Talk:Criticisms of Objectivism (Ayn Rand)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Article charter

This article is intended to describe only coherent, reasoned criticism of Objectivism, not polemic rants (to which category an unfortunately large amount of criticism has belonged) or political debate. Also, the article does not and should not take a position pro or con the criticisms or Objectivism. When there is directly relevant counter-criticism, counter-counter-criticism, etc. then it should be included in an intelligible manner. If you can't express a criticism neutrally and factually, then it probably doesn't meet these guidelines (which are compatible with general Wikipedia guidelines).

I think that this charter belongs in the lead, but at any rate it should be taken as an important guiding principle by the editors. Otherwise, the article will end up full of the kind of noisy, useless, counterproductive crap that we've seen in the related Talk pages. — DAGwyn (talk) 22:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of this POV fork

This article is a blatant POV fork, intended to hide away criticism of Objectivism. It should be deleted ASAP. -Bert 19:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

That is utterly false, and comes from a POV pusher in his own right (see Talk: Ayn Rand). The intent, as is clearly stated in the intro, is to provide an appropriate place to summarize (thoughtful) criticism of Objectivism. I have planted links in the relevant main articles to make it visible and easily accessible. The main motivation was that numerous editors have continually warred over attempts to burden what were meant to be biographical or descriptive articles with various complaints against the ideas being described. Since the factual content of the article was generally not in dispute, this was not a NPOV issue, but rather an attempt to exploit a neutral article as a soapbox to present a POV contrary to the subject matter. This new article gives people a place to expound upon their POV without detracting from the quality (especially the cohesiveness) of the main articles.

We did the same thing quite some time ago for criticism of the C programming language, and that was very successful at improving both articles. The key is to keep the criticism article focused on rational arguments rather than mere flamage. — DAGwyn (talk) 19:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

DAGwyn is correct about the usefulness of this article. It serves as a better and longer form for criticism and hardly hides it away, it's linked to directly and clearly. He is also correct that "Bert" is a POV pusher. Ethan a dawe (talk) 20:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow, both of the edit-warring POV pushers agree. This surely indicates that I am in the right. - Bert 20:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Freddy Ethan a dawe (talk) 20:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

expansion or merging

This entire page is jumbled, incoherent, and poorly written - much like Rand's 'philosophical' works. I suggest it should either be expanded to provide more detail on the central points (at present the largest section on any single thinker is given over to Nozick, not a critic of Rand at all), or else pared down and merged with the main article on Objectivism. On balance - especially given the polemical nature of this subject - I suggest the latter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.220.6 (talk) 03:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the comments expressed above. This article was created in the first place to move the distracting argumentation out of the simple descriptive article, where its presence itself had been hotly debated. Because as a "starter set" it contained only the fragments of existing critical text that had been hacked in and out of other articles by various editors, it isn't initially especially well organized, and doesn't go into much detail yet. That simply means that there is more work to be done here. Nozick's critical comments are certainly criticism; you seem to have confused "criticism" with "condemnation". Polemics should certainly be excluded from this and the main Objectivism article. — DAGwyn (talk) 19:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

As a person hoping to find both the basic ideas and criticisms of Objectivism on Wikipedia, I agree that this article is terrible. I've read it three times now, and I still have no real sense of the substantive criticisms, though I know they exist. It would be nice if someone would put something meaningful here. 128.195.57.235 (talk) 17:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the article is well-referenced and covers the main criticisms and that the writers should be commended, but and it does need to be more expansive and go into a little more detail. Skomorokh 18:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Replace 'but' with 'and' and I am in full agreement with Skomorokh's comment above. Karbinski (talk) 00:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Well said. Amended. Skomorokh 00:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Article name

So why was the article name changed without advance notice or discussion? "Criticism" was correctly used in its title. — DAGwyn (talk) 00:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, you didn't change the links to the article, thereby making more work for others downstream. How about moving the article back to its original name? — DAGwyn (talk) 00:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Looking at Category:Criticisms there does not seem to be a dominant convention, though the singular form seems more popular. No need to worry about the links, they are automatically redirected here and any double redirects are soon fixed by a bot. Skomorokh 00:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I should have preceeded the move with discussion, so I will back out my changes here and in the template if the objection still stands. Karbinski (talk) 19:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The difference is subtle, but I think the plural fits the article better - so I made the edit. I tested the links and did a check for double redirects, I'm glad to hear there is a bot to back me up on that. As well, I updated the template as even though the link works, the link has to be a percise match for the link of the currently open article to be disabled in the template. Karbinski (talk) 19:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

If a bot fixes the links (now redirecting) then I won't argue for restoring the original name. The essential difference between the collective noun "criticism" and the plural noun "criticisms" is that the former connotes a whole category of activity while the latter connotes a set of individual activities. — DAGwyn (talk) 23:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Denial of indigenous land rights

This recent addition states a fact (albeit with a lame reference), but doesn't say what the criticism is. — DAGwyn (talk) 23:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

That particular statement is present in a score of references, if you would prefer to use another one.    Redthoreau (talk) RT 01:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I've also expanded the section somewhat and attempted to add more clarity, per your comments.    Redthoreau (talk) RT 02:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The entry is OR, so I'm removing it. If you disagree, please cite your source. The Ayn Rand quotes are a display of what has been alledgedly criticized - all they verify is what Ayn Rand was critical of. Karbinski (talk) 21:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The passage is referenced in more than one place. I have reverted your revert of cited material, as such an action (without discussion) may constitute vandalism. You seem to be displaying a fundamental misunderstanding of what constitutes "original research". All of the aforementioned material was derived from cited sources.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 23:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I have added further references as well. With respect to 'Undue Weight' I don't want to make this particular section too long, but I will gladly continue to add material if you believe there are not enough references.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 00:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

x is true (no verifiable source). a number of sentences supporting x is true. <--- OR on Wikipedia. Karbinski (talk) 17:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Having fixed the OR problem doesn't change the original concern raised by DAGwyn. The section doesn't offer up a criticism - simple to fix? Karbinski (talk) 17:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course it is "simple to fix", even though I dispute that it is indeed 'broken'. You have yet to answer my question below Karbinski: Is it your contention that Objectivism has NOT been criticized for their stance on land rights as they relate to pre colonial inhabitants / Native Americans etc ? If so then we can begin discussion with that point - and expand the section with the dearth of material which in fact does just that. However, if it is your contention that the section merely doesn't chronicle effectively such criticism, then I would note that you are also welcome to add to it, that I do intend to add to it, and that you shouldn't be attempting to "strangle the proverbial baby in the crib" by hastily removing recently added material with 'construction still in progress.'   Redthoreau (talk) RT 18:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I am going to call attention to the above question to Karbinski again --- that continues to go unanswered. If this query remains unanswered, I am going to re-include the section on "Denial of indigenous land rights" which was hastily removed by Karbinski without discussion or consensus.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 17:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

It is relevant that it is broken. State the criticism, that will be your 'proverbial baby in the crib'. Blurting out that Objectivism has been criticized over whatever issue is not notable or relevant. As a work in progress can live off-line or in your personal sandbox, there is no need to expose the public to broken content. If the section stated a criticism, then it would no longer be broken. Karbinski (talk) 19:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

To re-emphasize my original point: Disagreement and criticism are not the same thing. One can disagree with a position without having any semblance of a reason to justify the disagreement, but criticism requires that some argument against the position be provided. The original text on "indigenous Americans" stated (more of less correctly) what Rand believed, and some of Rand's reasoning for that position was given, but no reasons were given for a contrary position. Absent the latter, it's simply not "criticism of Objectivism". — DAGwyn (talk) 15:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I just came across this page and had a WTF? reaction to this section. I think the section is so obviously problematic that I deleted it. The basic problem is one of undue weight -- all the other sections address basic, overall criticisms, but this section is completely different in that it covers one very specific issue. Unless the issue of land rights and their application to Native Americans and other indigenous groups was a significant aspect of Rand's views, with significant discussion devoted to it, it simply doesn't belong, and putting it here conveys a distorted view of objectivism. I don't know that much about objectivism but it strongly looks to me from the info in this section that it is based on a single stray remark of Rand's, plus a belated attempt by one of Rand's followers to come up with a justification. The thing is, Rand was a very controversial figure who made all sorts of controversial statements about all sorts of topics. Do we need a hundred sections for each and every such statement? Benwing (talk) 05:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

To be clear, to deserve an entire section within the article, a CRITICISM needs to be given. It is very weak to report that Ayn Rand has been criticized for something she said, and by weak I mean the article is weaker for it. The solution, if one is looking to enhance the article and include this section at the same time is really simple: state the criticism (without resorting to OR). Karbinski (talk) 22:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

That section is not OR. It cites several references. Tweisbach (talk) 01:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

That section does not offer a criticism of Objectivism, sourced as it is. Therefore it doesn't belong in the article. Karbinski (talk) 11:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

