Wikipedia:WikiProject Objectivism/Cross talk/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Objectivism. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

The little house of horrors

OK, this section is for all the awfulness that's lurking throughout the minor Objectivism related articles. Minor articles that need to be prodded, cut, sourced, merged, afd'ed, trimmed, redirected, or otherwise saved/euthanized should be listed here with its own l4 subsections so that we can keep track of it all.

Romantic realism

As I am now permitted to edit again, I removed the quotes section there that I mentioned earlier. As it is the page probably gives too much weight to Rand, but it's a rather low priority for the moment. TallNapoleon (talk) 02:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

now that you are permitted to edit again, you removed the quotes section that you mentioned earlier............ya think maybe you shouldn't be removeing anything, perhaps reflect on why you were banned from editing in the first place?Brushcherry (talk) 08:14, 26 July 2009 (UTC)brushcherry

No, I think I should be working with consensus to improve the quality of Objectivism related articles, and that frequently the best way to do so is to remove irrelevant or unencyclopedic material. Given that no one has complained about the removal of that quotes section in nearly two months it appears that the consensus is fine with it. Furthermore, per WP:QUOTE, quotes sections are discouraged. Finally, I would like to remind you that, per the ArbComm ruling, you should work on being constructive instead of criticizing others and trolling. If you want to actually work on cleaning up the Objectivism-related articles, fine, but if all you want to do is snark, do so somewhere else. TallNapoleon (talk) 18:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Read this for the first time, and don't like it. Someone has found the term used by a few different authors, probably in different ways, and synthesized those uses to create the illusion of a school of which Rand is a representative. I think absent a source grouping Conrad, O'Flaherty and official Nazi art (Goebbels(!!!) as Romantic Realists in the same sense, this should be nominated for deletion.KD Tries Again (talk) 15:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

As I argue on the Talk page for the article, I think deletion is absolutely the wrong course for this article. I took a stab at updating the article to send it in a more appropriate direction, the upshot of which is that it needs to be de-Randified. 'Romantic realism' is a term that pre-dates Rand, and it was applied to some of the artists she talks about (Dostoevsky, for example) before she wrote even her first book, probably before she was even born. I also think that the Ayn Rand template should be removed from the bottom of the article. The template for her isn't at the bottom of the articles for Rational egoism, Capitalism, etc., and for the same reasons it should not be on this article. Now, I am by no means saying that she should be removed from the article entirely. Considering her situation as both a successful author and someone who theorized about romantic realism, it's entirely appropriate for her to be discussed, even prominently discussed. But the term is not her invention and putting her template on the article gives an entirely misleading impression. --RL0919 (talk) 00:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I certainly agree re the template. I threw a bunch of tags on the article today, because it's still far short of being encyclopaedic. I will look around myself to see if there's any support for the existence of romantic realism as such, rather than it being a term which has been used, quite independently, by a handful of writers on different subjects. Right now, though, the article is mainly synthesis.KD Tries Again (talk) 02:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

I read the thing for the first time today, and found it a complete mess. The fact that some critic has called Dostoevsky or Conrad or some other writer a romantic realist is of some interest vis-à-vis those particular writers. But unless some theorist has made a case for linking them all together (along with Ayn Rand), I'd argue that it's better not to have an article like this. Rather, the claims about Dostoevsky, Conrad, and others should be reallocated to articles on each. With Rand, "romantic realism" is part of her aesthetic theory (though not the most fundamental part of it); what is said about Rand should be reallocated to the coverage of Objectivist aesthetics and to coverage of her fiction. Then.... delete this article... -RLCampbell (talk) 19:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Rand herself didn't use the term. She disassociated herself from it by calling her work "Romanticism" and she explicitly defines it. After all, she didn't author "The Romantic Realist Manifesto". Metaphysicalnaturalist (talk) 21:18, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Peter Schwartz (writer)

AFD'ed and deleted, recreated, AFD'ed again with no consensus. Does not appear terribly notable--how would people feel about redirecting to Objectivist Movement or Ayn Rand Institute? TallNapoleon (talk) 03:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Dunno on this one. His article against Libertarianism has drawn a fair amount of comment, and he was involved in the Peikoff-Kelley split. So although the state of the article is poor, it seems that there should be more to say about him from reliable sources. I think there are smaller fish to fry. --RL0919 (talk) 04:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

