Talk:Objectivism/Archive 11

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

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


 * "when the object of capitalism is to prohibit people from copying or even reinventing ideas for use in their machines, writings, music, etc.". Rubbish.  Alfred Centauri 12:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


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

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

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


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

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

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


 * I agree with some of the criticism, for example the lack of clarity in the exposition of Objectivist metaphysics. However, I object to the notion that what is needed is a presentation of multiple "interpretations" of Objectivism.  Unlike most philosophers, Rand's exposition was quite clear, including careful definitions of the major concepts; no "interpretation" is needed, just a good condensation of what she actually said (with suitable references).  Such matters as compatibility with Libertarianism (or lack thereof) are best left to other articles such as the one on the Objectivist movement; the Objectivism (Ayn Rand) article is specifically limited, as noted in its title, to the philosophy as espoused by Rand herself.  I agree that the sections on Hume and Kant are problematic, since they have nothing to do with Objectivism; they're only present (as I understand it) because of the insistence of some editors on including some critical comments, which to them seemed to mean referral to those widely admired philosophers.  I would be happy to merge that text into the Ayn Rand article, which seems to be a more appropriate place for it.  As to images, I tried to include the image of Rand from the Ayn Rand article, but another editor decided it couldn't be used for copyright reasons.  So far as I know, there are no copyright-free images of Rand available.  I don't think any other images are needed.  — DAGwyn 22:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * While you may certainly believe Objectivism is a clear and monolithic entity, that does not reflect the body of published literature. What you present is certainly a prominent internal view, and can be represented as such in the article, but it is not universal. "Neo-objectivism" and other variations of the philosophy should be discussed, along with the bitter split it represents (including such "camps" as the Ayn Rand Institute and the Atlas Society). Additionally, we should not be relying on the philosopher herself to relay an interpretation of her work, but instead depending on third-party reliable sources for such information. Vassyana 00:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * My point is that this article is designed to be specifically about the particular philosophy that Ayn Rand developed, not about possibly derivative philosophies. If there is an article on so-called "neo-objectivism", then there could be a link to it from this article, but (on the assumption that it contradicts Rand's philosophy on some significant points) it does not fall within the scope of the current article.  The "camps" you mention don't disagree at all as to what Rand's Objectivism consists of; apart from historical personality and "political" factors, their main difference is in the extent to which, and areas in which, the original Objectivist tenets could or should be modified post-Rand.  Note that the current article has pointers to more information about this, and that there are a large number of related WP articles such as the one on the Objectivist movement where non-Rand oriented discussion is more appropriate.  As to ignoring on what the developer of the specific philosophy said (which is by definition not an "interpretation"), substituting opinions of commentators who may not have understood it or who may have ulterior motives for obfuscating or "spinning" it, that is absurd at best. — DAGwyn 19:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Vassyana, why should we ‘not be relying on the philosopher herself’ to explain her own work? Why is the philosopher herself less reliable than ‘third-party reliable sources’? Furthermore, who is going to determine what is reliable and what is not? I suggest we present the philosophy as explained by the author herself as best as we can and leave the interpreting to whoever reads the article. ErikvdL (talk) 12:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The purpose of Wikipedia is to report on what reliable independent sources have said about a subject. Certainly, a few quotes and references to Rand are relevant and useful for illustration. Rand's work should be used to compliment the reporting of independent sources, not used in its place. The meaning and impact of her work should be cited to third-party references. Reliance on Rand directly is a NPOV concern (since NPOV is essentially the proportionate reporting of what independent sources have stated) and also a potential original research concern. Also, there is certainly no lack of references regarding Rand and her work, so there is absolutely no need to rely heavily in any way on the primary material. Vassyana (talk) 04:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I could take issue with almost all of that. Any encyclopedia's first responsibility is the accurate conveyance of relevant facts about the topics.  Wikipedia policy is relevant insofar as it contributes to that primary goal, which we must presume is its intention.  Replacing accurate primary information with a catalog of secondary commentary (nearly all of it motivated by special-interest POVs) would not be a useful service.  It also would beg the question, "commentary about what?" — DAGwyn (talk) 18:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Your point would be fine if either you or I were documented experts publishing under our real names subject to editorial control. However, that is not what we are doing here. Neither of us is qualified in this environment to determine "the accurate conveyance of relevant facts about the topics" on our own. We must depend on existing reliable accounts to tell us what the accurate accounting is and which facts are most relevant. That is the very foundation of the project and part of its primary rule of NPOV. If there POVs in the published literature, then we are required to present the claims of those sources in proportion, not avoid them. Vassyana (talk) 11:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The issue is editorial policy, not our own original writing. The primary purpose of the WP policy is to attain a reasonable amount of verifiability for what is presented, which is certainly achieved by using Rand's own work as a reference; it is 100% reliable for the purpose, readily available, and very clearly expressed (unlike a lot of what passes for philosophical writing).  Significant commentary/criticism is in fact given balanced treatment in the article, but is not interspersed within the atraightforward description of the ideas, in order to avoid obscuring them.  Of course editorial judgment is necessary here, as well as in other WP articles, but it can be applied reasonably and fairly.  If you know of any misrepresentation, identify it and we'll check it out and correct it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by DAGwyn (talk • contribs) 20:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * As DAGwyn already pointed out ‘this article is designed to be specifically about the particular philosophy that Ayn Rand developed’; my following arguments will be based on that statement, if you disagree with DAGwyns statement please say so, focus on that and forget everything I say below.
 * Nothing in the article NPOV suggests that ‘reliance on Rand directly is a NPOV concern’. (It is also not an original research concern since her ideas have been published decades ago.) In the paragraph A simple formulation (in NPOV) the distinction between fact and view is clarified. The views Ayn Rand had are facts, in the way that there is no discussion about what she said; this can be clearly shown by citing her own work. Judging her views to be correct or wrong should indeed be left to the readers (Wikipedia policy), who should be helped by naming other authors who wrote about the same subjects. This is how the article is written now. ErikvdL (talk) 11:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You are misusing "A simple formulation" in that it is about how to assert information from sources, nothing more or less. (This is clearly indicated in the bold text opening sentence: "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves.") Basically, it's about how to cite sources, not about how to choose sources. If we're going to parse policy, then it's important to address the issue of reliable sources/verifiability, since NPOV is "representing fairly and, as much as possible, without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources)". Verifiability's appropriate section states in opening: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." [emphasis added] "Third-party", or "independent", sourcing is a central aspect of good editorial practice in Wikipedia because we are not experts and we do not act under formal editorial oversight. What aspects of Rand's philosophy are most important to cover and what that philosophy means must be decided by reliable third-party publications, not by the whims of Wikipedia editors. Vassyana (talk) 21:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The WP policy seems logical only when reliable first-party information is unavailable and when the second party (article editor) is unreliable, which may be the case for many articles but not in this particular case. By the way, some of the editors of this article are experts on the subject matter, moreso than many of the third-party commentators.  For example, I was trained in this philosophy decades ago by the NBI and had some discussions with Rand herself which may have influenced her decision late in life to study abstract algebra.  The idea that I cannot use any of my own deep knowledge of the subject and must ensure that the article merely cites others' opinions is ridiculous, and is not in fact how technical WP articles in general are edited.  If you think there are factual errors in the article, by all means point them out and we will fix them; but if the article is accurate then what is your beef? — DAGwyn (talk) 08:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * "'The idea that I cannot use any of my own deep knowledge of the subject and must ensure that the article merely cites others' opinions is ridiculous ...'"
 * It's not ridiculous at all. Wikipedia is simply not the place to exercise such scholarship. There is no system for internal expert verification, nor is there anything remotely resembling the standard peer-review and editorial processes found in reputable literature. Additionally, the core content policies (verifiability, no original research and neutral point of view) not only prohibit and require (respectively) exactly what you call "ridiculous", but are firmly founded on the principles of that prohibition and requirement. There are other wikis and other WMF projects that allow such forms of research. However, Wikipedia is not one of them. Vassyana (talk) 09:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * As an additional comment, the use of expertise to find and select the best available sources is not only welcome, but even encouraged on Wikipedia. Similarly, the use of expertise to help out on dense, complex and/or easily misunderstood topics is similarly welcomed and encouraged. However, the use of expert opinions is generally limited to this scope and caution needs to be exercised to avoid conflicts of interest, original research and disproportionate weighting. For example, there are topics in my area of real-life expertise where the majority published opinion is not in sync with the latest scholarship and academic opinions. Barring a highly reputable source (or preferably multiple unquestionably reliable references), I cannot change those articles based on my expertise as that would be a problem of both original research and undue weight. It is certainly a limitation of Wikipedia, but fits the core idea of proportionately summarizing reputably published material quite well. Vassyana (talk) 09:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The following policy is given in Verifiability: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Although No original research states "Examples of primary sources include ... original philosophical works" and "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation", it also states at the end of the paragraph "Appropriate sourcing is a complicated issue, and these are general rules. The decision as to whether primary or secondary sources are more suitable on any given occasion is a matter of common sense and good editorial judgment, and should be discussed on article talk pages."
 * The above enables me to derive the following conclusions:
 * What is meant by “third-party sources” (WP:V) is not exactly the same as “Tertiary sources” (NOR). If the policies do refer to the same they contradict each other, which probably is not the case. Third-party sources are, placed in context, other sources than Wikipedia itself and its editors; this would make sense, given what follows directly after the line containing "third-party sources": "Reliable sources are necessary ... to substantiate material within articles".
 * Vassyana said "there is absolutely no need to rely heavily in any way on the primary material"; this point is still subject to discussion. In contrast to her opinion I say there is absolutely no reason not to rely heavily on the primary material. Yes, "an interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source" but when the text of the citation speaks for itself, no further interpretation is required.
 * The arguments in favor of primary source material have, as of yet, not been given a response; the focus has been on the demand to have (mainly) third-party sources. In the proper context primary sources are third-party sources, fulfilling this demand. Again "The decision as to whether primary or secondary sources are more suitable on any given occasion is a matter of common sense and good editorial judgment, and should be discussed". Let’s now focus on that. ErikvdL (talk) 11:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Third-party is in relation to the topic itself; an "independent" source. This follows the plain definition of "third-party". ("No original research" is what says, essentially, that Wikipedia and its editors are not permitted as sources.) Beyond that, Wikipedia articles are supposed to be a summary of reliably published independent scholarship about the topic. This is not achieved by depending on primary materials. That is not to say such references are not helpful or even perfectly appropriate to use in some ways. As I state above, primary sources are quite good for illustrative purposes and providing context. Third-party (independent) sources should be the main material upon which an article draws. Not only is this good sense in the context of the project and its principle rules, it is absolutely essential to fulfill the "neutral point of view" (which is the proportional representation of the body of available reliably published material). Vassyana (talk) 19:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for all the editors, but I for one have not been inserting "original research" or my own evaluations in any of the articles I regularly edit, having been very careful to establish and maintain a neutral point of view, which is especially hard to do for such a controversial article as this one. In fact, I have removed instances of OR and editorializing from several articles.  Vassayana has yet to identify any factual error or undue bias in the presentation of the subject article, which indicates that the primary purpose of any encyclopedia is being well achieved here.  If we had tried to limit the article to a review of third-party published opinions, I am sure that the article quality would have suffered greatly.  Perhaps that is what Vassyana would prefer? — DAGwyn (talk) 01:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This comment starts on the false defensive and ends with a false dilemma; a common "debate" formula. Rhetoric is not a replacement for earnest discussion. I was simply replying to the comments posted here. I also pointed out some of the issues in the GA review, though it was not a detailed critique because the flaws are many. I will provide more feedback below. This article can rely on quality independent sources and still reach a high quality (just like any other article). Vassyana (talk) 11:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Dagwyn, you seem to be misunderstanding the purpose behind WP:V. The reason that we require reliable third party sources is that, unless you plan to have an article that consists solely of quotations, you are going to inevitably use your own interpretation of the primary source if you overrely on it.  This is because whenever you have a sentence referring to the primary source that is not a quote, that sentence conveys your personal belief in what the primary source says.  To solve this dilemma, we have included WP:V as part of the editorial policy, so that instead of conveying your own interpretation of Rand's work, you can cite to a recognized authority that has interpreted that work (I am sure that there are plenty such authorities available).  You may not agree with this policy, but it is nonetheless the policy of Wikipedia and we ask that you abide by it.  70.21.58.3 (talk) 06:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Article review
Section titles are in bold.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Aesthetics: Romantic realism. Completely lacks referencing.