It belongs in the Ayn Rand article, but you can't go from that to say it belongs here and you can't make anything that Rand said synonymous with Objectivism. However, if there are cited sources which say that Objectivism can be criticised for its denial of indigenous land rights then that would belong. --Snowded (talk) 12:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't make any sense. A report that criticism has occurred isn't worthy of mention. Now, a sourced report on an actual criticism, that would belong in the article. This section is mere hearsay and should be excluded until upgraded - by reporting the actual criticism. Karbinski (talk) 17:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The reliability of the sources must be called into question, if the criticism they report actually did take place, I would suspect the actual criticism itself to have been recorded. Karbinski (talk) 17:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Modern Science

Objectivists have opposed basically all accepted tenets of modern science: quantum mechanics, general relativity, the hypothetico-deductive model, falsificationism, and the notion of spacetime while hoping for a return to Newtonian Physics. Aren't there are single criticism of their being anti-scientific and/or out-dated? 24.200.59.46 (talk) 01:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

It is true that Rand's own comprehension of science was essentially Newtonian, that being the norm for education at the time. I don't recall Rand herself objecting to most of the trends you cited, and certainly some self-identified Objectivists have worked in those fields; for example, Andrew Little tried to resolve some of the issues in the basis of quantum theory by casting the theory in terms of "reverse causality", which done carefully seems to yield the same results but with an improved model for particle interactions. However, it is not just Objectivists who have been critical of the philosophy behind developments such as those you listed. For decades, quantum mechanics was dominated by the "Copenhagen school" of Bohr, the main tenet of which was that there was an essential disconnect between the laws governing evolution of a quantum system and the laws governing interactions involved with measuring the state of such a system. That lent considerable support to subjectivist views of physics, e.g. Penrose's buying into Searle's "Chinese box" argument. There is a lot to be critical of about those notions and methodology, and notables such as Einstein have expressed such criticism; Feynman has said that nobody understands why the basic underlying principle should be the composition of probability amplitudes rather than probabilities. (The Copenhagen problem now appears to be fixed by the recent quantum theory of measurement.) General relativity is inherently a classical field theory, and thus quantum physicists in general have a problem with it, although no suitable replacement has yet been found. (I suppose that whatever criticisms of GR you were referring to had other objections; without references it's hard to respond specifically.) By the "hypothetico-deductive model" I suppose you refer to the so-called "scientific method" that is taught in school; many of the best scientists have observed that that model does not fit a large portion of actual science activity. Certainly Objectivism has as a tenet the validity of deductive methodology, although Rand didn't appreciate symbolic logic (the value of which should now be evident since it underlies computing). By "falsificationism" I suppose you mean Popper's notion; the objections to that are similar to the objections to the much earlier "operationalism", and while both have some value taking them as dogma to restrict what can be talked about cripples our ability to understand rather than simply describe phenomena; obviously that is objectionable (and not just to Objectivists). I don't know what criticisms of space-time you refer to that differ from criticisms of GR. So criticism of several generally accepted beliefs in science is not inherently wrong; a good scientist needs to remain skeptical of accepted beliefs, and seek supporting evidence, proofs, and plausible explanations. It is of course possible, even probable, that some of the criticism you refer to is indeed unfounded, but Objectivism does not necessitate Newtonian physics. Since the article is not for criticism of individual beliefs of some Objectivists but rather for criticism of the philosophy itself, I don't think there is much ground for a section on this issue. — DAGwyn (talk) 15:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

You are right I should have given a specific example of what I meant. I had one and I probably forgot to put it. Here it is:

http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7868&news_iv_ctrl=1077

This essay isn't limited to expressing doubts toward specific doubtful areas of science, it explicitely calls all post-Newtonian science a "fantasy", quote mines Albert Einstein, and mocks various hypotheses and entities (e.g. the multiverse and spacetime) not by bringing any argument, nor by opposing the arguments brought for it, but by merely appealing to the intuitive weirdness of the ideas. This falls straight into naive realism, and that was what I expected to find criticisms of in this article.

However, you tell me that some Objectivists have worked in these fields, in which case I mistook the ARC for something more representative of Objectivism than it is. If this text I linked does not represent Objectivists, ignore my initial request. I wouldn't want this article to strawman Objectivism with a claim made by a small sub-group of them. 24.202.61.160 (talk) 20:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

This is a very interesting topic and I would like to see it in the article, but as you say until we can verify that the point of view is representative of Objectivists and that they (rather than the author of that article) have been criticised for it, it seems unfair to include it. the skomorokh 13:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I forgot to mention earlier that in its fundamental principles Objectivism (per Ayn Rand) is in line with basic principles of science, relying on observation and deductions/inductions therefrom, and it supports the use of (classical) logic. For example, the notion of man's rational facility as essential to his proper survival is supposed to be based on observation of man. One could take issue with some of the observations or conclusions using normal methods of scientific argumentation, and that would be consistent with tenets of Objectivism (again, as originally espoused by Rand). It is probably the case that some self-identified Objectivists are overly reactionary; however, despite the tone of much of the cited article http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7868&news_iv_ctrl=1077 most of the specific issues it touches on can be turned into legitimate arguments with current scientific methodology. For example, the idea of "what happened before the beginning of time" is patently self-contradictory, and calls attention to the (big bang) model's singularity, which raises dozens of physical/mathematical/conceptual issues that are largely ignored by the proponents of that model. String theory as a ToE has received well-deserved criticism from many physicists and mathematicians, on several legitimate grounds. The article went too far when it criticized the concept of spacetime, at least the four-dimensional version employed in standard relativity theory (which can be framed as a theory of objective reality in Rand's sense, as I did in my Master's thesis). My degrees are in physics and I have to say that fundamental theoretical physics is currently a mess. (The more applied aspects, such as solid-state theory, are generally okay.) — DAGwyn (talk) 06:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Karbinski's removal of sourced material

Has been reverted. The criticism in popular culture is relevant, as even the editor of Reason points out (seeing as how Rand has become a punch line in contemporary culture). As for the denial of indigenous rights, I will continue to add to this section, as apparently the criticism is not clear to some readers. Karbinski, is it your contention that Objectivism or Rand has not been criticized for denying the land rights of Native Americans? Is that really what you are arguing?   Redthoreau (talk) RT 21:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The criterion for content inclusion in this article, being the _Criticisms of Objectivism_ article, is that the content be one or more criticisms of Objectivism. The article is encyclopedic and is not a dumping ground for just anything - sourced or unsourced - that refers to Objectivism or Ayn Rand.

Examples that are criticisms:

• Rand's theories are out of sync with the complex interrelationships and interconnected systems of modern life.

• Objectivism's claim "that there are objective truths and realities, particularly in the moral realm dealing with values"[19] contributes to manifestations of cultism ... within the Objectivist movement, including slavish adherence to unprovable doctrine and extreme adulation of the founder.

• Adherence to Objectivism can result in hazardous psychological effects.

• "Rand’s is a tortured immortality, one in which she’s as likely to be a punch line as a protagonist" ... with "jibes at Rand as cold and inhuman, running through the popular culture.

• I think user Redthoreau's new sections fail to meet the inclusion criterion of being relevant for the article.

Examples that are not criticisms:

• User Karbinski has criticized user Redthoreau's recent edits to the Criticisms of Objectivism article.

• Objectivism has been criticized for its denial of indigenous land rights, particularly in reference to American natives.

• In the movie Dirty Dancing, a character justifies cruelly dumping his pregnant girlfriend, by citing The Fountainhead.

• In an episode of The Simpsons called "A Streetcar Named Marge", the infant Maggie is remanded to a prison camp entitled “Ayn Rand School for Tots” where pacifiers and bottles are banned.

• In the Futurama episode "I Second That Emotion", the library in the mutants village is a lone bookshelf stocking literary items flushed down toilets from above. When Bender peruses the available reading, he finds Atlas Shrugged and remarks "nothing but crumpled porno and Ayn Rand."

• In the South Park episode "Chicken Lover", Officer Barbrady reads Atlas Shrugged after overcoming his illiteracy. He later proclaims to the town that he "read every last word of this piece of garbage" and "because of this piece of shit" will "never read anything ever again."

• In the non-fiction memoir A$$hole: How I Got Rich and Happy by Not Giving a Shit About You, American writer Marty Kihn claims to have found inspiration in the philosopher Ayn Rand, who he decrees “The asshole’s philosopher.” He goes on to pontificate that “any aspiring asshole could learn a lot from The Fountainhead or The Virtue of Selfishness.”

