a new starting point in relation to property rights - not patent and copywrite law. --Karbinski (talk) 10:45, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Karbinski, I agree that the criticism is an unnecessary detail, however now we need a reference for Rand's views on IP (which I still think deserve at least a sentence), I restructured those two para to make thing's I hope, flow better. Crazynas t 17:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Taxation and IP cont'd

Taxation: How about the quote box I added? My own answer is that it makes an interesting detail (despite lacking importance in an overview) --Karbinski (talk) 14:02, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Style questions: 1. Should quote boxes have quotation marks around the quote? 2. With the source given for each quote, should a cite be given, either way - do we need to be consistent? --Karbinski (talk) 14:02, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

IP/patents: We have cut it in half, but I still want to move it away from first-to-file and towards IP being the root of property rights. I'll try to contribute something later. --Karbinski (talk) 14:02, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

First Sentence

Should the first sentence have the word "created" or "defined"? I like "created" more. byelf2007 (talk) 28 August 2011

I think created subsumes define just fine --Karbinski (talk) 21:24, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Inductive/Deductive

I made a small change in the introduction. Where it read that man attains knowledge through concept formation and inductive and deductive logic, I cut out "deductive." Since the introduction serves as a kind of "definition" of Objectivism, I think it should serve to distinguish the philosophy from the widest range of other philosophies, and Ayn Rand's emphasis on induction over deduction certainly fits that criteria. Ayn Rand defined deduction as the application of wider knowledge to a narrower observation; while this could be called, in a narrow sense, a form of attaining knowledge, it is not, in the Objectivist view, as fundamental as induction. I welcome any objections, but as a preemptive rebuttal, I offer Ayn Rand's words: The process of observing the facts of reality and of integrating them into concepts is, in essence, a process of induction. ''The process of subsuming new instances under a known concept is, in essence, a process of deduction."[emphasis mine] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew3024 (talk • contribs) 03:34, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I support the edit and the reason backing it. --Karbinski (talk) 21:26, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Same here. byelf2007 (talk) 13 September 2011

RFC about criticism section

For months now there has been an ongoing back-and-forth (primarily between two editors) over how material about criticisms of Objectivism should be handled in the article. One favors having a distinct "Criticisms" section within the article. The other favors placing this material in the other sections, so that, for example, criticisms of Objectivism's ethical claims would appear in the section on ethics. A previous attempt at discussing this went nowhere, and the editors involved have continued their slow but interminable edit war. This needs to end. Therefore I am opening this Request for Comment to get broader input on which approach the article should use. So to frame this in a clear yes-no/support-oppose fashion, the question for comment is: Should there be a distinct section about criticisms? --RL0919 (talk) 15:20, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

