Talk:Neo-Objectivism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Removed link
I removed a link to a geocities yahoo site. Two reasons this link runs contrary to this article: 1 this article is about Neo-objectivism, the site is critical of Orthodox Objectivism; 2 the link is to a personal site with minimal references, full of personal opinions by the site's owner. At best the link is to a person critical of Objectivism, at worst it is little better than a site by a person with an axe to grind. Neither reason adds to the quality or information about this topic.
[edit] Removed mysticism reference
I have removed the following from the entry:
"However, Objectivism by its very nature denies and condemns mysticism as evil. Thus, claiming to espouse such beliefs would be a philosophical contradiction. (See Objectivism or John Galt's speech in Atlas Shrugged.)"
It seems to me that this could be said about everything mentioned in the entry. Rand was vehemently opposed to any alteration of her philosophy or the formation of splinter groups based on Objectivism. I see no reason why Objectivism's condemnation of mysticism should receive special attention.
--Soundguy95 16:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I am Nick Otani, of NickOtani'sNeo-Objectivism. I was honored to see my board referenced under this article on Neo-Objectivism, but someone removed it recently. I am trying to put it back. I do think I am a credible source of information on Neo-Objectivism, especially my version.
I suspect that my name may have been removed by someone who has something personally against me and is just being mean, not having the interest of Wikipedia in mind. If this is wrong, if a responsible editor can give me a reason why my link was removed, please do. I would like to have a dialogue with such a person here.
Nick
- I removed it because it appears to be fairly small and non-notable (see WP:EL). I would have removed the other forum link as well (Objectivist Living) but it appears Nathaniel & Barbera Branden actually post there. -Objectivist-C 05:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
What happens now? I don't think my board and website violate Wikipedia standards. Are you simply going to force your will? What can I do to make you leave the link in and stop calling it spam? Why not post on my board, get to know me, and find out whether or not I am an acceptable source of information on Neo-Objectivism?
Nick
- I'd suggest requesting a third opinion. -Objectivist-C 05:50, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Let the third opinion come to my board, talk to me, ask me questions about Objectivism and Neo-Objectivism and philosophy in general. Let him or her research my website connected to my board. Let him or her search my name, NickOtani, on the internet. Then, let me know what I have to do to get my board up to standards if they still arn't there already. Don't just blow me off. You wouldn't like that if someone treated you that way, would you?
Nick
[edit] Third Opinion
I've removed it per WP:RS. Bulletin boards are never considered to be reliable sources by definition. Furthermore, your particular bulletin board is non-notable and would not be large enough to warrent it's own article per WP:WEB, thus further confirming it's inappropriateness for the article. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 20:24, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Good editors don't put apostrophes on possive pronouns. You'd be inappropriate on my board.
Nick
[edit] Objectivist Living
I edited this page to correct a link. After I edited it, I saw that it was removed. As I edited it without establishing an account, I presume that the removal was due to a doubt.
Our site www.objectivistliving.com was severely damaged recently by a hacker, so we migrated to a company with strong security and changed IP companies. This interfered with previous links, which we are trying to find and correct as we remember them.
As has been noticed in another discussion here on Wikipedia, the Brandens do write for our site (as do several other prominent independent Objectivists). We also include articles, not just discussion.
Have you changed your policy or may we put the link back? We will, of course, respect your judgment.
Michael
[edit] Spiritualism?
The article mentioned modified paganism and Buddhism... I can't vouch for paganism, but Buddhism seems to be almost a polar opposite of objectivism, I'm hard pushed to see how the two could ever be reconciled... Is there actually a basis for this claim or was it just an arbitrary "top-of-the-head" example? If so it might be best to switch it for something more compatible Lostsocks (talk) 01:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] NEO-OBJECTIVISM?
Is the article is suppose to be about "neo-objectivism" or "neo-objectvism differences from Objectivism?" If it is the former, and is supposed to be defined, shouldn't there be some examples of what a Neo-0bjectivist believes that an objectivist would not believe. I believe this would better define Neo-objectivism.
- The current article does address some of the common differences, briefly. The point is that "Neo-Objectivism" does not refer to a single cohesive point of view, but rather to a collection of "non-orthodox" views about Objectivism. You can refer to the links for further information about some of these. — DAGwyn (talk) 21:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