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

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

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

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


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

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

Why not? There are only two reasons:

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

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


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

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

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


 * I'll agree to disagree about primary sourcing, as I did above. Would you agree about my concerns regarding the incomplete coverage of Rand's philosophy that I detailed in my NPOV concerns? I believe that lack of discussion regarding utilitarianism and classical liberalism is significant, since Rand's philosophy arose from the fertile ground of that Anglo-American philosophical school and Rand (and her more devout followers) have fiercely contrasted Objectivism with them. One can no more present an accurate and comprehensive overview of Objectivism without discussing utilitarianism and classical liberalism, than one can craft a similarly complete article about early Christianity without discussing Judaism. If this needs to be handled in a separate section, that's just as well. Organize the material however is most appropriate for a clear presentation, but be cautious when using some sections like "Criticism" as such organization tends to be used to marginalize "offensive" material or highlight negative claims. It's usually best to integrate material into the relevant portion of the discussion, but in that approach caution must be used to avoid an apologetic/criticism/counter-point type of mess. In the end, organize it in whatever way will produce the most readable and encyclopedic article. Just be sure to properly represent all significant points of views in the published literature, not just a presentation of orthodoxy with variants and criticisms tacked onto the article. Vassyana (talk) 01:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree with characterizing what you think to be missing content as a violation of/misalignment with NPOV. As you know, you are welcome as a contributing editor to the article. Karbinski (talk) 01:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * What something *is* in factual terms and what people's reactions and conclusions are on the topic are two different things. The former information is useful for the user/reader to react and form their own conclusions.  The latter may be useful for the user/reader - when NPOV is maintained - but remains secondary to the facts that gave rise to the commentary in the first place.  This relationship between fact and commentary is what underlies the structure of presenting the facts first and consequences second. Karbinski (talk) 01:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I am not arguing that the article's existing presentation of what Objectivism *is* is perfect or "somehow" above verification; I am arguing that the only appropriate points of view to include are those pertaining to what objectivism *is*. For example, what the axioms of Objectivism are is undisputable, therefore *what* they are is presented as undisputed.  If some notable disputes or champions the *axioms themselves* and published in a reliable source then such information can be used to enrich the article in *subsequent* sections.  If any notable has disputed what Ayn Rand's philosophical ideas *were* (in part or in whole) in a reliable source, we would have to abide by NPOV and give that dispute its due weight as measured against the detailed articulation of those ideas by thier author.  There is no contest, quoting the author directly is a complete confirmation of what the author said. Karbinski (talk) 01:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Following guidelines that seem to have been applied in general to WP articles on other controversial subjects, it is appropriate to refer to a certain amount of reasoned criticism. However, I think that is best done using the present article structure, where the criticism is not interleaved with the exposition of the philosophy.  My concern is the clarity and accuracy of understanding of what the key ideas are, without confusion from the ideas of critics.  While the primary purpose of the article is, rightly, to clearly, accurately, and fairly describe the subject, that goal can be advanced by providing appropriate context. — DAGwyn (talk) 21:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Extended, not limited
--"Unlike many other philosophers, Ayn Rand limited the scope of ethics to the derivation of principles needed in all contexts, whether one is alone or with others"

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

I also did not understand that sentense. 99.241.186.71 (talk) 04:51, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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


 * Perfect Mandarni (talk) 21:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Rand did not choose Objectivism because Existentialism had already been taken. For that to be true, Rand would have had to have believed that her metaphysics was the essence, the distinguising characteristic, of her philosophy. She did not believe this. She identified Aristotle, for example, as also holding that reality exists independent of consciousness. Rather, she chose Objectivism because she held that her epistemology, was Objectivism's most novel and distinguishing characteristic. with its theory of concepts as based objectively on the integration of sense data of an independent reality. See, for example, "the most important parts of my philosophy are my theory of concepts, my ethics, and my discovery in politics that evil—the violation of rights—consists of the initiation of force." , "The issue of concepts (known as 'the problem of universals') is philosophy's central isue.".", and the explicit discussion of the name and the essence (as distinguished from the axioms) in lecture 3 of Leonard Peikoff's The Art of Thinking.

I suggest, instead, that a more accurate statement would be:

Rand chose Objectivism because she held that her epistemology, specifically her theory of concepts as objective, was her philosophy's most novel and distinguishing characteristic.

Thoughts? Gyrae (talk) 19:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Rand hereself said that she would have used Existentialism, but it was already taken. This might be hyperbole, just as her comment that she took her name from a typewriter was dramatic license. And of course, logically, the fact that Existentialism was [already] taken doesn't explain why, specifically, she chose Objectivism. So the word because seems a bit strong. But at most we could put Peikoff's statement in quotes to clarify that it's his statement. Maybe I'll do it, once I can find what table leg my copy of OPAR is propping up. Our own opinion on "because Existentialism was taken" amounts to OR, unless someone has another referenced comment. In any case, the explanation of Objectivism itself that you want to add is already there, directly above, and refers to knowledge as Objective. Since this precedes the Existentialism comment, the only people it should confuse would be those who start reading the article backwards or from the middle. Kja er (talk) 21:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. As you say, the logic behind the name is evident from the preceding paragraph. Rather than adding a quote from Peikoff, how about just deleting the "because" paragraph? Gyrae (talk) 21:48, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Even if Rand was, as I think, "telling a good story" she did publish the remark (Objectivist Newsletterr?) and Peikoff took her seriously. I would leave it. The word because seems to strong, so when my better half gets home, I'll check his version of OPAR. If I can justify it from the text, I'll put the phrase in quotes. But It should not be deleted since both Rand and Peikoff found it notable. Kja er (talk) 00:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that the passage you are looking for in OPAR is the following, from chapter 1:

None of the standard terms applies to the Objectivist metaphysics. All the conventional positions are fundamentally flawed, and the ideal term—"existentialism"—has been preempted (by a school that advocates Das Nichts, i.e., nonexistence). In this situation, a new term is required, one which at least has the virtue of not calling up irrelevant associations. The best name for the Objectivist position is "Objectivism."

Peikoff here says that the term "Existentialism" would be the ideal term for Rand's metaphysics. In lecture 3 of The Art of Thinking Peikoff elaborates and directly states that the axion "existence exists" is not the distinguishing characteristic of Rand's philosophy (only the metaphysics) but her conception of Objectivity was held by Rand to be the distinctive characteristic and reason for the name "Objectivism."

This reason for the name of the philosophy is also supported by this quote from Chapter 4 of OPAR:

According to Objectivism, epistemology is necessary for practical purposes, as a guide to man in the proper use of his conceptual faculty. We are ready to concretize this claim. We can now begin to identify the rules men must follow in their thinking if knowledge, rather than error or delusion, is their goal.

These rules can be condensed into one general principle: thinking, to be valid, must adhere to reality. Or, in the memorable words of the old Dragnet TV series, which can serve as the motto of all reality-oriented thought: "Just give us the facts, ma'am." But how does one reach "just the facts"? The answer lies in the concept of objectivity; it requires that one grasp the full philosophic meaning and implications of this concept.

When you grasp this concept, you will have an invaluable tool enabling you to assess and, if necessary, improve the quality of your own thinking. You will also understand why, out of all the possibilities, Ayn Rand chose to call her philosophy "Objectivism." Gyrae (talk) 02:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. My objection to removing the "Existentialism" remark is because I know Rand herself said it, although I don't know where - I would guess the Objectivist Newsletter in the first issue or The Objectivist as a Q&A. If I had the resource I would quote Rand's, not Peikoff's "existentialism" comment, and then respond with your remark from Art of Thinking. (That's an audio, no?)  What I'd really want to say is something like: "Rand quipped that she choose Objectivism because Existentialism was already taken.  But Peikoff explains..." The only problem with this is that saying Rand "quipped" is OR if there's no source. It's annoying, because the remark really is quite notable, but the general reader is not going to get your subtle but true point or Rand's humor. Can you give a verbatim quote from Art of Thinking? Kja er (talk) 02:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll get the exact Peikoff quote from the lecture. Unfortunately, I only have it on casette tape, so it will take me a week or so.

Are you sure that Rand said that "existentialism" was her initial, preferred term? I ask because I just used the very helpful Objectivism Research CD-ROM from Oliver Computing to look at all uses of the word "existentialism" in Rand's writings and found none that suggest she would have used that name for her philosophy. This CD-ROM does not include all audio comments, but it is comprehensive as far as writings since The Objectivist Newsletter.Gyrae (talk) 04:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I would swear that I had read her make the same comment. I am going by my mental timestamp, that this seems like old knowledge, known personally from the '80's, prior to the publication of OPAR. My best guess is that it was in The Objectivist, perhaps a Q&A from a reader letter. In my mind the comment was attribujted to Rand. My only other guess would be her letters or journals, but that doesn't seem right. Maybe even Who is Ayn Rand? Unfortunately, I am moving and my stuff is in storage - and it's not electronically indexed. Do you have The Objectivist in hard print to compare? I appreciate the research. Kja er (talk) 05:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and what I remember is Rand saying that she had thought of using Existentialism, for the primacy of existence, but that it was already taken. She may have mentioned this when she was commenting on her dislike of neologisms. I would suggest you check the CD Rom for "neologism." She said she didn't like them - and that may be when she said she settled on an already existent word. Kja er (talk) 05:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I got no hits on "neologism," making me think that her comment on those must be in one of the speeches or Q&A sessions. The Objectivism Research CD-ROM includes the text of the Objectivist Newsletter and The Objectivist. I've not checked book indices. I found the tape of the Peikoff lecture. Peikoff does say in it that Rand's theory of the objectivity of concepts is the distinguishing, fundamental characteristic of Rand's philosophy, and that epistemology, not metaphysics, is the fundamental discipline within philosophy. He does not in the talk say explicitly that this is the reason that Rand chose the name "Objectivism" — though one may reasonably infer that. Given this, do you want me to listen to and transcribe that portion of the lecture? (It would be a bit of work.) Gyrae (talk) 05:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your efforts. I concur with Peikoff on the essential importance of Rand's epistemology. My intention was to quote Rand saying that Existentialism was taken, and then quote Peikoff giving a serious answer. Since we can't oppose the two quotes, ity would be odd to have Peikoff appear to oppose himself. As for a transcription, no, not unless you want to do the whole thing and have Peikof pay you for your effort and publish the damn text. I understand Branden is having his audio course Principles of Objectivism transcribed and that it apparently has unique material. I think the section as it now stands is the best we can justify. It is a shame we can't find the original source - and I'll have to look for the neologism quote, which I am sure must have been in one of the periodicals.

If I could justify it, I would have written that

dicussing names, Rand had said she opposed neologisms and naming the Philosophy after herself, since that she developed was not essential to its principles, and she noted that had existentialism not been "taken" (with an established connotation) she might have chosen it to express the primacy of Existence. However, as Peikoff explains...."objectivity of concepts, essentiality of epistemology."

My copy of the Objectivist is in storage, and I am not sure if this is where the quote comes from, but will try to get it over the coming holidays. Again, my thanks. Kja er (talk) 06:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

OK. Gyrae (talk) 00:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

History of Philosophy Criticism
The article states that Rand was criticized for her interpretation of the major philosophers and it states Rand's position, but it never states what the criticism is. This is vague and somewhat confusing. 129.174.226.5 (talk) 20:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Some of that criticism is explained in the subsequent paragraphs. Also, there is a reference for further research (Seddon) if one wants to know more.
 * We don't want to exhibit a lot of detailed criticisms here, because many of them are themselves based on misinterpretations or are in other ways inadequate. If we get into counter-arguments and counter-counter-arguments, then we create a debating platform, which would certainly detract from the article's value for most readers.  The article does well enough by noting that there is some criticism, giving a reference, and illustrating some of it. — DAGwyn (talk) 22:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Whether the criticism is accurate or not, it is out there. Its not our job as editors to evaluate the scholarship of others, but merely to list it.  A "Criticism" section should contain actual criticism not vague references to it.  Idag (talk) 01:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * On your view, the editors of the Special Relativity article would be obligated to list all the crackpot criticisms of SR regardless of merit. I doubt you will find any support for such a view here and I, for one, reject it as utter nonsense.  Alfred Centauri (talk) 13:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that we should add crackpot theories, I'm saying that we need to elaborate and clarify the criticism that we have already included. The current criticism section does a horrible job of summarizing the sources that criticize Objectivism (it references those sources, but read through it and then tell me that you understand how Objectivism is criticized).  I am not familiar with the Special Relativity article, so I will leave those theories to the editors who work on that article, I'm just saying that the Criticism section should be a clear and concise summary of the criticism of Objectivism and should be easily accessible to people who are learning about this subject for the first time.  I would rewrite it myself, but I am not familiar with this area (hence my complete confusion upon reading the current Criticism section).  70.21.52.33 (talk) 19:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sure the current text could be improved, although I don't want to volunteer to do the work. However, be advised that much of the criticism is itself not easy to understand, for several reasons.  A somewhat oversimplified categorization of the criticisms follows:  (1) The critic identifies an apparent error in Rand's argument.  (2) The critic thinks that Rand misinterpreted what some other philosopher said, so her criticism of that philosopher is flawed.  (3) The critic misinterprets what the other philosopher said, and consequently thinks Rand misinterpreted that philosopher.  (4) The critic misinterprets what Rand said.  (5) The critic understands what Rand said but has already made up his mind otherwise.  (6) The critic raises a point that Rand didn't address (perhaps because she didn't think it important), and says that the lack of an answer on that issue is a flaw in her argument.  (7) The criticism consists of a bunch of invective with no evident rational argument.  The only criticism that should be worth worrying about is types 1 and 2; unfortunately, most of the criticism I've seen falls into one of the other categories.  Until relatively recently, most of the criticism was of type 7, alas. — DAGwyn (talk) 23:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Material that relies upon a reference, implying verifiability, that isn't actually verified by the reference needs to be removed or corrected - as per Original Research (OR). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karbinski (talk • contribs) 15:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * What material are you referring to? Idag (talk) 01:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm making a general point. I've encountered several examples throughout Wikipedia including within this article. Karbinski (talk) 22:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That's not particularly helpful. If you find an actual improper source, then by all means feel free to fix it. Idag (talk) 04:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

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


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

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

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


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


 * I Agree wholeheartedly with DAGwyn's description of what NPOV constitutes and how we should edit this biographical article. Ethan a dawe (talk) 20:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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


 * The article is a simple exposition on Objectivism. The topic is in fact *non-controversial*.  The demand that the article describe Objectivism *and* include a selection of negative opinion is to violate NPOV.  Let the world know all there is to know about what critics and advocates have written about Objectivism - at the same time allow for, and accept, the existence of an article that lets a wikipedia user know what constitutes Objectivism in a clear and structured fashion.Karbinski (talk) 22:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * A nice part of this non-controversial article is that it fully discloses how controversial the ideas it explains are and provides a link to an article dedicated to that subject. Further, the fact that Ayn Rand's philosophical ideas are considered controversial by academics is presented as un-disputed.  However, the controversy itself is not relevant to the article.  The reason it is not relevant is that the reaction to Ayn Rand's ideas is exactly a reaction, and has zero to do with what those ideas are (the ideas were given to us by Ayn Rand *before* anyone reacted to them).  This article presents what those ideas are.Karbinski (talk) 22:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Take your personal reaction and post it somewhere else as per WP:OR.Karbinski (talk) 22:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Bert, thank you for discussing this on the talk page. The editors (of which I am one) of the articles Special Relativity and General Relativity face a similar problem. The subject of those articles is complex and so the articles are long.  Where appropriate, contrasts to previous related theories, i.e., where Einstein thought others 'got it wrong' is present.  However, NPOV does not require that a substantial portion of the article must be dedicated to criticisms of the theories and of their author.  Nonetheless, there are Wikilinks present to additional articles that detail alternate theories and criticisms.  AFAIK, this arrangement is perfectly acceptable here at Wikipedia.  Since DAGwyn, has created an article expressly for criticism of Objectivism, what are you waiting for?  Adopt it and turn it into a high-quality article.


