Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Objectivism's rejection of the primitive


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep (non-admin closure). — cyberpower Chat Online  16:16, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Objectivism's rejection of the primitive

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

This is a resurrection of an article deleted in 2010 under a different title (see Articles for deletion/Objectivism and primitivism). The editor who created it has attempted in the past to have sections about Ayn Rand's views on Native Americans and Arabs included in Ayn Rand or Objectivism (Ayn Rand). When there was not consensus to cover these subjects in depth in those articles (due to limited secondary source material), he created a POV fork article instead. The subject matter lacks sufficient notability for an independent article, as there is very little secondary source coverage. Instead the article has been cobbled together using a synthesis of primary sources (quotes from recordings of Rand and op-eds from the Ayn Rand Institute) and a few passing mentions of related items in secondary sources (not substantial coverage). The small amount of truly relevant secondary source material that does exist (such as the paragraph on this from Burns' bio of Rand) could be as the basis for appropriately weighted coverage in another article, but it is not enough to justify an article of its own. That was my argument in the previous AFD, which resulted in deletion. There has not been any significant change in the situation in the past two years, which is confirmed by the fact that the sourcing is mostly the same as before. RL0919 (talk) 17:05, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge to Objectivism (Ayn Rand). Then cut it down some so that it's a section of the other article.  This is clearly a notable aspect of Objectivism, and also a point of controversy. Kitfoxxe (talk) 19:56, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 29 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. I would obviously disagree with RL’s argument here. I believe the dilemma two years ago was the focus on the term "primitivism" as an official ethos, rather than on the broader criticisms within Objectivism of ideas, and people they deem to be primitive, tribal, or "savage". Of note, this time around, User:Byelf2007 also has assisted me in the early stages of the article. To RL's point, Rand wrote an entire book lamenting a "Return of the Primitive" in society, so the idea that this is an issue not covered in great enough depth is absurd. As for it being a "POV fork", the only point of view provided in the article is that of Ayn Rand, the Ayn Rand Institute, the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights, Michael Berliner (senior advisor to the Ayn Rand Archives), Leonard Peikoff (Rand's intellectual heir), Peter Schwartz of the Ayn Rand Institute, Frederick Cookinham author of The Age of Rand: Imagining an Objectivist Future World, Mimi Reisel Gladstein author of The New Ayn Rand Companion and Jennifer Burns author of Goddess of the Market: Ayn Rand and the American Right. This article is not a collection of critics of Rand’s view, or even critique of it’s view on primitive life. It is simply an outline of Objectivism's and Rand's views on ideas, cultures etc that she (and now her heirs) deem(ed) primitive. Wikipedia also has an article covering Objectivism and Homosexuality in the same way. As for changes since 2010, there are additional sources, and I believe the problem the first time was trying to connect everything to “primitivism”, that is not what the current article does. As it stands currently (as only a few days old), it is well sourced (17 refs) and objectively written - notice how RL doesn't not challenge the accuracy of anything present? If someone were to deem it "POV" that would only be because they may not like and want to censor how it accurately portrays Rand’s views (see WP:IDONTLIKEIT).   Red thoreau  -- (talk) 04:22, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Return of the Primitive is not a title Rand ever chose for a book. That book is her The New Left: The Anti-industrial Revolution, under a new title, and with the addition of material by other authors that she didn't see or approve. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 08:24, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The updated or new title was added by Peter Schwartz a board of director member for the Ayn Rand Institute who also helped with writing The Voice of Reason by Ayn Rand. If Rand wouldn’t approve of his writings, then I find it hard to believe that her estate (& Peikoff her chosen heir) would allow him to add to her books or that her institute would approve. Plus the article is about both Rand’s personal views, and Objectivism’s (inspired by Rand) views on the topic.  Red thoreau  -- (talk) 17:29, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You seem to completely miss the point, which is that you have written an original research essay about a topic that is based on primary sources. We don't keep articles based on whether they are accurate, we keep them based on whether secondary sources show that the topic is notable. There is no secondary source that discusses "Objectivism's rejection of the primitive". The few secondary sources you have mention specific people's views on specific topics, usually not even in depth. For example, the Blackfoot Physics reference makes a brief mention of Michael Berliner's views on Native Americans. It does not mention Objectivism or primitivism. The Burns book mentions Rand's views on Arabs and Native Americans, again without any discussion of primitivism. If "the problem the first time was trying to connect everything to 'primitivism'", that is still a problem. You are synthesizing an essay out of several distinct subjects in a way that is not done anywhere else. That is something you submit to The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, not something that should be on Wikipedia. --RL0919 (talk) 13:46, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * RL, I didn’t miss the point at all. I don’t believe that anything