Talk:Objectivism/Archive 14

No criticism section?
How can this be? An article without a section devoted to criticism, despite the fact that criticisms of Rand's Objectivism are in no way scarce? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CapitalistOverlord (talk • contribs) 08:17, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Did you mean for this to be a reply to the RFC above? Because that is precisely what is being discussed up there.  Crazynast 08:35, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I doubt it. I've seen more than one talk page where someone complained that X should be in the article, when in fact X was in the article and they just didn't see it. But you could take this as an implicit argument favoring a separate criticism section, because there is a subset of readers who won't find the criticisms if there isn't a boldface header called "Criticisms". For whatever that's worth. --RL0919 (talk) 22:53, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree with Capitalist Overlord. I don't think it would be at all unreasonable to have a section devoted to criticism. I recognize that various critics of the Objectivism might be mentioned in the article. But these criticisms ought to have their own section, just as numerous other philosophies and religions have sections devoted to elaborating on their critics. Articles that do not have a charitable section devoted to criticism run the high risk of turning into POV articles. Mountainman420 (talk) 10:13, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I also support having a Criticisms section. It appear to me that there is sufficient support for us to go ahead and make one.

Yes, it's true that we're supposed to avoid having Criticisms sections, but it's my understanding that once a topic has enough criticism, then it warrants the section (and also having a 'Criticisms of' article is to be avoided, unless there is much more criticism). It's my understanding that the guidelines for drawing the lines here is pretty vague, but having a Criticisms section for Objectivism would be consistent with the vast majority of other topics with a similar amount of existing notable criticisms.

I wish CapitalistOverlord put his/her comments in the previous section, but anywho, here's how the debate appears to stand now:

Support

Adjwilley , 1Z , Byelf2007 (recent) , Karbinski , 71.94.185.174 , CapitalistOverlord , Mountainman420 (recent)

Oppose

Noleander , BigK HeX , Crazynas , Brian0918 , DAGwyn , Adam9389 (recent)

Byelf2007 (talk) 3 May 2012

Sections
I think it is pretty obvious that the long sub-sections describing aspects of Rand's philosophy should have a beginning paragraph that endeavors to give an overview of the lengthy material that follows. Obviously this page is heavily edited by fans of Rand and seems to have a tendency to dive into the proselytizing, but I still don't think this Wiki article should drop this writing convention. Is there anyone who disagrees that the subsections, such as those on Ethics or Politics, should open with an overview paragraph?  BigK HeX (talk) 02:37, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Byelf2007 (talk) 3 November 2011

Criticism in the lede.
Editor Byelf2007 moved a large section of the article into the lede. The lede is supposed to summarize the content, not be the content. In addition, this editor also wishes to add criticism into the lede (and has been reverted at least twice). The argument for having criticism in the lede was that it was "commonplace". I reverted pointing out that criticism is not present in the articles on Communism, Existentialism, Capitalism, Libertarianism, Marxism, Anarchism, etc. Other articles simply provide a summary of the philosophy and leaves criticsm to the body. Finally, the current lede is preposterously and weirdly POV and needs changing in some way. I considered reverting the edit, but do not wish to engage in an edit war. Opinions? BashBrannigan (talk) 02:08, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Changing it to "reception". Byelf2007 (talk) 21 February 2012
 * The last paragraph in the lede should just be deleted. Its a full philosophy as verifiable by reliable sources.  What secondary sources do we have that discuss its mainstream standing? I know of none, so I take the view that the fact that Objectivism's historical lack of mainstream attention given its absolute rejection of the maintream is not notable enough for the lead.  If I'm wrong lets just stick to what the secondary sources have to say instead of labouring to make the point. --Karbinski (talk) 20:18, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * actually what was it 3 years ago, there were citations in the leads questioning it's status as philosophy. however, npov was ignored, and the material was removed by mass consensus.  the article really should strive for npov, now it is just a one sided b.s. session.--Buridan (talk) 13:07, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The lede has, for most of the time, correctly identified Objectivism as a specific philosophy, just as the Ayn Rand article has identified Ayn Rand as in part a philosopher, except for brief moments when opponents of this philosophy have tried to mischaracterize the subjects, only until editorial consensus restored the text. The article presents a fairly neutral exposition of the designated subject, which is certainly a systematic and extensive philosophy (according to the normal meanings of these terms), as well as an influential one in the real world.  To ensure NPOV, in additional to striving for a straightforward description of the subject, relevant criticism has been included, without disrupting the descriptive flow.  The article is organized like that in order to paint a clear, but brief, picture of what the philosophical ideas actually are.  It is "one sided" only to the extent that it concentrates on the intended subject, just as the article on diesel engines concentrates on describing the characteristics of its subject and doesn't consume much space in discussing alternatives.  "NPOV" does not mean attempting to tell readers what you think they should think about the subect, nor to muddy the description so that they have trouble grasping the essence of the ideas.  So long as readers get a sufficiently clear picture of the subject itself, they can evaluate it for themselves, perhaps with the aid of further research.  Evidently, Buridan's evaluation is that it is all "b.s.," but that is his own POV, not an objective fact.
 * That said, there is no doubt that Objectivism is highly controversial, because it disputes several widely held beliefs. That property is significant enough that it deserves brief mention up front, which also prepares the ground for inclusion of criticisms in the expository text.  So I have added just that minimum characteristic to the lead sentence. — DAGwyn (talk) 02:37, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, Byelf2007 just undid my attempt to estabish the controversiality property in the lead sentence, on the grounds that it was not NPOV. Actually it is purely descriptive of an easily demonstrated attribute, not expressing any POV, and indeed was trying to help justify inclusion of the amount of criticism that the article already contains, which doesn't really convey the magnitude of opposition of the intellectual mainstream to Objectivist ideas.  The article must not turn into a debate instead of a description, but to the extent that it contains possibly edifying criticisms, there should be some basis for their inclusion.  (Some of the existing criticism isn't particularly edifying, but was included as a compromise among warring factions.) — DAGwyn (talk) 02:57, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree we should mention it's controversial in lede. It's a problem if we put in the word "controversial" before explaining *what* it is. However, we could just add a short blurb at the end of "this has always been controversial". Another option is just to put the old paragraph or similar back it. It's not "criticism in lede" to mention the criticisms and very very briefly summarize them, and doing thusly is quite common on this site at present. Byelf2007 (talk) 05 May 2012

quote: "I agree we should mention it's controversial in lede." As do many. But... ...But Wiki policy suggests more than just a mention. All of the the most important points—including any prominent controversies should be summarized. Given that there are so many controversies, they should at least be suggested, —perhaps just summarize a few, then explain that there are too many to list? See: Manual of Style (lead section): "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including  any prominent controversies. " --68.127.82.20 (talk) 22:38, 24 June 2013 (UTC)Doug Bashford

Criticism section - Yes or no?
A couple of users have recently stated that they support a Criticisms section, which once again makes ascertaining which position has majority support among users currently interested in the issue difficult. I support having the section on the grounds that (a) there is enough criticism in the article already to warrant one and (b) that there is a lot more criticism that will eventually be integrated into the article (I'm going to be looking into that soon). I'd like to hear what other users have to say about this. Byelf2007 (talk) 05 May 2012
 * This appears to be part of a POV agenda to change the article from a description into a debate. See my comments above (added just after this section was created) for a discussion of why the organization is better as we have had it for a long time now.  Note also that there is not a consensus for such a change. — DAGwyn (talk) 02:41, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm okay with the way it is, and, yes, we would have to have consensus for the change. However, I still very much like the idea of having a criticisms section because it would allow the reader to see all the criticisms in one place, which would be convenient for them if that's all they're interesting in checking out when they go to the article.