 * Note that I am not a regular editor here and have no 'vested' interest in this article's contents. It is on my watch list because I have an interest in Objectivism and Ayn Rand.  The regular editors here have clearly made an effort to address your concerns with the creation of the new article but it appears that you refuse to budge from your edit warring ways.  This leads me to believe that you are not seriously concerned with the quality of the article.  I have a feeling that the administrators will come to the same conclusion should you choose continue this disruptive behaviour.  Alfred Centauri (talk) 22:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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


 * Go look up "POV Fork" and it should become self-evident that moving all criticism out of an article about a controversial subject and burying it in an article nobody will look at is ridiculous. - Bert 17:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.170.159.12 (talk)


 * Anonymous, while some Objectivists and their statements are controversial, the definition of the philosophy of Objectivism is not controversial. For the criticism to qualify as a POV fork, the article would necessarily contradict how the philosophy of Objectivism is defined in this article.  As the criticism article does not do that, your assertion that it is a POV fork is objectively false.  Alfred Centauri (talk) 18:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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


 * I agree that semi-protection is probably required however, the reverts of anonymous are not actually considered vandalism ( What vandalism is not), just stubborn:


 * Stubbornness: Some users cannot come to agreement with others who are willing to talk to them about an editing issue, and repeatedly make changes opposed by everyone else. This is regrettable — you may wish to see our dispute resolution pages to get help. Repeated deletion or addition of material may violate the three-revert rule, but this is not "vandalism" and should not be dealt with as such.


 * Observing his demeanor and rhetoric, I think any reasonable administrator would conclude that anonymous is at least being disruptive and thus a request for page semi-protection would be warranted. Alfred Centauri (talk) 16:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm glad to see the disruptive editor blocked for now. Let's use this time to make improvements. Ethan a dawe (talk) 20:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The article has been fully protected, Ethan. Alfred Centauri (talk) 20:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * We can still get a good outline of what changes should be made to the article in that time. Ethan a dawe (talk) 20:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Semi-protection is a tool to stop vandals who use Tor to keep changing their IP. This is a content dispute in which everyone is being quite stubborn.  Therefore, semi-protection would be an abuse of administrator rights, as it would involve siding with one faction in a content dispute. For that matter, it's not clear that anyone has violated the 3 revert limit, nor is there an absence of discussion. Rather, the people who are fighting against the POV fork are being disregarded by those who seem to be overly concerned with making sure Ayn Rand looks spotless. - Bert 17:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.170.159.12 (talk)


 * From [POV fork]:


 * There is no consensus whether a "Criticism of .... " article is always a POV fork. At least the "Criticism of ... " article should contain rebuttals if available, and the original article should contain a neutral summary of the "Criticism of ... " article.


 * From [What POV forking is not]:


 * Articles whose subject is a POV


 * Different articles can be legitimately created on subjects which themselves represent points of view, as long as the title clearly indicates what its subject is, the point-of-view subject is presented neutrally, and each article cross-references articles on other appropriate points of view. Thus Evolution and Creationism, Capitalism and Communism, Biblical literalism and Biblical criticism, etc., all represent legitimate article subjects. As noted above, "Criticism of" type articles should generally start as sections of the main article and be spun off by agreement among the editors.


 * Bert, there is no POV fork here and your 'editing' actions are disruptive. Undoing disruptive non-consensus edits is not disruptive or vandalism.  Your disagreement with the significant non-anonymous contributors to this article does not entitle you to disrupt this article while stomping your feet and crying 'Vandals' and 'Censors'.  You're as transparent as the thinness of your 'argument'.  Alfred Centauri (talk) 18:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


 * "In two weeks, unless someone beats me to it, I will revert your censorship of this article." So much for discussion.  I continue for the record then. Karbinski (talk) 22:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no content in the article that avocates Objectivism (no quotes that learning Objectivism is great for an individual's mental health, or blow by blow commentary on how such and such historical events highlight the truth of Objectivism, or how notables have flourished and/or achieved as a result of learning Objectivism, or any ad-hominum attacks on notable critics, or anything else of that nature). This is a rather telling quote from anonymous: "...by those who seem to be overly concerned with making sure Ayn Rand looks spotless."  I think Bert feels that the reader needs to be influenced by his POV, and that without sufficient warning as to what the proper POV is the wikipedia user might draw the *wrong* conclusions about Objectivism. NPOV guidelines exist to prevent exactly that kind of low-quality article.  That the article is clear about the academic reception of Objectivism is a testament to its NPOV status. Karbinski (talk) 22:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Any notion that Ayn Rand's ideas are spotless is pure WP:OR (however valid), as well as complimentary to Ayn Rand. Karbinski (talk) 22:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This x is x (main article). Boo x/Hooray x (criticism article).  The main article summarizes the criticism article and links to it. That is the current state of things.  Protected status is a sad state of affairs, as there is ample opportunity to improve the article. Karbinski (talk) 22:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * when someone needs a generic excuse to cut out stuff they don't like, they claim the article is too big


 * Well, "claiming" is not the criteria to regard an article as too big. The criteria is that the Wikipedia software groans about it. For instance: Look at Immanuel Kant, click on "edit", and you will read:


 * This page is 86 kilobytes long. It may be appropriate to split this article into smaller, more specific articles. See Wikipedia:Article size.


 * ...in fact that Kant article is asking for some trimming. Randroide (talk) 23:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed, the Wikipedia did insert a similar warning for the Objectivism article. In addition to that inspiration, I was bothered by a previous editor's removal of some criticism text, which although it improved the article's editorial quality had the effect of losing the information from the Wikipedia.  That was the first item I restored into the newly created Criticism article.  This approach, modeled after a similar, very successful split of the C (programming language) article, is a compromise solution that ought to meet the valid concerns of both "sides".
 * The term "sides" is of course simplistic and represents only one POV's notion of the issue. I haven't been taking "sides"; I've been trying to improve the article in numerous ways having nothing to do with pushing a pro- or anti-Objectivism POV.  Suppressing obtrusive, irrelevant POV text on either "side" is part of that process. — DAGwyn (talk) 00:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * A lot of well known or notable people have had criticisms of Objectivism, or Rand, or some associated part or group. I may not aggree with all of them, but I think the criticsm article does a great job of capturing that and not overloading the main article. Ethan a dawe (talk) 01:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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


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

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


 * Indeed, the Wikipedia did insert a similar warning for the Objectivism article


 * If a size warning appeared before the split, then whoever reinserts the section into the article would be acting against WP:SIZE.


 * "There is no consensus whether a "Criticism of .... " article is always a POV fork. At least the "Criticism of ... " article should contain rebuttals if available, and the original article should contain a neutral summary of the "Criticism of ... " article." POV_fork


 * IMHO, if there was a size problem and if the two articles follow the aforementioned guidelines, the split is OK. Randroide (talk) 07:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

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


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

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

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


 * Consider what we might write if Ayn Rand was convinced that Kant was a South American goatherd who invented the electric boll weevil. If we just stated her beliefs and failed to mention the critical response, we would be tacitly endorsing her beliefs.  To be NPOV, you must not censor notable, relevant POV's from reliable sources by hiding them in a POV fork. - Bert 21:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.111.29.12 (talk)


 * We wouldn't write anything because any such content (the false bio info) would be irrelevant and excluded from the article. Please discontinue evading the definition of a content fork (same content in both articles), please stop ignoring that the criticism content in question doesn't challenge anything in the article, and please quit labeling the editing effort as censorship. The article is NPOV as it stands, adding in the negative POV, verifiable or not, is simply adding in negative POV.  It is especially unecessary given the existence of the Criticism of Objectivism article.  A more constructive use of your time would be to properly update the side-bar and 'see also' segments of the article with links to the new article. Karbinski (talk) 21:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * "To be NPOV, you must not censor notable, relevant POV's from reliable sources by hiding them in a POV fork". Really?  Consider the Quantum Physics article.  Now, it is no secret that Einstein, a figure arguably as notable as Kant, never accepted quantum physics as formulated and criticized it on numerous occasions.  Oddly, the editors of that article have censured this important information and hidden it in a blatant POV fork titled Bohr-Einstein debates and the only clue that such an article exists is the sentence "The Bohr-Einstein debates provide a vibrant critique of the Copenhagen Interpretation from an epistemological point of view."


 * I'm certain that truth lovers everywhere would be eternally grateful if you would devote your efforts to remedying this miscarriage of truth and of Wikipedia policies. Thanks in for advance for your selfless devotion to the truth and the integrity of Wikipedia.  God be with you on your quest, bold anonymous knight of POV forks.  I salute you!  Alfred Centauri (talk) 22:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Alright Alfred, you've made your WP:POINT, now why don't we just direct the anon IP to the policy that we are referring to? Skomorokh  22:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

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


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

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


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

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


 * I admitted no such thing. The Criticism of Objectivism (Ayn Rand) article contains essentially all the previous criticism text (with references), plus a capsule summary of the technical content of the philosophy being criticized where it is needed.  It is neutrally presented.  No information is lost by linking to it instead of retaining duplicate text in the Objectivism (Ayn Rand) article; see the link(s) I had planted before for guidance on how to do that smoothly.  At one point I had a "stub" tag to indicate that the article need fleshing out, but somebody removed it.  My intent is for that article to be where the criticisms and responses are presented, using the existing text as a starting point.  It will take some self-restraint on the part of editors to avoid turning it into a debating platform, but anyway better there than here. — DAGwyn (talk) 23:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I should add that my intent includes keeping all articles I monitor, including Objectivism (Ayn Rand), neutral (as well as meeting other objective editorial criteria which I have stated previously). If you want to check the edit logs, you should find that I previously made several changed to this and other articles to remove advocacy or replace it with neutral text, just as I do with POV leaning in the other direction. — DAGwyn (talk) 23:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Update per the creation of a new sub-article
Editprotected Yo, could an administrator please replace the Objectivism_%28Ayn_Rand%29 section with a main link to the new Ayn Rand and the history of philosophy article, which replicates it in its entirety? Thanks, Skomorokh  19:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I came to look at the editprotected request. Does anyone object to this? &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 12:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, the article is no longer protected. I'm disabling the editprotected tag. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 12:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

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


 * To his credit, Bert made, what I consider, an almost constructive suggestion when he stated "I'm sure you won't mind following my humble suggestion, which is that we should continue to work on the criticism article in a sandbox". Is such work in progress?  From my perspective, an article on criticisms of objectivism could be an excellent article.  A short paragraph or two here indicating the fact of reality that Objectivism has been and currently is subjected to much criticism is all that's needed here.


 * I don't think a "sandbox" is needed. The Criticism of Objectivism (Ayn Rand) article exists and is currently a "starter kit" containing text that was already in existence in other articles.  Feel free to improve upon it where it stands. — DAGwyn (talk) 03:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Having said that, my initial impression that Bert is not interested in good faith suggestions for this article was confirmed when Bert(?) destroyed any chance at good will by immediately adding the entire (incoherent) criticism section back to this article after protection was removed. Alfred Centauri (talk) 02:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * He has done similar things on the Ayn Rand article. He made a few suggestions that I thought had potential, but were a tad extreme.  Instead of compromising on anything, he began an edit war and then started insulting other editors and claiming that he had a "consensus" when we reverted his edits.  His attitude and willful ignorance of Wikipedia's policies (which we repeatedly posted on his talk page and which he then deleted) are now just plain disruptive.  Please post your experience with Bert in the complaint (link is above).  I'd offer to do it, but I haven't really been involved with this article.  Idag (talk) 03:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

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


 * That all such content is derived via ethics and political corollaries would have to be made clear. Perhaps the existing ethics and politics sections can be enhanced instead.  Either way... Karbinski (talk) 17:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * That's not how Rand saw it. To her, morality meant guidance for personal conduct in general and was derived from considering the essence (existential nature) of a human, while ethics pertained only to a person's relationship to others and mattered only insofar as it was an application of morality.  Politics was derived secondarily from ethical principles.  There is some logical connection, but it goes in the other direction. — DAGwyn (talk) 23:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * This is an interesting and useful distinction between morality as personal and ethics as interpersonal. But I do not recall having read of such a distinction in any canonical published works.  What is your dsource for this distinction, DAGwyn? Kj&aelig;r 02:36, 27 September 2008 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjaer (talk • contribs)


 * I wasn't making a statement about Rand's philosophy or her method, I was refering to future article content. All such content will be grounded on the content of the Ethics and Politics sections.  Therefore, it may be appropriate to integrate future "Morality" content in with these sections.  Depending on the actual future content though, a new section may work fine. Karbinski (talk) 17:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Meta Politics
Ayn Rand had this to say about the bridge between ethics and politics: "“Rights” are a moral concept—the concept that provides a logical transition from the principles guiding an individual’s actions to the principles guiding his relationship with others—the concept that preserves and protects individual morality in a social context—the link between the moral code of a man and the legal code of a society, between ethics and politics. Individual rights are the means of subordinating society to moral law."

