Talk:Objectivism (Ayn Rand)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Objectivism (Ayn Rand) was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: December 3, 2007

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Objectivism (Ayn Rand) article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
Socrates
Philosophy Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.

This article is supported by WikiProject Objectivism, which collaborates on articles related to this philosophy. Please participate by editing this article, or visit the project page for more details.
WikiProject Atheism
Objectivism (Ayn Rand) is part of WikiProject Atheism, which aims to organize, expand, clean up, and guide atheism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page for more details.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
For more information and how you can help click Show →
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Archive
Archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10


Contents

[edit] Is there such a thing as laissez-faire patents?

Could someone please detail the treatment of intellectual property, especially patents and copyrights, under this philosophy? I do not understand how people can speak of "laissez faire capitalism" when the object of capitalism is to prohibit people from copying or even reinventing ideas for use in their machines, writings, music, etc. Many situations such as copyright extension, patent extensions, fair use, prohibition of "obvious" inventions etc. rely intimately on decision making by specific governmental arbitrators. How are these reconciled with "natural law"?

Actually, even seemingly traditional forms of property, such as real estate or mining rights, rely ultimately on arbitrary decision making: can you prohibit planes from flying over your land; how large is a mining "claim" and what activities does it allow; what environmental damage can you do that affects the surrounding ecosystems? 70.15.116.59 05:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

"when the object of capitalism is to prohibit people from copying or even reinventing ideas for use in their machines, writings, music, etc.". Rubbish. Alfred Centauri 12:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
You could read "Capitalism: The New Ideal" to get a sense of how the theory applies to practice. The general principle is that individuals are entitled to the product of their own efforts, which they may freely trade with others. Generally, both parties involved in such a trade will benefit from making the deal. This applies to toiling for a boss in exchange for wages, as well as ownership of original ideas and artistic creations, which may be sold or licensed to others. The proper function of government is then to protect these rights against force or threat of force, including theft (you can't take something from others just because you want it) or reneging on contracts (a form of theft). The intent of patent law was to implement a means of protecting individual property rights for "non-obvious" practical inventions in exchange for requiring public disclosure of the ideas; other implementations might be possible, but historically that's what has been developed. "Natural law" plays no part in Objectivism, which does however trace the origin of the concept of rights to the existential characteristics of humans, particularly rational capacity exercised by free will. Objectivism also rejects arguments for forced sharing based on nebulous notions of achieving a "common good".
If there is some relevance for editing the article, let's discuss it; however, this is not a forum for general discussion of the subject as such. — DAGwyn 22:28, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images

While I agree that it would greatly improve the article to have an image of Rand, Image:Ayn_Rand1.jpg cannot be used because it is under copyright and lacks a non-free media fair use rationale. Skomorokh incite 12:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Failed "good article" nomination

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of December 3, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: The writing is somewhat hit or miss, though excelling in sharpness and clarity in places. In various areas though, there is some muddling of various ideas. For example, while Objectivism (Ayn Rand)#Metaphysics: Objective reality clearly states the three main axioms, the explanations provided following are tangled and unclear. As a more specific example within that section, the discussion of the axiom of existence spends more time on the law of identity than on the concept that "existence exists". This kind of tangled writing makes it difficult for an uninformed reader to understand the matter. A better organization and presentation of ideas will largely help correct these issues.
2. Factually accurate?: Significant portions of the article lack the citation of references entirely. Others seem to directly rely upon Rand's work. We should not rely directly upon a philosopher's work and provide our own interpretation. Ayn Rand's philosophy is interpreted in a variety of fashions and reliable sources are required to tell us how to interpret it (and disagreement over interpretation should be reported in appropriate proportion. The sections on Hume and Kant seem particularly of concern in regards to WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV.
3. Broad in coverage?: Seems to cover most of the main bases (see NPOV for failings).
4. Neutral point of view?: There seems to be a lack of discussion regarding the myriad interpretations of Rand's work. I am also surprised that the relationship between Objectivism and libertarianism (classical liberalism) is not discussed. The two have a varied relationship, ranging from Rand's harsh critique of libertarianism to modern views of their compatibility. Those are simply the two things that struck me as obviously "off" in regards to NPOV. There may be further issues as well, but a review of available reliable sources would be required to determine this.
5. Article stability? Generally stable, but there are a number of recent non-vandalism reverts which could be of concern in relation to stability. These small conflicts seem to affect the article occasionally, but this is very stable for a topic which can become so heated.
6. Images?: Images currently used are used in a decent fashion. However, are there no free images available that are appropriate for the article?