All but one item do not belong in the article. Karbinski (talk) 16:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I see now that the listed references support the opening item. The section is still crap. Nothing noteworthy has been spared being the punchline of jibes within popular culture on account of nihilism. That Objectivism isn't spared either is hardly worthy of pointing out unless you want to highlight that Objectivism is cropping up within popular culture. Karbinski (talk) 16:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Your usage of "crap" I find to be unwarranted pov (noting the existing tone of our remarks), and unbecoming of a serious discussion on editing an encyclopedia entry.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 18:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, the tone it sets was unwarranted, but the point of view remains. Karbinski (talk) 22:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with removing the pop culture references, per WP:TRIVIA. They detract from the quality of the article, and don't relate to the subject of the article (notable criticisms of Objectivism). No, "Rand is an asshole and her books are really long" is not a notable criticsm of Objectivism. The Native American issue seems a stretch - for whatever its faults, Objectivism makes its ethical claims universally, so unless there is evidence to suggest its universalized ethics systematically discriminate against some group, such criticism does not really belong. the skomorokh 16:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Excellent points concerning the pop culture references. They are not notable criticisms, on thier own or considered against the backdrop of how such pop culture sources "make jibes" at everything, and it is simply a trivia list. The section should be deleted. Karbinski (talk) 18:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Oops, I read the word immortality as immorality, so despite my mistaken belief, in fact the editor wasn't criticizing any idea of Ayn Rand. That is, the entry is not a criticism of Objectivism. I am removing the section for the same reasons I removed the other section. Karbinski (talk) 18:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

If there is consensus to remove the popular culture criticisms - fine (even though I think they are relevant) as sadly more people have probably heard of Rand through those episodes (which millions of people saw) than have read her books (note I am not thrilled with the pervasive role of popular culture, but do believe that Wikipedia has a role in chronicling its impact/existence).   Redthoreau (talk) RT 18:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

This article is not a chronicle for the impact of pop culture. It is for reporting _criticisms_ of _Objectivism_ for the encyclopedia user. As per having read her books, her books show up in pop culture because millions have read them, not the other way around. Karbinski (talk) 18:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The article is for "criticisms" of Objectivism -Or- Ayn Rand. Now the fact that a syndicated show seen by 10 million + people criticizes the seminal work regarding the philosophy as "shit", or that in the future it will be "flushed down the toilet" - is notable. Nevertheless, I realize the futility in arguing this point, and am willing to concede to your removal out of a desire to avoid endlessly debating these points.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 18:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Mockery and derision are just that, and there is nothing notable about them - no matter how much publicity they recieve. A critique of an idea or set of ideas is different than jeers, taunts, jibes, ... Karbinski (talk) 22:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I find it interesting Karbinski, that you not only have altered the word from "criticism" to "critique" (which the article it not labeled as), but somehow view "mockery" = separate from "criticism". I have always understood "derision" as criticism, but apparently you believe that as soon as someone crosses an imaginary line of decorum in their vernacular, that they cease being "critical" and become something else.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 17:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Lets pretend I never changed from criticism to critique (not that my usage was some kind of diversion). A criticism in the context of an encyclopedia article on a set of philosophical ideas is a serious examination that points out flaws or shortcommings. Ad hominem snippets or expression of unsubstantiated opinion has no intellectual merit and no place in the article. You might be able to discern the difference given my lists of examples of what are and what are not criticisms. Karbinski (talk) 17:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit conflicted] Let's keep cool and focused on improving the article. Red makes a good point that Wikipedia has some role in chronicling popular culture, an given that Rand is such an iconoclastic figure who has a strong and distinct public persona, there may very well be a case to be made for a Cultural depictions of Ayn Rand article or similar. But pop culture content typically damages the content of articles on serious subjects, such as this one, and Objectivism itself (never mind the criticisms of it) has little traction in popular culture. This encyclopedia article is the better for being rid of it. the skomorokh 18:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Scope of the article

Red raises the point of scope above, opining that this article is for criticisms of both Objectivism and Rand. I think that we should stick to criticisms of Objectivism, and to that end we could do better with this article by refocusing the sections devoted to Rand herself, her manner and practices, to her philosophy. For example, the History of philosophy section, while very relevant to the topic of Ayn Rand, seems somewhat out of place here. Do any critics allege that ignorance or idiosyncratic interpretation of the history of philosophy is a problem Objectivism itself or Objectivists generally have? If so, this would be the type of criticism we should include. Jean Paul Sartre was an ugly motherfucker, but that's not a criticism of existentialism, is it? the skomorokh 18:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe there is possible confusion because of the use of "Ayn Rand" in italics (in the articles official heading). Thus yes it becomes an article chronicling philosophical criticisms of Objectivism, and criticisms of Ayn Rand. If this is not the desire of editors, then that should be revised. Per your humorous Sartre question ... if there was an article chronicling criticisms of Jean Paul Sartre (the man), then I necessarily wouldn't deem his appearance of relevance (although I guess one could make the case that it may have affected his world view) ... but would possibly find it relevant if a popular TV show described "Being and Nothingness" as "worthy of wiping your ass with" or described Sartre as a the "philosopher for alienated douchebags" etc.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 19:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The parenthesised Ayn Rand is a problem, but it is there solely to disambiguate (i.e. so that readers don't think the article is about criticisms of 1930s poets). I think a move to Criticisms of Objectivism would be unproblematic as long as the lede makes clear its about the Randian philosophy. Do you think it's a good idea in principle to bundle criticisms of Rand and Objectivism together? I'd prefer to keep the former at Ayn_Rand#Criticism and the latter here. the skomorokh 19:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 16:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

So no-one has a problem with me removing or refocusing the material in this article that currently only addresses Rand, her work and her attitudes, and not Objectivism? the skomorokh 17:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The intent of the article (see section on Charter above) is to document criticism of the philosophy, i.e. the body of ideas. Only to the extent that the founder's personality is embedded in the practice of the philosophy would it be relevant. (Thus the "cultism" section is appropriate.) — DAGwyn (talk) 15:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

My sentiments precisely. the skomorokh 18:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus. JPG-GR (talk) 04:29, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Requested Move 22 September 2008

Criticisms of Objectivism (Ayn Rand) → Criticisms of Objectivism or Criticism of Objectivism — The disambiguation is ugly, confusing (see previous section) and unnecessary — the skomorokh 19:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

There is now a survey on Objectivism (Ayn Rand) for a move. Lets close this one until that one is resolved. Karbinski (talk) 12:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Support first and foremost as unnecessary disambiguation is to be avoided and the target locations are unused. Secondary benefits include getting rid of the ambiguity over Rand's role in this article (see "Scope of the article" section above) and making the title more aesthetically pleasing. the skomorokh 19:27, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose The main article on Objectivism uses the same technique for disambiguation and consistency in this regard is a good thing. As for criticisms of Ayn Rand - that is ad hominem attacks - they have no place in the article regardless as such "contributions" cannot avoid being anything more than trivia, and trivial nonsense at that. For example, millions of people watching a cartoon that jeers at Ayn Rand's novel by whatever plot mechanism the writers chose, is as notable and intellectually compelling as a script that jeers at Ayn Rand's novel but is never read by anyone other than its author. That is, mockery and derision are not equivalent to a critique of a set of ideas - no matter how public the mockery and derision. Karbinski (talk) 22:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. The proposed title is ambiguous in the worst way, in that it will mislead most readers, who will assume that it is about Criticism of Objectivism... see Objectivity (philosophy)#Objectivism. There are issues with the current titles of this article and also Objectivism (Ayn Rand), but this proposal would make things worse. Andrewa (talk) 11:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose it would be too likely to be confused with a general criticism of objectivism article (even if we don't have one) 70.55.203.112 (talk) 09:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

Whether the singular "Criticism" or the plural "Criticisms" should be used is an issue I'd like to see discussion on. the skomorokh 19:27, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I prefer the plural as the article covers a broad scope, and the various criticisms are not an integrated whole. For example, nothing unifies adherence accords psycological hazards and Rand being mistaken on her interpretation of Kant. Karbinski (talk) 22:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

On the inclusion of criticisms concerning Rand's view of the history of philosophy - her views on, for example Kant's philosophy, are inseperable from her own philosophy (Objectivism), so I don't think those criticisms are out of place here. Karbinski (talk) 22:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

So let's say for the sake of argument that Rand did misinterpret Kant/Rawls/Nietzsche etc., and someone called her on it. Would you count that as a criticism of Objectivism? Could you walk up to, say, David Kelley, and criticise his beliefs on that ground? the skomorokh 17:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I see, Rand's interpretation/misinterpretation of anyone's work is irrelevant to the content of Objectivism. Thanks for clearing the weeds from the path. Karbinski (talk) 18:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem, glad we are understanding each other. the skomorokh 18:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Alternatives

IMO there are problems with both the current name and the proposed new name. Any suggestions as to a better one? Andrewa (talk) 16:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposal stalled pending the resolution of the Objectivism (Ayn Rand) discussion. On behalf of WikiProject Objectivism, the skomorokh 18:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

No need to stall this

I don't think this really needs to be stalled until the other discussion is resolved. I know the guideline you are using—that split articles should follow the naming convention of the parent article—but this has exceptions. If we have an article on Foo (band), we wouldn't create an article called Foo (band) discography, nor Members of Foo (band). We would simply have Foo discography and Members of Foo. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 04:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to see how the other discussion resolves before proceeding further with this one. If you like, think of it as me withdrawing my proposal. Your example is interesting, but in this case it's as if there were several bands called Foo and it wasn't agreed which was the best-known one; disambiguation of some kind may still be necessary for the sub-articles (although I argue that it isn't needed here). Regards, the skomorokh 17:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The article name merely reflected the original parent article name, and if disambiguation is recommended for the latter then the same argument applies here too. — DAGwyn (talk) 17:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Foo (band) wouldn't be any help if there was more than one band named Foo. Where it would help is if there were several things called Foo, only one of which was a band: for example, Foo (politician), Foo (bird), and Foo (band). I think the case here is similar: we have the ethical position, the philosophy, and the poetry school. All three are distinct (although the first two are not as distinct as the examples I give).