Meta-politics is not correct. However, I think we need a content upgrade / re-write for this section above and beyond getting rid of the 'Meta-politics' term. In any case I think the sub-topics of Ethics and Politics are correctly labeled as is (that is, Ethics and Politics respectively). Karbinski (talk) 00:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed, Rand never used the term nor concept "meta-politics," and to her politics was a relatively minor topic compared to, e.g., morality or ethics. Her usage of the term "ethics" differed appreciably from how it seems to be used in mainstream philosophy.  (She provided precise definitions for these and other concepts, so her statements need to be understood in the light of what she meant by such terms.)
 * It's hard to know whether the mainstream terms "ethics" and "politics" should be used as labels for what Rand denoted as "morality" and "ethics," respectively, without having similarly precise definitions of the "accepted common usage" for these terms. Lacking that, adhering to Rand's terminology seems appropriate and less confusing for the reader who tries to relate the article to many of the references. — DAGwyn (talk) 22:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

As a branch of philosophy, Ethics is the proper term to label the section of an encyclopedia article that discusses the various principles of morality identified by Rand. It is the job of the section's content to communicate Rand's discoveries. Rand's Ethics are one and the same as Rand's Morality. Within a structure listing branches of philosophy, we should be using Ethics as the section heading.

On account of Rand's Ethics being one and the same as her Morality, ethics is *not* the label for her politics. Capitalism is a moral _political_ system. It's not a political _ethical_ system. Ethics gives us a code of values, not a political system.

Ayn Rand had this to say about Politics: "The answers given by ethics determine how man should treat other men, and this determines the fourth branch of philosophy: politics, which defines the principles of a proper social system."

Here as my other quotation of her above, she frames things in terms of the branches of Philosophy: Ethics and Politics. Her choice of terms.Karbinski (talk) 22:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I accept the argumentation, even though I still have some misgivings about trying to fit a unique point of view into categories devised by others.. In particular, subsuming Morality into Ethics, where Ethics is thought of as primarily treating how people (should) interact with each other, tends to imply that matters of right and wrong are collective notions, which of course Rand denied.  Anyway, thanks for the rational discussion, which we have sometimes had too little of here. — DAGwyn (talk) 23:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Worthy of academic study?
Currently, the support for the proposition that Rand's philosophy is worthy of academic study is sourced only to two philosophers who are committed supporters of Rand: Gotthelf, a founder of the Ayn Rand society, and Den Uyl, author of an enthusiastic book about Rand. I have made minor changes to reflect this.

If anyone has a citation to a philosopher who is not him/herself a follower of Rand, it should be added. It would be the easiest thing in the world to find non-followers of Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Descartes, etc. who would insist those philosophers are worth studying. It might be harder in the case of Rand.KD Tries Again (talk) 19:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again


 * A large number of non-Rand followers have contributed to the recent academic exploration of her philosophy, e.g. in the non-partisan Journal of Ayn Rand Studies. Also, when one considers some of the insignificant material that indisputedly has been found worthy of academic study, the claim that that a culturally significant integrated philosophical system deserves no academic study is untenable; unless, perhaps, one believes that academic study is unrelated to the real world.  Note that none of this prejudges what the result of such study might conclude.
 * Please resist the urge to "balance" neutral exposition in the article by inserting disputation, especially unsubstantiated disputation. — DAGwyn (talk) 20:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Robert Nozick, one of the 20th century's most prominent moral and political philosopher is the classic example of a non-follower of Rand who conducted serious scholarship on her works. Roderick T. Long is another non-Objectivist who has done recent work on Rand. Skomorokh  12:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * User:DAGwyn, I know you have worked on this article, but please resist the urge to claim ownership of it. Concealing the affiliations of defenders of Rand is not neutral, and if those affiliations need sources they can easily be provided.  Your evaluation of the article's subject is irrelevant: we need to reach consensus on how these matters can be made transparent to the general reader.  Please remember that Wikipedia can be edited by anyone.  Of course, I entirely support reference to Nozick's Rand scholarship.KD Tries Again (talk) 13:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again


 * What´s the point?. Just state (with sopurce) that philosophers X, Y and Z said this and that on Objectivism and that´s it. Rand's philosophy is worthy of academic study is a subjective statment that should be avoided. Just cite the facts Randroide (talk) 14:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree emphatically. Skomorokh  14:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe any editor has suggested making such a subjective statement. What I have sought to correct in the article is an account of scholars coming to the defense of Rand which fails to note their verifiable status in promoting Rand. Absent such information, the general reader is left with the impression that they are disinterested academic figures. The identification of Gotthelf I've now inserted, with citation, serves to correct that. I hope it won't be reverted without an attempt to seek consensus.KD Tries Again (talk) 20:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again


 * But you don't seek consensus before making your changes, which mislead in the opposite direction. It is not surprising that an academic who finds value in Rand's work would be affiliated with a group that promotes interest in that work.  "Disinterested" parties, by definition, have no interest.  That doesn't reflect on its value, academic or otherwise. — DAGwyn (talk) 15:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia editing policy is to improve articles wherever possible, and to seek a consensus where disagreement arises; not to seek agreement before editing any article. I have added sourced information to the article; Gotthelf's affiliation is notable and would not be known to the casual reader. As I said above, it's unusual that the viability of a philosopher's work tends to be supported only by followers of that philosopher - few philosophers who admire Plato's work are in any sense Platonists, for example. I suggest someone tracks down a positive quote from Nozick to add more information and redress the balance somewhat in the direction some editors here prefer.KD Tries Again (talk) 16:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Irony
Totally unrelated, but does anyone else see the irony of a wiki page on objectivism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.231.113.161 (talk) 01:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Jaron Lanier might. I'm sure some would, having named their inner circle "The Collective". In other news, please use this page to discuss improvements to the article. À tout à l'heure, Skomorokh  02:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Input requested re: property is theft!
There is a dispute over at talk:property is theft! as to whether this section including a criticism of the phrase by Nathaniel Branden should be included. Your input is welcome at the request for comment. On behalf of WikiProject Objectivism (watch that space), Skomorokh  17:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Rights
I am not sure that the last revision by Karbiski http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand)&curid=22256&diff=239081240&oldid=239079154 was an improvement, in so far as it removed this:
 * "Thus, according to Rand, the fundamental right of human beings is the right to (live one's own) life. By this phrase Objectivism means the right to act in furtherance of one's own life — not the right to have one's life protected, or to have one's survival guaranteed, by the involuntary effort of other human beings. On the Objectivist account, one of the corollaries of the right to life is the right to property which, according to Objectivism, represents the product of one's own effort; on this view, one person's right to life cannot entail the right to dispose of another's private property, under any circumstances. Under Objectivism, one has the right to transfer one's own property to whomever one wants for whatever reason, but such a transfer is only ethical if it is made under the terms of a trade freely consented to by both parties, in the absence of any form of coercion, each with the expectation that the trade will benefit them. Objectivism holds that human beings have the right to manipulate nature in any way they see fit, as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others."

Specifically, I think referring to the right to life - to live accoring to one's nature as an individual of volitional reason - as primary is a better formulation than referring to the formulation "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Kjaer (talk) 21:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not seeing any references... the skomorokh  12:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't have any real contribution to make on either side, other than to say that you don't want to use the verbiage 'right to life' as that will confuse people. what seems to be meant is the right to live one's life without interference or somesuch. Clarity is important here. --Buridan (talk) 14:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Rand identified Man's rational capacity as key to his survival and well-being, and she identified that capacity as requiring individual freedom to act on rational conclusions that the individual draws. The concept of "rights" she identified as primarily one of recognition by others of priority for the individual's responsibility and authority to pursue that activity.  This was, for historical reasons, cast largely in terms of freedom from others' infringement on one's rights, since without that factor the issue is moot. — DAGwyn (talk) 17:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Naming of the DAB page
Current name is Objectivism - disambiguation, which is a clear violation of Disambiguation. There are only two options for the disambiguation page name:


 * Objectivism (disambiguation).
 * Objectivism.

It seems to me there is no clear primary usage. The topic currently at Objectivism (Ayn Rand) gets lots of ghits, enough to disqualify any of the other candidates, and particularly disqualifying the article currently at moral objectivism. However, this topic (ie Objectivism (Ayn Rand)) is one we'd expect to get lots of ghits, as it has vigorous proponents who are particularly active on the Internet. Untangling this bias is problematic, and any other evidence I can suggest will suffer similar problems.

So I propose:


 * Firstly, that we will never provide a good justification of any primary usage, and so the DAB page should have the undisambiguated name, ie Objectivism.
 * Secondly, that, as this is a relatively simple decision to justify, we should attempt to arrive at consensus on the DAB page name first, and then deal with the possible renaming of Objectivism (Ayn Rand) and other pages listed in the DAB in the light of this decision.

Support of or opposition to this (double-barelled) proposal could be indicated below. Andrewa (talk) 13:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

See also Talk:Objectivism - disambiguation, and particularly Talk:Objectivism - disambiguation and Talk:Objectivism - disambiguation, although the entire page is worth a read to avoid re-inventing the wheel. Andrewa (talk) 13:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose This page should be moved to Objectivism. If you look at Objectivism - disambiguation then only three of the items there contain the literal string "objectivism" and two of those are used in the current sense. That's the over-riding meaning of it. The Objectivism (Ayn Rand) page already has at top a pointer to Moral objectivism which is the only possible mistake one could make. So, the dab is unnecessary and an extra step for most searchers (even if they're only searching because they want to edit the page, they're users) Disambiguate other meanings at one or more of the dab pages Objective, Objectivity, or Objectivist (now a rd). JJL (talk) 14:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Support (but see comments above) -- Snowded   TALK  15:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose As per Disambiguation the disambiguation page is now Objectivism (disambiguation). Karbinski (talk) 16:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose This page should be moved to Objectivism.  It is kind of Andrewa to note, subsequent to defining the question according to his POV, that indeed, the verifiable reality of the situation is that the overewhelming majority of user searches here lead to the article now entitled  Objectivism (Ayn Rand).  It would be most useful if Andrewa could explain how he knows or intuits (rather than suspects or fears) that those visitors are mere Objectivists, whose interest in Objectivism evidently makes them second class users according to some apparently secret protocol.  I suggest a second possible bias.  perhaps in a perfect world, many more readers would be interested in a link to a stub article defining a technical philosophical term known mainly to academics, namely moral objectivism.  Due, apparently, to the lack of zeal or identity-consciousness of the Moral objectivism-stub-article-partisans, there is a real and substantial dearth of public interest in this topic.  Perhaps a request for comment targetting those with an anti-Randian POV posted to editors of articles critical of Rand will address this pernicious anti-Moral objectivism-stub-article-bias.  Until then, we must unfortunately deal with the verifiable fact that according to Disambiguation: When there is a well-known primary topic for an ambiguous term, name or phrase, much more used than any other (significantly more commonly searched for and read than other meanings), then that term or phrase should be used for the title of the article on that topic.Kjæ<span style="color: rgb(0, 68, 34);">r    16:20, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you see the need to attack me like this, but people who live in gun cotton houses really shouldn't throw hand grenades. I have no objection to this particular movement, I don't even know a lot about its beliefs or to what extent they are consistent to my own (my own philosophy has been most notably influenced by Edmund Husserl and Wittgenstein). So I've no POV to push at all. But it would be logical to assume that the followers of this particular movement would want to promote it here, would it not? So let's just assume good faith on both sides, and concentrate on the issues. The question still remains, can we find evidence sufficient to support the claim that there's a primary meaning? Andrewa (talk) 17:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose This page should be moved to Objectivism. Attempts to move the page to other than Objectivism amount to frustrations for the majority of user searches and twisting the search process to meet some unstated purpose makes no sense. Why would anyone want to have this happen?  If it isn't due to POV then what is it?  Wikipedia policy is clear on this. --67.128.121.194 (talk) 19:30, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Alert This IP address has only one edit namely this one. I smell socks  -- Snowded   TALK  20:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Non-Alert I have been experimenting with Google's Chrome browser - that was me, not some smelly socks :-). --Steve (talk) 21:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Renamed
The page was pre-emptively moved before any consensus could be reached on its new name. There's no point in starting an edit war over it IMO, and at least it now conforms to the MOS. Andrewa (talk) 17:22, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... actually, it wasn't moved, it was cut-and-pasted, and by the same editor who had previously and unilaterally moved it from the undisambiguated name. Interesting. Andrewa (talk) 17:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It couldn't be moved properly by a non-adminstrator. Good faith, please. Let's settle the move of this page first, then worry about the disambiguation and criticism articles. the skomorokh  17:38, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Then it shouldn't have been moved. Far better to ask an admin to move it properly. But I'm making no accusations regarding good faith or otherwise, just documenting what is being done, and I think it was in error on this occasion. Everyone makes mistakes, and Wikipedia actually encourages us all to be prepared to make them. That's how collaboration works best. We all need to make mistakes, and to all learn from them. Andrewa (talk) 22:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Ethics Edit
Someone removed a large section on ethics under the meta-ethics head without comment. I have reiserted this material, with a few minor changes, but the section as a whole is a mess. If you make further cutting edits please explain why rather than removing large chunks without comment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjaer (talk • contribs) 04:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Requested move
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * 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) 17:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Objectivism (Ayn Rand) → Objectivism: the philosophy of Ayn Rand or Objectivism (Philosophy of Ayn Rand) Karbinski (talk) 16:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * → Objectivism is now under consideration as well.