There is so little content in the article that it could be merged into either article without losing much. Skomorokh 05:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I think its acceptable to have short articles for the notable of a lesser degree. Its fine, just need to keep an eye on it so people don't "fill it up" as it were. --14:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Schwartz is not a philosopher or other kind of theorist (his background is in journalism) but he has been close to Leonard Peikoff, fairly prominent in the "Objectivist movement," and a senior figure at the Ayn Rand Institute. Those outside of ARI have sometimes deemed him an "enforcer," publicly condemning persons the ARI leadership has come to regard as heretical, and he shows up in this capacity in both the Objectivist Movement article (coverage of the Peikoff-Kelley split) and in the article on The Passion of Ayn Rand. I think his article should stay, but it needs at least the fragment of a biography (at present there's no date or place of birth, not even a mention that he was an associate of Rand's in her last years). A quick description of some of his more influential writings (such as "Libertarianism: The Perversion of Liberty") is also needed.-RLCampbell (talk) 20:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

In order for a stand alone article to exist, the subject needs to meet the WP:N criteria. In particular, Schwartz needs to meet one of the WP:PEOPLE criteria since it's clear that he is not an WP:ACADEMIC. Having read the article and having looked at a few databases, I'm sensing that we would be hard pressed to find much to use among reliable secondary sources. We should keep in mind -- and this is key -- that if journalists and academics aren't writing about the person, Wikipedia really shouldn't have an article on him. J Readings (talk) 20:23, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, what does the secondary literature look like on "Libertarianism: The Perversion of Liberty"? There are references to Schwartz in published discussions of The Passion of Ayn Rand and of the Peikoff-Kelley brouhaha.-RLCampbell (talk) 21:08, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Are we citing Schwartz himself in the Peikoff-Kelley imbroglio or a third-party (read: journalist or academic) mentioning Schwartz's involvement in an independent third-party publication (I haven't looked yet)? If it's the former, I'm afraid that does not add to Schwartz' notability for a stand alone article in the encyclopedia. If it's the latter, it might be relevant depending on the quality and quantity of the coverage. Please keep in mind that the reason these guidelines were put into place was to avoid anyone and everyone from suddenly deciding that they should have their own Wikipedia article. There has to be some kind of objective criteria. Otherwise, it becomes a little chaotic. You can read about the notability criteria for a writer (since Schwartz is not an academic) at WP:PEOPLE. J Readings (talk) 21:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I haven't made a survey of third-party coverage of the Peikoff-Kelley split. Some sources mention Peikoff's role in it in but not Schwartz's. However, Brian Doherty's book Radicals for Capitalism gives Schwartz and his "marvelously scabrous" essay on "The Perversion of Liberty" three whole pages. -RLCampbell (talk) 01:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Alex Epstein (American intellectual)

Notability issues--how would people feel about prodding or redirecting? Also, his article needs a different disambiguation--perhaps just "American writer"?TallNapoleon (talk) 03:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Plenty of coverage in news articles, but the article does not contain much of value. I would say prod it and if someone objects, ask them to flesh it out a little. Skomorokh 05:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. TallNapoleon (talk) 06:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Any reason he has the epithet in parentheses after his name? I am in two minds here, only because if he is notable so am I, and I must get someone to write an article about me. He has published some articles - that's all you need for notability?KD Tries Again (talk) 15:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

The prod was declined by the article's creator (see Talk:Alex Epstein (American intellectual)). What do you guys think? He's published but I'm not sure that makes him notable. TallNapoleon (talk) 16:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

He's not exceptionally notable, at least one secondary source uses him from Google Scholar (and AFAIK doesn't have anything to do with ARI), news hits galore - I'd say he has his foot in the door, so its a tough call. Anyhow, further discussion should take place on the articles talk page as to engage the editor(s) watching that page and not this template. --Karbinski (talk) 20:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Borderline on notability, I'd say. But I'm more inclined to add articles for people who are more notable, but don't have them, than to try to cut articles about people who are kinda sorta notable.-RLCampbell (talk) 20:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Edwin A. Locke

Probably notable enough for his own article, but his page looks like a resume and is largely unsourced. I would say that stubbification would be a good first step for this one. TallNapoleon (talk) 03:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

He is probably notable enough for an article. His CV is a mile long and he is mentioned prominently in the article on Goal-setting theory. So I'd say keep the article. Unfortunately, it has significant sourcing and NPOV issues. ("His pioneering research has advanced and enriched our understanding ..." Yikes!)