The disambiguation page Objectivism suggests three things that term might mean: "Moral objectivism", "Objectivism as described by Ayn Rand", and "Objectivist poets". I would argue that "Criticisms of…" for the first would be called "Criticisms of moral objectivism", and for the last would be "Criticisms of Objectivist poetry" (or "Criticisms of the Objectivist poets"). I think if either of those two articles existed, a hatnote could be put into this article to point to them, since the criticisms of Ayn Rand's philosophy is the most important, and is probably more likely what most people would be looking for. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 23:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

See also Talk:Objectivism (Ayn Rand)#Naming of the DAB page. Andrewa (talk) 13:20, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Restored to Criticisms of Objectivism (Ayn Rand)

The above subsection and discussion at Talk:Objectivism (Ayn Rand) which concluded only recently shows that there is not a consensus for this move. Feel free to open up more discussion again, but Criticisms of Objectivism (Ayn Rand) seems to be the agreed upon name for this article's title at this point in time, and there is no consensus established for a move. Cirt (talk) 18:56, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Page move

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

• The result of the discussion was move rejected.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 07:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Why is it so difficult to move an article to where it belongs? Yes, the parent article is called Objectivism (Ayn Rand). But the "(Ayn Rand)" part is merely a disambiguating qualifier, it is not part of the philosophy's actual name, and is only part of the article's name for practical reasons: to clarify for readers. When a subpage article is created, the disambiguator of its parent is to be excluded from the subpage name, except in the rare case when it is also needed to disambiguate the subpage. Examples:

• Seal discography, not Seal (musician) discography
• Isotopes of mercury, not Isotopes of mercury (element)
• List of Dexter episodes, not List of Dexter (TV series) episodes

The list goes on. Anyway, the point is that the disambiguator is not meant to act as the article's proper name—it is just meant to clarify that particular iterance of the term. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 19:15, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, the current title may even suggest the criticisms are those offered by Ayn Rand herself! Ha! — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 19:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

In that case, perhaps a move to an alternate title such as "Criticism of Objectivism and Ayn Rand" or "Criticism of Ayn Rand's Objectivism" should be proposed and discussed, instead. Cirt (talk) 19:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the scope of the article is supposed to just be criticisms of the ideology, not of Ayn Rand (this is discussed a little bit above). The second suggestion is better, but even so, with the capitalized "O" already in the article title, this sufficiently disambiguates this article from other types of objectivism. If articles on criticisms of other types of objectivism are created, then a hatnote can be place on this page. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 19:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Ayn Rand is the Founder of the ideology, and is indeed herself criticized and directly discussed in this article. So it is only rational that her name be included in the title. Cirt (talk) 19:53, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Skomorokh (talk · contribs), Redthoreau (talk · contribs), DAGwyn (talk · contribs), and I think Karbinski (talk · contribs) all agreed above that the article should be about Objectivism, while criticisms of Rand should be relegated to Ayn Rand#Criticism. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 20:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Evidently others disagree (as do I). Ayn Rand is intertwined with objectivism, and in this article itself she is quoted as responding to that criticism. Cirt (talk) 20:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

In fact, Ayn Rand is mentioned/discussed no less than twenty times in this article. Cirt (talk) 20:10, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Because she is intrinsically linked to Objectivism, she is definitely going to be mentioned in this article. Any discussion of her outside of the context of her Objectivist views should be removed. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 21:12, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Because she is intrinsically linked to Objectivism, she is definitely going to be mentioned in this article. - Good, so we agree on that. So if she is intrinsically linked in subject matter, it is appropriate to have the title reflect that, as well. Cirt (talk) 21:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

That is a ridiculous conclusion. George Washington is intrinsically linked to the American Revolutionary War, but his name should not be included in articles names about the war. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 21:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Not ridiculous whatsoever. The article is a critique of the ideology of the founder of Objectivism, and of the founder herself. Thus, the title is most certainly appropriate. Cirt (talk) 21:59, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

See my comment in the above subsection. There has already been discussion and surveys about proposed moves, across two talkpages, and there was never any consensus reached to perform such a move. Cirt (talk) 19:18, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Was the move something you actually disagree with, or do you object to it simply because there was no consensus? If it is the former, I would like to hear your reasoning for why the proposed title is not preferable. If it is the latter, that is being counterproductive. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 19:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Both. Though I agree with this comment made by DAGwyn (talk · contribs) in the prior discussion of a proposed move which failed to bring about a move, above. Cirt (talk) 19:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Regarding DAGwyn's comment: Disambiguation applied to the parent is not inherited by its sub-articles, as evidenced by the examples I listed and probably most subpages of articles with a disambiguator. Exceptions do exist (geography of Georgia, for example), but these arise for pretty clear reasons. How many other Objectivisms (with capital "O") are there? — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 19:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

In this case it follows along a series and is less confusing if the nomenclature is the same. Cirt (talk) 19:53, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

What series follows this nomenclature? In the Ayn Rand template and Objectivist philosophy category, I see Libertarianism and Objectivism, Neo-Objectivism, Bibliography of work on Objectivism, Objectivist metaphysics, Objectivist epistemology, Objectivist ethics, Objectivist politics, and Objectivist theory of value—none of which employ (Ayn Rand) in their title. The only other article to follow it is the parent article. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 20:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Right, the main article. Cirt (talk) 20:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

But virtually every other article based on the main article does not follow this "nomenclature". My argument is that the actual nomenclature is to exclude "(Ayn Rand)", since no other Objectivist articles include it, and a minority of other Wikipedia subpages follow that standard. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 21:12, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, but this article and the main article on this subject do include "Ayn Rand" in the title. The Ayn Rand template also has articles Ayn Rand and the history of philosophy, Objectivism, Ayn Rand, and homosexuality, Ayn Rand Institute, also called Ayn Rand Institute: The Center for the Advancement of Objectivism, and The Ayn Rand Collective. Cirt (talk) 21:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

What is the relevance of those articles? They deal specifically with Ayn Rand, or with Ayn Rand and Objectivism, not with Objectivism on its own. This article, on the other hand, only deals with Objectivism. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 21:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

As stated above, this article deals with both Ayn Rand and Objectivism, not simply Objectivism. Cirt (talk) 21:59, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the heart of our disagreement is that we see a different scope for this article, and I respect that. If the consensus is to have this article cover criticism of both Objectivism and Ayn Rand, then a different article name than my proposal is needed. However, I would find it a hard sell to say we should have one article about both. As skomorokh (talk · contribs) says, Objectivism is not "the personal philosophy of one individual", it is a "changing and multi-faction philosophical system"; her Objectivism is not The One-and-Only True Objectivism. Criticism of Christianity and Jesus, anyone? — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 22:09, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

• I strongly support the proposed move, as not only is disambiguation served by the capitalisation of Objectivism, the parenthesised "Ayn Rand" perpetuates an inaccurate depiction of Objectivism as the personal philosophy of one individual as opposed to a changing and multi-faction philosophical system believed by thousands. the skomorokh 21:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose move. Both Ayn Rand (discussed twenty times in this article) and Objectivism should be in the title, as this article is a criticism and discussion of both. Cirt (talk) 21:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I would not be opposed to a move to Criticism of Ayn Rand's Objectivism or Criticism of Ayn Rand and Objectivism or Criticism of Objectivism and Ayn Rand, those would all be acceptable. Cirt (talk) 21:59, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
    • This isn't a criticism of Ayn Rand's Objectivism, it's a criticism of Ayn Rand and Alan Greenspan and Nathaniel Branden and Leonard Peikoff and David Kelley and Yaron Brook and every other Objectivists Objectivism. The reason criticism of Rand is in the article is because it is relevant to the topic, not because it is the topic. the skomorokh 22:07, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
      • Some of the above points by Twas Now (talk · contribs) and especially this latest one by Skomorokh (talk · contribs) are valid and give me pause to think a bit about this. I think I shall take some time to re-read over the above points and get back to you and reevaluate my position on this. Apologies for taking up your time. Cirt (talk) 22:47, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose I remain suspicious of the motivations here. This move should really have been published on the Rand article (Thanks Cirt). What is essential is that we do not allow Rand (and or followers) to be associated with Objectivism per se. There are other schools of objectivism (including a growing body of Philosophy of Mind) which has some scientific discipline behind it, rather than being derived from an ideologue whose status as a philosopher is disputed. I suggest this is halted for the moment while the article itself is examined. If it makes clear at the start that there are more than one school and does not allow association then it might make sense to split. However for clarity it might be better to keep it as criticism of the main article, and create a new one on objectivism (we need to beef up those anyway)--Snowded TALK 23:20, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
  • These are not multiple schools of the one thing, they are almost completely unrelated things. Rand et al took absolutely no influence from early analytic philosophers whose descendants now sometimes use "objectivism" as a label for some of their positions; the only thing the Objectivists with objectivist academic philosophy is their shared philosophical realism. "There are other schools of objectivism...which has some scientific discipline behind it, rather than being derived from an ideologue whose status as a philosopher is disputed" - this sounds like a value judgement of the topics at hand, which is completely uncalled for and which I hope you will retract. the skomorokh 23:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Why ask me to retract? I am making the very simply point that you can't allow something like Objectivism to be defined by a single author or those who followed her. This is compounded by the fact that her status as a philosopher has been disputed. If you think (and I tend to agree with you) that the different types of objectivism are unrelated then the case not to allow this move is stronger. --Snowded TALK 23:44, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is not about "Criticism of Objectivism". It is about "Criticism of Ayn Rand's Objectivism". It is not about "Criticism of moral objectivism" or "Criticism of objectivist poetry". NB: while "objectivism" might often mean "Ayn Rand's objectivism" in the US, that's not the case in the UK, where Rand is less famous. 87.114.132.119 (talk) 08:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The capitalization of the "O" in "Objectivism" should indicate that it is not the other types of objectivism. Also, it is not "Ayn Rand's Objectivism"; she was the first^(?) to elucidate the concept, but her word is not the be-all-and-end-all of Objectivist thought. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 16:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The article is all about objections to Rand and she was not the first to articulate the concept. --Snowded TALK 16:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Then the article should be expanded with criticisms of Objectivist views put forth by others. We don't fill criticism of Islam with only criticisms of Muhammad's views, but of later Muslim leaders as well. I don't mean to suggest Rand is, or ever will be, as historically important as Muhammad, but there certainly are other prominent Objectvists to criticize. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 22:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Or it should be kept as it is with criticism of other forms of objectivism elsewhere. Whatever, at the moment the article is about Rand and the name appropriate. --Snowded TALK 23:21, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