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
 * Please use  to prefix your entry if you support moving the article to Objectivism. Karbinski (talk) 20:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Responses: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjaer (talk • contribs) 17:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Support — to be clear and accurate about the article topic versus a kind of hack at disambiguation. Karbinski (talk) 16:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Make Primary Topic as per what arose via discussion below. That is, rename/move the article to Objectivism. Karbinski (talk) 19:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose either move makes a claim for primacy of Rand in objectivism which is not merited.-- Snowded  TALK  13:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Make Primary Topic There are well over 700 pages linking to Objectivism (Ayn Rand) and about 75 linking to Moral objectivism, several being links to Ayn Rand's philosophy.  Objectivist poets (about fifty linked pages) are unlikely to be searched for under Objectivism.  Of course the move to a main topic will infuriate Rand's critics.  But that is point of view.  According to Primary topic:


 * Ask yourself: When readers enter a given term in the Wikipedia search box and click "Go", what article would they most likely be expecting to view as a result?

According to Special:WhatLinksHere the answer by ten to one is Ayn Rand's philosophy. Kjaer (talk) 19:52, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * you don't define any branch of philosophy (I'll suspend judgement whether Rand is a philosopher for a minute) by a single approach to that branch based on a search count.  If you guys want to be taken seriously you need some objectivity in your approach.-- Snowded   TALK  20:40, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Whether Objectivism is a philosophy, a cult, or a trendy new diet is not in question, and is of absolutely no relevance as to whether it should have primacy as a topic. The number of links, google matches, etc., shows indeed what it is that people expect to find when they type in Objectivism.  Kjaer (talk) 21:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If I typed in variations of objectivty/objectivism I would not necessarily expect to find something on Rand. The fact that the majority of links took me there would tell me something of interest, but its nt really an argument.  Wikipedia is meant to inform not necessarily conform and it is an objective (sic) citable fact that this is not confined to Rand.  -- Snowded   TALK  00:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Support--Make Primary Topic (move the article to Objectivism). The only thing on the dab page that has the name "Objectivism" is this article--because that's what objectivism means. The page can still say "For moral objectivism, see Moral objectivism" just in case. JJL (talk) 21:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose :The current title Objectivism (Ayn Rand) seems most descriptive. These concepts are peculiar to Rand, and have little in common with any other topic which could be described as related to "objectivity" (usually contrasted with "subjectivity") a concept which has wide relevance in scientific and intellectual fields unrelated to Rand's either in particular or even generally. --NewbyG (talk) 22:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose We're not talking about "objectivity" etc. but only about the "ism".  The term "objectivism" does in fact denote a philosophical position that is not very similar to Rand's "Objectivism", which is practically a trademark.  The current article title makes the disambiguation as succinctly as possible, and I haven't seen a convincing reason given for changing it.  The default should be to leave it alone. — DAGwyn (talk) 18:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Support making primary topic, per my rationale and evidence below, and per Kjaer's WhatLinksHere results. Without passing judgement on their merits, the opposes here are clearly in contradiction of Wikipedia's primary topic guideline. the skomorokh  18:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Support Making Primary Topic Commonsense, common usage and Wikipedia policy all point to making it the primary topic. --Steve (talk) 19:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The current title has some problems, but all of these suggestions seem worse. Andrewa (talk) 17:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:


 * Comment I agree that the current disambiguation is quite unfortunate, but would like to see some more options. Objectivism (Randian philosophy)? Objectivism (philosophical system) would work to disambiguate from the other objectivisms in formal/academic philosophy, but only to those who are already familiar with each. One option would be to claim that Rand's philosophy is the primary meaning of "Objectivism", and thus should be at Objectivism with the disambiguation page at Objectivism (disambiguation). That argument would seem pretty strong, given that the entire first page of Google hits for "Objectivism" return pages discussing Rand's philosophy (with the exception of the link to our disambiguation page). Google News is similarly decisive toward the Randian context, whereas Google Scholar has Rand in the minority, and the dominant referent objctivism in the philosophy of science. The problem is, I'm sure many editors critical of Rand would oppose the move to Objectivism. Thoughts? the skomorokh  17:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I think we can really jump start this conversation and find "Most Interested Persons" by making the move. Karbinski (talk) 12:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You really can't move it to "Objectivism" you know, far too controversial a claim. I can't see why there is a need for a move to be honest, unless you move it to something which makes it clear it is all about Rand, but which makes no claim for Rand=objectivism.  -- Snowded   TALK  13:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The goal is certainly not to equivocate between little and big o objectivism/Objectivism. I don't see what is controversial about it as the other relevant articles are 'Moral objectivism' and 'Objectivist poets' exclusively.  If the move really can't be done as you say, then I will return to something such as 'Objectivism - the Philosophy of Ayn Rand'; but again, the title is unoccupied and the disambiguation list is 3 short. As well, it qualifies as a primary topic.  Karbinski (talk) 14:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The word "objectivism" is associated with Rand but she can't define it with a big or a small o. The current title is fine, if you start to change it to include the word "philosophy" then you get into the controversies over whether she is a philosopher or not.  I don't see any case being made for a move, and the creation of other articles on the political/cult movement associated with her doesn't add or subject from that argument.  -- Snowded   TALK  15:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * We are discussing a move to Objectivism. Rand has defined Objectivism (big O) and user skomorokh has made the case above as per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Karbinski (talk) 15:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry I don't think he has made the case, but lets see what other editors say. 2:1 is not enough especially when you are a declared advocate of Rand's ideas  -- Snowded   TALK  16:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * That is an ad hominen attack. The case is not based on any personal point of view: | A google search for Objectivism is very unambiguous about what Objectivism refers to Karbinski (talk) 16:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No its not, its simply pointing out that you have an interest in moving this to Objectivism, suggest you read up on fallacies before you start making accusations. Given you have an established history of trying to insert Randian definitions onto the Philosophy page without declaring your interest it is more than reasonable to point out the dangers. -- Snowded   TALK  16:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I note you are editing your comments after someone has replied. You can't say that Rand defines Objectivism on a google count.  Objectivism (not rand) is contrasted with relativism and constructivism in the literature.  As skomorokh has pointed out Google Scholar gives a different perspective.  The only reason I can see for this move is a political one, not (sic) an objective one.  I oppose.  -- Snowded   TALK  18:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * For the benefit of those who didn't observe my editing of my comments after someone had replied I'll provide the before and after snapshots. Before: That is an ad hominen attack.  After: That is an ad hominen attack.  Karbinski (talk) 19:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment much the same could be said about Pragmatism, for example; realism, positivism, even logic. JJL (talk) 00:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Response But that is the point.  You wouldn't move Dewey to Pragmatism, as there are other philosophers in that tradition.  The proposal here is to define Objectivism as Randism.
 * Comment Let me make sure I'm being clear as I came in in the middle of this: I would oppose moving Objectivism to Randism. I support moving Objectivism (Ayn Rand) to Objectivism. JJL (talk) 01:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Snowded, Newbyguesses and JJL, you are missing or obscuring the point. No one is 'defining' objectivity or objectivism to mean Rand's philosophy. And this is not a dictionary. People type in topic heads, not terms for definition. The vast majority of those who are looking for an article on the word Objectivism are looking for an article on Rand's philosophy. To assume that they would be taken in by such an article and fail to notice that it is about a specific philosophy rather than the general notion of 'objectivity' is laughable. No one has made a claim about the validity of Objectivism as a system in suggesting the move - although some who oppose it have stressed their hostile POV.

Consider the topic White House. Does the fact that the article leads directly to the US President's mantion and executive office building imply that there are no other white houses? Or that supporters of the presidency want to annex the phrase 'white house' for partisan purpose? Of course not. Convention and common use simply mean that most wikipedia users who type in White House want to know about that building, and not any old house that happens to be white, or what the meaning of the noun phrase "white house" is. Were it possible to differentiate between upper and lower case article names, there would be no argument, except, perhaps, from those Rand critics with a vehement anti-Objectivism POV. But POV aside, there is no reason not to folow the stated criterion: "Ask yourself: When readers enter a given term in the Wikipedia search box and click "Go", what article would they most likely be expecting to view as a result?"

Finally, what is the relevance of repeated remarks that Objectivism has no monopoly over objectivity, objective, etc? No such claim is being made. And no such articles exist for the ambiguity to arise. <span style="color: rgb(51, 102, 102);">Kjaer 03:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The White House example illustrates the issue, you assume too much importance to Randism. An article which in effect is about one writer's (using a neutral term) approach should normally include that writers name unless the theory is uniquely associated with them and their followers.  See point on Dewey above. I really can't see why you pressing this by the way.  The disambiguation page means that people find this article easily.  -- Snowded   TALK  03:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * For a better encyclopedia, those who type in Objectivism into the search box and hit go should be taken to the Objectivism article. It is that simple.  How is taking a user, who has just finished typing "Objectivism" into the search box and hit go, to a disambiguation page where they then click another link to reach the article on Objectivism to be tolerated when it is unnecessary.  If the hypothetical user is searching wikipedia for Objectivism and not looking for the Philosophy of Ayn Rand, they can click on the Moral Objectivism article link provided no different from the status-quo.  The evidence is that Objectivism is the primary topic. Karbinski (talk) 13:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You really need to address the Dewey argument rather than continuing to assert a position that will take people directly to an article whose contentious political position you support. The real need is to leave this titled as is, and improve the disambiguation page by possible creating an article on Objectivism in which Rand would have some part to play.  -- Snowded   TALK  14:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think I'll just identify the fact that people who are searching wikipedia for Objectivism are, by a massive margin, more often than not searching for this article. As well, I'll try enhancing wikipedia by recommending and supporting the renaming of this article to Objectivism, reducing the click count by one for the vast majority of users searching wikipedia for Objectivism.  Again, the adhominem attack - at least one of the editors supporting this is an adherent of Objectivism, therefore the facts about what is and isn't a primary topic are irrelevant - is a fallacious argument Karbinski (talk) 14:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure its your prerogative to ignore argument and assert a position, as well as abuse words like fallacious and adhominem. However until you do address the Dewey argument I don't think you are going to get consensus on the move.  -- Snowded   TALK  14:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This is about moving Objectivism (Ayn Rand) → Objectivism. Out with the adhominem and in with a straw man - doesn't change the fact that the argument for renaming the article is sound, unchallenged, and sufficient reason to proceed with making the move.  I say unchallenged as pov on Rand and Objectivism is irrelevant - pov on editors supporting the move is irrelevant, questioning editors motiviations for supporting the move is irrelevant, hypothetical article moves not under consideration is irrelevant, and such hypothetical moves that are in no way similiar to the one under consideration are especially irrelevant. Karbinski (talk) 14:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karbinski (talk • contribs)
 * You have not addressed the Dewey argument, the argument for a move is not sound and has been challenged (look at the vote). -- Snowded  TALK  14:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you reformulate the "Dewey argument" for me? I don't see it as analogous at all. This is like moving a page named Pragmatism (C.S. Peirce) to Pragmatism, and I feel the case here is stronger as 'pragmatism' is more likely to be used in a non-technical way. JJL (talk) 15:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * that is the point surely. It would be wrong to move Pragmatism (C.S. Peirce) to Pragmatism as that would define Pragmatism by the views of C.S. Peirce.  (substitute Dewy for Peirce to repeat the point ).  At the moment this article is on on Ayn Rands use of Objectivism and is properly named as such.  -- Snowded   TALK  15:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The Dewey argument is that an article title of Objectivism would define objectivism to be Ayn Rand's Objectivism. The argument for moving the article to Objectivism is that when readers enter the term Objectivism in the Wikipedia search box and click "Go", the article they would most likely be expecting to view as a result is this article.  The Dewey argument is over-reaching.  The primary topic argument is inline with policy. Karbinski (talk) 16:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This article begins "Objectivism is a philosophy[1][2] developed by Ayn Rand" and it is about Rand's creation, not her take on it. So, I don't find your Dewey argument to be applicable. The article is tagged with the founder's name but discusses the subject in general. (If not, where is Objectivism (Leonard Peikoff)?) The move makes sense. It's in keeping with the article's actual content. The fact is that the small number of objectivists have hewn closely (and hagiographically) to Rand's original ideas and it's not as fractured as some other movements are, so it's no surprise that a lot of the focus remains on her work.JJL (talk) 17:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia policy does not allow ease of search to override accuracy or permit misrepresentation. -- Snowded  TALK  17:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The word objectivism is problematic in its own right so I do find the Dewy argument applicable, but I can see your point (at least this is a real discussion). I can see circumstances in which a move might be appropriate (although my instincts are against it).  That would involve a much clearer introduction distinguishing objectivism from some of the other debates in philosophy (against constuctivism and relativism) and some of the essence of your points about history and hagiography (loved that and it mellowed my position).   -- Snowded   TALK  17:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd like to apologise for not explicitly setting out a full argument for the move to Objectivism in accordance with Wikipedia's primary topic guideline. Snowded, if it helps illustrate what I had in mind, let me share a similar experience I had while working on the "William Gibson" article, then located at the title William Gibson (novelist). Now as I'm sure you can imagine, there are several notable historical figures of this name who have articles on Wikipedia, and they were listed at a disambiguation page which is now located at the title William Gibson (disambiguation). While researching the science fiction author, I found that searches for "William Gibson" overwhelmingly returned results about him rather than the others, and the thought occurred to me that we were inconveniencing the large majority of our readers who type "William Gibson" in the "Go" field by having them brought to a disambiguation page they had to navigate through when what they wanted was the article on the science fiction author. So after a short discussion, I had the disambiguation page moved to William Gibson (disambiguation), and the science fiction author article moved to the William Gibson page, and everyone lived happy ever after.