This article needs substantial work in meeting the requirement of the core content policies (Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:No original research. It's a solid B-Class article, but significant effort is required to bring it up to good article standards.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.— Vassyana 10:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with some of the criticism, for example the lack of clarity in the exposition of Objectivist metaphysics. However, I object to the notion that what is needed is a presentation of multiple "interpretations" of Objectivism. Unlike most philosophers, Rand's exposition was quite clear, including careful definitions of the major concepts; no "interpretation" is needed, just a good condensation of what she actually said (with suitable references). Such matters as compatibility with Libertarianism (or lack thereof) are best left to other articles such as the one on the Objectivist movement; the Objectivism (Ayn Rand) article is specifically limited, as noted in its title, to the philosophy as espoused by Rand herself. I agree that the sections on Hume and Kant are problematic, since they have nothing to do with Objectivism; they're only present (as I understand it) because of the insistence of some editors on including some critical comments, which to them seemed to mean referral to those widely admired philosophers. I would be happy to merge that text into the Ayn Rand article, which seems to be a more appropriate place for it. As to images, I tried to include the image of Rand from the Ayn Rand article, but another editor decided it couldn't be used for copyright reasons. So far as I know, there are no copyright-free images of Rand available. I don't think any other images are needed. — DAGwyn 22:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
While you may certainly believe Objectivism is a clear and monolithic entity, that does not reflect the body of published literature. What you present is certainly a prominent internal view, and can be represented as such in the article, but it is not universal. "Neo-objectivism" and other variations of the philosophy should be discussed, along with the bitter split it represents (including such "camps" as the Ayn Rand Institute and the Atlas Society). Additionally, we should not be relying on the philosopher herself to relay an interpretation of her work, but instead depending on third-party reliable sources for such information. Vassyana 00:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
My point is that this article is designed to be specifically about the particular philosophy that Ayn Rand developed, not about possibly derivative philosophies. If there is an article on so-called "neo-objectivism", then there could be a link to it from this article, but (on the assumption that it contradicts Rand's philosophy on some significant points) it does not fall within the scope of the current article. The "camps" you mention don't disagree at all as to what Rand's Objectivism consists of; apart from historical personality and "political" factors, their main difference is in the extent to which, and areas in which, the original Objectivist tenets could or should be modified post-Rand. Note that the current article has pointers to more information about this, and that there are a large number of related WP articles such as the one on the Objectivist movement where non-Rand oriented discussion is more appropriate. As to ignoring on what the developer of the specific philosophy said (which is by definition not an "interpretation"), substituting opinions of commentators who may not have understood it or who may have ulterior motives for obfuscating or "spinning" it, that is absurd at best. — DAGwyn 19:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Vassyana, why should we ‘not be relying on the philosopher herself’ to explain her own work? Why is the philosopher herself less reliable than ‘third-party reliable sources’? Furthermore, who is going to determine what is reliable and what is not? I suggest we present the philosophy as explained by the author herself as best as we can and leave the interpreting to whoever reads the article. ErikvdL (talk) 12:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
The purpose of Wikipedia is to report on what reliable independent sources have said about a subject. Certainly, a few quotes and references to Rand are relevant and useful for illustration. Rand's work should be used to compliment the reporting of independent sources, not used in its place. The meaning and impact of her work should be cited to third-party references. Reliance on Rand directly is a NPOV concern (since NPOV is essentially the proportionate reporting of what independent sources have stated) and also a potential original research concern. Also, there is certainly no lack of references regarding Rand and her work, so there is absolutely no need to rely heavily in any way on the primary material. Vassyana (talk) 04:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I could take issue with almost all of that. Any encyclopedia's first responsibility is the accurate conveyance of relevant facts about the topics. Wikipedia policy is relevant insofar as it contributes to that primary goal, which we must presume is its intention. Replacing accurate primary information with a catalog of secondary commentary (nearly all of it motivated by special-interest POVs) would not be a useful service. It also would beg the question, "commentary about what?" — DAGwyn (talk) 18:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Your point would be fine if either you or I were documented experts publishing under our real names subject to editorial control. However, that is not what we are doing here. Neither of us is qualified in this environment to determine "the accurate conveyance of relevant facts about the topics" on our own. We must depend on existing reliable accounts to tell us what the accurate accounting is and which facts are most relevant. That is the very foundation of the project and part of its primary rule of NPOV. If there POVs in the published literature, then we are required to present the claims of those sources in proportion, not avoid them. Vassyana (talk) 11:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
The issue is editorial policy, not our own original writing. The primary purpose of the WP policy is to attain a reasonable amount of verifiability for what is presented, which is certainly achieved by using Rand's own work as a reference; it is 100% reliable for the purpose, readily available, and very clearly expressed (unlike a lot of what passes for philosophical writing). Significant commentary/criticism is in fact given balanced treatment in the article, but is not interspersed within the atraightforward description of the ideas, in order to avoid obscuring them. Of course editorial judgment is necessary here, as well as in other WP articles, but it can be applied reasonably and fairly. If you know of any misrepresentation, identify it and we'll check it out and correct it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DAGwyn (talk • contribs) 20:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
As DAGwyn already pointed out ‘this article is designed to be specifically about the particular philosophy that Ayn Rand developed’; my following arguments will be based on that statement, if you disagree with DAGwyns statement please say so, focus on that and forget everything I say below.
Nothing in the article NPOV suggests that ‘reliance on Rand directly is a NPOV concern’. (It is also not an original research concern since her ideas have been published decades ago.) In the paragraph A simple formulation (in NPOV) the distinction between fact and view is clarified. The views Ayn Rand had are facts, in the way that there is no discussion about what she said; this can be clearly shown by citing her own work. Judging her views to be correct or wrong should indeed be left to the readers (Wikipedia policy), who should be helped by naming other authors who wrote about the same subjects. This is how the article is written now. ErikvdL (talk) 11:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
You are misusing "A simple formulation" in that it is about how to assert information from sources, nothing more or less. (This is clearly indicated in the bold text opening sentence: "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves.") Basically, it's about how to cite sources, not about how to choose sources. If we're going to parse policy, then it's important to address the issue of reliable sources/verifiability, since NPOV is "representing fairly and, as much as possible, without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources)". Verifiability's appropriate section states in opening: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." [emphasis added] "Third-party", or "independent", sourcing is a central aspect of good editorial practice in Wikipedia because we are not experts and we do not act under formal editorial oversight. What aspects of Rand's philosophy are most important to cover and what that philosophy means must be decided by reliable third-party publications, not by the whims of Wikipedia editors. Vassyana (talk) 21:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
The WP policy seems logical only when reliable first-party information is unavailable and when the second party (article editor) is unreliable, which may be the case for many articles but not in this particular case. By the way, some of the editors of this article are experts on the subject matter, moreso than many of the third-party commentators. For example, I was trained in this philosophy decades ago by the NBI and had some discussions with Rand herself which may have influenced her decision late in life to study abstract algebra. The idea that I cannot use any of my own deep knowledge of the subject and must ensure that the article merely cites others' opinions is ridiculous, and is not in fact how technical WP articles in general are edited. If you think there are factual errors in the article, by all means point them out and we will fix them; but if the article is accurate then what is your beef? — DAGwyn (talk) 08:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

"The idea that I cannot use any of my own deep knowledge of the subject and must ensure that the article merely cites others' opinions is ridiculous ..."

It's not ridiculous at all. Wikipedia is simply not the place to exercise such scholarship. There is no system for internal expert verification, nor is there anything remotely resembling the standard peer-review and editorial processes found in reputable literature. Additionally, the core content policies (verifiability, no original research and neutral point of view) not only prohibit and require (respectively) exactly what you call "ridiculous", but are firmly founded on the principles of that prohibition and requirement. There are other wikis and other WMF projects that allow such forms of research. However, Wikipedia is not one of them. Vassyana (talk) 09:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
As an additional comment, the use of expertise to find and select the best available sources is not only welcome, but even encouraged on Wikipedia. Similarly, the use of expertise to help out on dense, complex and/or easily misunderstood topics is similarly welcomed and encouraged. However, the use of expert opinions is generally limited to this scope and caution needs to be exercised to avoid conflicts of interest, original research and disproportionate weighting. For example, there are topics in my area of real-life expertise where the majority published opinion is not in sync with the latest scholarship and academic opinions. Barring a highly reputable source (or preferably multiple unquestionably reliable references), I cannot change those articles based on my expertise as that would be a problem of both original research and undue weight. It is certainly a limitation of Wikipedia, but fits the core idea of proportionately summarizing reputably published material quite well. Vassyana (talk) 09:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
The following policy is given in Wikipedia:Verifiability: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Although Wikipedia:No original research states "Examples of primary sources include ... original philosophical works" and "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation", it also states at the end of the paragraph "Appropriate sourcing is a complicated issue, and these are general rules. The decision as to whether primary or secondary sources are more suitable on any given occasion is a matter of common sense and good editorial judgment, and should be discussed on article talk pages."
The above enables me to derive the following conclusions:
What is meant by “third-party sources” (WP:V) is not exactly the same as “Tertiary sources” (NOR). If the policies do refer to the same they contradict each other, which probably is not the case. Third-party sources are, placed in context, other sources than Wikipedia itself and its editors; this would make sense, given what follows directly after the line containing "third-party sources": "Reliable sources are necessary ... to substantiate material within articles".
Vassyana said "there is absolutely no need to rely heavily in any way on the primary material"; this point is still subject to discussion. In contrast to her opinion I say there is absolutely no reason not to rely heavily on the primary material. Yes, "an interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source" but when the text of the citation speaks for itself, no further interpretation is required.
The arguments in favor of primary source material have, as of yet, not been given a response; the focus has been on the demand to have (mainly) third-party sources. In the proper context primary sources are third-party sources, fulfilling this demand. Again "The decision as to whether primary or secondary sources are more suitable on any given occasion is a matter of common sense and good editorial judgment, and should be discussed". Let’s now focus on that. ErikvdL (talk) 11:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Third-party is in relation to the topic itself; an "independent" source. This follows the plain definition of "third-party". ("No original research" is what says, essentially, that Wikipedia and its editors are not permitted as sources.) Beyond that, Wikipedia articles are supposed to be a summary of reliably published independent scholarship about the topic. This is not achieved by depending on primary materials. That is not to say such references are not helpful or even perfectly appropriate to use in some ways. As I state above, primary sources are quite good for illustrative purposes and providing context. Third-party (independent) sources should be the main material upon which an article draws. Not only is this good sense in the context of the project and its principle rules, it is absolutely essential to fulfill the "neutral point of view" (which is the proportional representation of the body of available reliably published material). Vassyana (talk) 19:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I can't speak for all the editors, but I for one have not been inserting "original research" or my own evaluations in any of the articles I regularly edit, having been very careful to establish and maintain a neutral point of view, which is especially hard to do for such a controversial article as this one. In fact, I have removed instances of OR and editorializing from several articles. Vassayana has yet to identify any factual error or undue bias in the presentation of the subject article, which indicates that the primary purpose of any encyclopedia is being well achieved here. If we had tried to limit the article to a review of third-party published opinions, I am sure that the article quality would have suffered greatly. Perhaps that is what Vassyana would prefer? — DAGwyn (talk) 01:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
This comment starts on the false defensive and ends with a false dilemma; a common "debate" formula. Rhetoric is not a replacement for earnest discussion. I was simply replying to the comments posted here. I also pointed out some of the issues in the GA review, though it was not a detailed critique because the flaws are many. I will provide more feedback below. This article can rely on quality independent sources and still reach a high quality (just like any other article). Vassyana (talk) 11:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Dagwyn, you seem to be misunderstanding the purpose behind WP:V. The reason that we require reliable third party sources is that, unless you plan to have an article that consists solely of quotations, you are going to inevitably use your own interpretation of the primary source if you overrely on it. This is because whenever you have a sentence referring to the primary source that is not a quote, that sentence conveys your personal belief in what the primary source says. To solve this dilemma, we have included WP:V as part of the editorial policy, so that instead of conveying your own interpretation of Rand's work, you can cite to a recognized authority that has interpreted that work (I am sure that there are plenty such authorities available). You may not agree with this policy, but it is nonetheless the policy of Wikipedia and we ask that you abide by it. 70.21.58.3 (talk) 06:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article review