 * What if we add a criticism section without making any other changes--the criticisms would therefore be in the article in various spots in the relevant sections and also in a section with just the criticisms. This would keep the article's current approach to criticism while also having them all in one section. I think this would be good because it would allow the reader to read all the criticisms in one place. At present, if the reader just wanted to read criticisms, they'd have to go through the article. Is this an acceptable compromise? Byelf2007 (talk) 05 May 2012


 * I don't care if there is a Criticism section or if the criticisms are incorporated into other sections. But if you are suggesting the article should do both, and would therefore have a significant amount of redundant material, then I would oppose that. One or the other, please. --RL0919 (talk) 03:19, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * That's a good point. However, I still think it's problematic for the reader to not have criticisms have a heading. How about this: We put a "Criticisms" subsection for "Epistemology" "Ethics" and "Politics". That way, the criticisms are in the relevant sections, there's no redundancy, and it's clear for the reader where the criticisms are. Quite frankly, I'd be surprised if anyone has a problem with this, so I'm going to go ahead and be bold and put it in. Anyone who objects can go ahead and revert it (as well as explaining their reasons for doing so on talk). Byelf2007 (talk) 06 May 2012


 * The criticism portion currently does fine. Just taking a look at existentialism, positivism, empiricism, and a few others, I saw no sections devoted specifically to a illustrating the criticisms of that body of thought.  While I do not agree with Objectivism, it would appear that the insistence on a criticism section larger than what is currently available is unnecessary.  Also, judging that the current section poses specific issues had with the theory with a link to begin one's search, a larger section is unneeded.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eddiecoyote (talk • contribs) 06:07, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

A Philosophy, or a Personality Cult?
Most real philosophies have differing if not feuding "branches." But seemingly because Rand's fans hold her words as the last word in Objectivism akin to religious scripture, there seems to be no such analogy in Objectivism. While Rand's words obviously have prime historical value, time and time again in this article, (and in the Talk section,) her words are seen as the ultimate unquestioned authority, even for modern issues, preventing evolution to drastically changing times (such as the dying or dead American frontier-economy).

But the term "Objectivism" was selected, rather than say; "Randism," and it's claim to being a philosophy (rather than say, a Randish cult or fan club) suggests that such absolutism and absolute conceptual authority should not be the case. Thus, everybody here has heard terms like "Randroid," etc. This seeming contradiction (and/or Rand's abnormal authority) should be more clearly enunciated and then explained. --68.127.82.20 (talk) 23:35, 24 June 2013 (UTC)Doug Bashford

FYI – indefinite PP requested
WP:PROTECT requested – We will see if it is granted and for how long. In the meantime I encourage more discussion on Talk:Ayn Rand. If the amateur question gets resolved there, it may help in resolving the matter here. – S. Rich (talk) 00:01, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I've protected for one week. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:35, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Amateur hour all over again
Our buddy, 68.180.44.42, who was too busy to join us here or on Talk:Ayn Rand to discuss this issue, felt like changing the article. Whoever they are, they say it's because "Rand's status as philosopher as no real bearing on the status of the philosophy she created".

Fact is, the Oxford Companion to Philosophy article calls Objectivism an amateur philosophy, in as many words. You can disagree, and when you get your opinion published in a source nearly as reliable, we'll change the article. Until then, not so much. MilesMoney (talk) 04:44, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

This topic, regardless of any former consensus, there is enough dispute to justify removing "amateur" from the lead in. If there is a concern about the tone change, than describing this as a "popular" philosophy should suffice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.231.19.130 (talk) 23:58, 22 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Dispute on what basis? It's clear that some people don't like it, but not clear that they have any argument against it based on what policy says we have to do with the sources. This isn't a popularity contest; there are rules. We don't get to ignore our sources just because the superfans are offended by them. MilesMoney (talk) 01:35, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I'm a bit confused because it just isn't clear what an amateur philosophy is. There isn't really anything in the article to define how it is different from a non-amateur philosophy. For the article on Rand proper it has a meaning, but here I don't think it does. Are there any other examples on wikipedia of amateur philosophies described as such? Even if it was something like a book or social science theory created by amateur called an amateur book or an amateur theory in the lede, then I could get behind its use here. Also, does our best source call anything else an amteur philosophy?(Docarc (talk) 02:36, 24 September 2013 (UTC))
 * The key source for this is the Oxford Companion to Philosophy, an extremely high-quality source. This specialized encyclopedia has over a thousand pages, two of which mention Rand. The most relevant one is 762, which is part of an article on "popular philosophy".
 * It helpfully breaks this term up into three distinct categories, one of them being amateur philosophy, and explicitly places Objectivism in this category. It defines amateur philosophy as "amateur consideration of the standard, technical problems of philosophy". It adds that "amateur philosophy, presupposes the existence of professional philosophy to define itself against. That, in effect, is much the same thing as institutionalized philosophy".
 * This fits Rand perfectly, since she did tackle the usual subjects, such as metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics, but from the standpoint of someone not well versed in the field, not operating on a professional, academic level. It does list other examples of amateur philosophy, and I'm fine with relevant articles being updated for consistency, but it's not really something I'd be interested in dealing with. Note that this term is not applicable to people like Socrates or Descartes because "Amateur philosophy as a genre is really a creation of the nineteenth century with its mass literacy and self-education".
 * The other spot that mentions Rand is page x, in the preface, which goes out of its way to say that the editor quite intentionally chose not to include a full article on Rand, presumably because (despite the 1077 pages!) she wasn't very significant to the field. The editor is coy about precisely why the suggested article "did not penetrate [his] fortress of philosophical principle", but to give you some idea, the other article he mentions excluding was "marital act".
 * If you want, I can email you the full contents of the preface and article, so you can see for yourself. Or you could visit any academic library. Hope this helps. MilesMoney (talk) 03:42, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The single source cited "'Oxford Companion to Philosophy'" is OK as a source but it is far from definitive. It is a comparatively new publication for the mass public in which each article is written by a single author. It has also be been the subject of some controversy. "The Oxford Dictionary of English" refers to Rand as a philosopher without qualification as do other sources. The consideration of its being amateur can be dealt with in the body of the article, but it is biased to put it in the lede. BashBrannigan (talk) 02:08, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If the Oxford Companion to Philosophy were a person, it would be old enough to vote, so let's not pretend it's new. Anyhow, the question isn't whether she's some sort of philosopher or not, just what sort. MilesMoney (talk) 02:13, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The above comment adds nothing to the discussion. I said "comparatively" new. Again, as there are other sources without any qualification being used and only one that uses "amateur" and as something with a single source can't be used in the lede this is bias. BashBrannigan (talk) 02:21, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * There are a number of different terms used, including "popular" and "self-styled". The reason they're used is that Rand is not a regular philosopher, so we can't just use the word without qualification. You haven't addressed this, so your comment has no bearing on this article. MilesMoney (talk) 05:12, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