 * In this case, I maintain that the philosophy founded by Rand is the primary topic for the term "Objectivism". Primary topic does not mean that it is more historically important than the other "objectivisms", nor that it is the "true" or rightful objectivism, but simply that it is what our readers are likely to want information on when they look up "Objectivism". From our Disambiguation guideline: When there is a well-known primary topic for an ambiguous term, name or phrase, much more used than any other (significantly more commonly searched for and read than other meanings), then that term or phrase should be used for the title of the article on that topic. The traffic statistics are unambiguous on this score: In the last full month for which we have statistics, August 2008, the disambiguation page at Objectivism was accessed 9262 times. Moral objectivism was accessed 3907 times and Objectivist poets 1040 times, while the entries listed under "See also"—Objectivity (philosophy) and the disambiguation pages Objectivity and Object were accessed 10328, 3137 and 4836 times respectively. All of these are dwarfed by the volume of traffic at the Objectivism (Ayn Rand) article, which was accessed on 49355 occasions. Adding together the figures for the three non-Randian objectivism articles, Moral objectivism, Objectivist poets and Objectivity (philosophy), we get 15,275, less than a third of the traffic to the single Objectivism (Ayn Rand) article, not even taking into account the traffic at Objectivist movement, Neo-Objectivism and other "objectivism" articles in the Randian sense. In my mind this clearly proves the truth of my assertion that the Rand-founded philosophy is "much more used than any other" meaning of the term "objectivism", and therefore the sole appropriate content for the Objectivism page according to Wikipedia. Am I in error?  the skomorokh  18:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thats certainly useful (and any one interested in Gibson appeals!). I think we may be inching towards a way forward but I need to complete a paper and then dash for a plane so i will need to come back to this over the weekend.  -- Snowded   TALK  18:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem, there is no rush. I wish you the best of luck and look forward to resolving this in the coming weeks. Sincerely, the skomorokh  18:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can see we have the following
 * The majority of Google search returns relate to Rand
 * Rand is in a distinct minority when the same search is done on Google Scholar
 * The above two items make it difficult to determine primary use
 * Volume of Wikipedia hots on the current page is 49355 (period not stated)
 * Most dictionaries do not mention Rand, for example Oxford: noun 1 the tendency to emphasize what is external to or independent of the mind. 2 Philosophy the belief that moral truths exist independently of human knowledge or perception of them.
 * The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy defines Objectivism in terms of ethics and makes no mention or Rand
 * In Philosophy Objecivism is more often used in respect of aspects of Popper's work and generally in Philosophy of Science
 * There is a school of thought that Rand is not a philosopher, but a political polemicist
 * If you look at the coherence of the "followers of Rand" then there may be an argument that they in effect own the word

I think this gives us two alternatives I think I favour the second, I could live with the first but it would probably mean changes to the wording that the Randinistas would not accept. -- Snowded  TALK  15:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC) Using the lede to disambiguate is not a viable alternative. As well, changing the content of the article to address different topics is not a viable alternative. This gives us a choice: Either way, the article will be continue to inform on the topic (the specific philosophy of Ayn Rand), have a strong lede dedicated to introducing the topic, and to be improved by actions such as writing a better disambiguation line. Karbinski (talk) 16:30, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Accept the move, but place a clear opening paragraph referencing other pages and making it clear that this page is not the same thing as the use of objectivism v relativism and construcivism etc.
 * Improve the page on Objectivism so it covers the whole use (that includes philosophy of science) and that would include Rand. Leave the exiting page name or changing to something which does not include "philosophy of".
 * The opening line in the article is the disambiguation line - this is the tool for referencing other pages and clearing up any ambiguity between existing articles (perhaps currently in need of improvement).
 * The lede paragraph is to introduce the topic of the article, and therefore should be devoted to the topic at hand Ayn Rand's Objectivism (as per every other quality article in wikipedia).
 * The specific philosophy of Ayn Rand is clearly the primary topic as per established criteria
 * Accept the move on the merit of the primary topic argument - that is to assert the move will be an improvement of the wikipedia user experience.
 * Block the move

There's no justification yet offered for having the article on Rand's philosophy at Objectivism (undisambiguated). There's some evidence but it's too buried in heated debate to easily dig out.

Ideally, I still think we should restore the disambiguation to this name, which it had before it was unilaterally moved. There are several problems with having an article dealing with the various philosphies under objectivism; Objectivism (philosophy) would be a better title for such an article both practically and according to the guideline, and we'd still need a disambiguation page for other meanings. Andrewa (talk) 17:44, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Disambiguation page is now Objectivism. The justification is that the vast majority of users, as evidenced by actual traffic from the disambiguation page and google search results for Objectivism, are headed to this article.  Unless you are taking issue with WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, this is ample. Karbinski (talk) 18:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You seem to be moving things backwards and forwards almost at random! You can't argue primary topic solely on the basis of a google search.  Citation, dictionaries, philosophical directories also come into account and have Wikipedia policies of their own.  You are simply seizing on one that would allow you to define a field by your favourite author.  I attempted to summarise the different sources above and while you saw fit to edit my comment it did just that it listed options.  You are simply asserting one option and one source here.  -- Snowded   TALK  18:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The DAB page was not moved at random. My first move was in retropect a pre-mature action.  Then in response to user Andrewa's concern, I moved it to satisfy convention.  When that action only partially relieved user Adrewa's concern, I restored it as per his original request.  Karbinski (talk) 19:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not seizing only upon a google search. " ... All of these are dwarfed by the volume of traffic at the Objectivism (Ayn Rand) article, which was accessed on 49355 occasions" is not a google search, but wikipedia article traffic.  A google scholary search offers no competing topic to occupy the space Objectivism and still returns results for Ayn Rand's Objectivism.  Then there is the google book search for Objectivism.  Reading WP:PRIMARYTOPIC it seems that a google news search is also relevant. Karbinski (talk) 19:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The google scholar search reveals multiple uses of the term Objectivism other than Rand which is the point. I've said this before (although you don't seem to want to get it), objectivism is the name for an approach in philosophy, of note in ethics and philosophy of science.  I would be interested to know hoe much of the traffic on the article resulted from a search for Objectivism and how much for a earch for An Rand?  Genuine question this.  I also wonder what would happen if the article on Objectivism was more than an disambiguation page.  I have added your comment above to the list however as it is evidence and thats what we should be looking at.  Oh and stop hiding behind the ad hominem word, you have a track record of promoting Rand on other pages.  -- Snowded   TALK  20:06, 27 September 2008 (UTC)  -- Snowded   TALK  20:06, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Again with the ad-hominem attacks - lets not talk about me anymore please - its not constructive. Karbinski (talk) 05:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There is ample evidence that it is a primary topic. The google scholary search isn't as convincing as the other evidence and simutaneously takes nothing away from the remaining body of evidence. Karbinski (talk) 05:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The primary topic policy holds even if the disambiguation page suddenly became an article. In fact, it would underscore the point, users expect this article, not some other topic when they enter Objectivism in the search box and hit the Go button. Karbinski (talk) 05:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well you have a dilemma, if you want Objectivism (Rand) to be seen as a philosophy then you have to give weight to Google Scholar. As to comments about your prior history - well by their actions shall ye know them.  -- Snowded   TALK  09:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

All support has been to move the article to Objectivism. The argument is:

When there is a well-known primary topic for an ambiguous term, name or phrase, much more used than any other (significantly more commonly searched for and read than other meanings), then that term or phrase should be used for the title of the article on that topic. That article should have a disambiguation link at the top, and the disambiguation page should link back to the primary topic.

If there is extended discussion about which article truly is the primary topic, that may be a sign that there is in fact no primary topic, and that the disambiguation page should be located at the plain title with no "(disambiguation)".

Tools that may help determine a primary meaning (but are not determining factors by themselves):
 * 1) Incoming wikilinks from Special:WhatLinksHere
 * 2) Wikipedia article traffic statistics from http://stats.grok.se/en/
 * 3) Google web, news, scholar, or book searches from http://www.google.com/

Evidence using the above tools:

1. At least 3:1 links in to this article versus Moral objectivism

2. "...the disambiguation page at Objectivism was accessed 9262 times. Moral objectivism was accessed 3907 times and Objectivist poets 1040 times, while the entries listed under "See also"—Objectivity (philosophy) and the disambiguation pages Objectivity and Object were accessed 10328, 3137 and 4836 times respectively. All of these are dwarfed by the volume of traffic at the Objectivism (Ayn Rand) article, which was accessed on 49355 occasions. Adding together the figures for the three non-Randian objectivism articles, Moral objectivism, Objectivist poets and Objectivity (philosophy), we get 15,275, less than a third of the traffic to the single Objectivism (Ayn Rand) article, not even taking into account the traffic at Objectivist movement, Neo-Objectivism and other "objectivism" articles in the Randian sense."

3. google web, news, scholar, and books

In some cases the primary topic may be a redirect to a different article. For example, the primary topic for "Danzig" is the former German city of that name, but that city's article is titled Gdańsk. Therefore Danzig redirects to Gdańsk, and the latter page contains a link to Danzig (disambiguation), where other meanings of "Danzig" are listed.

Do any of the editors who have opposed the move want to change over to support the move to Objectivism? Karbinski (talk) 00:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You remain focused on one piece of evidence alone -- Snowded  TALK  04:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

24.47.160.70 (talk) 21:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)Rand's fiction and non-fiction books continue to enjoy enormous success with sales. That speaks to the place her thought has in culture, and it promises that knowledge of her thought, and interest in it will continue to enjoy such currency. The present statistics on hits for this entry can, on this basis, be expected to reflect future ones.24.47.160.70 (talk) 21:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I oppose the move. In fact, I am skeptical that there needs to be a separate article for Objectivism (Ayn Rand).  Her thought could easily be dealt with at the Ayn Rand article, and the disambiguation page could direct readers there.  Anyone obsessed with google hits, should compare searches with Ayn Rand with searches for Objectivism.  Ayn Rand is the primary topic, if anything.


 * Note that the overwhelming majority of philosophers and other "thinkers" who appear on Wikipedia have their views expounded in the articles under their names. Thomism, Platonism - there are a handful of exceptions, and in each of those cases there is a significant history of development which goes beyond the work of the "founding" philosopher: not the case with Rand's Objectivism.  Strongly agree with Snowded's view that search strategies alone cannot determine the outcome here; search strategies are not necessarily well-informed.