Based on his CV and credentials, it appears Locke is an academic. If so, Locke's notability is determined by WP:ACADEMIC. Has anyone tried to read over WP:ACADEMIC to see if he meets the criteria? I'm just asking. J Readings (talk) 05:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I just gave it a quick read. Using Google Scholar for an initial estimate, he very likely qualifies. He's cited regarding goal-setting theory in numerous journals, and a number of the citations seem to treat him as the key expert in the field. --RL0919 (talk) 05:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

If that's the case, definitely notable. Still, article is in need of a major rewrite. TallNapoleon (talk) 05:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Edwin Locke is a major figure in Industrial/Organizational Psychology, or so my colleagues have told me. He is arguably better known in Applied Psych than in Randian circles. The gushing language ("advanced and enriched our understanding") appears to come from an award citation from one of the top organizations in academic psychology. The article does need rewriting.-RLCampbell (talk) 00:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The Objective Standard

I have prodded this, as it appears to be pretty nonnotable. A redirect could also be viable here--perhaps to the bibliography. TallNapoleon (talk) 03:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree about non-notability, but I notice that Craig Biddle redirects to this page, so if it is deleted, what happens to the redirect? --RL0919 (talk) 04:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Someone decided to redirect The Objective Standard to a resurrected Craig Biddle article. I've tagged this for notability and lack of sources. There are no source citations, just a bibliography of Biddle's own self-published writings. --RL0919 (talk) 03:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I think we should consider redirecting him. Thoughts? TallNapoleon (talk) 20:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Red Pawn

This was a screenplay Rand sold that was never produced. The article is almost totally unreferenced and barely wikified. I think we could probably cut all of the plot and character summary and stubbify it easily, but on the other hand we may want to keep some of it. What do people think? Oh, I also found what looked like a duplicate at Red pawn, which I changed to a redirect. TallNapoleon (talk) 07:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The relevant information could be merged into The Early Ayn Rand, which is where the screenplay was eventually published. --RL0919 (talk) 13:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Plot and character sections tend to be unreferenced even in featured articles. Personally I think the potential for horror in the fiction articles is a little less (List of absolutely everything in Atlas Shrugged notwithstanding) as they tend to be free of POV and promotional tone etc. Sciabarra, Gladstein, Mayhew and Britting all cover the play to some extent; I'll see if I can flesh the article out a little. Skomorokh 13:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

List of locations in Atlas Shrugged

Lots of books have list of characters. I'm not a fan of this practice, but w/e. However, this is totally insanely unnecessary. It doesn't appear notable, and frankly it looks like total, pure cruft. There may be some content here worth merging to Atlas Shrugged but frankly the level of detail is in appropriate. Plus, it's an unlikely search term, so I don't think a redirect is appropriate. I think it ought to be deleted, but I'd like to get some consensus here before I prod/afd it, in case we want to do some merging. TallNapoleon (talk) 21:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

It was proposed for deletion (under a slightly different name) back in 2006, and the result was that it was supposed to be transwikied to Wikibooks. But when the equivalent page was created there, it was speedy-deleted and the Wikibooks entry for Atlas Shrugged points back to Wikipedia for this article. Anyhow, I agree it is cruft, but it will need an AfD discussion, not just prod. --RL0919 (talk) 22:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

This is an area where project-wide consensus has yet to emerge; neither WP:LISTS nor WP:SAL give much guidance on inclusion criteria for lists like this. On the one hand, Atlas Shrugged is a very, very notable book, there is little potential for controversial content or original research (everything taken from the text) in the list. It's accurate information about an uncontroversial topic – Wikipedia is doing a public service by hosting it.

On the other hand, there has been very little written in reliable sources specifically about the locations in the book as a topic, this information is only of interest to fans (the list get a pitiful 100-200 page views a month compared with over 100k for the article on the novel), and this is another example of the unmanagagably-long, severely under-referenced fringe Objectivism articles that reflect so poorly on the encyclopaedia's coverage of this topic area.

