Wikipedia:WikiProject Objectivism/Cross talk/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Getting It Right

Recent edits to two different articles ([1], [2]) suggest there may be some confusion about the status of the book Getting It Right by William F. Buckley, Jr. Just to be clear: Buckley's book is a novel, as is plainly indicated on the cover of the book itself. It is not a history or biography. It involves historical people as characters, and presumably was informed by Buckley's own knowledge, but it was not scrutinized by the publisher as a piece of nonfiction, and Buckley was free to take liberties with historical facts. So it should never be used as if it were a nonfiction reliable source. --RL0919 (talk) 01:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I <3 William F Buckley. But RL is entirely right: this is historical fiction and cannot be cited as a reliable source. It may, however, be valuable as Buckley's commentary on Rand, although frankly there are probably better sources for that. Oh, and congratulations on getting the article to GA status! I never thought I'd live to see the day! TallNapoleon (talk) 09:43, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Objectivist epistemology article resuscitated

User:Kmweber has restored the 22kb of this article on the grounds that the original discussion was inconclusive. This, I think, is a fair enough rationale, so shall we have a conclusive discussion here now?  Skomorokh  17:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

My take is that although there is enough source material to do a separate article on Objectivist epistemology, this should only be done when someone is prepared to create an article that improves and expands upon the material in the Objectivism (Ayn Rand) article. The Objectivism article is not perfect or comprehensive, but it has plenty of sources and gets a lot of editorial input. The Objectivist epistemology article as it currently exists is an unsourced, little-edited essay. If there are editors prepared to do the sort of complete overhaul that would make the separate article a benefit to the encyclopedia, then that's great. If no such volunteer is forthcoming, then we are better off with a redirect for now. --RL0919 (talk) 18:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

As I have said repeatedly and at length, it is absurd to have articles on every subcomponent of Objectivism. Are we then to have articles on the subcomponents of the subcomponents? While I don't doubt that KMWeber would be fine with this, I am not. It is unmaintainable and absurd. I would also like to echo all of RL0919's sentiments about the quality of the article. TallNapoleon (talk) 20:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

You both misunderstand how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia is not about creating a skunk-works where articles-in-progress are hidden away until they're complete and ready to be unveiled. Wikipedia is about putting our works-in-progress out in the open, where everyone with a little bit of improvement to make—whether substantial or structural—can come along and make it, so articles grow and improve incrementally and organically. What you both are suggesting is absolutely inappropriate for Wikipedia. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!: 14-0) 02:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

There is already an article that discusses Objectivist epistemology. It is Objectivism (Ayn Rand). Editors can add their work in progress quite openly there. If/when the section on epistemology becomes extensive enough that it makes sense to spin it off into a separate article, then the page Objectivist epistemology can become that article's home, with a summary section in the main article. That's very much in keeping with how Wikipedia works. No one has suggested a "skunk works". --RL0919 (talk) 03:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Objectivist epistemology is already much more informative and in-depth than the section on Objectivist epistemology in the main Objectivism article--that's why it was created in the first place! Kurt Weber (Go Colts!: 14-0) 03:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

It is an unsourced essay. An editor could write an unsourced essay on any specific, but that doesn't make it a good sub-article. --RL0919 (talk) 18:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Sources only need to be given if they're requested to back up a claim made by the article that another editor disputes, or to reference a direct quotation. Other than that, giving sources is unnecessary. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!: 14-0) 19:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

<outdent>No. Just, no, per Wikipedia:Verifiability. Per RL0919, if the epistemology section in the main article on Objectivism starts to get larger, then we can de-redirect the epistemology article and branch stuff out into it. I remind you, though, that Wikipedia's role vis a vis Objectivism (and everything else) is to provide an introductory summary of the material, and not to explore its every minute detail. To do so would lead to a walled garden full of terrible, unmaintainable article. In fact, that's exactly what did happen. TallNapoleon (talk) 21:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

You mean the part that says "This policy requires that a reliable source in the form of an inline citation be supplied for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations"? I don't see anyone challenging anything, or any uncited direct quotations. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!: 14-0) 15:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I submit in good faith that a more comprehensive article on Objectivist Epistemology than found in Objectivism(Ayn Rand) is beyond the scope of an encylopedia. I submit as well, that a structural improvement to Wikipedia would be to redirect the Objectivist Epistemology article to the Objectivism(Ayn Rand) article. Karbinski (talk) 18:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The scope of an encyclopedia is everything. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!: 14-0) 15:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree, as, I suspect, would most of the people here. If I do not hear further objection from someone other than Mr. Weber within the next 48 hours I will be reverting the Objectivist Epistemology article to a redirect. TallNapoleon (talk) 23:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I think we have consensus to return to redirect, unless anyone else wants to comment. TallNapoleon (talk) 16:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Yet again I find myself citing Borges:

"In that Empire, the Art of Cartography attained such Perfection that the map of a single Province occupied the entirety of a City, and the map of the Empire, the entirety of a Province. In time, those Unconscionable Maps no longer satisfied, and the Cartographers Guilds struck a Map of the Empire whose size was that of the Empire, and which coincided point for point with it. The following Generations, who were not so fond of the Study of Cartography as their Forebears had been, saw that that vast Map was Useless, and not without some Pitilessness was it, that they delivered it up to the Inclemencies of Sun and Winters. In the Deserts of the West, still today, there are Tattered Ruins of that Map, inhabited by Animals and Beggars; in all the Land there is no other Relic of the Disciplines of Geography."

TallNapoleon (talk) 23:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The nihilistic mindset that led you to post this quote is patently absurd. Just because a goal may indeed be practically unattainable in a complete form, does not mean that it is not a worthy task to try and come as close to it as is possible. It is unlikely that courts will ever make a correct decision of guilt or innocence in every case brought before them; does that mean they should give up trying? Clearly not. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!: 14-0) 23:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Bottom line is that the only person who has specifically supported keeping the unredirected article at Objectivist epistemology in anything close to its current form is you, and you appear to base your arguments for it on a view ("The scope of an encyclopedia is everything") that is non-consensus both in this discussion and for Wikipedia as a whole (see WP:NOT). Unless someone expresses another viewpoint (and we've had nine days for interested parties to express themselves), it seems the consensus is to restore the redirect. --RL0919 (talk) 23:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted it to its prior status as a redirect. TallNapoleon (talk) 08:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

A supposed "consensus" based upon poor arguments is not a valid consensus. You made arguments and I pointed out how they were flawed; but instead of making better arguments or trying to explain how my counter-arguments were themselves flawed, you ignored them and just resorted to saying "We don't like it." Wikipedia does not work like that. If you want to claim a consensus, you must first have superior arguments to those of your colleagues who disagree with you. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!: 14-0) 14:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you are slightly biased in your evaluation that your own arguments are good and those opposed to you are bad. You are welcome to seek outside opinions if you wish. --RL0919 (talk) 14:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

So far, no one's bothered to address my objections to the arguments you and TN have presented. What conclusion, exactly, am I supposed to draw from that? Kurt Weber (Go Colts!: 14-0) 15:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

What I see is that you claimed several things that have been addressed: 1) You said "Wikipedia is not about creating a skunk-works", but I pointed out that no one had suggested it is; there is a decent article that already covers the subject at Objectivism (Ayn Rand), which is where the redirect goes. 2) To the problem of the old article being an unsourced essay, you say that sources are not required unless material is actually challenged. As pointed out by TallNapolean, that is wrong per WP:Verifiability, which says material "likely to be challenged" must be sourced. History of the Rand/Objectivism articles shows that attempts to summarize or interpret Rand's ideas are frequently challenged and thus likely to be so again. I would have challenged the content myself if I hadn't expected it to end up as a redirect again. 3) To Karbinski's argument that a distinct article on Objectivist epistemology is outside the scope of an encyclopedia, you said "The scope of an encyclopedia is everything" (your emphasis). As I pointed out, that is wrong per WP:NOT. I know of only one thing you wrote that did not get a direct response: You said that TallNapolean has a "nihilistic mindset" and then talked about practical attainability of goals. Since it is not a goal of Wikipedia to have an unsourced essay on every subject about which one could be written, that hardly seems relevant.

So, there are the responses. If all you have left to say is complaints about people not finding your comments convincing (notwithstanding that in your own mind you feel you are the clear argumentative winner), I don't see a need to respond further. --RL0919 (talk) 16:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I would add more, but I think RL0919 pretty much covered it all. TallNapoleon (talk) 17:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Pseudo-philosophy and fictional philosophy

has been repeatedly adding material to both Ayn Rand and Objectivism (Ayn Rand) to the effect that Objectivism is a "pseudo-philosophy" and a "fictional philosophy". The "fictional philosophy" category seems totally off-base for several reasons:

1. Objectivism has real-world followers.
2. There is no philosophy called 'Objectivism' in any of Rand's fiction. The ideas propounded by her heroes are (mostly) the same as what she would later call by that name, but the philosophical system doesn't exist in her fictional universes.
3. With regard to Rand herself, she's a person, not a philosophy of any kind.