Section titles are in bold.

Reliance on founder(s). This article could benefit from less reliance on Rand and Peikoff. While they are both obviously central figures to Objectivism, the purpose of Wikipedia is summarizing the body of independent reliable sources for a given topic. Part of what is problematic is the reliance on fictional novels, which are no more an appropriate source for citations about her philosophy than (for example) the Screwtape Letters about demonology and Christianity.

Neutral point of view. Discussion of the Objectivist movement and Neo-Objectivism is completely lacking. This is article is about Ayn Rand's philosophy as a whole, not merely one "official" version thereof, and all significant viewpoints must be represented. It would be appropriate to have one or two paragraph summary sections using the {{main}} or {{seealso}} template at the top of the sections to direct readers to the appropriate full articles. Rand's philosophy also receives spotty/incomplete coverage. A discussion of Objectivism's treatment of human nature is lacking. (For example, there is no mention that people are "self-made". This is a particularly notable aspect of her philosophy, especially as it regards destructive behaviour.) There is no discussion of the philosophy and political traditions that Rand's philosophy is related to/arose from. The article fails to sufficient address conflicting interests and mutual benefit. Similarly, Rand's rejection of limited resources arguments is conspicuously absent.

Verifiability. Uncontroversial, uncontested and blatantly obvious information does not need a source. (For example, it's fairly undisputed that: "Rand presented her philosophy through her novels The Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged, and other works.") However, there are large swaths of this article completely lacking referencing that most certainly need supporting material.

Origins of the name. The first paragraph could use either a complete quote from Rand (rather than the fragmented quoting) regarding the nature of values or a normally paraphrased solid independent reference. A sourced explanation of what exactly is meant by "not intrinsic to external reality, nor ... subjective" would be beneficial. Rand's quote that follows ("determined by the nature of reality, but to be discovered by man's mind.") doesn't really do much to explain it to the reader.

Metaphysics: Objective reality. This appears to be an interweaving of primary material and personal commentary/interpretation. This material should be referenced explicitly to reliable sources. The "axiom of existence" is given only a very brief explanation by way of partial quotation. The "axiom of Consciousness" is a much criticized axiom of Objectivism, particularly in regards to self-awareness as a non-indicator of consciousness. The law of causality is not mentioned in the lede of the section, and while it leads from the axiom of consciousness, the article should better explain its context (such as whether or not it is an axiom or a proposition that flows logically from the axioms, etc).

Epistemology: Reason. This section is missing referencing for most of the material. Rand and Peikoff are sporadically and sparingly cited. There are signs of original research, such as the citation of Atlas Shrugged for the claim that Atlas Shrugged was the first presentation of Objectivist epistemology. Such a claim unquestionably needs an independent source. The section should be reviewed carefully for similar flaws and preferably be rewritten in accordance with reliable third-party sources. The section also seems unnecessarily long for a summary section of another article.

Ethics: Rational self-interest. This section has similar referencing issues as the previous section. Additionally, it is completely lacking a discussion of the similarities/differences between Objectivist ethics and utilitarianism. This "relationship" is well-discussed in reliable references.

Politics: Individual rights and capitalism. This section has the same referencing issues as the two previous sections. Discussion of the conflict and tension between libertarianism (or classical liberalism) and Objectivism is similarly lacking.

Aesthetics: Romantic realism. Completely lacks referencing.

Monographs. This seems more like a "further reading" list than any encyclopedic content.

Cultural impact. This reads more like an apologetic than a section about cultural impact. Notably, a discussion of the Objectivist movement is completely lacking. The first paragraph especially needs references for the first two sentences. After the first paragraph, the section appears to devote itself nigh entirely to the apologetic.

Criticism. This section feels "tacked on", and editors have previously stated this is fairly much the case. Criticisms of Rand's philosophy should be incorporated into the appropriate areas of the article. If someone is criticizing the axioms, discuss that with the axioms, for example. The bulk of the section has more to do with Rand's critique of other philosophers than with criticism of Objectivism. The general focus of Rand's criticisms of others is better suited to Rand's article than to this one. However, the information that directly relates to Objectivism and criticisms of Objectivism should be properly incorporated into the article.

I hope this is helpful in clarifying the large amount of work that remains to be done in order to bring this article up to par. Vassyana (talk) 12:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for providing a list of areas to be looked at and worked on. I disagree with some of the comments, such as distributing criticism throughout the exposition of the philosophy, which as noted previously would have undesirable effects: (a) requiring much more reading to acquire all the information about the theory, i.e. diluting the concepts; (b) increased likelihood of the reader confusing Objectivism's defining ideas with those of commentators; (c) conveying the impression that the theory is a bunch of separate ideas arbitrarily chosen and bolted together, rather than (for the most part) constituting an integrated system.
I agree that much of the exposition is in need of improvement, but haven't yet had the time myself to overhaul much of it. The article (like many others in the WP) is the result of consensus among multiple editors requiring compromise and negotiation to reach a stable condition. Thus it takes a long time for substantial improvement to occur and stick.
Since the original presentation of organized essays on key ideas of Objectivism in fact occurred in the form of speeches given by protagonists in Rand's novels, it is certainly appropriate to cite them. The analogy with the Screwtape Letters is extremely weak, since the latter was a commentary on an already published and well-established body of doctrine. A better parallel would be with the Bible, which contains (some of) the earliest recorded presentation of Christian beliefs. Certainly, when discussing Christianity, citations from the Bible are to be expected; indeed. many (rightly or wrongly) consider it the ultimate reference for that subject. — DAGwyn (talk) 01:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
We obviously don't see eye to eye regarding primary material. I'm sure we can agree to disagree regarding that point. :) One way you could handle integrating criticism is to have it appear at the end of the appropriate sections, so as to not muddle or interfere with the explanations of various points. For example, criticisms of the axioms could be placed at the end of the axioms section. Certainly, the proposal-criticism-rebuttal-counter format is horrid. I am glad the critique is helpful in identifying what can be improved. If there's anything I've left unclear or if you have other questions, I'd be glad to answer them as well as possible. Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 00:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

You say: "Part of what is problematic is the reliance on fictional novels, which are no more an appropriate source for citations about her philosophy than (for example) the Screwtape Letters about demonology and Christianity. "

Why not? There are only two reasons:

1. The source is derivative. Except these aren't. You can use the Bible as a source because it's a primary source. Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead are the primary sources.