  • yes. As a reader I find it helpful to have a section as opposed to having to sift through the article.-- Adjwilley (talk) 22:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
  • It's reasonable to have both: a general Appraisal/Influence section about Rand's status as a philosopher, and criticisms of specific argument in specific sections. 1Z (talk) 23:11, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Peterdjones: That is a good compromise suggestion: That is an okay suggestion, provided that criticisms are not duplicated. At a minimum, if the Criticism section is kept (and I'm not sure it should be, see my comments below), it should be renamed to "Appraisal" or "Influence" or "Reception" and it should include all assessments (positive and negative) from outside analysts and philosophers. --Noleander (talk) 13:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Such a section would be almost entirely criticism, since Objectivism is held in low regard by most non-Objectivist philosophers. I don't say this as an argument for or against the idea, but just for clarity. --RL0919 (talk) 13:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
  • yes. As a reader I find it helpful to have a section as opposed to having to sift through the article.
Also, WP:STRUCTURE says: "It may also create an apparent hierarchy of fact where details in the main passage appear "true" and "undisputed", whereas other, segregated material is deemed "controversial", and therefore more likely to be false. Try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections that ignore or fight against each other."
BigK HeX's interpretation of this is that if we have an uninterrupted explanation of Objectivism, the site is essentially saying "Objectivism is true". This is nonsense--the article has to explain it. We don't need to include "though disputed" because the article never says "Objectivism is true". The correct interpretation of this point of WP:STRUCTURE is that an article which explains an event needs to have different interpretations folded in, or else there is one interpretation being presented. Here, the simple fact is that there is only one interpretation of what Objectivism is--whatever the person(s) who created say it is; an explanation is not the same as an evaluation. If we were going to consistently apply BigK HeX's interpretation, we'd be putting "though disputed" before every point of view in every article. Byelf2007 (talk) 19 September 2011
There is no shortage of criticism of Rand's general competence as a philosopher. 1Z (talk) 22:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
That is not the same as general criticisms of Objectivism. Byelf2007 (talk) 21 September 2011
  • Avoid "Criticism" section- The general policy of WP is to avoid polarizing material into distinct pro & con sections. Instead, it is considered better to organize the material by topic and weave the pros/cons about the topic within it. This is a consequence of the WP:NPOV policy. See the Wikipedia:Criticism essay for details. For example, the PETA animal rights organization has been involved in lots of controversy, but you'll notice the article does not have a "Controversy" section. Instead, the material on controversies/criticisms is woven through the PETA article in the various topical sections. That is the WP ideal. Taking this article, I see two topics in the existing Criticism section: one on ethics and one on epistemology. It would be much more encyclopedic to delete the Criticism section and replace it with two new sections: move it into two existing sections: one on Ethics and one on Epistemology, and in those sections include all material relevant to those topics. E.g. the Ethics section could contain Objectivism's principles on ethics, as well as opinions (both favorable and not) by notable critics and thinkers. --Noleander (talk) 13:00, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Just to be clear, although you mention creating new sections, there are already sections in the article on ethics and epistemology. Would I be correct to assume you support redistributing the material to those existing sections? --RL0919 (talk) 13:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out: I did indeed overlook those existing sections. Yes, I would endorse distributing the material currently in the Criticism sections into those other topical sections (I've amended my comment above, accordingly). That would (1) retain all the material; (2) not polarize the article into pros/cons; and (3) be more encyclopedic. --Noleander (talk) 13:51, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
If we weave criticisms into article (which I'm still opposed to) I still hope we don't have "though disputed" without saying who disputes in and why. 1- It's obvious that just about every opinion is disputed 2-It's redundant if we include criticisms later (which we do) and 3- it gives the impression that the idea is crazy because we don't say something to the effect of "it's disputed and praised by people". Byelf2007 (talk) 20 September 2011
You are certainly correct that criticisms should not be duplicated twice: once in a Criticism section, and again in the topical section. And, if the criticisms are in the topical sections: by all means they should be presented neutrally, presumably after the viewpoint of Objectivism is presented first and explained. About the only good reason I can think of for having a dedicated Criticism section is if there are several excellent secondary sources that devote themselves to "criticism of Objectivism" ... that may warrant a dedicated section. --Noleander (talk) 18:00, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I've seen it both ways, and the article seems to read okay either way. One NPOV problem that presents when weaving criticisms into the existing topical sections is POV editors try to front-load the section with the criticism, before any context is laid down. As well, some left-overs usually means a separate section survives, though often with a narrower heading. With the single section however, topical criticisms appear less topical and more editorial - I think this is what WP:Structure is advising against. Therefore I agree with Noleander and Peterdjones: avoid criticism section with topical criticisms (narrow critiques within a branch) and allow for a section to catch broad criticisms of Objectivism. --Karbinski (talk) 13:46, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
But are there any broad criticisms of Objectivism? If we don't find any, then having the criticisms section seems like the way to go. "presumably after the viewpoint of Objectivism is presented first and explained" is very true. This is another reason why we shouldn't have "though disputed" before the explanation. Byelf2007 (talk) 21 September 2011
RE: "POV editors try to front-load the section with the criticism"
When negative criticism is the general professional regard for Objectivist claims, making reference to the majority view would be decidedly NPOV. BigK HeX (talk) 05:04, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
I understood the objection to be against putting criticisms before the viewpoint being criticized has even been described. That would tend to make the article very difficult to follow, so hopefully no one is explicitly supporting that. --RL0919 (talk) 00:28, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
  • No. Per User:Noleander and my multiple reiterations in the past, NPOV policy is pretty clear that criticism sections are to be avoided in Wiki articles. In this case, they are easily avoided. BigK HeX (talk) 05:04, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Avoid both one broad criticism section and multiple sub-sections of criticism by topic. What is wrong with having all responses to Objectivism (positive & negative) in the Intellectual impact section? Crazynas t 23:05, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't believe anyone wants multiple sub-sections of criticism. What has been done in the past (as part of the back-and-forth) has been to incorporate criticisms into the existing sections, as in, "Objectivism claims yadda yadda. So-and-so has criticized this claim, saying blah blah." Separate sub-heads for "Criticism of ethics", etc., would seem to be the worst of both worlds. --RL0919 (talk) 00:28, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Referring to this diff, doesn't seem to be there now however. Crazynas t 22:24, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
  • No. Wikipedia for a long time has been trending away from separate "Criticism" sections, and reader laziness is no excuse for changing that trend (e.g. section posted below). Criticism should be naturally included in the body of the article, where the criticism will fit most clearly in the full context of that which is being criticized. All criticism is criticism of some specific point or segment of the philosophy or the individual behind the philosophy, so it only makes sense to include the criticism next to that point/segment where it exists in the article. This also reduces the addition of needlessly vague criticism. --BRIAN0918 16:19, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
"Wikipedia for a long time has been trending away from separate "Criticism" sections" I'm not sure about this. Are there webpages you can refer me to? "This also reduces the addition of needlessly vague criticism" I don't see how that's the case. Byelf2007 (talk) 3 May 2012
  • No. In order to avoid confusing the reader about what is part of Objectivism and what is not, I suggest following the approach generally used in the Ayn Rand article: Each section should explain, without critical interruption, what Objectivism has to say about the section's topic, then report important criticism relevant for that section with a clear introductory clause along the lines of "Critics have noted that ..." If there is need for a generic section (similar to the Ayn Rand article's "Popular influence" or "Academic reaction" sections) then generic criticism can be reported at the end of that section also. — DAGwyn (talk) 19:52, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I came to this article today already familiar with objectivism, and I was hoping to read some criticisms that exist of it. I was disappointed to not find any such sections in the contents. I can imagine that some editors who are objectivists might want to keep such information difficult to find, but I think that for the benefit of the readers of this article, there should either be a section specifically on criticism or, as a second-best solution, a criticism subsection of each regular section. 71.94.185.174 (talk) 12:23, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Objectivism/Archive_13&oldid=1136250519"