IP vandalism
We've had some recent vandalism from IP's. They're both in the LA, CA area, so it's probably the same person, perhaps editing from work or from a cell phone to change the IP. Since they offer no explanation for removing a word from the article, it's vandalism and outside the 3RR limit. If only they stopped hiding behind IP's and used their account on the talk page, because I'm sure they have one. MilesMoney (talk) 05:16, 27 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:VANDNOT. – S. Rich (talk) 05:33, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you the two IP's? MilesMoney (talk) 05:35, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course not. And now you are implying lack of good faith. – S. Rich (talk) 05:38, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I had to ask. Feel free to report me for WP:AGF just for asking. Let's see how far that boomerangs. MilesMoney (talk) 05:41, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No. You did not have to ask. Assume means you don't ask in the absence of evidence. If you continue with these non-AGF remarks (like labeling edits as vandalism) you may get your wish. – S. Rich (talk) 05:49, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Edit warring to maintain your own preferred content is not excused by pretending the removal of it it is vandalism. --RL0919 (talk) 13:56, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hiding behind multiple IP's is WP:SNEAKY vandalism, but I hope you're not defending this person for removing material without explanation or discussion. MilesMoney (talk) 14:48, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Disagreeing with you about controversial content is not vandalism of any kind, and although it is preferred for editors to use edit summaries, it is not required -- you don't typically use them yourself, I notice. Unregistered visitors probably don't know there is a discussion of this on the Talk page, if they even know what a Talk page is. And it should be quite clear that more than one person disagrees with using the term "amateur", so assuming the IPs are all one person is jumping to an unjustified conclusion. --RL0919 (talk) 14:55, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * This entire section does not advance the goal of improving the article. When IPs make a change that lacks an explanation (edit summary) the better procedure is to post a message on their talk page. When reverting their edits, a better edit summary is to simply say "under discussion". If they persist, the better procedure is to post an EW warning on their talk pages. And requesting page protection is another option. But opening a thread about IPs making edits (constructive or not) just makes the talk page more confused. (And perhaps I should have left the off-topic remark as is.) With these factors in mind, I recommend hatting this section as off-topic. – S. Rich (talk) 15:05, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Let's not hat it and say we did. The problem is ongoing; now a third California IP has joined the dance. If I were paranoid, I'd think this was a sneaky attempt to trick me into ostensibly violating WP:3RR. Rich, you did say you were in California, right? MilesMoney (talk) 15:10, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Rich, thanks for showing us that Californians can self-police each other's edits. MilesMoney (talk) 16:24, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Fine, I'll pretend it's not vandalism, but here goes another. MilesMoney (talk) 16:17, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Surprise, surprise, it's a cell phone in California. Amazing coincidence. MilesMoney (talk) 16:23, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Nuance
I'd like to hear RL0919's objection to the nuanced version of the lead, which mentions both Objectivism's origins as an amateur philosophy and how it went pro under Peikoff. MilesMoney (talk) 00:55, 6 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Good gods man, this is so hopelessly, utterly pointless. Do you (or anyone else involved in this) plan to spend the rest of your life carefully guarding this article's opening paragraph?  It hasn't occurred to you yet that any edit to this article has a rather short half-life?  Go ahead though, knock yourself out until you find something else far more productive to do with your life.  Then, check this article a few months later and wonder "what in the world did all my effort here buy me?'' Alfred Centauri (talk) 02:19, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Everything changes. This is how it changes. MilesMoney (talk) 02:31, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

How about "a new philosophy" (or "personal philosophy")?

 * Speaking of which this version doesn't work, because it claims Objectivism is "new". MilesMoney (talk) 02:32, 6 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, if it did not originate with Rand, where did it start? Who started it? – S. Rich (talk) 02:38, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The ideas she assembled under the banner of Objectivism were not particularly original. Her accomplishment was to take all of her views and insist that they be accepted as a whole. MilesMoney (talk) 02:42, 6 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Two questions: 1. what were the various ideas she assembled? 2. I gather that she did not have much with her insistence – is this correct? – S. Rich (talk) 02:52, 6 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Alfred Centauri (talk) 03:00, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Rich, I don't really understand your question. Obviously, you don't expect me to list each of her ideas. The whole point is that they're not uniquely hers. Your version of the lede overstates the novelty of Objectivism, and ignores what the OCP said about its level of professionalism. MilesMoney (talk) 03:10, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I had hoped you could explain. As AR "assembled" various views (as you say), the lede might better say "Objectivism is a new philosophy based on the ideas of X, Y, Z, etc., assembled by writer AR and formalized by ...." Does this help? – S. Rich (talk) 04:13, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Can't do that because it would be a focus point for edit wars. Plenty of fans would actively resist any attempt to acknowledge that her various ideas were simply her own formulation of extant ones. It's best to just avoid any talk of novelty, one way or the other. MilesMoney (talk) 04:20, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * (Well, edit warring is the last thing we want to engage in.) How about this? We sit back and see what other editors have to say. (I thought about using the phrase "novel philosophy", but the pun would have been too obvious.) In the meantime, I've set this thread up as a sub-section with a specific heading. A variation of my suggestion might work. – S. Rich (talk) 04:33, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The SDP refers to her polemical essays, so that's well-supported. I also think it's more accurate to say that she developed her personal philosophy through these writings, as opposed to expressing it. Various sources, including the SDP, talk about how her ideas evolved in response to criticism and other feedback, rather than spawning fully-formed. MilesMoney (talk) 16:14, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The present version has "personal". (Quick, look! Before it disappears!!) IMO this version works well. We avoid the contentious "amateur" label and it sufficiently sets up the article for description of how Objectivism developed to what it is today. – S. Rich (talk) 16:21, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Personal works in a few ways. First, it makes it quite clear that, at its start, Objectivism was simply whatever Rand said it was. It was a label for her personal views on philosophical matters. This did not remain tenable, even during her life, but that's where it started. Second, by being personal, it avoids even trying to be professional. This was how she saw the world, not what she came up with in an academic setting. MilesMoney (talk) 17:04, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

New Lead Sentence
While I agree that the lead sentence ought to clarify that Objectivism was developed by a non-academic philosopher, I'm not too keen on the updated version. It never says, "Objectivism is," which seems to be the purpose of a definition. It evades giving it a conceptual noun. It is true that it started out as the personal philosophy of Ayn Rand and was later given more formal structure by Objectivist academics (including Leonard Peikoff). However, while these are important facts, they do not comprise a definition. How about we try something like:
 * Objectivism is a philosophy developed by the non-academic philosopher Ayn Rand.

The "non-academic philosopher" title here is subject to the same criticisms as it has been here. Then, later in the intro paragraph, we can say something like:
 * Although its origins are outside of academia, Objectivism now has a small presence among academic philosophers.