2. Fiction is not facts. Except, a novel illustrates abtract themes; it is not recounting factual events. The abstract ideas in the novel are, qua ideas, factually existing, and that's generally what we report on when describing a philosophy. If the article recounted the incident of a train crash in the Taggart Tunnel, as if it were a real-life event, then you might have had a point (sorry for the spoiler if you haven't read the book). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.230.146 (talk) 01:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Usually, one cannot be sure that what a character says in a work of fiction is an accurate representation of the author's personal ideas, opinions, and attitudes. However, in this case, the author did state that specified portions of the texts did present key aspects of her philosophy. For many years, until Rand had finally produced a substantial amount of nonfiction expounding her ideas, Galt's speech from Atlas Shrugged (and to a lesser extent, speeches by other protagonists in her novels) was widely used as a reference by students of Objectivism. There are some issues which she covered in her fiction but never got around to elaborating upon in her nonfiction writing. — DAGwyn (talk) 00:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

As Vassyana's review is substantial, some specific areas of the article that need work have been identified. These points I appreciate; however, I put no weight in this review's major conclusions. The main principles of Objectivism are presented as they are. To suggest NPOV demands that the interpretations of "Neo-Objectivists" be interlaced with the presentation shows a lack of understanding of NPOV. The metaphysics section (as an example, the priciple applies for all sections) isn't a survey of everyone's metaphysics, one of whom's is Ayn Rand's, its a presentation of Ayn Rand's metaphysics. I challenge anyone to show me a reliable 3rd party source that disputes that *Ayn Rand's* metaphysics is different than what she explained in her own works. To suggest that there is a potential OR issue is a sophisticated twist on using weasel words. Sourcing Ayn Rand to verify what Ayn Rand wrote is absolutely proper. I'm not arguing against 3rd party reliable sources being put to good use to verify the summaries; however, I am arguing against interlacing summaries of other people's philosophical beliefs with the presentation of Ayn Rand's. The WP user/reader is entitled to an informative and clear presentation of Objectivism and the article's editors will harm the user/reader experience whenever they clutter that presentation. As well, in the review section above, the reviewer claims article weakness due the absence of specific discussions (such as contrasts with utilitarianism). I would respect a comment that the article should be more comprehensive and include more sections to feed the user/reader even more valuable information to further thier understanding of Objectivism (so they can not care, love, ponder, or hate it). However, I reject the suggestion that criticisms, contrasts, and discussions of related contemporary organizations be injected into the existing sections and neccessarily destroy a structured presentation of the ideas of Objectivism (the article's namesake). To make sense of any contrast of Ayn Rand's philosophy with another set of philosophical ideas demands that the user/reader first be given a clear presentation of Objectivism's ideas. Karbinski (talk) 01:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

One way of integrating the criticism into the article is how it is currently written: well structured. The lack of content or quality of content of the ciritcism section is a *different* concern. Karbinski (talk) 01:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll agree to disagree about primary sourcing, as I did above. Would you agree about my concerns regarding the incomplete coverage of Rand's philosophy that I detailed in my NPOV concerns? I believe that lack of discussion regarding utilitarianism and classical liberalism is significant, since Rand's philosophy arose from the fertile ground of that Anglo-American philosophical school and Rand (and her more devout followers) have fiercely contrasted Objectivism with them. One can no more present an accurate and comprehensive overview of Objectivism without discussing utilitarianism and classical liberalism, than one can craft a similarly complete article about early Christianity without discussing Judaism. If this needs to be handled in a separate section, that's just as well. Organize the material however is most appropriate for a clear presentation, but be cautious when using some sections like "Criticism" as such organization tends to be used to marginalize "offensive" material or highlight negative claims. It's usually best to integrate material into the relevant portion of the discussion, but in that approach caution must be used to avoid an apologetic/criticism/counter-point type of mess. In the end, organize it in whatever way will produce the most readable and encyclopedic article. Just be sure to properly represent all significant points of views in the published literature, not just a presentation of orthodoxy with variants and criticisms tacked onto the article. Vassyana (talk) 01:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with characterizing what you think to be missing content as a violation of/misalignment with NPOV. As you know, you are welcome as a contributing editor to the article. Karbinski (talk) 01:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
What something *is* in factual terms and what people's reactions and conclusions are on the topic are two different things. The former information is useful for the user/reader to react and form their own conclusions. The latter may be useful for the user/reader - when NPOV is maintained - but remains secondary to the facts that gave rise to the commentary in the first place. This relationship between fact and commentary is what underlies the structure of presenting the facts first and consequences second. Karbinski (talk) 01:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I am not arguing that the article's existing presentation of what Objectivism *is* is perfect or "somehow" above verification; I am arguing that the only appropriate points of view to include are those pertaining to what objectivism *is*. For example, what the axioms of Objectivism are is undisputable, therefore *what* they are is presented as undisputed. If some notable disputes or champions the *axioms themselves* and published in a reliable source then such information can be used to enrich the article in *subsequent* sections. If any notable has disputed what Ayn Rand's philosophical ideas *were* (in part or in whole) in a reliable source, we would have to abide by NPOV and give that dispute its due weight as measured against the detailed articulation of those ideas by thier author. There is no contest, quoting the author directly is a complete confirmation of what the author said. Karbinski (talk) 01:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Following guidelines that seem to have been applied in general to WP articles on other controversial subjects, it is appropriate to refer to a certain amount of reasoned criticism. However, I think that is best done using the present article structure, where the criticism is not interleaved with the exposition of the philosophy. My concern is the clarity and accuracy of understanding of what the key ideas are, without confusion from the ideas of critics. While the primary purpose of the article is, rightly, to clearly, accurately, and fairly describe the subject, that goal can be advanced by providing appropriate context. — DAGwyn (talk) 21:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Extended, not limited

--"Unlike many other philosophers, Ayn Rand limited the scope of ethics to the derivation of principles needed in all contexts, whether one is alone or with others"

I think that the word "limited" should actually be "extended", since it is opposing itself to views that only consider others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.158.7 (talk) 00:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nature of property

"Indeed, on the Objectivist account, one of the corollaries of the right to life is the right to property which, according to Objectivism, typically represents the product of one's own effort;"

There's no reason for the "typically", here. It always represents the results of one's own effort.

Since this may not be self-evident to some of you, I'll break the point down, and you can argue with it if you wish.

1. The Objectivist view is that property is the product of one's own thought and effort.

2. Under the Objectivist view, If a value was obtained through government favour or welfare, then it is merely stolen goods, not property.

3. If you con someone by lying about something in a transaction, that is fraud. You cannot be said to legitimately own what you get from a fraud.