 * Finally, add Merriam Webster to the OED - no mention of Rand whatsoever objectivism.KD Tries Again (talk) 20:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again


 * Well said. I don't think it's a breach of faith to speculate that many Wikipedians are probably in sympathy with Rand's philosphy, and also that at least some of the members of WikiProject Objectivism (which is specifically concerned with Rand's views, rather than with Objectivism in general) are likely to be supporters of it. Perhaps a reminder that they should be careful in discussions such as this one not to promote their own views is not out of place. Andrewa (talk) 15:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know where to start so much of this is extraordinarily confused. Snowded, the dominant academic use of the term "objectivism" is not in opposition to constructivism in the philosophy of science - that was merely an at-a-glance look at one page of google results. Moral objectivism is no longer so referred in the literature; the correct term in analytic philosophy is moral realism. WikiProject Objectivism is dead as a doornail and has been for years; I made an aborted attempt at revising it, and that page reflects only my intentions, which did not include a project "specifically concerned with Rand's views, rather than with Objectivism in general". There is no "they" there. Nor am I a supporter of any form of objectivism. KD's suggestion that the philosophy of Objectivism as distinct from Rand's philosophical beliefs is unworthy of an article is completely misinformed, at least so far as notability is concerned. The old battleaxe has been dead for decades, but the philosophy is alive and kicking, spawning its own idealogical divisions (see Open vs Closed Objectivism pursued by the Peikoff (Ayn Rand Institute) and Kelley (Objectivist Center) factions respectively, Neo-Objectivism and Neo-Tech). I'm sorry for kicking off this complete mess of a discussion. There is a recurrent notion that what is going on here is an attempt to assert that the Rand-founded philosophy is the most significant or important. It's not, and what is important or significant is completely irrelevant. The question of what is the primary topic is precisely determined by the search factor - we place the article in the location at which searchers/readers expect to see it. the skomorokh 15:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Whether project objectivism is dead or not in Wikipedia is beside the point. If you read Boghossian's "Fear of Knowledge" you will see a developed theory of objectivist ethics and that was published 2006.  There is a body of post-Churchland Philosophy of Mind which also is objectivist in nature and other areas.  So I am afraid from my reading the old battleaxe as you call it has been cleaned and sharpened and is still there.  Analytical philosophy does not really define Philosophy either by the way.    Randian objectivism (if it is a philosophy) is creating its own post-Rand theories and divisions.  However it cannot define the field. Now that said you might want to come up with a better title that at present to reflect the fact that Rand's followers above moved on. -- Snowded   TALK  16:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, I'm afraid I don't quite understand which of my claims you are disputing. By "old battleaxe" I was referring to Ayn Rand. I agree that "Randian objectivism (if it is a philosophy) is creating its own post-Rand theories and divisions", which is why I disputed KD's claim that Objectivism without Rand was unworthy of coverage. Nobody is asserting that Objectivism (in the Rand/followers sense) "define the field". Could you please clarify? Danke, the skomorokh  16:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, that makes more sense. I thought you were referring to older objectivist debates and picked the metaphor to make a point.  The point stands but I withdraw the metaphor.  I also agree with you that the post Rand material deserves an article but not as "Objectivism"
 * Sorry for the ambiguity. the skomorokh  17:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Curious... WikiProject Objectivism is currently headed  Welcome to the Objectivism WikiProject, a group of Wikipedians devoted to collaborating on and improving articles related to Objectivism ... note especially that the link points to this article, which seems to clearly scope the WikiProject to the work of Rand. And it appears active to me. Andrewa (talk) 17:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I wrote the blurb, and I did not intend it to mean what you have taken it to mean. I kickstarted the dormant project, assessed the articles and asked for people to sign up, but it hasn't got going yet. the skomorokh  17:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * All I have taken it to mean is that it's a WikiProject focussing on the work of Rand. The thumbnail used on the WikiProject page and its various templates seems to be a reference to Atlas Shrugged, and the contents of Category:Top-importance Objectivism articles and the related categories seem to be purely on the work of Rand. Note that for example the lead to Objectivist epistemology currently reads Objectivism's epistemology, like the other branches of Objectivism, was present in some form ever since the publication of Atlas Shrugged. However, it was most fully explained in Rand's 1967 work Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology. Rand considered her epistemology.... Andrewa (talk) 17:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * As the editor solely responsible for the current state of the project, I tell you the scope is Objectivism. I chose the image because of its obvious symbolism. Rand is an important topic of the projects scope, but as the core articles section should indicate, she is only one topic among many. Now can we please get back to the issue at hand, which is whether or not Objectivism qualifies as the primary topic of "objectivism"? the skomorokh  18:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well you did raise it, and your first statement is not valid, no one person is responsible for anything here. However that aside I think the ball is in your court.  I and others have replied to some of your points and politely disputed the sole use of search figures.  At the moment you are a long way from any consensus for a move and the whole thing has been going on long enough that I think we should close the proposal and move (sic) on.-- Snowded   TALK  18:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The community consensus on article titles is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. There is no dispute that the evidence complies with the policy.  The only opposing reasons given are either vague or directly dispute the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC policy.  Such disputes should be taken to that policy page if they are asserted here seriously and not just being used to block a straight-forward move (against a  wider consensus on how things should work inside wikipedia).  The only lasting affect of closing this Request to Move is that the vast majority of users who type Objectivism in and hit Go will have an extra click before reaching this article.  The only lasting affect of doing the move is an improvement of wikipedia by removing that click. Karbinski (talk) 19:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Based on [WP:PRIMARY TOPIC], I'd make the counter-proposal that a succinct summary of this article should be moved to the section on "Objectivism" in the Rand article, and that this article should re-direct there. It will save the extra clicks for all the users who quite reasonably search for Ayn Rand to find out about her thought, and this will relieve Karbinski's anxiety.  It is also consistent with how many major philosophers are treated on Wikipedia.  Disputes, for example, between followers of Heidegger have much higher prominence than intra-Objectivist squabbles, but Wikipedia does not therefore have a page on Heideggerianism.KD Tries Again (talk) 19:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again
 * Based on what in WP:PRIMARYTOPIC? It cannot be based on "When there is a well-known primary topic for an ambiguous term, name or phrase, much more used than any other (significantly more commonly searched for and read than other meanings), then that term or phrase should be used for the title of the article on that topic." As always, user Karbinski shouldn't be a topic of conversation.Karbinski (talk) 21:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Karbinski, constant unthinking repetition of the same point is really not going to work. You are also not reading the policy that you are quoting.   For a start is says "Tools that MAY help determine ..." It doesn't say WILL determine.  Secondly traffic statistics are one source, others include Google Scholar (which is against you).  Thirdly that is one Wikipedia Policy not the only Wikipedia policy.  KD has a neat alternative suggestion here and also references the way in which individual philosophers within a field are generally treated within Wikipedia.  I repeat you do not have consensus for a move and there comes a point where these discussions just have to cease.  Its not going anywhere.  -- Snowded   TALK  21:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The tools DID help. Google scholary isn't against the rest of the evidence, it suggests no other primary topic for Objectivism, so it didn't help, but in no concievable way wipes out all the help from the other tools.  The direction towards some tools that may help isn't the policy per say.  Mostly all of the policy is captured in the part quoted.  As always, adjectives describing my participation in this as blind or unthinking are not constructive and do not belong here.  Karbinski (talk) 00:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for Ayn Rand's "philosophy", and subsequent debates about it is Ayn Rand. Go take a look at the Heidegger or Wittgenstein articles, for example - lengthy discussions of their thought and its consequences are located in those articles, which is just where users are likely to look.  And please, it can't be overlooked that major, reliable sources like the Oxford English Dictionary and Merriam-Webster do not reference Rand at all when defining "objectivism".  I just checked Google Scholar myself, and it throws up other primary philosophical topics for "objectivism" from the very first hit:search results.KD Tries Again (talk) 14:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again
 * The first hit from google scholary does not make a primary topic. However, it is easy to discern what the primary topic for Objectivism is given: google web, news, scholar, and books.  This isn't about defining Objectivism, this is about indexing Wikipedia articles. Karbinski (talk) 16:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry I am with KD Tries again. I think you are wrong in fact, and I'm not sure about the motivation either.  You really have to take multiple sources into account not just the one that works for the position you want to adopt.  I repeat (again) you have no consensus for the move nor it seems are you likely to get it.  Move on ....  -- Snowded   TALK  16:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * And it's not just the first hit - Google scholar turns up pages on objectivism in the philosophy of science and ethics and a handful of references to Rand. Same if you search the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy.  KD Tries Again (talk) 18:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Heads up: there is currently a proposal here which, among other things, would merge moral objectivism to moral realism, which would have obvious implications for this proposal. the skomorokh 10:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reference, although even if it was accepted it wouldn't change the position (and its a dubious merge) as objectivism is not either moral or randian (although I rather like the secondary interpretations of that alternative). -- Snowded   TALK  13:03, 5 October 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.

Self-Interest vs Rational Self-Interest
I have just edited the article to change the title 'Ethics: Rational Self-Interest' to just 'Self-interest', because Ayn Rand believed that Self-interest was inherently rational. She did not believe that if men pursued their own interest, it would be inherently chaotic, and would need the restraint of rationality. This had already been argued for centuries - that man was a being of dichotomy between reason and emotion, that the former had to begrudgingly rule the latter - and Ayn Rand specifically argued that there was no dichotomy, and that in fact, if men understood what was and what was not in their self-interest, then they would inherently be acting rationally, by pursing their values. There was a good reason she called it, 'The Virtue of Selfishness' and not 'The Virtue of Selfishness - so long as you're rational about it'; any concession towards a pre-fix of 'rational' ignores the great distinction between her and the many advocates of egoism before her.(P0rq (talk) 17:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC))

This is not an advocacy article. The point is clarity to the non-Objectivist reader, not a refusal to make rhetorical "concessions." The term rational self-interest has been widely used by objectivists. Branden in his essay on the lone wolf makes the point, oft repeated, that doing what one feels, simply because it is in one's name, is not what Objectivism advocates. I believe that while POrq's point could well be made in an Objectivist publication, it amounts here to original research. If no citation can be given I ask that this change be reverted. For didactic reasons, the title should retain the qualifier "rational" and POrq's point can be made as a remark - if it can be documented.<span style="font-family: helvetica neue black condensed; color: rgb(34, 0, 68);">K<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 102);">j<span style="color: rgb(0, 34, 68);">æ<span style="color: rgb(0, 68, 34);">r   23:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * For Ayn Rand the 'rational' in 'rational self-interest' is a redundancy included for clarity. As there was a good reason she used rational self-interest in the introduction of 'The Virtue of Selfishness' (“Introduction,” The Virtue of Selfishness, xiv; pb x. ) - chiefly to make a distinction between "blind desires or random whims" and her ethics - the title may be 'Ethics: Rational Self-Interest'. My concession towards the pre-fix of 'rational' takes into consideration a common conotation that 'self-interest' refers to 'blind desire' and 'personal whims'. Karbinski (talk) 18:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC) oops. Karbinski (talk) 19:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I am reverting the edit, as per K's citation. I have restored Karbinski's comment he deleted in error. I invite POrq to add a clarificatory comment if it is not OR. <span style="font-family: helvetica neue black condensed; color: rgb(34, 0, 68);">K<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 102);">j<span style="color: rgb(0, 34, 68);">æ<span style="color: rgb(0, 68, 34);">r   23:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * As described above, Rand intentionally used the full term "rational self-interest", and would have agreed with the synonym "objective self-interest". Just as she did not assume that "law" was synonymous with "objective law", she did not want to confute "self-interest" with "rational self-interest", because she believed that objective self-interest could be properly pursued only through volitional, rational thought.  A common term for nearly the same thing is "enlightened self-interest". — DAGwyn (talk) 08:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Capitalization
The reason given in this article for the capitalization of "Objectivism" is as follows:
 * The name is capitalized to distinguish it from other philosophical positions to which the term objectivism has sometimes been applied.

The same reasoning could be applied to say the other uses of "objectivism" should be capitalized, and this one be in lower case. Is this the way Rand chose to capitalize the word? If so, that should be the reason it is said to be capitalized. Otherwise it just seems like an arbitrary decision made by a Wikipedia editor. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 12:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

The name is capitalized because it is a proper noun: Rand's philosophy. The claim that it is capitalized "to distinguish it" from other positions described as objectivism is uncited and the wording is weak. The capitalized label Objectivism, no matter how suggestive, is being used as a name, not a description. That we capitalize Objectivism here is not arrbitrary. First, proper nouns are capitalized. One can be a libertarian (i.e., support classical liberalism) or one can be a Libertarian (i.e., a member of the Libertarian Party) and one can argue that this year's Libertarian candidate for US president is not a libertarian. Second, the capitalization is common usage, found in all the sources cited in this article. I would support removing the questioned sentence if it cannot be sourced and, one hopes, improved. But we cannot change a proper noun to lower case againstr common usage to support POV or an OR opinion. <span style="color: rgb(0, 72, 55); font-weight: bold; font-family: times cy;">Kj<span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">a er (talk) 16:15, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not saying it should be spelled one way or another, and this isn't an issue of my POV or my OR. The article uses an unreferenced and dubious rationale, which leads a skeptical reader to believe that the article itself suffers from possible POV and probable OR. Your analogy with "Libertarian" is lacking, since the proper analogue would be "libertarianism". Removing the explanation is one step, but a sourced explanation is still needed for why it is capitalized. However, if this capitalization is how Rand meant it to be written, that should be enough to justify it. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 18:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

The rationale is that the capitalized version is the most commonly used English name for the subject; I have never seen a reliable source refer to the philosophy uncapitalised. If we can agree on this, we can go ahed and change the rationale. the skomorokh 18:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The point is that "Objectivism" is a proper name, practically a trademark of Ayn Rand, whereas "objectivism" is a generic term for a whole class of loosely related philosophical positions that for the most part are not very similar to hers. The brief rationale sentence is accurate enough, and is important because it explains the distinction between the proper noun and the class name. — DAGwyn (talk) 09:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