written in the article is WP:OR. As for the Blackfoot piece, that was included because it was a secondary source for Berliner's comment (what you say is lacking) but if you think that should go then you should remove it (That’s how Wikipedia works). And once again you are hung up on the word “primitivism”, rather than all of its synonyms “Primitive”, “Primitivist”, “Savage”, “Tribal” etc. These are all terms found consistently throughout writings on and about Objectivism. They all speak to the bigger issue clearly defined and laid out in the article (which you don’t dispute). That’s why the title of the article was adjusted to a “rejection of the primitive” because there are several terms and ways to say it. Hell you could even name the article “Objectivism’s Rejection of Non-modernity and the Undeveloped Primitive, Savage, Nomadic, or Tribal way of Life that Honors Collectivist Simplicity and the Environment over Man" – but that would be fairly long and cumbersome. I also dispute that I am synthesizing. These views by Objectivism are found repeatedly over and over in Objectivist writing (which is why it is so easy to chronicle them). This is not some obscure topic, and the sourcing is solid - this article is only a week old and is probably better referenced than half the articles on Wikipedia. Maybe instead of strangling the proverbial baby in the crib, you could see if additional sources exist which either challenge the notability of this view or support it. I think there is something to be said for the fact that you challenged this article existing last time and this time. But you are not the sole arbiter for what is notable in Objectivism. At the expense of WP:OTHERCRAP, Objectivism and Homosexuality has even fewer sources and I would argue is less notable, yet your concerns don’t spread to that article?    Red thoreau  -- (talk) 17:51, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Other articles would be discussed in other AFDs, if appropriate. The subject of Objectivism and homosexuality has a secondary-source book written about it by a notable academic, so it has at least some claim to notability. In contrast, no one has written such a secondary source talking about how Objectivism rejects primitivism (or any related term; this is not about the title). There are a few occasions where a secondary source says that so-and-so (usually Rand, but occasionally some other Objectivist) has a particular view about Arabs, or about Native Americans. These sources are very limited and don't connect the subjects together the way you have. That's the key problem: you have written an essay that creates a new subject that no secondary sources have addressed. That isn't what Wikipedia is for. --RL0919 (talk) 18:12, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * RL, The two of us probably aren’t going to get anywhere, as I fundamentally dispute your key contentions. I see them as your opinion, but not the reality or fact. And the article is not solely about Rand or Objectivism’s views on Native Americans or Arabs, they are just used as examples where she or Objectivists have given specific examples of the kind of primitive existence that her and they abhor. The article could obviously be expanded and should be to look further at the connection to ideas that Rand finds “tribal” like her contention that altruism itself comes from a tribal impulse. You could also expand the article and look more into Rand's contention that the New Left was enamored with the idea of the Noble Savage which she believes spurred the 1960’s environmental movement which she and Objectivism reject as almost being Neo-Luddism. And how can you unequivocally state that “No secondary sources” discuss this topic (they clearly do although maybe not to the scope you’d like), have you read all sources in existence on the topic? You judge the article and topic as if you are the peer-reviewer for everything Objectivism on Wikipedia, which you aren't. You also claim to speak for Wikipedia in a universal way as if you represent the project itself, when you don't. I would contend that your diagnosis that “no secondary source” looks into the topic is WP:OR yourself.  Red thoreau  -- (talk) 18:34, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Though a niche topic, it's a central issue and good article. --MeUser42 (talk) 08:22, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * In what way is this !vote based on policy? - The Bushranger One ping only 18:18, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's a great topic and some of its content can be included into the Objectivism article. Also, by the rationale of "we can merge", then we ought to also get rid of "Libertarianism and Objectivism", "Objectivism and homosexuality", "Objectivist movement in India", and "Randian hero". I'm not sure what the case for that would be. Byelf2007 (talk) 29 August 2012
 * See my reply to Red above regarding Objectivism and homosexuality; Objectivism and libertarianism is an amply documented topic in secondary sources. The other two are more marginal but have at least some secondary source support. There is none for this subject; the few secondary sources used in the article (4 out of the 17) are about specific pieces that Red has synthesized into a common topic. The sources themselves don't do this. --RL0919 (talk) 18:12, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * "It's a great topic" = WP:ILIKEIT? - The Bushranger One ping only 18:18, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per MeUser42. This is a significant facet of Randianism, and with the candidcy of Paul Ryan, this field of Objectivist thought is getting a comprehensive look-see. Bearian (talk) 20:53, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:ITSUSEFUL? - The Bushranger One ping only 18:18, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:IAR? The great thing about gratuitously throwing out suggestive policy acronyms is that they’re endless.  Red thoreau  -- (talk) 21:38, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge whatever is worth keeping to Objectivism (Ayn Rand). Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 00:38, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.