Ideally, the solution for this sort of material is to port it off to a wiki of a different scope – see for example this article on the Battlestar Galactica wiki which is very close in format and quality to the list in question. Objectivism Wiki is such a wiki, and has decent coverage of the novel and its elements. I think this would be a fine place for our list – by moving it there we would uphold the quality and integrity of Wikipedia, contribute to improving the Objectivism wiki, and most importantly, preserve the information in a Google-friendly fashion for interested readers.

Would anyone mind holding off while I looked into this potential solution? Skomorokh 22:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

And best of all, once it's transwikid it's no longer our problem :). Sounds like a fantastic idea, Skomorokh. TallNapoleon (talk) 22:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that's an excellent solution. For that matter, looking at some of the other material on Wikibooks, I'm not sure why the list wouldn't be at home there. But then again I know virtually nothing about Wikibooks. --RL0919 (talk) 22:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Skomorokh, how's the search going on transwikiing? TallNapoleon (talk) 05:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

No response from the target, no satisfactory answer on the copyright implications of simply dumping the article on them and wiping our hands of it. If there's no progress by the weekend I think I'll go ahead anyway. Skomorokh 05:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I am unable to create pages at the Objectivism Wiki, which seems abandoned, due to database errors. Skomorokh 20:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we should find an Objectivist forum to dump it on and run? Alternatively, maybe RL can think of a good home for it. TallNapoleon (talk) 23:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm still not sure why this page wouldn't be appropriate for Wikibooks. The entry there for Atlas Shrugged includes pages with lists of companies, concepts, technology and "things." Only the lists for characters and places are linked back here. The only alternative I can offer beyond that would be to take it into the relevant section of my own site. It would be appropriate material there, but I'm concerned about the impact of the licensing.

Why don't we try asking WikiBooks? They aren't a dead wiki, I hope. TallNapoleon (talk) 06:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I will be inquiring over at WikiBooks about the transwiki process for this later today. TallNapoleon (talk) 17:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Might be useful: b:Wikibooks:Requests for Import. Skomorokh, barbarian 13:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The Art of Fiction

A chapter-by-chapter bullet point summary of a book published posthumously. I am going to delete everything except the lede for now because I'm afraid it's so detailed that it might be running into problems with fair use, attribution, and so forth. Plus, it's just so damned long... TallNapoleon (talk) 21:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

One other problem is that it is poorly disambiguated from The Art of Fiction (book) which is written by another author. TallNapoleon (talk) 22:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Anyone have any feedback on what to do with this thing? TallNapoleon (talk) 01:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Is this book even notable per WP:BK to warrant its own page? I'm just asking. J Readings (talk) 02:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't think so. We ought to replace this article with the one about the other art of fiction book. TallNapoleon (talk) 02:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The article on the other book doesn't provide any indications of notability either. We would only want to move the other book into the namespace currently occupied by Rand's book if it is notable and hers isn't. I haven't seen even an attempt to make a case for that. If it is less notable or no more notable than Rand's book, then either they should both be deleted (if neither is sufficiently notable), or there should be better disambiguation (if both are sufficiently notable), or the other article should be deleted (if Rand's book is notable and the other isn't). We need a real investigation to decide this on the merits. --RL0919 (talk) 22:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Would folks object to PRODding this? TallNapoleon (talk) 20:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Guess not. PRODDED. TallNapoleon (talk) 17:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Since the overall treatment of Rand's nonfiction works remains under discussion, this may turn out to be irrelevant. However, if her more important nonfiction works are given (or end up keeping) their separate articles, one possibility would be to consolidate the two posthumous books on writing (The Art of Fiction and The Art of Nonfiction) in one article.-RLCampbell (talk) 18:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Update: The prod tag has been removed by ThaddeusB, who says that the "book has been reviewed by Amazon & a few other realiabel (sic) sources". I don't believe Amazon reviews (which come from users) count for establishing notability, but coverage in other sources might. --RL0919 (talk) 21:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Nope, I wouldn't count Amazon reviews. If we did, all kinds of things would become reliable, including Jim Valliant's opus.-RLCampbell (talk) 22:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Harry Binswanger