There seems little point in even commenting. I'd say delete the comment as OR unless there's a notable and citable reference. Twas Now, my analogy (proper noun 'O' is to common noun 'o' as proper noun 'L' is to common noun 'l') was merely offered as a friendly explanation, not as a contentious argument in favor of retaining the comment, nor as an analogy between '-ians' and '-isms'. <span style="color: rgb(0, 72, 55); font-weight: bold; font-family: times cy;">Kj<span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">a er (talk) 19:31, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. Skomorokh (talk · contribs) already removed it. I still don't see why it is a proper noun—how many other philosophies/ideologies are capitalized without being based on some person's name?—but I don't really care to argue about it either. I can see it is common usage, and that's good enough. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 19:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Twas Now, compare Objectivism to Scientology and Catholicism. Neither is based on a person's name.  Each is treated as a well-defined proper noun.  The uncapitalized word catholic (καθολικός) simply means "universal", and uncapitalized retains that meaning.  But Catholic, while certainly suggestive of the aspirations of the Church of Rome, can hardly be taken literally.  It has become the name of one unique institution.  The same with Objectivism.  The term objectivism, uncapitalized, has a broad meaning of a class of philosophical positions.  The same with communism.  There can be Marxist and non-Marxist communism.  Were there several schools that described themselves as objectivist with some common sense, the term would likely not be capitalized.  Rand, in eschewing Randism, paraphrased Marx who, in response to hearing others speak of Marxism, protested, "But I am not a Marxist."  Hence we have not Randism, nor existentialism (which Rand said she would have preferred, were it not already taken) but the current title. <span style="color: rgb(0, 72, 55); font-weight: bold; font-family: times cy;">Kj<span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">a er (talk) 02:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Page move discussion on a related article
Please see Talk:Criticism of Objectivism (Ayn Rand). Cirt (talk) 22:02, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I like this article
It really describes her philosophy; compared to most articles on religion, where the faith of the individual is carefully avoided. Said: Rursus (☻) 11:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems well balanced and well NPOVed too. Said: Rursus (☻) 11:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree, Rursus. <span style="color: rgb(0, 72, 55); font-weight: bold; font-family: times cy;">Kj<span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">a er (talk) 19:35, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Note that the balance was achieved by long, hard work by numerous editors. It is difficult to maintain because the subject is controversial, and many people have axes to grind. — DAGwyn (talk) 09:03, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Who is Leonard Peikoff?
I count myself as a critic of Leonard Peikoff, and, for reasons I believe sufficient and non-partisan, have removed the description of him as Rand's "intellectual heir" in the monograph section. But he is indeed Rand's legal heir, and it is safe to assume Rand meant something by so naming him. I would either describe him as Rand's heir (which is a matter of public record) or remove the weak compromise description "prominent Objectivist" and let him simply be himself.
 * I wasn't aware that the "intellectual heir" designation was in dispute, have you got a source for that? There has to be some context for the reader, so simply naming him is a bad idea. the skomorokh  19:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I am looking for references, but they will be from discussion fora. Evidently, Rand did both name Branden as her intellectual heir in printed material and then rescind the designation. But there is no printed declaration by Rand that Peikoff was the inheritor of that title. Peikoff apparently arrogated the title to himself and then abandonned it some time before the Peikoff/Kelley split. I'm trying to find the reference, but unfortunately there are all to many hits on the key words. I am not strongly opposed to "Prominent Objectivist" which is accurate, just weak. <span style="color: rgb(0, 72, 55); font-weight: bold; font-family: times cy;">Kj<span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">a er (talk) 20:18, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The Peikoff Wikipedia entry claims he was Rand's executor with total control over the releases of her works, so presumably the intellectual heirdom was written into her last will and testament. I probably don't need to tell you that internet forums are very unlikely to be reliable sources, so it might be more fruitful to search Google News/Google Books or back issues of Objectivist magazines, if they are online. the skomorokh  20:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, bottom line for WP is of course that the title would have to be referenced before we could use it. My history of the matter is that I had read of Peikoff being referred to as the intellectual heir.  When I repeated it on a forum I was corrected by knowledgeable sources being told that Peikoff had used the term, but it had nowhere been published in writing by Rand and was not in her will or any other know document.  I have spent the last two hours scouring the fora where the discussion was held, but cannot find the reference.  I have asked for comment from others.  The ultimate problem as far as a source will be that one cannot prove a negative.  There won't be any way to show a document that proves that Rand didn't make a certain statement.  But my understanding is that you won't find any recent claim of Peikoff to the title.  I am not particularly worried one way or the other here.  The important issue for now is whether calling Peikoff Rand's heir, a prominent Objectivist, or just by his name is best.  I'm happy to go with consensus.  I'll comment again only if I get a response worth mentioning. <span style="color: rgb(0, 72, 55); font-weight: bold; font-family: times cy;">Kj<span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">a er (talk) 21:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, let's wait until we either get something firm source-wise, or input from other editors on what the description should be in the interim. the skomorokh  21:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Robert Bidinotto, formerly of TAS/TOC emphatically denies the attribution was made or that there is any documentation of the supposed title. I know he has made multiple comments, but have not been able to find the most definitive one I remember. On a web add (http://www.aynrandbookstore2.com/prodinfo.asp?number=LP80DV) for a DVD by Peikoff the following blurb occurs:

"This compelling film reveals the story of a brilliant intellect who forsook a career in medicine to study personally with the late novelist/philosopher Ayn Rand, and who, in time, became her designated legal and intellectual heir." <span style="color: rgb(0, 72, 55); font-weight: bold; font-family: times cy;">Kj<span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">a er (talk) 22:08, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Here is a thread of which I was not until now aware that discusses the title. (http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=5001&st=20&p=41683&entry41683)

Apparently the ARI website still uses it, and Peikoff did use it in his 1989 Fact and Value essay issued when he excommunicated Kelley. Apparently he does not use the term himself in any recent self-reference such as his personal website. <span style="color: rgb(0, 72, 55); font-weight: bold; font-family: times cy;">Kj<span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">a er (talk) 23:10, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, then it's perhaps best for us not to use that designation in the present tense, but refer to Peikoff's most recent assertion of it in the absence of forthcoming reliable sources. I appreciate your research, the skomorokh  10:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * While I'm pretty sure that I heard Rand herself designate Peikoff as her "legal and intellectual heir" after she withdrew the same label from N. Branden, there is no pressing need to assert it in the article; "prominent Objectivist" is adequate. — DAGwyn (talk) 09:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Intellectual Impact
This section held the claim:
 * "Despite academic disregard for Objectivism, or perhaps because of it, Ayn Rand's books remain popular, selling over 400,000 copies per year. "

But The reference itself said:


 * Rand's lesson endures


 * "Ayn Rand is dead," wrote conservative author William F. Buckley in an obituary in 1982 about the best-selling novelist-philosopher. "So, incidentally, is the philosophy she sought to launch dead; it was in fact stillborn."


 * Maybe so. But there it was last week, still going strong more than six decades after its publication, "The Fountainhead," Ayn Rand's first major literary success, on the "Our Staff Recommends" shelf at Barnes & Noble in South Hills Village.


 * As regards "stillborn," it takes sales of a few hundred thousand copies to make The New York Times best-seller list. "The Fountainhead" has sold some six million copies and continues to sell more than 100,000 copies a year (Rand's total book sales have reached 30 million, and they continue at more than 400,000 a year).

There is certainly a place for the notable comments of a critic, and of statistics that qualify his assertion. The statement had evolved too far away from the reference that supported it. Specifying Buckley (notable) in the Times Obituary (notable) and then counterindicative sale figures (notable) all well referenced seems unobjectionable.

The section itself is entiltled "Intellectual" impact. Since there is no academic or cultural impact section, it would seem that this section would subsume those two ares. A better quote for this article might be on the sales of Rand's non-fiction books. Those are explicitly Objectivist. But since Rand did indeed present her philosophy in her Novels (I assume you have read the speeches?) it does seem safe to use their sales figures as a proxy for the impact of Objectivism. I seem to remember clarence Thomas requiring his clerks to read Rand? Presumably this was not in relation to the titillating sex scenes. I am going to restore the accurate quote and think it should stand, or be moved into a cultural impact section if we later add more comments that justiofy splitting "intellectual" into academic versus popular. <span style="color: rgb(0, 72, 55); font-weight: bold; font-family: times cy;">Kj<span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">a er (talk) 16:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Racist ideology
See: and  for reference. Madhava 1947 (talk) 02:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That is complete trolling. Please be aware that Wikipedia articles are written from a neutral point of view based on reliable sources, not on the fantasies of unhinged college students. Skomorokh  02:40, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

POV Crusade
Snowded, your contempt for Rand does not qualify you as an expert on her. Your reversions of my proper description of her stance on Capitalism is laughable. Here are here exact words, the first ones listed in the entry under Capitalism in the Ayn Rand Lexicon. "Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned." I suggest you actually read Rand before you set yourself up as an expert. <span style="color: rgb(0, 72, 55); font-weight: bold; font-family: times cy;">Kj<span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">a er (talk) 19:15, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You need to read what you are saying. Your amendment does not use the wording above, if it did and clearly stated that it was Rand's definition there would be no problem.  Now please stop these silly accusations of POV pushing just because someone disagrees with you.  You are meant to assume good faith and your behaviour is verging on a breech of Wikipedia rules.  -- Snowded   TALK  19:19, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You need to read the source:

Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned.

The recognition of individual rights entails the banishment of physical force from human relationships: basically, rights can be violated only by means of force. In a capitalist society, no man or group may initiate the use of physical force against others. The only function of the government, in such a society, is the task of protecting man’s rights, i.e., the task of protecting him from physical force; the government acts as the agent of man’s right of self-defense, and may use force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use; thus the government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of force under objective control. <span style="color: rgb(0, 72, 55); font-weight: bold; font-family: times cy;">Kj<span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">a er (talk) 19:32, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * If you bother to check rather than blind reversion you will see that I used exactly the phrase you quote above "Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned" your words fail to capture the key phrase "ALL property is privately owned" (my emphasis) and this confuse the issue. You really need to calm down a think before editing you know.  I could legitimately take this back to the version of a few days ago before you started this series of edits and require discussion.  However I think what you are trying to do is a sensible change, but it needs to be accurate not misleading.  -- Snowded   TALK  19:45, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Objectivism=Randism
For all those interested, a further attempt to link the term objectivism with randism despite its more general applicability is taking place here -- Snowded   TALK  16:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It probably wouldn't surpise people to know that this issue can be seen from a different prespective. Snowded thinks there is another school of philosophy with the name "Objectivism" and for that reason the link on the "List of schools of philosophy" should not have "Objectivism" be a link to the article "Objectivim."  He has suggested that it link to a disambiguation page so people can choose that other school with the same name.  But there isn't another.  That is, no other article with that name and no other article that is about a school of philosophy with a similar name, no statistics to say there is any confusion that would need disambiguating.  Is it really necessary to diambiguate from a group of poets?  From a position in analytic philosophy?  From a meta-ethical position that certain acts are objectively right or wrong?  None of these are schools of philosophy.  People have tried to wiggle around, even on the disambiguation page (look the history) to make it seem like might be another such school, but when you follow the links you find the truth. Snowded hasn't shown any real concern about the link integrity or worthiness of any other aspect of this List of schools of philosophy article (not even that it lists the Illuminati as such a school).  This isn't about his skewed title of "Objectivism=Randism" - it is about the "Objectivism" link in a list of schools of philosophy linking to the Objectivism article.  Wonder why his only concern on this list page is with Objectivism :-) --Steve (talk) 22:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh please, try and get your facts right. My objection is that objectivism has many uses in philosophy beyond an association with the ideas of Rand.  I have made this point on Schools of Philosophy.  A simple google scholar search shows the range of uses of the term.  This is nothing to do with other articles on the subject.  Anyone with a basic background in Philosophy knows that, as I say Objectivism does not equal Randism.  -- Snowded   TALK  22:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * So, you are saying the facts don't include anything about the link being on a List of schools of philosophy? That is the heart of this issue.  When you say, "Anyone with a basic background in Philosophy knows that..." are you inferring I do not have a basic background in philosophy?  Wouldn't mistaking a broader, but minor use of the word "objectivism" which refers to a position, not a school, be more likely an error in thinking on this issue?  And how is not relevant that we are talking about a link - I mean doesn't the very idea of link imply getting to an article?  Please stay focused.  We are talking about a link.  We are talking about a list of schools of philosophy. --Steve (talk) 23:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I am very focused Steve and you use of "minor" is really surprising not to mention this distinction between a "position" and a "school". -- Snowded   TALK  23:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Is It Possible
We have consensus? <span style="color: rgb(0, 72, 55); font-weight: bold; font-family: times cy;">Kj<span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">a er (talk) 07:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, citation and balance ... -- Snowded   TALK  07:44, 8 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)


 * Hmmm, canvassing for those interested in the subject to become wiki-editors. Not canvassing for a particular RfC or edit war or anything, just a nudge to become an editor.  ALERT ALERT ALERT Karbinski (talk) 16:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I suggest people read the reference and make their own minds up. Its a pretty clear breach of WP:MEAT but there again I suppose it is the triumph of the individual against consensus. ...  -- Snowded   TALK  17:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Objectivism and religion
Since this article describes various philosophical points, i thought the religious view should be mentioned somewhere. I recently saw this (speech by Yaron Brook), and thought maybe someone who has done more work on this article would like to include it. ROK (talk) 20:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Metaphysics
This section has serious problems. First, Rand's axioms are epistemological. Second the section does not address Rand's rejection of dualism, materialism and idealism, which are proper metaphysical positions. It does not clearly explain Rand's position that in causation, entity and not action is prior. Also, we should address Rand's distinction betwee the "metaphysical and the manmade." Finally, her view of free will needs to be addressed either here or in its own section. <span style="color: rgb(0, 72, 55); font-weight: bold; font-family: times cy;">Kj<span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">a er (talk) 00:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

How does one stress the distinction between the metaphysically given and the man-made without first the axioms of Existence, Conciousness, and Identity? These axioms are the base of Objectivist metaphysics. I'm not saying the section is not in need of improvement. Karbinski (talk) 13:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The section should mention the primacy of existence and that conciousness is awareness in addition to the distinction between the metaphysically given and the man-made. --Karbinski (talk) 17:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Flow Control
This Article reads like someone trying to be too intellectual with a stuffy nose. Write it so people can read it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.203.74.111 (talk) 15:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Individualism Sidebar is against NPOV
I am not in disagreement that Objectivism is an individualist philosophy. However, Individualism is no where near as fundamental to the philosophy as the sidebar is prominent in the article. From WP:DUE:

Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.

How about an Individualism Bottombar? Karbinski (talk) 12:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I like its placement as of right now. Karbinski (talk) 23:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)