The "pseudo-philosophy" criticism is more plausible, but weakly sourced. Two newspaper opinion pieces have been provided as sources. (At least I think they are both newspapers. At the least they are local news websites.) One of the pieces isn't about Rand at all. It mentions her in passing, say her "pseudo-philosophy of moral greed" was an influence on Alan Greenspan and Milton Friedman (the latter being totally erroneous, to the best of my knowledge). The other is a commentary on her novels, which says they contain "a patina of pseudo-philosophy". Neither mentions "Objectivism" by name, so saying "Her system of Objectivism" has been called anything by these articles seems to be synthesis. They could potentially be used for a re-worded mention of a "pseudo-philosophy" criticism in the Ayn Rand article, but they seem rather trivial mentions to warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia article. There's no substantive explanation for the epithet in either piece. I've seen Rand called "fire-breathing" and a "bitch" in opinion articles, but we don't include those epithets. Is there any defense for including a drive-by reference to "pseudo-philosophy"? --RL0919 (talk) 18:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

It seems to be a fairly common criticism. So it could be relevant. TallNapoleon (talk) 00:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

If it is common, then surely there must be better sources than two newspaper opinion pieces that use the term in passing and don't even refer to 'Objectivism'? The other criticisms in the Objectivism (Ayn Rand) article are considerably more substantive (excepting the "stillborn" crack by Buckley, which probably doesn't belong either). What that article needs is more inclusion of serious and substantial criticisms (and they do exist; there are a number of WP:RS books criticizing Objectivism), not whatever pejoratives the op-ed columnists come up with.

The Ayn Rand article is a bit different, since it covers the perception of her in popular culture, where newspaper and magazine columns are much more relevant, plus it doesn't matter whether they refer to her philosophical system per se as long as they are talking about her. I can't say that I'm enthusiastic about including discussion of comments that seem more like plain insults than significant criticisms, but if the consensus is that it is relevant material for the article, there are certainly quite a few that could be added. I still wonder whether these minor papers are the best sources that could be found for this particular term. They don't seem to be up to the level of most of the other sources in the article. --RL0919 (talk) 01:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

You learn something new every day

New article: Objectivist movement in India. Enjoy.  Skomorokh  03:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

AFD for Craig Biddle

Craig Biddle, a BLP article within the scope of this project, has been nominated for deletion. I just put in my "Delete" !vote as I don't think he meets the notability criteria, but of course other opinions are welcomed. --RL0919 (talk) 23:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

A separate AFD has been started for the article about The Objective Standard, a magazine that Biddle edits. I have recommended merging it with Objectivist periodicals. --RL0919 (talk) 16:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Criticisms/Controversy

Her philosophical and political views are somewhat controversial. Ayn Rand's Wikipedia page fails to include criticisms, as most other Wikipedia pages do. Personally, I support Ayn Rand, but I think Wikipedia articles should not be unilateral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Informationmonopoly (talk • contribs) 05:43, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

That just isn't the case. What Ayn Rand's philosophy is (including her political views) is not controversial. Notable "name calling" is indeed included in the article - and the Objectivism article includes notable criticisms of her ideas within a philosophical context. What controversy am I apparently so unaware of? That its anti-altruism / anti-subjectivism / anti-religion / anti-collectivism / anti-anarchism / anti-marxist / anti-socialist is all just fact, not controversy. --Karbinski (talk) 21:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't be obtuse Karbinski. Her ideas are controversial not in that there is controversy over what they are, but in that they have triggered controversy. TallNapoleon (talk) 21:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Just google Ayn Rand and you will find any number of well-formed critiques of her ideas. Given the financial crisis I would say that her philosophy is more controversial now than ever before. This article needs a controversy or criticism section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.209.165.97 (talk) 15:50, 31 March 2010