I think the idea behind these changes are good but am open to suggestions on rewording. Michipedian (talk) 04:39, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There's always room for improvement in the wording, but I think the basic idea is solid. In particular, it's perfectly fine to define something by describing both its origins and current state, instead of just the latter. For example:
 * John Philip Dewhurst grew up in Edmonton, Alberta, where he worked as a long-haul tractor-trailer driver, but achieved fame after retiring to Whitehorse, Yukon, where he photographed nature from the back of his pickup truck.
 * This sort of approach is better than trying to pigeonhole poor John into either his past or present. In fact, it uses the past to illuminate the present. You can understand how his years of driving exposed him to the beauty of nature and prepared him for his second career capturing nature on film. Now look at what we say in the lede:
 * Objectivism originated as the personal philosophy of Russian American writer Ayn Rand (1905–1982), developed in her novels and polemical essays, and was later given more formal structure by Leonard Peikoff.
 * This makes it clear that Objectivism is a philosophical system that started off with Rand's own personal belief system, was built on and expressed in novels and essays, and later formalized by a professional philosopher. Again, the specific wording can be improved upon, but the structure is sound. MilesMoney (talk) 05:04, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, the lead sentence for John Philip Dewhurst should be reworded. There are too many words before I found out who he is/was. It bogs me down with less essential details first, prompting me to scan forward until I see a noun. Remember, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. If you look at other encyclopedias, like Britannica, the format always places defining first. Additionally, this is how the vast majority of Wikipedia articles are already formatted. I would change that lead to:
 * John Philip Dewhurst was a Canadian photographer.
 * Then, later on, it should describe his upbringing, occupation, and retirement. Michipedian (talk) 05:42, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The point of the Dewhurst example was that we don't even have to call him a photographer, as such, to get the point across. Now, you could argue that it buries the lede, but that argument would not apply to the Objectivism sentence, since it mentions "philosophy" early on.
 * The previous versions ran into the trap of trying to directly describe Objectivism without context. They either called it a philosophy, which isn't false but also isn't exactly true, or they tried to avoid this problem by explaining what sort of philosophy it was, which led to a revolt by her fans. What you suggested unfortunately repeats this mistake, and would be a magnet for further edit-wars. MilesMoney (talk) 08:09, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I thought we agreed that Objectivism could be considered a legitimate philosophy since it is endorsed by some (albeit few) academic philosophers. It also so happened to be developed by a non-academic/amateur philosopher. Michipedian (talk) 08:40, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Can it? Even now, long after her death and the subsequent attempts at remediation, Objectivism has only the most tenuous grip in academia. Peikoff did a competent job extracting the ideas scattered in her various writings into a whole, but did nothing to overcome the problems that came from her educational limitations, much less her rejection of academia and its standards.
 * While she lived, there were few academics willing to take the time to even spit on her ideas. Now, more are willing to consider them, although there's still quite a bit of spitting. More significantly, while there has been some analysis, there has been little in the way of further development of her ideas within the context of Objectivism. It has not proven fruitful.
 * Objectivism started as her personal philosophy, and she never did let go of it. Rand believed that she owned Objectivism and was therefore capable of deciding who would inherit this intellectual property, who would have the right to change it. She stated that anyone who did not follow the whole of Objectivism wasn't an Objectivist, meaning that any deviation was heresy.
 * It's not that her ideas haven't been influential, particularly outside academia, but that what they influence is not Objectivism. For example, her influence on libertarianism is hard to overstate, but she detested libertarianism and accused libertarians of stealing her ideas. Objectivism was the philosophy of her life, and in a real sense, it died with her. Peikoff merely preserved it for posterity, without attempting to build on and expand it, and nobody else but Peikoff is permitted to even try.
 * That's why the SEP explains Objectivism only in the context of Rand's biographical entry, not one of his own. Contrast this with, say, John Rawls, who not only merits a biography but separate articles on concepts he originated, such as the Original Position. His ideas exist independently of him. Rand's are, by her choice, defined solely in terms of her.
 * So, is Objectivism a philosophy? Of a sort, yes, but not of the normal sort. We should be careful not to mislead by treating it as normal. MilesMoney (talk) 10:11, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that it can. First off, Peikoff is not the only remaining Objectivist. The Ayn Rand Institute does have a following and a community around it, although admittedly small, many of whom never knew Rand personally. Yaron Brook, Onkar Ghate, and Elan Journo, for example. There's also Diana Hsieh, who is a professional philosopher and has a YouTube show and her own website. Not to mention David Kelley, another professional philosopher, and his break from the percieved dogmatism of Peikoff to start The Atlas Society and its "more tolerant and open-minded" Objectivism. There's also Tara Smith, another professional philosopher, and I'm sure there's even more. I am most definitely not an Objectivist, but I think it's unfair to say that Objectivism can't even be considered a philosophy.
 * Maybe we could just clarify in the lead that the vast majority of academia ignores or rejects Objectivism. I am reminded of the National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality, which is still considered a psychological association, but its fringe character is made clear. Michipedian (talk) 13:31, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a good example of a precedent. Don't get me wrong: I agree that Objectivism is some sort of philosophy, but it sure is a strange sort. The notion that a single person owns a belief system authoritatively and can pass that authority on to a chosen successor is not new, but it's alien to philosophy. Where it's common is in religion. The Pope is considered to be in the direct line of authority over the nature of Catholicism, handed down initially by God in the form of Jesus. I am not the first to notice that Objectivism is in many ways structured like a religion. MilesMoney (talk) 18:21, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Mich, I made some changes based on your suggestions. Please let me know what you think. MilesMoney (talk) 21:04, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * So I think that is definitely better. I like that it has a definitive noun—a philosophical system—which is a very accurate way of describing Objectivism. I think that the later part of the sentence could be reworded though because the fact that Objectivism started out as the personal philosophy of Ayn Rand, while important, is not its most notable aspect. Instead, I think the first sentence should simply read:
 * Objectivism is a philosophical system developed by Russian-American writer Ayn Rand.
 * Then, in the following sentence, the origins of Objectivism and a brief history of its development should be explained. I think that this section should include the fact that Objectivism first developed outside academia but is now advocated by some/a few professional philosophers. Additionally, I feel that the general sentiment in academic philosophy towards Objectivism, which is undoubtedly negative, should be mentioned. [Also, just as a note, as far as I understand, "Russian-American" (with a hyphen) is the adjective that should be used in the lead. "Russian American" (without the hyphen) is a noun.] Michipedian (talk) 18:51, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I fixed Russian-American.
 * I've looked at a bunch of sources and given this some thought. One of the most distinctive things about Objectivism is that it started as her personal philosophy and remains a closed system. According to her, and now according to Peikoff, you can either agree with Objectivism and be an Objectivist or you can disagree on a non-trivial point and thereby not qualify as an Objectivist. What counts as trivial was determined by Rand, and is now determined by Peikoff, as when he excommunicated Kelley. Now, we can't explain all of this in the lede and shouldn't try to, but I think it makes sense to cast this in chronological terms and highlight the transfer of ownership.
 * The lede does need something about academic reception. I think there's some suitable material in the Ayn Rand lede.
 * Let me see what I can come up with here. MilesMoney (talk) 06:20, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Lede order
A lede is supposed to be in inverted pyramid order, with summaries at the top and specifics at the bottom. MilesMoney (talk) 19:09, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * There's no specific requirement for inverted pyramid, just for an "accessible overview" of the article. (See MOS:LEAD.) After the first paragraph, which is expected to "define the topic", the rest can be in any order that makes sense for the subject and respects all applicable policies. If the reaction paragraph contained specifics that depended on knowing the description of the philosophy, then I would say it should definitely go after. But as it stands the reaction paragraph is very general, so I really don't care which position it is in. --RL0919 (talk) 19:23, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It simply does not make sense to first describe a reaction to a philosophy and then say what the philosophy is. That's appalling writing, and it's illogical. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:42, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