A separate article for each major Objectivist thinker? — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 23:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily, maybe a section under Objectivist ethics in the main article. IN practice you might even argue the same here and propose deletion. Whatever articles are named for what they are not what they might be. --Snowded TALK 23:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Could you clarify the last statement? — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 23:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

There is a stronger case for merging the data in this article into the Objectivism (Ayn Rand) article than there is for renaming it. --Snowded TALK 23:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Objectivism (Ayn Rand) is not supposed to just be about Rand's view of Objectivism. It is named that way for clarification—because there is no way to distinguish and article called Objectivism it from other things called "objectivism". This article is named Criticism of Objectivism (Ayn Rand) because of the mistaken belief that a subpage should take the name of the parent article including any disambiguation in the subtitle's name. The (Ayn Rand) disambiguation is not needed, however. The capital "O" disambiguates this article from other things called "objectivism". Yeah, it could be argued they should be merged, but that wasn't my intention and I think there is enough here to warrant a separate article. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 00:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Large O and small o is clutching at straws and is not sufficient. Attempts to associate objectivism exclusively with Rand should just stop. --Snowded TALK 00:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Who is trying to associate Objectivism exclusively with Rand? (It is very clear that I want to dissociate this article from just Rand's thoughts, and instead have it encompass all of Objectivism. So I assume you're referring to someone else.) As I've stated above: if other articles are created for criticisms of other things called objectivism (e.g. Criticism of moral objectivism, Criticism of Objectivist poetry), a hatnote should be placed at the top of this article pointing to those. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 01:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• Support This is absolutely ridiculous. Twas Now's Examples:
• Seal discography, not Seal (musician) discography
• Isotopes of mercury, not Isotopes of mercury (element)
• List of Dexter episodes, not List of Dexter (TV series) episodes

Show that removing the diambiguation is proper. Indeed, so would be removing the disambiguation in the original article. The only people opposing such a common sense move are people with an anti-Rand POV. There is no point addressing their repeated and contentless statements of "but I object." The only thing worth adding is to note the absurdity of suggesting that the article be entitled Criticism of Objectivism and Ayn Rand. Of what would the criticisms of Ayn Rand consist? That she had a funny accent and buck teeth? Does there even exist a criticism of Hitler page? That suggestion of a Criticism of Objectivism and Ayn Rand page alone demonstrates conclusively the obstuctionist POV we are dealing with here. Kjaer (talk) 01:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

You really are not addressing the arguments you know and your examples are very poor. If there was an article "Fascism" which was all about Hitler, and an article "objections to fascism" in which the objections were all to Mein Kampf that would be comparable to what is being proposed here. I do not apologise for obstructing this (and the previous attempt) to associate O(o)bjectivism with one writer and her followers. The more I look at it, the more it becomes clear that the case is far stronger to merge this material into the main one --Snowded TALK 02:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

If an article called "fascism" only dealt with Hitler, and the article called "Objections to fascism" only dealt with Mein Kampf, that would just mean they are exceptionally poorly written articles. If you think that is analogous to what is going on here, then the Objectivism articles need to be given broader scope by adding non-Rand views to the mix. Since you agree that Objectivism needs to be separated from "Randianism", why don't you agree with this proposal, that clearly sets out to do just that? — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 04:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

and at the moment you have the Hitler problem with Rand. This is a weak article that adds nothing to material which is not already in Objectivism (Ayn Rand) and should be merged with it. There may or may not be a case for a combined article, my inclination there is to a disambiguation page as there are fundamental differences between the atomistc theories of Rand and the communitarian and other aspects of modern objectivist theories of ethics. Ie I don't think they can all be handled in a single article, and you can't let the Rand version dominate the Language. --Snowded TALK 04:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

When you refer to other types of objectivism, are you referring to the "Objectivism" that can be traced back to Ayn Rand, or "objectivism" that is completely different (such as moral objectivism)? — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 04:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

There are forms of objectivism that are not traced back to Rand --Snowded TALK 05:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

There is no integrated philosophy by the name of Objectivism other than Rand's. If there were, disambiguation would obviously be justified. But Snowded, by refusing to acknowledge the difference between the proper noun "Objectivism" and the abstract concept "objectivism" perversely contends that Rand is laying claim to the concept, somewhat in the way, I suppose, he must feel that Richard Branson is laying claim to the concept virgin. Kjaer (talk) 05:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

⬅ This is an encyclopedia and I think the big "O" and little "o" distinction is pushing it a bit. I also note the qualification of "integrated" before Philosophy. What you have made very clear is that the attempted move here is the same as the attempted move on the main page which was rejected. --Snowded TALK 05:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes two things with very similar, or even identical, names can exist. We have an article on Turkey, and many people (particularly in N. America) might be expecting the article to be about a bird. Hatnotes handle those situations very well. I would oppose moving the parent article, but only because Wikipedia always reads the first letter as a capital letter, and this would be confusing for people who want some other objectivism.

On a side note, you want this merged with Objectivism (Ayn Rand). Is that the only reason you oppose renaming this, because it makes this Objectivism seem more important than the others? — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 06:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I said the case for merging this was stronger than the case for renaming it. There is little content which is not in the main article. The issue of moving the main article was resolved in favour of the status quo some time ago. --Snowded TALK 06:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The issue was most certainly not resolved, Snowded. A small minority (5 to 4) favored the change, but did not insist on it in light of the lack of consensus. There is no need for you to mischaracterize civility on your opponents' part as a concession to your POV. Kjaer (talk) 07:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I said it was resolved no more and no less and I have no idea if you were being civil or not, I do know you can't move articles even if you have a majority if there are serious objections which there were. Please stop throwing out POV accusations, I am taking the perfectly reasonable position that Objectivism and Randism are not the same things, I have yet to see anyone argue coherently otherwise. --Snowded TALK 09:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. Removing the disambiguator will create a confusing ambiguity in the article name. The article concerns Rand's philosophy, not Objectivism generally, and it's a good topic worthy of its own article. Andrewa (talk) 15:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• Coming from WT:MOS where a request for comment has been made, here's my 2c on it

I think that Objectivism (Ayn Rand) should be Objectivism (philosophy), first of all (with a hatnote pointing towards Objectivity (philosophy).

Secondly, I think that criticism of Objectivism (Ayn Rand) should be Criticism of Objectivism (philosophy). As you said, Criticism of Objectivism is misleading: what objectivism is being criticised? Moral? Neo, the magazine, political party, etc etc.

"Criticism of Objectivism" needs fixing too, it's a double-redirect.