I disagree. There is no need for a criticism section, and I have opposed the addition of them to any page I've worked on. Any criticisms should be worked into relevant sections of the article. I've added many such criticisms into the philosophy section, for example. CABlankenship (talk) 02:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm with you on avoiding a "criticism section" in the Rand article. (The Objectivism article does have one, and in that case I think it is the better way to organize the material.) The problem I see in the Rand article is that it doesn't fully address the recent resurgence in discussion of Rand, which includes a noticeable critical backlash. A while back an editor went through removing what he/she saw as non-noteworthy material, which included info about the recent increase in her book sales and also quotes of critical comments from recent opinion articles. For the most part I think that cutting was sound. But we should be able to provide an encyclopedic description of her "revival" since 2007, and of the backlash that came with it. I've started collecting some relevant material that can be used for a summary without filling the article with criticism-cruft. But since there is an open peer review for the article, I've been refraining from adding any significant chunks of material because I wanted to see what the feedback was first. --RL0919 (talk) 22:10, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Ayn Rand Lexicon

I just noticed that there is an article about The Ayn Rand Lexicon. Offhand this book seems to be non-notable. It is mentioned in a number of sources, but the coverage of it is trivial, e.g., briefly describing the book as part of bibliography, or mentioning that it has an entry about X or doesn't have an entry about Y. I can't see how that makes for a useful article. Does anyone want to argue for keeping it? If not I will probably redirect to the article about its editor, Harry Binswanger. --RL0919 (talk) 21:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Seeing no objection, I've redirected. --RL0919 (talk) 13:41, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia books

I've created what I believe is the first Wikipedia book relevant to this project, at Book:Ayn Rand. It collects articles about Rand, her works and her legacy into a "book" that can be printed or exported. Wikipedia books are a new feature introduced last year, so there aren't very many of them yet relative to what the potential is. I can imagine a number of other books that could be created relevant to Rand/Objectivism. --RL0919 (talk) 13:41, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Nice work RL, and thanks for keeping this show on the road for the past while. Skomorokh 14:20, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Traffic analysis

Since I know not many people follow the WikiProject Objectivism talk page, I thought I would drop a note here about some information I posted on the project's viewing traffic. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Objectivism#Traffic analysis for details. --RL0919 (talk) 23:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The inclusion of the Qustion (comic) article in the project seems to be wrong. There isn't even a source for the single use of Rand's name as an adjective("Randian"). What does that even mean? It was consistent with Objectivism, or similiar to one of Ayn Rand's speaches (if its that one, its meaningless as she gave many), or it sounded influenced by the ideas of Ayn Rand(in which case shouldn't it wiki-link to the Objectivism article?), or sounded like Galt's speach in Atas Shrugged, or ...? --Karbinski (talk) 23:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The preliminary analysis included every article that is tagged with the project's banner on the article talk page. The character was originated by Steve Ditko and there is some mention of Objectivism in the article, but not much. There are several articles tagged for the project where the relationship to Objectivism/Rand is marginal and probably has little to do with the article's traffic. Among the higher-volume article, Question (comics) is one of the most marginal, although I would argue that the traffic for Murray Rothbard also probably has little to do with his brief association with Rand. When I complete the analysis (slightly delayed now due to other pressures on my time), I will probably do a version that excludes these marginal pages. --RL0919 (talk) 00:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure where I got the idea speech was spelled "speach" --Karbinski (talk) 21:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

When I set up the assessment scheme, I included every article in a subcategory of Category:Objectivism that wasn't blatantly unrelated. No strong objections if you want to remove the Question article, but I would argue that it's not worth casting out a topic of relevance [however minor] for the sake of having tidier backroom stats. Skomorokh 14:20, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

It took a bit longer than I expected due to other distractions, but the completed traffic analysis (updated to included data for more recent months) is now posted at Wikipedia:WikiProject Objectivism/Traffic analysis. Per the discussion above, I included percentages and rankings that exclude some articles that I identified as "marginal" for project traffic. By this I mean only that those articles probably draw their traffic mostly for reasons not particularly related to Ayn Rand or Objectivism, not that they should not be tagged for the project. For instance, although Alan Greenspan is clearly relevant to the project, I assume that most traffic for his article is driven by his role in government, not his long-ago relationship with Rand.

A few thoughts/high points:

• As noted in the preliminary results above, the project's traffic is mostly concentrated in a relatively small number of articles.
• Our top-traffic article is GA class (yay), but our second most visited article is C-class quality (boo).
• A few articles may deserve a revisiting of their importance assessments given their traffic (or lack thereof).