It's ridiculous to say, "lede should be inverted pyramid order, not chronological. details such as tenets come last, summaries come first." I don't know precisely what "inverted pyramid order" is supposed to be, and I don't think WP:LEAD mentions this supposedly important "inverted pyramid order." Common sense says that if you're describing a philosophy you first give its "tenets", eg, say what the philosophy actually is. The entire lead is meant to be a summary, so it's pretty dumb to say that "summaries come first." FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:28, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * There's a technical term for what you call writing in logical order: it's "burying the lede". General statements come before detailed ones, else you lose the reader. You can criticize it as bad writing, but that would go against the bare basics of journalism. If you don't even understand what Inverted pyramid means, then I suggest you study up on it before making further suggestions of this sort. With all due respect, it would be counterproductive to speak of what you do not comprehend. MilesMoney (talk) 20:26, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course, it's also counterproductive for you to edit-war. Consider yourself warned. MilesMoney (talk) 20:27, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You're showing that you haven't got a case here by referring to wiktionary, rather than to any of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines. Vague assertions such as "general statements come before detailed ones" have nothing to do with the specifics of this article, and are of course beside the point. There's nothing about "academia rejected Rand's philosophy" that makes it any more "detailed" than anything else in the lead. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Remedial journalism:
 * "X is generally ignored and rejected by academia" is a summary of its overall treatment.
 * "X is composed of the following elements..." is a detailed list of its parts.
 * In inverted pyramid format, the general statement would go first. In lede-burying format, we'd hide it at the end. HTH. MilesMoney (talk) 22:03, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That isn't an argument. It's twaddle. It seems to me as though you're more interested in repeating the expression "inverted pyramid" over and over, instead of actually discussing this article. Actually, your comments look like a rationalization for stuffing the criticism of Rand's philosophy before the description of the actual philosophy. It's not going to work. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:17, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you have an argument? All I see are violations of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. MilesMoney (talk) 22:19, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Really? Because all I see in your comments are vague, windy, rhetorical assertions that have little to do with the specifics of this article. It's stupid to provide the "treatment" of a subject before describing the actual subject itself, and that certainly seems to be what you're proposing. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:24, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You two sniping at each other isn't going to resolve this, so I posted a pointer to this discussion at Talk:Ayn Rand, since that page has more than double the number of watchers as this one. --RL0919 (talk) 22:31, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Amateur
There's already been discussion on the Ayn Rand talk page about this. We have many sources calling her philosophy "popular", and an extremely high-quality one that narrows it down further to one of the three kinds of popular philosophy: amateur.

I don't wanna repeat myself, so if you got something to say, say it there, not here. MilesMoney (talk) 03:09, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, there's a discussion on the Ayn Rand page, but it's clearly not finished. You should not forcing "amateur" into this page until it's concluded. The page should be left as it has been for a long time, but you are also clearly willing to edit war and not respect other editors by waiting . BashBrannigan (talk) 03:15, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The characterization of "amateur" is an opinion-type description. The term can be used lower down in the text, supported by the RS, and properly described as a "in the opinion of....." type statement. But, in accordance with WP:UNDUE, it is clearly inappropriate in the lede. – S. Rich (talk) 05:24, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Srich, you need to read the source. It's not an opinion or an insult. MilesMoney (talk) 05:30, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The discussion at Talk:Ayn Rand is relevant and I do encourage other editors to participate there. However, Objectivism is not the same thing as Ayn Rand. Even if the article about Rand ended up describing her as an "amateur", the philosophy she started has since been pursued by others who are undoubtedly professionals. Some are mentioned in this article; for example, Tara Smith and Allan Gotthelf. So applying the term in this article would require support beyond what it would take to apply it to Rand personally. --RL0919 (talk) 16:12, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Just to remind you of a point you once raised, the high-quality source specifically referred to her philosophy as amateur, indirectly referring to her as amateur. You're doing that original research thing again, where you misinterpret sources, and I won't put up with it. MilesMoney (talk) 17:04, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Just because you throw around WP terms like "original research" doesn't mean you are using them correctly. Do you wish to deny that professional academics have promoted Objectivism after Rand's death? There are sources to show that. Huffing and puffing about what you will "put up with" doesn't change that. It also doesn't make one source that you happen to like the sole definitive source for describing the subject. --RL0919 (talk) 18:14, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Professional, academic philosophers have written about the philosophy of The Simpsons, but that doesn't mean that the cartoon was professional philosophy. Remember, each source that calls Objectivism "popular philosophy" is admitting that it's not professional or academic, undermining your claim. I called it original research because I was being nice. More accurately, you're just making shit up as you go along. And, no, I really don't have to put up with that. MilesMoney (talk) 18:17, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Sources that call Rand a "popular philosopher" do not thereby undermine the academics who came later, and one source doesn't create a definitive case for putting something in the lead. As for the posturing, you are welcome to try to find a way not to put up with people here having different opinions from you. I think you will find that exceedingly difficult. --RL0919 (talk) 04:07, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * When they say she was a "popular philosopher", which of the four meanings did they intend? Answer that.
 * My problem with you isn't that you have a different opinion, it's that you just aren't WP:COMPETENT or WP:NPOV. At this point, you're just dragging your feet and edit-warring. MilesMoney (talk) 02:41, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure you understand what WP:COMPETENT is about, or that it is an essay. In contrast, WP:AGF is a guideline, and WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL are policies. You should take them to heart, because your aggressive attitude is only going to get you embroiled in unnecessary drama. Your accusations certainly aren't going to do much to me, so at best they are waste of typing. As I've already answered elsewhere, I can't always tell what meaning of "popular" a source means when they use the bare phrase without further explanation. So in such cases I decline to accept that it must be equivalent to "amateur". Also, as I've already explained above, the use of such a phrase in regard to Ayn Rand (who died in 1982) does not necessarily characterize the philosophy that endures and has been pursued by professional academics in subsequent years. You have one source that clearly characterizes the philosophy as amateur. Feel free to use that in the body, but one source's opinion doesn't have enough weight to be in the lead. --RL0919 (talk) 04:31, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * When they say she was a "popular philosopher", which of the four meanings did they intend? Answer that. Until you do, you're wasting my time. MilesMoney (talk) 05:31, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Answered in detail here. Just because you ask the same question in multiple places doesn't mean I have to repeat myself everywhere. Also, as noted multiple times previously, when a source talks about Rand, that doesn't necessarily implicate Objectivism. This is especially true when the context is clearly biographical, such as saying Rand became a "popular philosopher" at a particular point in her career. --RL0919 (talk) 05:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Now that's just nonsense, and I said so on that talk page. And what you're saying here is bigger nonsense. Our sources say "amateur philosophy", so you can't claim it's about Rand but not Objectivism. Not that it makes any sense to claim that she was somehow not an amateur despite creating an amateur philosophy system. Like I said, nonsense. MilesMoney (talk) 06:02, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Countdown on "amateur"
The addition of "amateur" was reverted even though it's strongly supported by sources (remember: every "popular" is a vote for "amateur"). Each attempt to put it back has been met with edit-warring hiding under the banner of "let's talk it over, first".

