Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:55, 27 September 2013

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Objectivism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Objectivism. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Objectivism at the Reference desk.

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting.

	Objectivism was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result December 3, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Atheism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Atheism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of atheism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AtheismWikipedia:WikiProject AtheismTemplate:WikiProject AtheismAtheism Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. For more information and how you can help, click the link opposite: If you would like to participate, you can edit this article and visit the project page. Quick help Project's main talk page Article layout Links to atheism-related information · List of free online resources Writing about religion · Article development Citing sources · Verifying sources · About original research Assume good faith · Be civil Recent activity Core articles the "Atheism" article Articles recently added to Category:Atheism To do edit history watch purge Join WikiProject atheism and be bold. Add a userbox to your page ({{User WikiProject Atheism}} or {{User WPA2}}) and attract potential members. Help with articles. See this month's adopt-an-article. Help out with this to-do list. Be consistent Use a "standard" layout for atheism-related articles (see layout style, "The perfect article" and Featured articles). Add Atheism info box to all atheism related talk pages (use {{WikiProject Atheism}} or see info box) Ensure atheism-related articles are members of Atheism by checking whether ] has been added to atheism-related articles – and, where it hasn't, adding it. Maintenance, etc. Find sources for all positions of an article (see Citing sources and atheism references). Try to expand stubs. Ideas and theories about life, however, are prone to generating neologisms, so some stubs may be suitable for deletion (see deletion process). Watch the list of atheism-related articles and add to accordingly. Always write for an encyclopedia. Articles to improve Agnosticism Create Articles on notable atheists Expand an atheism stub Immediate attention State atheism needs a reassessment of its Importance level, as it has little to do with atheism and is instead an article about anti-theist/anti-religious actions of governments. False choice into False dilemma: discuss whether you are for or against this merge here Clarify references in Atheism using footnotes. Secular movement defines it as a being restricted to America in the 21st century. Template:WikiProject Libertarianism Objectivism (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Objectivism, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.ObjectivismWikipedia:WikiProject ObjectivismTemplate:WikiProject ObjectivismObjectivism Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Philosophy: Aesthetics / Metaphysics / Epistemology / Social and political Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Aesthetics Metaphysics Epistemology Social and political philosophy Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Skepticism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Template:WP1.0

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Objectivism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15Auto-archiving period: 3 months

Article Cross Talk

Use of cross-talk page

There doesn't seem to be much use of the Objectivism cross-talk page lately. I'm the only one who has used it since February. Is it still relevant? --RL0919 (talk) 20:41, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps not. Although I love it, I have to say it now seems like an esoteric feature. Karbinski (talk) 14:25, 13 November 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

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#Again, not a philosopher 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 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 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)

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 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)

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)

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)

• Former good article nominees
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Atheism articles
• Mid-importance Atheism articles
• B-Class Philosophy articles
• Mid-importance Philosophy articles
• B-Class Aesthetics articles
• Mid-importance Aesthetics articles
• Aesthetics task force articles
• B-Class metaphysics articles
• Mid-importance metaphysics articles
• Metaphysics task force articles
• B-Class epistemology articles
• Mid-importance epistemology articles
• Epistemology task force articles
• B-Class social and political philosophy articles
• Mid-importance social and political philosophy articles
• Social and political philosophy task force articles
• B-Class politics articles
• Mid-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• B-Class Skepticism articles
• Mid-importance Skepticism articles
• WikiProject Skepticism articles