There is more on the traffic analysis page. I'd love to hear thoughts from others about how to use this information to improve the project and its content. --RL0919 (talk) 21:25, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

SEP entry for Rand

I just wanted to note that as of a few days ago, there is now an entry for Ayn Rand in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. The entry is substantial (over 16,000 words) and was written by two non-Objectivist philosophers, Roderick T. Long and Neera Badhwar. The entry should be usable as a source for some of WikiProject Objectivism's most important articles, including Ayn Rand and Objectivism (Ayn Rand). --RL0919 (talk) 22:45, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

A very welcome development indeed. This could well be the high-water mark for the focus on Rand's work in academia. Skomorokh 14:20, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Leiter Reports discussion + commentary on the SEP entry; touches on many issues we have dealt with, I highly recommend it for reading. Skomorokh 14:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

a note on style

Style-wise, I like how they don't assume they have to remind the reader *every* sentence that the topic is Objectivism. The Objectivism article would be more readable by far if once you establish you are giving the Objectivism view, you can go a while and respect that the reader knows that you are still giving the Objectivist view. Every sentence not starting with "Objectivism/Rand holds/held" would be a big improvement. Sadly here such an approach is often interpreted as claiming the Objectivist view as fact instead of claiming what Objectivism considers as fact.

I'll pose the question anyways: How about allowing sentences and paragraphs that report the content of Objectivism only having to be introduced as such, without the qualifier being iterated per paragraph and sentence (in some cases per clause)? --Karbinski (talk) 21:14, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Atlas Shrugged (film)

This is apparently in post-production, so per WP:NFF it's fair game for an article. Whatever happens with this film there's going to be controversy/ridicule/passion, so keeping our article by the book will be important. Reliable sources are scant so far, so there is little to develop right now, but extra eyes on the article would be appreciated for when the storm comes. Skomorokh 13:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Category rename

Readers of this page may be interested in the proposed renaming of Category:Objectivism to Category:Objectivism (Ayn Rand), currently under discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_August_25#Category:Objectivism --RL0919 (talk) 14:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Discussion has closed. The category name was kept as it is. --RL0919 (talk) 16:12, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

IP 160 returns

I notice that IP user 72.199.110.160 (talk) is editing again. This user's topic ban has expired and the recent edits are not particularly problematic. I just wanted to note the return and express my hopes that the project can retain the positive collegial atmosphere that it has had for the past year or more, and that IP 160 will join in editing with that same spirit. --RL0919 (talk) 01:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

JARS archive online

As an FYI for editors: The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies has released the archives of most of its back issues online as PDF files. As a peer-reviewed academic journal dedicated to discussing Rand and Objectivism, these articles should be useful as sources for a number of articles. --RL0919 (talk) 19:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Very welcome news, thanks for the heads-up. Skomorokh 10:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Aren't they likely to have a bit of a POV? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.27.50 (talk) 13:30, 23 March 2011

Well, arguably any material about subjects like philosophy and literature is going to include POV. But this is a peer reviewed academic journal, not the newsletter of a particular organization. Individual authors presumably have POVs about particular issues, but there is not a consistent "house" POV across all the articles. --RL0919 (talk) 14:06, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Original research concern at Objectivist Party

I'm having a debate about original research with another editor at Talk:Objectivist Party#Synthesis concerns. This is a low-traffic article and there's no sign of agreement between myself and the other editor, so I'm requesting input from others. I've also posted a request at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Objectivist Party. --RL0919 (talk) 13:12, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Opening of Objectivism (Ayn Rand)

Can somebody edit the opening paragraph on what Objectivism is? Because it's confusing as fuck and is unnecessarily long and it not in laymans terms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.192.178.17 (talk) 21:22, 19 April 2011

I think the opening paragraph addresses Objectivism as Ayn Rand intended it to be, a philosophy of life. To place it in "laymans terms" is to misrepresent what she hoped to achieve. I would argue with her position on a number of points and would not rate her as one of the great philosophers, but she did take on philosophy in a direct manner and often referred to Scientific Objectivism as her philosophy. To treat it any other way is to do a misjustice to her intent.

I would suggest the commentor read some about the philosophy of Subjectivism. Subjectivism says we obtain knowledge through our senses. This statement challenged age long held ideas that exceptional thought was placed in an individuals mind by outside forces, spirits, witches, gods, or demons. It replaces it with senses and sensory perception which then leads to reasoning and logic. The belief in sensory perception as the source of knowledge leads to a problem with reality:does it exist when not being perceived? George Berkely, a minister, resolved the problem by saying God perceives reality and so it exists without human perception.