Well, here we are: talk. If you can't make a credible argument, then I gotta say you don't have one so we should move forward. No foot-dragging: say your piece or get out of the way. If you revert again without fully explaining yourself, you're just edit-warring, and it's still warring if your explanation is bullshit. MilesMoney (talk) 02:54, 27 August 2013 (UTC)


 * There are already multiple replies above. Opening a new section doesn't erase them. --RL0919 (talk) 04:31, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * There are multiple evasions by you. When they say she was a "popular philosopher", which of the four meanings did they intend? Answer that. Until you do, you're wasting my time. MilesMoney (talk) 05:31, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * See above. The same question asked simultaneously in multiple places is not "multiple evasions". --RL0919 (talk) 05:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Dodging it simultaneously in multiple place is evasion. You had to pretend you don't know what simple words mean. MilesMoney (talk) 06:03, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think you can make this article on Ayn Rand synonymous with Rand herself as it has moved on. Its not a major school but calling it amateur is I think an opinion not a properly sourced comment.  On Rand herself, then any use of 'Philosopher' needs qualification per the ongoing discussion on that page.  Snowded  TALK 05:13, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * We have a highly reliable source calling Rand's philosophy amateur. Do we have any reliable sources supporting your hunch that it's now professional? MilesMoney (talk) 06:26, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It has a life independently of Rand and that includes some professional philosophers Snowded  TALK 06:36, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * A professional philosopher can study something without it being a professional philosophy; consider this. Do we have any sources that explicitly acknowledge that Objectivism started off as an amateur philosophy and then say it no longer counts as one? MilesMoney (talk) 07:25, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Page protected
Please stop this slow motion edit war. If there is talk page consensus to describe Objectivism as an amateur philosophy, then please indicate that with a hidden comment so that there won't be future edit wars. In the meantime, I have fully protected the page for three days. NW ( Talk ) 05:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It looks like the discussion is on the parent page, not here. The parent page does refer to Objectivism as amateur philosophy, because that's what our best sources call it. MilesMoney (talk) 02:31, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Has the discussion regarding "amateur" concluded? As best I can tell it is still ongoing and if thats the case it should not have been added. BashBrannigan (talk) 06:59, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It was added after we came to a consensus, but no consensus is permanent. It looks to me like there's still a consensus that "philosopher" (without adjectives) is unacceptable, but there's some disagreement about "amateur" and "self-styled", as well as permanent resistance from the fan club. MilesMoney (talk) 07:49, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You are not objective, as shown by your use of "fan-club" to those who disagree with you. I also see no consensus to the use of "amateur". As far as I have seen you have shown only the single source for "amateur" while I'm aware of numerous sources which use "philosopher" without qualification. BashBrannigan (talk) 14:40, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If five sources say Bob is an athlete and one (high quality) source says he's a baseball player, what do we call Bob? MilesMoney (talk) 17:30, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It is not as simple as that. Ball players are easily classified as professional when they join major, minor, or other leagues where they get paid. Olympic athletes are supposed to be in amateur status, but we don't describe Wilma Rudolph as an amateur. Moreover, "athlete" is the larger classification within which ball payers are members, professional or not. Perhaps a better analogy for our discussion is Henry Thoreau. Certainly a philosopher, but did he get paid as a philosopher or work as an academic philosopher? No. So would we call him an amateur philosopher, even if RS said he never got paid, thereby verifying his amateur or non-professional status? One more caveat: the encyclopedias we are looking at are WP:TERTIARY sources. So we have to weigh them in terms of reliability. In this regard we have camps saying "my source is more reliable than yours!"  – S. Rich (talk) 05:39, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * As much fun as it is to repeat myself, I already tackled this here. This discussion is complicated enough without the echos... MilesMoney (talk) 14:03, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed it is complicated ... complicated ... complicated ... complicated. So far, though, I do not see consensus to use the term amateur either here on in the AR article. – S. Rich (talk) 14:31, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It would be much more helpful if you could try to participate in the discussion instead of pretending you're qualified to decide what the consensus is. MilesMoney (talk) 14:39, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * He isn't the only one who doesn't think there's a consensus! BashBrannigan (talk) 02:01, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That's fascinating. Tell me more. MilesMoney (talk) 04:28, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Against describing Objectivism as "amateur" primarily because even if accurate and consistent with wiki policies, it adds little to nothing to the article, creates a readability stumbling block, causes the mind to wander down a side street that goes nowhere and viscerally feels like bias. I also think MilesMoney is being overly aggressive and it feels like he has an agenda.  If the article goes in his direction, the reader is going to get that signal clearly, and resent it.  Does anyone else feel as he does, or even agree with him?Jonny Quick (talk) 22:50, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Cultural Objectivism is Missing
I came to Ayn Rand and Objectivism via a push-back reaction to the assertion of "Cultural Relativism" at university, yet I find no mention of it in this article. "Cultural Objectivism" is the argument that cultures are not equivalent, and that they can be measured by objective standards and judged to be superior or inferior relative to other cultures. Odd that I find no online references to it anywhere. Have all online references to this belief been scrubbed?Jonny Quick (talk) 06:04, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think that Cultural objectivism is the same thing as Objectivism. Objectivism is a particular school of philosophy, while cultural objectivism is merely a description of an aspect of a philosophy. It's also usually taken as the default or reactionary position, not To find cultural objectivists, simply search for terms such as "cultural relativism is nonsense" or what-have-you and they'll quickly come out of the woodwork. "Cultural objectivist" is also used frequently as a pejorative term in left-leaning academic discussion, so your filter bubble might be preventing you from finding it. Moral objectivism is a more interesting and applicable meta-ethical stance. 82.35.30.54 (talk) 14:12, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Blatant Bias in Opening Paragraph
"Academia generally ignored or rejected her philosophy, but it has been a significant influence among libertarians and American conservatives.[5]"

I'll just do bullets, in no particular order, in order to keep this as brief as possible.


 * 1) Who, exactly is "academia"?  This feels very weasel-wordy to me.  It implies that she was noticed, but ignored or rejected.  Where is the evidence of being noticed?  One must be noticed before one can be ignored or rejected.  This sentence seems to attempt to achieve the negativity of being ignored and/or rejected without first acknowledging the positive of being noticed.  Any reviews of her work when published?  An reports of editors specifically telling reviewers to ignore her work?


 * 2) Use of the word "but" seems to try to tie one idea of ignoring and/or rejecting Rand's work, presumably at the time of it's publication BUT "it has been"...  passive-voice is weak, understates the idea that the work has a legitimate place today.  Another indicator of bias.  If the statement is that the work has gone from being rejected and not noticed to a significant influence, then say it in a proactive, positive manner, such as "While a significant influence on American Conservatives and Libertarians (in that order), Rand's work was largely ignored or rejected at the time of it's publication."  See how strong, positive statements read much better, convey more meaning and have dramatically less bias without sacrificing anything?  Another issue I have is why the "conservatives" must all be americans.  Do British, Australian and Canadian conservatives all roundly reject and ignore Ms. Rand, and it's only a small minority of americans and those wacky libertarians that are even aware of it?  "Come join the international majority of normal people that are approved by academia and ignore or reject this crazy objectivism stuff." is what the statement is trying to convey.