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 15:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

For the other types of objectivism, the criticism articles would be named:

• criticism of moral objectivism
• criticism of neo-Objectivism (a branch of this strain of Objectivism, perhaps this would be integrated into criticism of Objectivism)
• criticism of The Objectivist (a magazine that deals with this strain of Objectivism)
• criticism of the Objectivist Party (a party that believes this strain of Objectivism)

Each name is distinct from criticism of Objectivism. As it stands, these articles do not exist, and so the article name having two disambgiuators is very redundant. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 16:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. As noted above, "objectivism" has a number of different meanings, only one of which is the philosophy of Ayn Rand. See the [disambiguation page]. There was no consensus at the conclusion of a lengthy recent discussion on a similar proposal at the Objectivism (Ayn Rand) page ([here]). The current proposal has even less merit: it would certainly be consistent with Wiki practice to merge this article with the main Objectivism (Ayn Rand) article. Me, I'd merge them both with Ayn Rand.KD Tries Again (talk) 17:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

I have no opinion on a merger, but until that happens, we should at least fix the problem with this article: namely, having redundant disambiguation in the title. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 22:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I've just read though this mess and what I see is a lot of irrelevant points and very little reference to guidance from the actual guidelines. Now, this is a unique situation since Criticisms of ... articles are inherently not named by a pure common name, but the underlying principles of WP:UCN can still be followed. The most common name for the subject being criticized here is "Objectivism" and so it follows that the most common name used for the topic of criticisms of it is "Criticisms of Objectivism". Now we can look and see whether such a title holds up to WP:PRIMARYUSAGE. Well, when I google for Objectivism every single hit on the first page is a reference to the philosophy/movement criticized in this article. I think the "much more used than any other" criteria is obviously met. That leaves WP:PRECISION, which requires precision when necessary so that the title is not confused with other possible meanings. I don't see an argument here, much less a compelling one, that precision beyond Criticisms of Objectivism is necessary here. I'm going to withhold voting for now, but unless someone explains how the plain and simple Criticisms of Objectivism is somehow inconsistent with actual WP naming policy, conventions and guidelines, and that adding (Ayn Rand) brings it into compliance, I see no choice but to support the move. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Karbinski, I enjoy and thank you for your continued "provocation" (by your mere reasonableness) of the obstructionists here. As Born2Cycle noted, any simple reading of the primary topic policy would mandate that Objectivism (Ayn Rand) be renamed simply Objectivism. There is no other article by that name. Opposition is based not upon Wikipedia policy, but objection to the subject matter. The objectors here are in a panic that Rand will "take over" the term objectivism and that she shouldn't be allowed to "define" it. Of course, they don't seem to understand the difference between a proper noun as a name and a mere concept. Nevertheless, if they truly believe that "objectivism" should stand on its own, then why don't they write that article? Well, the bottom line is that until they get the article renamed as Well, you really should know that if you want to be taken seriously it's not appropriate for Rand's supporters to expect us to let her name her so-called philosophy (objectivism) the vast majority of Wikipedia's users will still look for, find, and profit from the extant articles. Its amazing how people are driven to derangement by this dead woman. Until then, they provide a load of laughs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjaer (talk • contribs) 19:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Problems with "Criticism of Objectivism"

Per the disambig page, Objectivism:

The term Objectivism/Objectivist can refer to:

• Moral objectivism, a meta-ethical position that certain acts are objectively right or wrong
• Objectivism (Ayn Rand), the philosophy of Ayn Rand
  • The Objectivist movement, a movement formed by acolytes of Rand's philosophy
  • Objectivist Party, an American political party espousing Rand's philosophy
  • Neo-Objectivism, a family of ideological viewpoints and cultural values descended from Rand's philosophy
  • The Objectivist, a periodical
• The Objectivist poets, a group of Modernist writers who emerged in the 1930s

So if this page were to be moved to "Criticism of Objectivism", we would be implying a criticism of all of these things? I think we should entertain and discuss some other proposed name changes, to specifically imply that this is a page for criticism of Objectivism, the philosophy/movement founded by Ayn Rand. Ideas/suggestions for anything more specific than just "Criticism of Objectivism" ? Cirt (talk) 23:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

The literature in analytic philosophy never refers to moral realism as Objectivism (capitalised), only as objectivism (though this term is largely deprecated). The poets are refered to as Objectivists (capitalised) but it is much, much more rare to find discussion of "Objectivism" in reference to poetry (just as it is common to refer to the Situationists but very uncommon to refer to "Situationism" [sic]). So, my take on it is that capitalised Objectivism is unambiguous. The ambiguity is only created when Objectivism is the first word in an article title, as in Objectivism (Ayn Rand). the skomorokh 23:07, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, exactly. The original disambiguation actually causes more ambiguity than it removes. Objectivism (Ayn Rand) should, in view of common usage, be changed to Objectivism but those who object to Rand's philosophy will go to no end to obstruct any useful clarifications. Skomorokh's point is uncontrovertible. Kjaer (talk) 02:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The parenthetical notes at the end of an article title are only necessary when there is actually more than one existing article that could have the same title. Are there any articles specifically criticizing any of the other "objectivisms" that are listed in the disambiguation page? If not, the parenthetical note is not needed here. --Itub (talk) 10:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid we went over this several times in the discussion relating to the Objectivism (Ayn Rand) page. "Objectivism" is widely used in other contexts - in the philosophy of science even more than in ethics, and in linguistics too. While it means Ayn Rand's philosophy to many people, the term can't be reserved for that meaning. Hence the necessary disambiguation page.

Yes. This Objectivism has nothing to do with Objectivism (Ayn Rand). —Mattisse (Talk) 20:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Itub, other pages incorporate criticism - see Moral realism, for example, rather than having separate criticism pages. That's how the criticism of Randian Objectivism should be handled.KD Tries Again (talk) 20:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC) KD Tries Again

The subpage is about 12K and the main article about 36K. They could just be merged with the subpage becoming a section called Critical responses. However, the current setup seems quite reasonable. -- NewbyG ( talk) 23:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Reference to the community consensus on how to apply titles to articles would be the way to go. However, there are enough POV editors around, that feel threatened by the ideas of Ayn Rand's philosophy (named Objectivism), that the facts concerning what the vast majority of users are expecting to see when they search using the term Objectivism will be buried under tangent proposals and evasions. Damn right I havn't addressed all the pointless obfuscation, it would be uncivil to expect anyone to do so. Karbinski (talk) 22:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Calm down, I can't see any reason for anyone to be threatened by the writings of Rand (even Greenspan finally rejected her a week ago) and calling people POV editors because they have the temerity to disagree with your belief that objectivism = randism is as assumption of bad faith. In effect you are making the same argument you made on the original article discussion, there is almost certainly a wikipedia name for that sort of thing, rather like the forum shopping you went in for when you didn't get your way last time. If you want to call other peoples arguments obfuscation, then that is a pretty shallow way of getting out of dealing with the arguments. --Snowded TALK 03:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Why bother ascribing beliefs to other editors you don't know when you cannot *honestly* expect to get it right? And it is nothing more than an anti-Rand point of view to try and create an issue out of the name assigned to the Philosophy of Ayn Rand. The name assigned to the Philosophy of Ayn Rand is Objectivism. An article on Objectivism is an article on the Philosophy of Ayn Rand. An article on the Criticisms of Objectivism is an article on Criticisms of the Philosophy of Ayn Rand. Go ahead and use the tools suggested by WP:PRIME. I trust you'll just evade the majority of your findings and sieze upon only those results that support your anti-Rand POV. Or perhaps dispute that a system of ideas covering metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics and aesthetics is a philosophy - that will certainly obfuscate a discussion on re-naming this article. Lets see, perhaps a paragraph or two about me, bound to help muddy the discussion. Oh yah, constant ignoring of the open topic (renaming the article) and instead chatting about a non-existent merge proposal is the current favorite. Karbinski (talk) 00:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

This is getting really tiresome, no motivation has been ascribed to you, you are now making the WP:PRIME arguments you made on the original article where you failed to gain consensus. You really have to realise that taking a position that Rand ≠ Objectivism is a valid position (although you disagree with it) an throwing in accusations of POV everytime someone disagrees with you . Its also perfectly reasonable for me to suggest that a merge has more arguments for it than a rename. You are throwing around accusations that people are opposed to you because they fear the ideas of Ayn Rand, Oh please, just calm down, read the arguments and try to realise that raising another move on a subsidiary article, just after you have failed to achieve the same move on the main article is not really acting in accordance with the sprit of WIkipedia. --Snowded TALK 07:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

There is a case for a merge? go ahead and propse one. The typical fun: snowded quote "your belief that objectivism = randism", karbinski quote: "ascribing beliefs to other editors", then classic snowded: "no motivation has been ascribed to you" - either you're not addressing *anything* that was said before - filling up space - or you meant belief by motivation and are quite simply wrong about your own comments, lol. More of this to come I'm sure. I haven't made any argument considering WP:PRIME here, just pointing out that you won't address any policy or guidelines in this discussion, except perhaps - in the near future - to sieze upon a narrow sub-set that agrees with your anti-Rand point of view. Karbinski (talk) 14:52, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

You are the one who has proposed in respect of two articles on Rand, that they be renamed as objectivism so that's hardly ascribing a "belief" and your advocacy of Rand was made very clear in your abortive attempt to redefine Philosophy as Randism (in case you have forgotten your previous little edit war on Philosophy). The issues on WP:Prime were addressed by myself and other editors when you raised them only a short while ago on the "prime" article so I doubt I will see the need repeat those arguments despite your prophecy. I don't object to the article existing, providing its name is appropriate. 101 logic or even rhetoric should tell you that saying that there is a better case for merge than renaming does not require advocacy for a merge. --Snowded TALK 15:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I count one proposal for name moves on Rand related articles by me (other than the plural/singular stuff on this article). The following written by you is ascribing a belief to me: "your belief that objectivism = randism" - whatever my or anyone elses beliefs are - what you did was ascribe a belief to me. Wow, what a long sentence we have to address here. Yes I did formulate a lede for the Philosophy article based on Ayn Rand's definition - no edit war ensued. I then called for citations in the lede of that article, an edit war did ensue (I added the fact template, it was reverted, repetition, citations added). The proper standard for determining the appropriate name of the article is given by the policies and guidelines, which you choose to evade/ignore/pretend don't exist. Hmmm, so you don't avocate a merge, but think its grand to prattle on about it while evading/ignoring the existing polocies and guidelines for appropriately naming articles? Karbinski (talk) 19:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