4. If you merely obtained some value easily through exploiting someone's stupidity, then it is still the product of your thought and effort. It may, arguably, not have required the investment of much thought and effort in comparison to the upper end of the deal that you've obtained (though I WOULD argue that point, since understanding human behaviour is a quality of character that you objectively have to earn). If no rights were violated, you earned it, and you couldn't have earned it without at least some thought and effort.

I cannot foresee any situations, here, where property only "typically" represents the product of one's effort, as opposed to all of the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.158.7 (talk) 01:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that the general reader won't know the distinction between earned property and unearned "property". However, the text does read better without the weasel-word "typically", so I have removed it. — DAGwyn (talk) 21:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rand choose Objectivism bla bla bla

"Rand chose Objectivism as the name of her philosophy because her ideal term to label a philosophy based on the primacy of existence, Existentialism, had already been adopted to describe the philosophy of Kierkegaard and Nietzsche.[4]"

This part, while correct, fail to mention that objectivism had already been used by Gottlob Frege to term his standpoint. And while Gottlob Frege's use of the term objectivism wasn't a full philosophical system it still need to be pointed out for the sake of clarity.

Ayn Rand might however have missed that the term objectivism was already taken so to speak or she might have known, I have no sources citing that she knew or didn't know so that would be speculation on my part.

However, pointing out that she was not the first with the term is important, because right now the article right now imply it. Mandarni (talk) 02:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The article starts off immediately with a link to the disambiguation page for the term. However, I added a sentence to briefly indicate the distinction. — DAGwyn (talk) 03:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Perfect Mandarni (talk) 21:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] History of Philosophy Criticism

The article states that Rand was criticized for her interpretation of the major philosophers and it states Rand's position, but it never states what the criticism is. This is vague and somewhat confusing. 129.174.226.5 (talk) 20:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Some of that criticism is explained in the subsequent paragraphs. Also, there is a reference for further research (Seddon) if one wants to know more.
We don't want to exhibit a lot of detailed criticisms here, because many of them are themselves based on misinterpretations or are in other ways inadequate. If we get into counter-arguments and counter-counter-arguments, then we create a debating platform, which would certainly detract from the article's value for most readers. The article does well enough by noting that there is some criticism, giving a reference, and illustrating some of it. — DAGwyn (talk) 22:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Whether the criticism is accurate or not, it is out there. Its not our job as editors to evaluate the scholarship of others, but merely to list it. A "Criticism" section should contain actual criticism not vague references to it. Idag (talk) 01:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
On your view, the editors of the Special Relativity article would be obligated to list all the crackpot criticisms of SR regardless of merit. I doubt you will find any support for such a view here and I, for one, reject it as utter nonsense. Alfred Centauri (talk) 13:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not saying that we should add crackpot theories, I'm saying that we need to elaborate and clarify the criticism that we have already included. The current criticism section does a horrible job of summarizing the sources that criticize Objectivism (it references those sources, but read through it and then tell me that you understand how Objectivism is criticized). I am not familiar with the Special Relativity article, so I will leave those theories to the editors who work on that article, I'm just saying that the Criticism section should be a clear and concise summary of the criticism of Objectivism and should be easily accessible to people who are learning about this subject for the first time. I would rewrite it myself, but I am not familiar with this area (hence my complete confusion upon reading the current Criticism section). 70.21.52.33 (talk) 19:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure the current text could be improved, although I don't want to volunteer to do the work. However, be advised that much of the criticism is itself not easy to understand, for several reasons. A somewhat oversimplified categorization of the criticisms follows: (1) The critic identifies an apparent error in Rand's argument. (2) The critic thinks that Rand misinterpreted what some other philosopher said, so her criticism of that philosopher is flawed. (3) The critic misinterprets what the other philosopher said, and consequently thinks Rand misinterpreted that philosopher. (4) The critic misinterprets what Rand said. (5) The critic understands what Rand said but has already made up his mind otherwise. (6) The critic raises a point that Rand didn't address (perhaps because she didn't think it important), and says that the lack of an answer on that issue is a flaw in her argument. (7) The criticism consists of a bunch of invective with no evident rational argument. The only criticism that should be worth worrying about is types 1 and 2; unfortunately, most of the criticism I've seen falls into one of the other categories. Until relatively recently, most of the criticism was of type 7, alas. — DAGwyn (talk) 23:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Material that relies upon a reference, implying verifiability, that isn't actually verified by the reference needs to be removed or corrected - as per Original Research (OR). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karbinski (talk • contribs) 15:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
What material are you referring to? Idag (talk) 01:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm making a general point. I've encountered several examples throughout Wikipedia including within this article. Karbinski (talk) 22:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
That's not particularly helpful. If you find an actual improper source, then by all means feel free to fix it. Idag (talk) 04:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kant gets the last word

Although I do not have anything to offer as a specific alteration at this time, I've noticed that it feels odd for the Objectivism article to end on the section about Kant, and letting a Kantian view-point have the final sentence. Furthermore, the Kant section is longer (and superior, at the time of writing) on the "Ayn Rand" article, than in this one. I don't think a Kant section belongs in the Ayn Rand article at all; it belongs here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.159.181 (talk) 18:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I gave it a shot. I see no issue with ending the article with Ayn Rand's interpretation of Kant. Karbinski (talk) 00:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I see an issue. The article devoted to Ayn Rand should end with Ayn Rand's words on her own philosophy. Oleksandr (talk) 23:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
The entire article, including the last section - specifically on how Ayn Rand characterizes Kant's philosophy as a fundamental opposite to Objectivism - is about Objectivism. Perhaps the final sentence is irrelevant as Kant's article is linked.Karbinski (talk) 00:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] link to a source -

'The Benefits and Hazards of the Philosophy of Ayn Rand: A Personal Statement' - --Emesee (talk) 20:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism

Explain why we should remove the criticism section. - Bert 65.170.159.12 (talk) 19:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

That has been explained several times before, and I have just added a further explanation in Talk: Criticism of Objectivism (Ayn Rand).
The main point is that Wikipedia articles are not supposed to serve as debating platforms. The whole WP:NPOV business is aimed at resolving legitimate disputes over factual claims. In the context of an article which has the sole purpose of explaining the fact of what Objectivism is, with links to related matters, arguing against the philosophy is inappropriate insertion of a POV, although it is useful to note that there are such arguments, with links to them and very brief summary descriptions of particularly prominent ones. The NPOV policy would, however, apply to a question about including different POVs on how to interpret the content of Objectivism, if there were significant disagreements on that score.
Similarly for the Ayn Rand article, that is meant to be factual, biographical information, and is not a platform for arguing against Rand's ideas. Again, it is appropriate to note there that there are such arguments and to provide a link for anyone who wants to find out more. That article also naturally includes a fair summary of the reaction to Rand's work, both pro and con, since that is an important property of the particular subject.
The editorial goal is to achieve and maintain high article quality. Soapbox debates tend to be of low quality and distract from the main subject. — DAGwyn (talk) 20:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I Agree wholeheartedly with DAGwyn's description of what NPOV constitutes and how we should edit this biographical article. Ethan a dawe (talk) 20:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, yes, you two considently agree when it comes to Objectivist apologetics. This is an interesting as two Catholic priests insisting the Church is blameless in the cycle of sexual abuse of minors.