It does not seem that Binswanger is very notable. Seems like just a pointless addition to enlarge the Objectivist content on Wiki. CABlankenship (talk) 00:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I would tag the article for notability and let those working on it find independent third-party sources (e.g., newspapers, books) to justify its notability. Give it (I don't know) a couple of weeks. If nothing surfaces, someone can prod the article. J Readings (talk) 01:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

There is only one given source, and it links to a Binswanger-owned site. CABlankenship (talk) 01:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Google News and Scholar searches suggest notability. TallNapoleon (talk) 01:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

One would need to review criteria 1 through 9 in the WP:ACADEMIC guidelines and see which might apply. I haven't looked. One thing's for sure: the article needs better sources. J Readings (talk) 02:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

In addition to his monograph, published by the Ayn Rand Institute, Dr. Binswanger has published, from time to time, in academic philosophy journals. The article doesn't currently cite or list any of these articles, and it should. Otherwise, I think those who are aligned with the Ayn Rand Institute would consider Dr. Binswanger notable because of his leadership role at ARI, and those not aligned with ARI would also consider him notable on account of his leadership role at ARI. His private list, HBL, is a genuine movement phenomenon, if for no other reason than the requirement that participants sign a "loyalty oath." --RLCampbell (talk) 14:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Homosexuality fork article

The article on Objectivism, Ayn Rand, and homosexuality seems to be an unnecessary fork article on a topic that could be summarized in a couple of sentences if only reliable secondary sources were used. As it is, the article is original research distilled from Rand's Q&A comments and the arguments on various websites. Is there any reason to keep it around? --RL0919 (talk) 13:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I think there is really no reason to keep this article around. The entire article is based on two quotations from Rand's Q&A sessions, and brief comments on two or three websites. When it comes to published material, vanity press publications set aside, there is a sole work monograph by Chris Sciabarra about Objectivism and homosexuality. Objectivism, as Rand's philosophy, never had a formal position on homosexuality. I question the notability of it.

I think it should be deleted. — Brandonk2009 (talk) 17:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I put a prod (proposed deletion) tag on it. If anyone wants to object, you know where the page is. --RL0919 (talk) 20:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I have seconded that - in addition, two or maybe three of the five sources given are highly questionable.KD Tries Again (talk) 12:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

The prod was removed by Benjiboi on the grounds that he was able to find a number of apparent sources for the topic. I'm doubtful as to how relevant most of those sources are (many seem to be uses of "objectivism" in a non-Randian sense, or coincidental mentions of Rand and homosexuality in a long document). But regardless, the prod is off. I'm going to attempt to create a more qualified list of usable sources. Either these will be helpful for improving the article, or if there are very few usable sources then this will speak to notability in any future AfD discussion. --RL0919 (talk) 20:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The Atlasphere cite is another dead-end in itself, because it appears to be no more than a blog: however, I didn't realize Sciabarra had written a book on the subject. That might provide the basis for an article, although as usual the problem may be that no editor currently participating has a copy.KD Tries Again (talk) 22:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

I've read it. (I borrowed a copy from someone I've had a falling out with however). It explains why homosexuality is compatible with Objectivism. My personal reaction: low quality work, low quality arguments. I disagree with several of parts of Sciabarra's analysis of homosexuality and its relation to philosophy. Regardless of that, the entire article is going to be predicated on a couple sentences spoken by Rand in her Q&A session, a few sentences published by N. Branden in his works, Peikoff's public announcement on Objectivism and homosexuality, and a few unverifiable, unpublished conversations among The Collective members. Any article completely centering a dozen of various sentences isn't notable to me... Brandonk2009 (talk) 04:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

As long as the content is preserved somewhere, the article should probably go then. After all, there isn't an article about Bertrand Russell and homosexuality, although there would be a lot more material for such an article.KD Tries Again (talk) 17:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