 * 3) "Academia" is this and that, BUT "libertarians and American Conservatives" are something that are "not academia".  All academia is legitimate, and belong together in the higher levels of universities, but there are no libertarians and American Conservatives in academia, with the implication that all academia are center and left of center and libertarians and American Conservatives are marginal and fringe elements outside not just mainstream political thought, but also outside the wider-ranged academia.  These are the REAL nut-jobs.  The REAL hoot is when the University leftists get to decide which brand of conservative thinking is legitimate and which ones are not.  Hint:  They are going to pick the weakest and least threatening, and bless them, and Ayn Rand loses.


 * 4) I don't think this statement belongs in the introduction.  How many people have been killed in the name of Objectivism?  Wars started and fought over?  Assassinations and acts of terrorism?  The only people that might find objectivism controversial would be people that believe in it's opposite.  This statement is not noteworthy in the initial paragraph, and it's existence there is evidence of bias that the informed reader cannot help but notice and stumble over.  So not only does it bias the article, but it's existence in the beginning degrades it's readability also.  I'd be interested in finding out who it was that put this piece into this place in the article, so that I could take a harder look at their other contributions.Jonny Quick (talk) 08:15, 13 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The lead (the part before the table of contents), is supposed to summarize points discussed in the main body of the article. If you look down to the the section titled "Intellectual Impact", you will see that it starts by saying, "Academic philosophers have generally dismissed Objectivism since Rand first presented it", with four reliable sources cited in footnotes. The section then goes on to discuss the academic treatment of Rand's philosophy in more detail. So this is what is summarized by "Academia generally ignored or rejected her philosophy". The sentence in the lead is also directly sourced to two academic books cited in the footnote for it (whose number you even copied above).


 * The alternative wording you propose in your second bullet makes even more use of the passive voice than the current wording, so I'm not sure what makes it "strong" in comparison. It also suggests Rand was ignored broadly (not just by academics), which is clearly untrue given the bestseller status of some of her works. There could very well be a better wording, but I don't think your proposal is it. The third and fourth bullets appear to be your own political opinions, which are not relevant to what should be in a Wikipedia article, so I won't address them here. --RL0919 (talk) 15:34, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The 3rd bullet is my subjective "real time" reaction to the article as it is. After just finishing reading the whole "amateur vs. professional" argument in these "Talk" pages, I understand why.  The lead is attempting to force-feed the notion of "class" into the reader's awareness right at the start, and THAT is the fatal flaw.  Whether or not academia accepted, rejected or ignored Objectivism and/or Rand, whether or not the philosophy is amateur or professional may be somewhat interesting, but it does not need to be in the LEAD.  It feels artificial and pushy.  Bullet #4 attempts to convey the idea that for all the controversy (whatever it may be), how relevant is that controversy.  Objectivism hasn't resulted in mass-homicide like Nazism, why then would Wikipedia elevate it's detractors to get top-paragraph status in order to communicate their criticisms?  The only people that find Objectivism objectionable are hard-core socialists and communists, so the fact that their criticism is considered a top priority is de facto bias in the article.  Otherwise, I agree with everything you said, that I've read, thus far.Jonny Quick (talk) 23:04, 13 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The reaction of academics in relevant fields is an important element for any article about a theory or intellectual movement. The criticism does not have to include accusations of mass homicide in order to be relevant -- most ideological disputes thankfully do not reach that horrific standard. It just has to be discussed in reliable sources that we can use to verify the article and give neutral descriptions of what has been argued. I agree that the summary of the criticism does not need "top-paragraph status", and it doesn't get that now -- it at the end of the lead. If you think the current wording overemphasizes "academia" as a class, then certainly we can discuss other ways to word it, but omitting academic reaction from the lead is not the right solution. --RL0919 (talk) 20:14, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I can personally attest to the hostile reception that Rand's Objectivism received from the "academic community", which at the time (1960s-1970s in my direct experience) was substantially sympathetic to Marxism, nominalism, deconstructionism, and other quite non-Randian ideas. Her opponents largely adopted an unstated policy of marginalization, avoiding bringing up Rand at all in the curriculum, and reacting quite negatively toward students who mentioned her ideas.  The reason this is even mentioned in the lede is that various editors seemed intent on making sure that readers would be advised that respectable folks rejected Rand's ideas; I think that's a remnant of the minimalization policy, but it seemed better to include a neutral true statement than to permit a partisan one.  The "but ..." clause should be noted somewhere in the lede, since it is an important aspect of the subject (why one nevertheless might care). — DAGwyn (talk) 18:16, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That's rather propagandist. "Help, help, I'm being suppressed". The fact is that compared to actual professional epistemiologist, she lost the competition. Popper et al. had much more influence on academia than she had. Her influence is practically exclusively restricted to the angloamerican environment and areas overwhelmingly influenced by it - which suggests that the causal relationship is rather the other way round - her influence there exists because it justifies certain pet ideologies firmly entrenched in angloamerican cultures rather than generally being particularly convincing. And that's not even touching on the issues of modern neurosciences which suggest that her notions on rational consciousness is simply "technically", i.e. physiologically not feasible, not happening. In essences, objectivism is in a catch22 situation: If I claim that objective knowledge is possible, but the result of such endeavor says it isn't, it is clear that the premise is absurd. I can then go and denounce the findings because I don't like their results, but that's hardly an argument of reason but one of "what must not be cannot be". --95.90.117.69 (talk) 13:02, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

There is a more succinct point to be made here - ignored suggests that objectivism has received no attention by academia. Clearly, it has. Otherwise it would not be possible to cite books to support this proposition. Alternatively, a quick search of any university library for 'Ayn Rand' will demonstrate that her philosophy has been noted by academia. The point is that it doesn't feature highly because it has been broadly rejected and/or is considered a niche interest. I am rephrasing as follows: "Academia has generally rejected her philosophy, although it has been a significant influence among libertarians and American conservatives" 82.19.19.227 (talk) 23:05, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, then if you are going to go in that direction, with those that disagreed with the philosophy getting top billing in the lead of the article, over and above the person and the philosophy itself, then the least you could do is define the traditionally leftist "academia" was at the time of Objectivism's "birth". Again, I reiterate my belief that to fail to state a brief summation about what Objectivism is before nailing the coffin closed is in and of itself biased.  The least the article could do is acknowledge that the rejection was coming from an academic social strata that was already firmly entrenched on the left and would therefore reject anything that disagreed with it.  If you are going to mention the "rejection", then make it a statement about the bias of "academia" and not piss in the article reader's soup before they've even had a chance to find out what Objectivism is about.Jonny Quick (talk) 03:22, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Academic reaction sources with quotes
A few editors have a habit of rewriting the lead description of the academic reaction to Objectivism, either to soft-peddle it (as with this recent edit) or to make it more forceful (as with this edit in a few months ago). In their view, Rand is not really ignored or rejected by most academics, or she is actively rejected by all of them. The actual truth, supported by multiple sources, is between these extremes. Rand's ideas are most commonly just ignored by academics, and when addressed, rejected, although not universally so. I've just restored the description to an accurate representation. Since these same editors sometimes claim in edit summaries that the sources reflect their view (without actually adding any sources or quoting from the ones already cited), I'm taking the opportunity to put verbatim quotes from some of the sources I've just used, where they can be seen by one and all:


 * Chris Matthew Sciabarra, Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical (2nd ed., 2013), p. 1: "Yet despite the sale of nearly thirty million copies of her works, and their translation into many languages (Landrum 1994, 302), there have been few book-length, scholarly examinations of her thought. This is hardly surprising since academics have often dismissed her 'Objectivist' ideas as 'pop' philosophy."
 * Neera Badhwar and Roderick T. Long, "Ayn Rand" in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2010): "Contemporary philosophers, by and large, returned the compliment by dismissing her work contemptuously, often on the basis of hearsay or cursory reading."
 * Allan Gotthelf, On Ayn Rand (2000), p. 1: "Yet the philosophical system which her works express and on which they rest is insufficiently understood by many of her admirers and by most of her detractors; and she still gets little attention in academic philosophical journals and courses."
 * Tibor Machan, Ayn Rand (1999), p. 9: "This may account for why Ayn Rand is a popular novelist but not popular among philosophers, and not even given due respect for her clarity of thought, let alone the content of her thinking."
 * Jenny A. Heyl, "Ayn Rand (1905–1982)" in Contemporary Women Philosophers: 1900–today (1995), p. 223: "Perhaps because she so eschewed academic philosophy, and because her works are widely considered to be works of literature, Objectivist philosophy is regularly omitted from academic philosophy."

The above are all full-sentence quotes, all from publications by academic philosophers, all published in the last 20 years. Two are from encyclopedias, two others are from book series that overview various thinkers. In other words, exactly the sort of publications we would expect to summarize the common treatment of the subject. I'm not naive, and I know this information will be ignored by many who want to press their own view. I just want it handy for others. --RL0919 (talk) 20:20, 30 December 2014 (UTC)#


 * Reverted most resent edit, heavy reliance on Sciabarra multiple times the lead from very outdated critique. It's not acceptable and borderline, fringe views, fringe views should not be given lofty accreditation. Rowland938 (talk) 01:18, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with RL0919 that the "level of generalization matches cited sources." For this statement about the academic reaction in the lead, there are multiple reliable sources that support it, including, but not limited to the Sciabarra source. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is highly credible and is certainly not outdated. If we need to be more specific, how about we elaborate in an academic reaction section later in the article? Abierma3 (talk) 02:03, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Rowland938, I can't make sense of your argument here. There are seven distinct sources cited for this sentence, with nine different authors, only one of whom is Sciabarra. Several of these sources are quoted verbatim above to leave no doubt as to their view on the matter. --RL0919 (talk) 02:25, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Not a completely objective entry about objectivism.
Hello all,

Good information here. One statement makes it too much of an opinion piece and therefore must be corrected if Wikipedia wishes to be taken seriously: "Academics and philosophers have ignored or rejected" objectivism. It should read "Liberal Academics and philosophers in the United States have ignored or rejected" objectivism. It should be noted that there are other highly educated philosophers and academics, both in the U.S. and elsewhere, who do not ignore or reject objectivism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.110.170.122 (talk) 15:10, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The article currently says, "Academic philosophers have mostly ignored or rejected Rand's philosophy, although not universally so." Which is entirely correct -- it isn't just liberals and not just in the US. It also acknowledges that there are exceptions with the "mostly" and "not universally" portions. All of which is supported with sources and described more expansively later in the article. --RL0919 (talk) 17:58, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

ignored?
The way you've described it, if accurate, "Objectivism" is nothing more than Locke and Smith, in which case it's hardly been ignored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.241.26.8 (talk) 22:41, 1 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, I don't understand what your comment means. Who are you addressing? The article is the work of multiple editors. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:56, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Add Citation
The following article should be added (minimally) as a reference to this page. It should probably be mentioned and/or linked in the body of the text as well. It details, quite clearly, some of the reasons for which philosophers consider Rand to be an intellectual hack.

http://www.owl232.net/rand.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.131.57.195 (talk) 06:32, 22 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I looked through that article, and it by no means represents a reasoned consensus among philosophers. Not only is it based on one man's personal perspective, but many of the statements in it are refutable.  The Wikipedia should not be a vehicle for argumentation.  The article already contains enough "opposing view" verbiage. — DAGwyn (talk) 12:05, 5 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Regardless of its content, this is an essay originally posted to a discussion group when he was a student, now reposted on a personal website. We should be using published reliable sources, such as academic articles, for critical perspectives. --RL0919 (talk) 16:03, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Famous and influential objectivists
Could we create a list of people who were not merely influenced, but professed to be (and seemingly are) objectivists? This has already been done on the Swedish page. 78.69.217.113 (talk) 18:32, 25 July 2016 (UTC)


 * On en-wiki at least, that seems more relevant to the Objectivist movement article. But regardless of location, non-list articles should not be overtaken by lengthy lists; narrative descriptions are strongly preferred. You could try starting a "List of Objectivists" article, but I think it would be hard to maintain because of WP:POV issues. That is one reason we have List of people influenced by Ayn Rand instead, to avoid the problem of objectifying (no pun intended) who counts as an "Objectivst" within Wikipedia's neutrality and sourcing rules. --RL0919 (talk) 23:58, 25 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for providing those lists! Were they linked in the article? I think they ought to be, or how else will people find them without a shot-in-the-dark search for "list of objectivists" or simmilar? New users certainly will not know about them.


 * The problem with these lists however remains... It should be possible to create an index over people who declared or consider themselves "objectivists" I think. If they mistakenly believe they identify with the philsophy, then at least they are likely to lean more towards objectivism on average, then say... a list of "Paul Ryans" and "Donald Trumps"? Which is, as it seems to me, in very simplified terms mostly what we might call the "influenced-article" is about right now.


 * 78.69.217.113 (talk) 15:54, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Re: Request you cease reverting a Good Faith edit that contributes to cross referencing of knowledge
Reply to: RL0919 I believe you have not revered this edit twice. While you may not see why this is connected, that doesn't mean that is shouldn't be. If you're only reason for reverting it is that you don't understand it, that is not following the Five Pillars of Wikipedia.

Objectivism is linked to the philosophical practice of Transactionalism in key ways as I developing in the linked article. Transactionalism frames a fundamental fallacy behind Objectivism. This link is justified. It is NOT a spurious linkage. I will wait to hear back and am open to any final considerations before I undo the reverted edit. In cooperation, --sheridanford (talk) 00:44, 24 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Smacks of OR. — DAGwyn (talk) 10:14, 3 October 2016 (UTC)


 * A different editor reverted the addition previously, not me. But your argument above isn't very convincing. Numerous philosophical viewpoints are in dispute with one another. The Philosophy topics template is available at the bottom of the page to navigate to the myriad of topics that might expose (or at least claim to expose) some fallacy of Objectivism. I suggest you work on placing your link there. --RL0919 (talk) 00:59, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Not Russian but Jewish of Russian descent American-based philosopher = Russian Jewish
The neglect to national charcter is not something one might consider as a "neutral" point of view. See the biographical article:  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.245.116.2 (talk) 22:07, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you're getting at. What are we missing?  AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 20:32, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Objectivism (Ayn Rand). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110717195811/http://mol.redbarn.org/objectivism/Writing/NathanielBranden/BenefitsAndHazards.html to http://mol.redbarn.org/objectivism/Writing/NathanielBranden/BenefitsAndHazards.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040909052502/http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer to http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:52, 1 December 2017 (UTC)