You seem to be argument that an encyclopedia should hide all criticism away into a POV fork, but we know this isn't how Wikipedia is intended to work, so it's not much of an argument. In the context of Wikipedia, it's self-refuting to call for a violation of its rules. - Bert 20:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The article is a simple exposition on Objectivism. The topic is in fact *non-controversial*. The demand that the article describe Objectivism *and* include a selection of negative opinion is to violate NPOV. Let the world know all there is to know about what critics and advocates have written about Objectivism - at the same time allow for, and accept, the existence of an article that lets a wikipedia user know what constitutes Objectivism in a clear and structured fashion.Karbinski (talk) 22:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
A nice part of this non-controversial article is that it fully discloses how controversial the ideas it explains are and provides a link to an article dedicated to that subject. Further, the fact that Ayn Rand's philosophical ideas are considered controversial by academics is presented as un-disputed. However, the controversy itself is not relevant to the article. The reason it is not relevant is that the reaction to Ayn Rand's ideas is exactly a reaction, and has zero to do with what those ideas are (the ideas were given to us by Ayn Rand *before* anyone reacted to them). This article presents what those ideas are.Karbinski (talk) 22:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Take your personal reaction and post it somewhere else as per WP:OR.Karbinski (talk) 22:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Bert, thank you for discussing this on the talk page. The editors (of which I am one) of the articles Special Relativity and General Relativity face a similar problem. The subject of those articles is complex and so the articles are long. Where appropriate, contrasts to previous related theories, i.e., where Einstein thought others 'got it wrong' is present. However, NPOV does not require that a substantial portion of the article must be dedicated to criticisms of the theories and of their author. Nonetheless, there are Wikilinks present to additional articles that detail alternate theories and criticisms. AFAIK, this arrangement is perfectly acceptable here at Wikipedia. Since DAGwyn, has created an article expressly for criticism of Objectivism, what are you waiting for? Adopt it and turn it into a high-quality article.
Note that I am not a regular editor here and have no 'vested' interest in this article's contents. It is on my watch list because I have an interest in Objectivism and Ayn Rand. The regular editors here have clearly made an effort to address your concerns with the creation of the new article but it appears that you refuse to budge from your edit warring ways. This leads me to believe that you are not seriously concerned with the quality of the article. I have a feeling that the administrators will come to the same conclusion should you choose continue this disruptive behaviour. Alfred Centauri (talk) 22:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "deja doodoo"

In a new low, the vandalistic censorship now includes the sort of curses suitable for kindergarten. Instead of edit-warring to hide criticism, you need to justify your ideas about how the article should go. I suspect you don't take the high road simply because you can't. Any objective analysis of this issue shows that we cannot delete all criticism and pretend to have a fair and balanced article. Tell me why I'm wrong. Until you do, I will continue to restore what you censor, and I can only hope that others chime in to protect this article against vandals such as Alfred Centauri. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.221.174 (talk) 12:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Telling you why you are wrong, again, anonymous editor

See the section entitled Criticism above. How about we sweep aside weasel worded claims such as "any objective analysis ... shows that we ... <insert actual claim here>" and instead hear from you an objective analysis. A fair and balanced article it is, as all major points of view on what ideas constitute Ayn Rand's philosphy are represented (the quality of this representation may be improved I'm sure). All of the removed content was reaction to Ayn Rand's philosophical ideas - not one segment of it expressed a view as to what Ayn Rand's ideas were. The new article could be renamed "Reactions to ..." As it stands it is not a content fork, as it does not address the same content as this article; it doesn't posit a different point of view on what Objectivism is. It most definitely details the controversy sparked by Ayn Rand's ideas - as summarized in this article. Karbinski (talk) 15:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Go look up "POV Fork" and it should become self-evident that moving all criticism out of an article about a controversial subject and burying it in an article nobody will look at is ridiculous. - Bert 17:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.170.159.12 (talk)
Anonymous, while some Objectivists and their statements are controversial, the definition of the philosophy of Objectivism is not controversial. For the criticism to qualify as a POV fork, the article would necessarily contradict how the philosophy of Objectivism is defined in this article. As the criticism article does not do that, your assertion that it is a POV fork is objectively false. Alfred Centauri (talk) 18:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Semi-Protection

1.

I will continue to restore ...

2. Editor has reached the 3 revert limit
3. Editor has not engaged in discussion beyond claiming he/she has it right and demanding those who have articulated their case continue to make their case. Seemingly all discussion has been ignored by the editor.

One reason not to semi-protect may be that the editor claimed they would cease the behaivor once told why they are wrong. As well, the semi-protection may be overkill.

If anonymous vandalism continues, semi-protection may be requested for the page. Karbinski (talk) 15:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that semi-protection is probably required however, the reverts of anonymous are not actually considered vandalism ( What vandalism is not), just stubborn:
Stubbornness: Some users cannot come to agreement with others who are willing to talk to them about an editing issue, and repeatedly make changes opposed by everyone else. This is regrettable — you may wish to see our dispute resolution pages to get help. Repeated deletion or addition of material may violate the three-revert rule, but this is not "vandalism" and should not be dealt with as such.
Observing his demeanor and rhetoric, I think any reasonable administrator would conclude that anonymous is at least being disruptive and thus a request for page semi-protection would be warranted. Alfred Centauri (talk) 16:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm glad to see the disruptive editor blocked for now. Let's use this time to make improvements. Ethan a dawe (talk) 20:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
The article has been fully protected, Ethan. Alfred Centauri (talk) 20:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
We can still get a good outline of what changes should be made to the article in that time. Ethan a dawe (talk) 20:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Semi-protection is a tool to stop vandals who use Tor to keep changing their IP. This is a content dispute in which everyone is being quite stubborn. Therefore, semi-protection would be an abuse of administrator rights, as it would involve siding with one faction in a content dispute. For that matter, it's not clear that anyone has violated the 3 revert limit, nor is there an absence of discussion. Rather, the people who are fighting against the POV fork are being disregarded by those who seem to be overly concerned with making sure Ayn Rand looks spotless. - Bert 17:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.170.159.12 (talk)


From [POV fork]:
There is no consensus whether a "Criticism of .... " article is always a POV fork. At least the "Criticism of ... " article should contain rebuttals if available, and the original article should contain a neutral summary of the "Criticism of ... " article.
From [What POV forking is not]:
Articles whose subject is a POV
Different articles can be legitimately created on subjects which themselves represent points of view, as long as the title clearly indicates what its subject is, the point-of-view subject is presented neutrally, and each article cross-references articles on other appropriate points of view. Thus Evolution and Creationism, Capitalism and Communism, Biblical literalism and Biblical criticism, etc., all represent legitimate article subjects. As noted above, "Criticism of" type articles should generally start as sections of the main article and be spun off by agreement among the editors.
Bert, there is no POV fork here and your 'editing' actions are disruptive. Undoing disruptive non-consensus edits is not disruptive or vandalism. Your disagreement with the significant non-anonymous contributors to this article does not entitle you to disrupt this article while stomping your feet and crying 'Vandals' and 'Censors'. You're as transparent as the thinness of your 'argument'. Alfred Centauri (talk) 18:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

There is clearly no agreement among the editors to spin off criticism into its own article. Rather, the very same people who would gladly delete all criticism have taken it upon themselves to unilaterally push it into a POV fork. In two weeks, unless someone beats me to it, I will revert your censorship of this article. - Bert 20:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.111.29.12 (talk)

Two cents from an admirer of the works by Miss Rand:

"Criticism of" type articles should generally start as sections of the main article and be spun off by agreement among the editors POV_fork#Articles_whose_subject_is_a_POV

IMO, the only reason to spin off a "Criticism" section is Wikipedia:Article size.