⬅ You proposed or actively supported (feel better?) this move and the prior move on the main page with identical arguments. You inserted Rand's definition of Philosophy on Philosophy and had to be forced to acknowledge it, subsequently you edit warred during a discussion on the talk page and engaged in what I can only describe as an esoteric defence of Rand's view on ethics on the talk page. All of that is a matter of the record. You are a declared support of Rand. Wikipedia guidelines support appropriate naming of articles. You are arguing that majority reference on the internet means that objectivism = randism. This was handled in the prior discussion and you did not get agreement to move. The same issue is being raised here again, with the same arguments and the same style of argument. Stating that other editors do not understand or comply with Wikipedia guidelines while you do. Try reading the various arguments, here and on the previous page. Try (you will find this difficult) to realise that other people can have a point of view which differs from you without necessarily breaking guidelines. Try (please try) to realise that suggesting a merge has more arguments for it that a rename does not require one to advocate a move per se. In other words act as a collegiate editor. --Snowded TALK 20:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I haven't supported this move. Whats on record is my edit of the lede sentence, and subsequent to its reversion my aborting any further efforts supporting my edit. As well, there is an edit war concerning the inclusion of citations, which were eventually included. On record as well is a mass of conversation between you and other editors I didn't even participate in. I'm a declared support of Ayn Rand? I'm not arguing that objectivism = randism, define your terms - you make no sense. I am repeating common knowledge that the Philosophy of Ayn Rand was named Objectivism. I have not stated other editors do not understand the guidelines, while I do. I have stated that you have not and will not address the guidelines, except perhaps to sieze upon a narrow subset to support your particular point of view. You present *no* argument for what the article should be named - nothing given, nothing to read and address. Oh ok, no its not clutching at straws, there you go, your one argument refuted with as much substance as the original argument had. Oh okay, your underlying theme that naming a wikipedia article somehow defines such and such is delusional - its just a matter of indexing the encyclopedia, nothing more. I don't see anyone breaking any guidelines, either those who generally agree or those who generally disagree with me. I trust any constructive argument about naming the article will meet the usual verbiage that doesn't relate to guidelines or policy pertinent to the naming of articles. In what pretend play space does an idea hold any credibility if those espousing it won't avocate it? Karbinski (talk) 21:18, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

See here not to mention "nuke Iran now" and the whole conversation here. Matthew 7:16 (and 15 for that matter) --Snowded TALK 21:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

There we go, we can trust snowded to obfuscate, at least your comment was short. How does your and KD'd personal back and forth and flinging an undgrounded yet serious accusation at me relate to this dicussion about an article name change? Karbinski (talk) 16:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

All I did was to provide links to your own writings Karbinski, and they clearly indicate your ideological position which is relevant to your role on this page. What they say about you as a human being I leave to other people's judgement and agree its not relevant to this page, the ideological position however is. --Snowded TALK 18:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

All I did was call discussion of other editors obfuscation, behaivor which is clearly out of line with guidelines and policy stating editors should specifically not do that. Note that I'm not saying you misunderstand the guidelines while I do, just that you have broken them. Karbinski (talk) 23:35, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

⬅ Not a happy bunny are you? If you accuse other people of having an anti-Rand POV (without evidence) then it is very reasonably to point out that you have a pro-Rand POV (with evidence). Just because people don't agree with you it does not mean they are breaking procedures. --Snowded TALK 01:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Greenspan rejected Objectivism long ago. If Peikoff rejected Ayn Rand, then you could say *even* Peikoff, but its not a good fit with Greenspan. Karbinski (talk) 00:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Right. And as I pointed out in the previous discussion, it's a reasonable assumption that seekers after knowledge will go to the Ayn Rand article before casting around for Objectivism, so these proposals to tinker with other pages don't really meet Karbinski's concern in any case. As for community consensus being the way to go, is there any other philosophy article where criticisms of the philosophy are relegated to a completely separate page??KD Tries Again (talk) 20:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

The existence of other articles doesn't really matter. If there is enough for a separate article and either a) the criticism section in the main article is disproportionately large or b) the article is getting too big, then a separate article should be created. I don' think this article would be disproportionately long within the main article, and the main article certainly isn't too large (yet). (If you want to know other criticisms of philosophies anyways, there is criticisms of anarchism, criticisms of anarcho-capitalism, and criticism of libertarianism.) — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 21:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I agree. This article is very brief and could easily be merged with the main article. The articles have a number of references in common. The main article already contains some criticism.KD Tries Again (talk) 19:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

I'm beginning to think that it may be worthwhile making that as a counter proposal. If only to stop people who loose an argument on one page, trying to win it on another page a few weeks later. its a variation of the forum shopping type behaviour we saw last time. --Snowded TALK 20:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I never lost any argument on the other page, simply didn't get a clear consensus, but whatever floats your boat. There you go, perfect example of irrelevant discussion of other editers. Even if you propose a merge, I speculate that you would still babble on about it in this discussion, so again, irrelevant to this discussion if you create or don't create such a proposal. Karbinski (talk) 21:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Criticism or Criticisms?

I think it should simply be "Criticism", without the "s". Cirt (talk) 23:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, I see there was prior discussion on this, above. There also appear to be multiple facets of criticism, in addition to multiple sources of critics. Cirt (talk) 23:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Move proposal closed prematurely?

Even though there was a lot of discussion above, there was not much substance in it, only a few people participated, and the polling was pretty close (6 to 4 by my count). Also, the key point that Criticisms of Objectivism (criticisms of the one and only Objectivism that is capitalized) is not Criticisms of objectivism was ignored by most of those who opposed the move in that they cited potential confusion with criticisms of other uses of "objectivism" (never mind that there are no "criticisms of ..." articles for any other use of objectivism). Also, the point that in this case the parenthesized disambiguation information (Ayn Rand) is totally unnecessary (since there are no other notable uses of Criticisms of Objectivism or even Criticisms of objectivism) was largely ignored as well. As such, I think the closing might have been premature, and that continued discussion should be encouraged, hopefully involving more people and more substance referencing actual Wikipedia naming policy, conventions and guidelines. --Born2cycle (talk) 14:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

After being subjected to repeated off-subject harangues as to what Objectivists "need" to do in order "to be taken seriously" by certain editors who have been involved in this "discussion" and the one on the Objectivism (Ayn Rand) talk page, you may find that move supporters here see little point in repeating over and over actual WP policy as a guideline for any decision. Those who oppose the move do not do so based on any cited WP policy. The overwhelming number of tests (internal links, google hits, lack of any single coherent alternate candidate on google scholar) and the lack of even a real ambiguity (there are no other articles entitled Objectivism) show that there is no reason for the disambiguation of the main article. The only argument made (by those who "doubt" her system is a real philosophy) is that Rand can't "define" Objectivism - yet editors are not asked to define anything in naming articles, but rather to follow common usage. Whether Objectivism is a philosophy, a cult, a criminal orvanization or a fashion trend is not relevant to the naming of the article, no matter how much it irks those who think there should be some other article with that title. (Indeed, why do not these objectors contribute to this supposed alternate candidate? Why is Moral objectivism still a stub, and one which has been repeatedly suggested for merger with Moral realism?) The fact remains that opposition to a rational decision on naming here comes solely from an anti-Objectivist POV, and those who oppose the suggested moves cannot cite any WP policy in opposition to it. Kjaer (talk) 19:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe WP:IDONTLIKEIT has become policy recently? — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 22:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

As the editor who started this whole round of move nominations, can I ask that we all just drop the matter and actively improve the Objectivism articles, which are in a generally poor state? These discussions have not been at all productive so far. the skomorokh 03:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree with this comment by Skomorokh (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 05:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

There certainly is an article on the broad topic of Objectivity (philosophy) which deals with objectivism - as opposed to relativism - in metaphysics (objectivism v. relativism is also a major topic in the philosophy of science). Rand, of course, derived the name of her philosophy from precisely this pre-existing usage, as the disambiguation page for Objectivism rightly acknowledges. The term can't be reserved to Rand. I think that's all editors who oppose these various moves are saying.KD Tries Again (talk) 15:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Clearly and concisely stated KD. Those supporting the moves are saying the primary topic for the term is Ayn Rand's philosophy. Karbinski (talk) 16:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Who the f@#$ is Scott Ryan?