Rands philosophy attempts to resolve the reality problem by saying reality exists despite perception. Here she steps one step further than Berkely in epistomological independence from metaphysics by not relying on God to resolve the dilemma. She then takes the Subjectivistic argument in total as it has progressed within the context of the scientific method. She may be correct in assuming data is not knowledge, yet she does avoid taking on the problem of information gathering. Information gathering is primarily a matter of sensory and sensory perception and remains fundamental to obtaining knowledge.

Rand favors intellect and reasoning over information gathering and this, in my opinion, is the downfall of her philosophy. Logic dictates that one cannot defeat the primary aspects of an argument by favoring parts of the argument and ignoring other parts of the argument. One might add to, augment, or change an argument this way. One cannot defeat an argument in this manner and then raise its apparent opposite as the true argument. At least not if one is attempting to present a consistent point of reasoning.

71.53.195.160 (talk) 00:15, 20 April 2011 (UTC)DWright

Please see WP:NOTFORUM. TallNapoleon (talk) 06:10, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The point was the article addresses her philosophy in a manner that decribes her beliefs. Anyone's beliefs exist within a context which I attempted to construct. Not all context belongs in a discussion of a specific topic. As I said in my comment the opening paragraph describes her philosophy in a manner she intended. The rest is support for this conclusion.

That her philosophy is an extension of subjectivism rather than an objectivistic position is a statement of logic. My comment contained no request to include the observation in the article. In a larger sense, one cannot discuss the merits of this article that focuses extensively on her philosophy without discussing her philosophy.

71.53.195.160 (talk) 22:18, 20 April 2011 (UTC)DWright

Revisit Deletion of Theory of Value article

Talk:Objectivist theory of value Last time there was no consensus reached. --Karbinski (talk) 10:36, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Discussion Page is here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Objectivist theory of value (2nd nomination) -- Karbinski (talk) 10:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Discussion on the fate of Thomas Stevens (politician)

This may be of interest to members of this project: Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject_United_States_presidential_elections#Thomas_Stevens. TallNapoleon (talk) 05:55, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Neo-Objectivist

Apparently there has been an article laying around at the title Neo-Objectivist. It was transwikied to Wiktionary in March 2010 and tagged as such, but nothing was ever done to delete it or redirect it to a more robust article. Recently Byelf2007 (talk · contribs) did some cleanup/expansion and started linking it from other articles to de-orphan it. However, it is still a stub at best, and it isn't clear to me that a separate article is needed for this subject. Thoughts on what to do with this article would be appreciated. Merge/redirect to another article (such as Objectivist movement? Delete as non-notable? Keep and expand with sources? --RL0919 (talk) 21:45, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Self-follow-up: I notice that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neo-Objectivism (ism vs. ist) was held in May 2009 and resulted in a redirect to Objectivist movement. --RL0919 (talk) 21:52, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Either way is fine. If someone eliminates the article, they better integrate all of it into the "Objectivist movement" article. byelf2007 (talk) 02 September 2011

I merged it into Objectivist movement as per the consensus in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neo-Objectivism --SupernovaExplosion (talk) 12:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Is Objectivism (Ayn Rand) ready for Good Article status?

I read the article (lol, how often do you read the article? and how often do you just check the version history?), and it reads pretty good to me. --Karbinski (talk) 21:35, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

This discussion and the one below it, though old, shed some light on what might need to be done. Skomorokh 08:19, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

The single biggest problem IMO is the excessive reliance on primary sources. This is one of the issues noted in the 2008 GA review, and it is still true today. Apparently it is possible for editors to find relatively obscure primary sources to cite, but secondary sources such as Smith, Sciabarra, Machan, Gotthelf, etc., tend to be alluded to broadly (e.g., notes that say, "see X for more", or inclusion in the sources list without any notes citing them) rather than cited directly. --RL0919 (talk) 14:45, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

No, the article is too detailed and gives undue weight.92.252.87.151 (talk) 04:05, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

AFD for List of locations in Atlas Shrugged

The page List of locations in Atlas Shrugged is being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of locations in Atlas Shrugged. Interested parties should express their thoughts on its possible deletion there. --RL0919 (talk) 11:04, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Jump in page views

Editors who work on these pages might want to know that there has been a big increase in views since the Paul Ryan VP nomination. The views for Ayn Rand increased about tenfold. The views for Atlas Shrugged also jumped, but not quite as much. --RL0919 (talk) 21:04, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Deletion discussion for Objectivism's rejection of the primitive

I have initiated a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Objectivism's rejection of the primitive. --RL0919 (talk) 17:11, 28 August 2012 (UTC)