If there is no size problem, IMO there´s no point in creating a "Criticism" independent page. That´s the reason Immanuel Kant has no "Criticism" section.

Randroide (talk) 21:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

From what I've read in various Wikipedia-hating blogs and forums, when someone needs a generic excuse to cut out stuff they don't like, they claim the article is too big. When adding stuff they do like, they change their minds and assert that the article needs to be just a little bit bigger. In short, article size is all too often used as a generic complaint to justify whichever action a seasoned edit warrior desires.

In a largish article, it's entirely fair to move big sections out into their own topic-specific articles. However, even then it makes sense to leave a solid paragraph in the main article to give readers a good idea of what they're missing if they don't click that link. This conspicuous absence of this best practice is a sure sign of censorship, and distinguishes a POV fork from mere rebalancing of content.

By some coincidence, censorship is precisely what's happening here. - Bert 22:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

"In two weeks, unless someone beats me to it, I will revert your censorship of this article." So much for discussion. I continue for the record then. Karbinski (talk) 22:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
There is no content in the article that avocates Objectivism (no quotes that learning Objectivism is great for an individual's mental health, or blow by blow commentary on how such and such historical events highlight the truth of Objectivism, or how notables have flourished and/or achieved as a result of learning Objectivism, or any ad-hominum attacks on notable critics, or anything else of that nature). This is a rather telling quote from anonymous: "...by those who seem to be overly concerned with making sure Ayn Rand looks spotless." I think Bert feels that the reader needs to be influenced by his POV, and that without sufficient warning as to what the proper POV is the wikipedia user might draw the *wrong* conclusions about Objectivism. NPOV guidelines exist to prevent exactly that kind of low-quality article. That the article is clear about the academic reception of Objectivism is a testament to its NPOV status. Karbinski (talk) 22:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Any notion that Ayn Rand's ideas are spotless is pure WP:OR (however valid), as well as complimentary to Ayn Rand. Karbinski (talk) 22:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
This x is x (main article). Boo x/Hooray x (criticism article). The main article summarizes the criticism article and links to it. That is the current state of things. Protected status is a sad state of affairs, as there is ample opportunity to improve the article. Karbinski (talk) 22:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
when someone needs a generic excuse to cut out stuff they don't like, they claim the article is too big
Well, "claiming" is not the criteria to regard an article as too big. The criteria is that the Wikipedia software groans about it. For instance: Look at Immanuel Kant, click on "edit", and you will read:
This page is 86 kilobytes long. It may be appropriate to split this article into smaller, more specific articles. See Wikipedia:Article size.
...in fact that Kant article is asking for some trimming. Randroide (talk) 23:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, the Wikipedia did insert a similar warning for the Objectivism article. In addition to that inspiration, I was bothered by a previous editor's removal of some criticism text, which although it improved the article's editorial quality had the effect of losing the information from the Wikipedia. That was the first item I restored into the newly created Criticism article. This approach, modeled after a similar, very successful split of the C (programming language) article, is a compromise solution that ought to meet the valid concerns of both "sides".
The term "sides" is of course simplistic and represents only one POV's notion of the issue. I haven't been taking "sides"; I've been trying to improve the article in numerous ways having nothing to do with pushing a pro- or anti-Objectivism POV. Suppressing obtrusive, irrelevant POV text on either "side" is part of that process. — DAGwyn (talk) 00:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
A lot of well known or notable people have had criticisms of Objectivism, or Rand, or some associated part or group. I may not aggree with all of them, but I think the criticsm article does a great job of capturing that and not overloading the main article. Ethan a dawe (talk) 01:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

One oft-repeated claim here is that the definition of Objectivism is uncontroversial, but even this turns out not to be the case. For example, is Objectivism libertarian or not? Is Kelley an Objectivist? Is Branden? Is Peikoff? There are lots of people arguing vehemently on all sides of these issues, making them intensely controversial.

Besides, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary, so the article doesn't just define the term, it explains it. The more you understand about Objectivism, the clearer it becomes that the entire philosophy is controversial, and thus defined by its controversy as much as its content. At this point, it's it's impossible to comprehensively understand what Objectivism is except in the full context of its criticism. For example, Rand's solution to the is/ought problem has been panned even by Nozick, who is one of the few academic philosophers who's sympathetic to her beliefs. To discuss her theory of meta-ethics without explaining this would be to fail to explain her ideas. In fact, it would be nearly as bad as calling her a philosopher without immediately pointing out that she was anti-academic. 01:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and thus the articles are to be encyclopedic, not exhaustive. Anonymous, discussion of the questions you have raised in your first paragraph above, are inappropriate for this article. This article does not, should not, and cannot attempt to provide the reader with a comprehensive understanding of Objectivism and your implied premise that it should do so is preposterous. Alfred Centauri (talk) 02:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, mentioning all of these controversies and referencing more in-depth articles is entirely appropriate. You're just making lame excuses for a POV fork. 07:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.221.174 (talk)

Indeed, the Wikipedia did insert a similar warning for the Objectivism article
If a size warning appeared before the split, then whoever reinserts the section into the article would be acting against WP:SIZE.
"There is no consensus whether a "Criticism of .... " article is always a POV fork. At least the "Criticism of ... " article should contain rebuttals if available, and the original article should contain a neutral summary of the "Criticism of ... " article." POV_fork#What_forking_is
IMHO, if there was a size problem and if the two articles follow the aforementioned guidelines, the split is OK. Randroide (talk) 07:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The second requirement is not met. - Bert 15:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.170.159.12 (talk)

It was freshly created and incomplete; the intention is that that condition will be met through further editing; however, the article protection resulting from the edit warring has interfered with that. — DAGwyn (talk) 16:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Someone posted:

"One oft-repeated claim here is that the definition of Objectivism is uncontroversial, but even this turns out not to be the case. For example, is Objectivism libertarian or not? Is Kelley an Objectivist? Is Branden? Is Peikoff? There are lots of people arguing vehemently on all sides of these issues, making them intensely controversial."