Who is this man and why is he cited as a reputable critic without clarification as to who he is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.113.247.212 (talk) 05:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

author of "Objectivism and the Corruption of Rationality" background and qualifications not untypical of authors both pro and anti Rand (and Libertarian/non-Libertarian). Nozick's criticisms of her philosophy would have more status (although he agrees with some of the political outcomes). However few Philosophers take her seriously so there is not a lot of literature around. --Snowded TALK 06:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Canvassing alert

An objectivist group is canvassing its members to edit Ayn Rand related articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Turnsmoney (talk • contribs) 18:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Outweigh the benefits?

This says that "but that the potential hazards outweigh the benefits" and cites Branden's "Benefits and Hazards" essay. Branden concluded no such thing, stating instead that "She has so much that is truly marvelous to offer us." He states that dogmatically following her philosophy is bad, but that's a separate issue altogether. --75.171.138.132 (talk) 08:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

It may be in the Ellis book, but you are correct that it certainly is not in the Branden piece. I have removed the inaccurate line. Skomorokh 17:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Undue Weight tag

Skomorokh has tagged 1 the section on denial of indigenous land rights as WP:Undue. He/she (added) also has deleted the section on popular culture criticisms declaring one of the remarks "trivia" 2 and removed external links declaring them "not uniquely useful" 3. At this rate the "denial" section will always remain "undue", as apparently any further info added to the article seems to be unallowable. In my view, this is an article for 'criticisms', that doesn't seem to favor the inclusion of most of them.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 07:58, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll thank you not to refer to me as "he". Are you seriously asserting that "Indigenous land rights" is as prominent a criticism of Objectivism as the others listed? Can you identify any major work of Objectivist scholarship that deals with this issue at length? No, because it's a minor comment made by a prolific public speaker who made thousands of similarly minor comments. And The Simpsons references in a critical philosophy article? Let's not make Wikipedia's coverage of Objectivism any more laughable than it already is, please. Skomorokh 08:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Skomorohk, is denial of indigenous land rights a "prominent criticism" of Objectivism? In my view, No. However I believe this article is for all notable criticisms, which it is. It will also continually be out of 'weight' if the article is kept bare, without any additional criticisms. Presently, a proverbial 'Catch 22' is created where all additional info is declared undue, thus maintaining an article that will always be kept in its infancy and not allowed to progressively grow and change the overall weight (and then trim content for weight later). Per inclusion of The Simpsons, I myself have occasionally parodied the pervasive influx of pop culture into Wikipedia, however (and unfortunately) these occurrences are usually far more well known and thus (just as notable) as convoluted scholarly or academic critiques (which should also be included). As for Wikipedia’s coverage of Objectivism being “laughable”, I can’t comment. I have not been heavily involved in Objectivist related articles, and thus resume no responsibility for their content. What I do know is that it isn't worth having an article of [Criticisms], without any or most actual criticisms - regardless of how 'trivial', immature, or unintellectually adept they may be.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 08:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec) All of the popular culture inserts are criticisms of Ayn Rand, not the philosophy that developed from her. They could usefully be added to the Ayn Rand article as a summary (the current list is poor) along with the land rights issue but they don't really belong here. In practice this article says nothing that cannot be said as a section in Objectivism (Ayn Rand) and should be deleted. --Snowded (talk) 08:33, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Snowded, are you stating that you believe the "denial" section would be more appropriate for inclusion at the Ayn Rand Objectivism article, as a tenant of her philosophy? Moreover, is there an article for criticisms of Ayn Rand (the individual)? I would imagine that if there were, it would be merged with this one. Couldn't this article be split into Critiques of her philosophy, and then her personality/person?   Redthoreau (talk)RT 08:39, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

The ones you are listing are really criticisms of her novels or her personal opinions. As such they belong on the Ayn Rand article and/or those for the individual novels. I don;t think this article should be split I think it should be deleted and the contents used on Objectivism (Ayn Rand). One thing which is clear is that Randian objectivism has moved on from its originator, for a start it has some philosophers engaged in it. --Snowded (talk) 08:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Come on guys, this section obviously doesn't belong. See my comments above. Redthoreau seems to be the only one defending the section and even he (she?) admits it's clearly not a prominent issue. Redthoreau, as you say, this page is for notable criticisms, but this one clearly isn't notable -- it's not even a minor issue, as AFAIK it doesn't figure anywhere whatsoever in any literature written by Rand or any other prominent objectivist. Your "catch-22" complaint seems misguided. A minor but notable issue can always be present as a single sentence or phrase instead of a section. Fringe issues shouldn't be present at all because their very mention misleads their importance. In this case, this issue of land rights is based on a single statement out of thousands that Rand made and the only conceivable way to avoid undue weight would be to list all of these thousands of statements, which would destroy the point of the article.

Redthoreau, if you want to fix up the state of this article, rather than pressing for the inclusion of such an obscure issue, why don't you figure out what the notable criticisms really are, and add them instead?

Benwing (talk) 07:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think its that black and white Benwing. Some of the references are to recent statements by the Ayn Rand Institute, so its not just a reported conversation from Rand's West Point lectures. Given that the Ayn Rand Institute is used as an authority in outlining Objectivism it has relevance. Its also valid to look at the political consequences of Objectivism as a form of criticism. I think that (if this article is to stand) a paragraph at least is justified although it needs rewording. I also think you are bit premature in assuming talkpage support for your deletion. --Snowded (talk) 07:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Benwing, as a point of clarification, I don't believe this particular criticism is "prominent", but I do believe it to be "notable". To me there aren't really any 'prominent' criticisms of Objectivism or Ayn Rand ... however there are a plethora of (often unconnected) 'notable' ones. This is clearly one of them I believe, as I it includes a statement by Rand herself, and the institute purported to represent her intellectual legacy. In my view (and others), one of the philosophical inconsistencies with Rand's concept of Objectivism (which I recognize has some valuable merits) is the fact that she holds up American society and their inherent recognition of property rights as the epoch example for a "rational" mankind, but does not recognize that nearly all of the land encompassing the United States, was at one time - confiscated/taken/seized through systematic murder/stolen/claimed without pay - from individuals who she believes had no ‘inherent’ property rights themselves (as a result of their views on mysticism & collectivism, level of technological development etc). Thus ipso facto, according to Rand, Objectivism only applies property rights to those who recognize or acknowledge that they indeed have them (making them not inalienable, but transferable it seems through acknowledgement and an accompanying level of "non-savage/non-primitive" living [her view not mine]). How is this not a credible criticism of the philosophical ethos?   Redthoreau (talk)RT 18:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

⬅ One of the problems on all the Rand pages is that she is in general ignored as a Philosopher with some exceptions. The main criticism appear to be (Chomsky, Buckley to take two) on moral grounds, i.e. the ethical consequences. IN that content the native american point is notable. However the section does need rewriting, its too long at the moment. --Snowded (talk) 18:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Here we go again

I note that 72.199.110.160 has just inserted a series of qualifying statements against various criticisms. This is the same thing as happened on the Ayn Rand page with every criticism qualified with an explanation or excuse. --Snowded (talk) 03:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

template proposal

{{Objectivism and Ayn Rand Cross Talk}}

The problem of universals

Scott Ryan's self-published book is not a reliable source. That one source being the only substance of the section, the section must go. --Karbinski (talk) 17:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

It's only being used to cite Ryan's views, not make independent contestable factual claims. Skomorokh 17:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

What is the case for including Scott Ryan's views? --Karbinski (talk) 18:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Unlike South Park episodes, they seriously address a substantive element of Objectivist philosophy in an article which badly needs it. On the other hand.... The article is very far from perfect and if everything problematic was removed it would be a poorer article for it. Skomorokh 18:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

An article, without an article

It is fairly obvious that this article should either be deleted or allowed to expand. If the threshold for any criticism is whether those who view Ayn Rand as an "intellectual hero" find the critique worthy or accurate, then this article will continue to be chipped away until there is one sentence left ---> "There are no criticisms of Objectivism". If editors don't wish to have an article that chronicles criticisms of Objectivism or Ayn Rand that's fine (have it deleted), but right now the worst possible option is being chosen ... having an article but not allowing it to actually be an article.   Redthoreau (talk)

Personally I would delete it, it replicates material already in the main article. --Snowded (talk) 18:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

In this state, it could be easily parceled up and merged to Ayn Rand (McLemee, Boisvert, Sciabarra, Atlas Shrugged), Objectivism (Ayn Rand) (most of "Theoretical content") and Objectivist movement ("Cultism"), with the exception of "Psychological criticism". I'm of the preference that criticism sections and especially articles should be avoided where practical, as critical content should be integrated with positive and descriptive content to give a holistic treatment of the subject at hand. I think most editors would welcome reducing our number of Objectivism-related articles without losing cited content. Thoughts on dismemberment? Skomorokh 18:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Concur with that in its entirety --Snowded (talk) 18:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The Intellectual Impact section already has most of this content, so lets Merge! --Karbinski (talk) 19:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Great. I've done "Cultism", now we need to do "Theoretical content" and the Rand stuff and we can redirect this article to Objectivism (Ayn Rand). Skomorokh 19:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Alright, almost all the content of this article has been accommodated elsewhere; are there any last objections before we redirect this? Skomorokh 19:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)