To make a determination if Objectivism is libertarian or not would first require that one knows what Objectivism is. To know if any one person's published ideas are in concert or in contradiction with Objectivism one would first have to know what Objectivism is. Vehemently arguing about what? Who has taken issue with what the axioms are? Or what Ayn Rand's ideas on Kant were? No one is disputing any of the content of this article. The criticism content in question does *not* critique any of the content of this article - not one line of it. The criticism is simply notable commentary. To understand the point I just made, you have to understand that *if Ayn Rand was wrong about Kant* is DIFFERENT than *what Ayn Rand's view was on Kant*. This article is not here to debate if Ayn Rand's ideas are true or false. Any content that serves no purpose other than to contribute to one side or the other of such a debate does not belong. The fact that significant notable commentary of Objectivism exists is documented in the article - one more relevant and non-controversial fact reported in alignment with NPOV. Karbinski (talk) 17:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Consider what we might write if Ayn Rand was convinced that Kant was a South American goatherd who invented the electric boll weevil. If we just stated her beliefs and failed to mention the critical response, we would be tacitly endorsing her beliefs. To be NPOV, you must not censor notable, relevant POV's from reliable sources by hiding them in a POV fork. - Bert 21:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.111.29.12 (talk)
We wouldn't write anything because any such content (the false bio info) would be irrelevant and excluded from the article. Please discontinue evading the definition of a content fork (same content in both articles), please stop ignoring that the criticism content in question doesn't challenge anything in the article, and please quit labeling the editing effort as censorship. The article is NPOV as it stands, adding in the negative POV, verifiable or not, is simply adding in negative POV. It is especially unecessary given the existence of the Criticism of Objectivism article. A more constructive use of your time would be to properly update the side-bar and 'see also' segments of the article with links to the new article. Karbinski (talk) 21:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
"To be NPOV, you must not censor notable, relevant POV's from reliable sources by hiding them in a POV fork". Really? Consider the Quantum Physics article. Now, it is no secret that Einstein, a figure arguably as notable as Kant, never accepted quantum physics as formulated and criticized it on numerous occasions. Oddly, the editors of that article have censured this important information and hidden it in a blatant POV fork titled Bohr-Einstein debates and the only clue that such an article exists is the sentence "The Bohr-Einstein debates provide a vibrant critique of the Copenhagen Interpretation from an epistemological point of view."
I'm certain that truth lovers everywhere would be eternally grateful if you would devote your efforts to remedying this miscarriage of truth and of Wikipedia policies. Thanks in for advance for your selfless devotion to the truth and the integrity of Wikipedia. God be with you on your quest, bold anonymous knight of POV forks. I salute you! Alfred Centauri (talk) 22:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Alright Alfred, you've made your WP:POINT, now why don't we just direct the anon IP to the policy that we are referring to? Skomorokh 22:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you managed to miss the point entirely, which may well have been your goal. I'll repeat: If Rand had a demonstrably false belief about Kant and we just stated the belief without bothering to point out that it's false, would that be NPOV? - Bert 16:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.170.159.12 (talk)

Some small service to the general reader is done by attaching a note that the views are controversial and have been challenged, with appropriate links. That's not the same as attempting to insert rebuttals in the article describing the subject. That crosses the line into promotion of a particular POV, and we don't do that in other articles (for which it could easily be done). — DAGwyn (talk) 16:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Great, since you acknowledge that the current criticism article is inadequate, then I'm sure you won't mind following my humble suggestion, which is that we should continue to work on the criticism article in a sandbox, and in the meantime, redirect it back to this article and leave all the criticism in this article alone. - Bert 17:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.170.159.12 (talk)

He re-iterates the point that the criticism content in question should be excluded from the article because "promotion of a particular POV" would be bad. As well, he re-itereates the point that "attaching a note that the views are controversial and have been chanllenged, with appropriate links" is good. Please cease making stuff up about what has been written. Karbinski (talk) 19:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm willing to consider excluding it if it actually exists in a balanced article linked from the main one. However, as DAGwyn admits, no such article exists at this time. So, until it does, we need to keep the criticism here. - Bert 19:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.111.29.12 (talk)

I admitted no such thing. The Criticism of Objectivism (Ayn Rand) article contains essentially all the previous criticism text (with references), plus a capsule summary of the technical content of the philosophy being criticized where it is needed. It is neutrally presented. No information is lost by linking to it instead of retaining duplicate text in the Objectivism (Ayn Rand) article; see the link(s) I had planted before for guidance on how to do that smoothly. At one point I had a "stub" tag to indicate that the article need fleshing out, but somebody removed it. My intent is for that article to be where the criticisms and responses are presented, using the existing text as a starting point. It will take some self-restraint on the part of editors to avoid turning it into a debating platform, but anyway better there than here. — DAGwyn (talk) 23:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I should add that my intent includes keeping all articles I monitor, including Objectivism (Ayn Rand), neutral (as well as meeting other objective editorial criteria which I have stated previously). If you want to check the edit logs, you should find that I previously made several changed to this and other articles to remove advocacy or replace it with neutral text, just as I do with POV leaning in the other direction. — DAGwyn (talk) 23:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Update per the creation of a new sub-article

{{Editprotected}} Yo, could an administrator please replace the Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand)#Interpretation_of_Immanuel_Kant section with a {{main}} link to the new Ayn Rand and the history of philosophy article, which replicates it in its entirety? Thanks, Skomorokh 19:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I came to look at the editprotected request. Does anyone object to this? — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, the article is no longer protected. I'm disabling the editprotected tag. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anon Disruption

A complaint has been lodged on the admin noticeboard concerning anon user "Bert"'s disruptive activities on the Ayn Rand article. [1]. I've noticed that he's pulling the same thing on this article as well, so please feel free to add input to the admin discussion. Idag (talk) 01:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

To his credit, Bert made, what I consider, an almost constructive suggestion when he stated "I'm sure you won't mind following my humble suggestion, which is that we should continue to work on the criticism article in a sandbox". Is such work in progress? From my perspective, an article on criticisms of objectivism could be an excellent article. A short paragraph or two here indicating the fact of reality that Objectivism has been and currently is subjected to much criticism is all that's needed here.
I don't think a "sandbox" is needed. The Criticism of Objectivism (Ayn Rand) article exists and is currently a "starter kit" containing text that was already in existence in other articles. Feel free to improve upon it where it stands. — DAGwyn (talk) 03:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Having said that, my initial impression that Bert is not interested in good faith suggestions for this article was confirmed when Bert(?) destroyed any chance at good will by immediately adding the entire (incoherent) criticism section back to this article after protection was removed. Alfred Centauri (talk) 02:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
He has done similar things on the Ayn Rand article. He made a few suggestions that I thought had potential, but were a tad extreme. Instead of compromising on anything, he began an edit war and then started insulting other editors and claiming that he had a "consensus" when we reverted his edits. His attitude and willful ignorance of Wikipedia's policies (which we repeatedly posted on his talk page and which he then deleted) are now just plain disruptive. Please post your experience with Bert in the complaint (link is above). I'd offer to do it, but I haven't really been involved with this article. Idag (talk) 03:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Morality

I think the article should include a "Morality" section. One of the distinctive features of Objectivism is that it proposes a secular absolutist morality. — DAGwyn (talk) 16:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

That all such content is derived via ethics and political corollaries would have to be made clear. Perhaps the existing ethics and politics sections can be enhanced instead. Either way... Karbinski (talk) 17:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
That's not how Rand saw it. To her, morality meant guidance for personal conduct in general and was derived from considering the essence (existential nature) of a human, while ethics pertained only to a person's relationship to others and mattered only insofar as it was an application of morality. Politics was derived secondarily from ethical principles. There is some logical connection, but it goes in the other direction. — DAGwyn (talk) 23:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't making a statement about Rand's philosophy or her method, I was refering to future article content. All such content will be grounded on the content of the Ethics and Politics sections. Therefore, it may be appropriate to integrate future "Morality" content in with these sections. Depending on the actual future content though, a new section may work fine. Karbinski (talk) 17:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Should be called "Selfserving-ism"

Where is the criticism of this horrible train of though? Inherently rejecting altruism? Of course, this self-serving woman only comes up with all her "ideas" after she is well-off, and well heard of. What a hack, honestly. It would be one thing if she developed all of this, and created all her works as a poor ditch digger, than had become famous and wealthy and such off of them. Than it would one thing. She would really be the self-embodiment of her work. But of course it is not that way. It is just like asking Reagan what he thinks of welfare. Try asking him that if he was a single father, with three children and two minimum wage jobs. I'm sure on that side, the GRASS in NOT greener, and he would have a much different viewpoint. Same thing with this harpy. I know this is wiki and all, unbiased and such, not supposed to let emotions overcome objectivity(at least I am in talk), but this harpy really needs some critique of her work. I am just afraid I would be too subjective if I was the one to add some criticism to it...SargJohnLennon (talk) 09:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)