I think that we should consider AFDing this article. What do people think? TallNapoleon (talk) 20:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd vote for deletion, so an AFD is fine by me. --RL0919 (talk) 17:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I favor AfDing. I think the issues raised in the article should be discussed, but there is no need for a separate article on them. Ayn Rand had strong views on the psychology of sex, she put forward an ethical theory, and on one public occasion she labeled homosexual activity as immoral. An informed interpreter may legitimately decide that her views on homosexuality are not really philosophical (though she would most likely not have agreed with that assessment); or that they are philosophical, but also wrong and also relatively unimportant; etc. In any event, a statement like "Objectivism, as Rand's philosophy, never had a formal position on homosexuality" fails to settle whether the matter is relevant. It appeals to Ayn Rand's personal authority while appearing to be based, not on anything she wrote, but on ex post facto pronouncements by Leonard Peikoff and others. -RLCampbell (talk) 22:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

End of the little house of horrors

Inherited notability

The articles for Frank O'Connor (actor) and Patrecia Scott both seem to be cases of WP:INHERITED. O'Connor was a bit-part actor and later an amateur painter. Scott was a model and actress with a handful of minor guest roles on tv. The only time either is mentioned in books or articles is in relation to their spouses. In short, they aren't notable, and both should be either deleted or redirected. I'd suggest dealing with both simultaneously to prevent anyone from arguing favoritism towards Rand or Branden for deleting one spouse but not the other. --RL0919 (talk) 21:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that neither is particularly notable. Redirection would be OK.-RLCampbell (talk) 22:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

They are plausible redirects. Furthermore propose redirecting them to the relevant sections on their spouse's pages. TallNapoleon (talk) 23:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

TallNapolean had previous redirected the O'Connor article, and I just redirected the Scott article. --RL0919 (talk) 23:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Good article nomination

I notice that the Ayn Rand article has been nominated for a return to good article status. I was thinking just yesterday that the article was getting close (I was even reviewing the criteria), and overnight another editor put in the nomination. Whether it passes or not, I think this says something positive about the efforts of the folks involved in WikiProject Objectivism and others who have tried to improve that article, especially since the nomination was made by an "outside" editor who hasn't been involved with the project or the article. --RL0919 (talk) 15:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely, although I must admit that I'm not convinced it's ready yet. Still, it's nice to know our work is being noticed! TallNapoleon (talk) 18:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

One piece of preliminary feedback from the reviewer is that there is too much biographical detail. I tend to agree, and as is widely recognized, the article is unusually long. I'm going through it to look for details that can be removed or abbreviated without creating any significant gaps. --RL0919 (talk) 00:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the editor who volunteered to perform the review is now caught up in a dispute, so who knows when the review might be completed. --RL0919 (talk) 23:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The initial review was apparently a false start and won't be completed, so I put in an inquiry at WT:GAN to see if a different reviewer can pick it up. --RL0919 (talk) 16:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Objectivist philosophers template

A new template for "Objectivist philosophers" has been created by User:Jajhill and added to the bottom of a number of articles within the scope of this project. I've started a discussion on the new template's talk page about some basic concerns I have around who is included on the template. On a broader level, I'm not sure how useful such a template is, as it seems somewhat redundant to existing templates and categories. --RL0919 (talk) 20:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I find it more than somewhat redundant. -RLCampbell (talk) 21:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The consensus on the template's talk page is that it is redundant and should be removed. If there is anyone who sees value in the template, they should speak up. --RL0919 (talk) 23:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Since there appears to be no support for this template either here or on its own talk page, I have removed it from all the relevant pages and have initiated the deletion process for it. Please visit the TFD entry for the template if you wish to support or oppose the proposed deletion. --RL0919 (talk) 05:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for initiating the deletion discussion, I've left a comment there. Just a note on etiquette: it's considered bad form to mass-remove a template one dislikes before consensus at TfD is achieved. Skomorokh 16:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Noted for future. --RL0919 (talk) 22:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Final outcome: Template deleted today as result of TfD. --RL0919 (talk) 22:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Alan Greenspan dispute

Since the Alan Greenspan article is within the scope of this project, I wanted to note that there has been a dispute going on for several days now about whether certain criticisms of Greenspan should be included in the article's lead. There has been edit warring over it, and now a Request for Comment has been opened to try to resolve the dispute. Please visit the article's talk page if you want to weigh in on the issue. --RL0919 (talk) 22:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The situation seems to have been resolved by a consensus for a shorter, fact-oriented lead. --RL0919 (talk) 20:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Articles to create

Over the past few months there has been a lot of focus on deleting or merging articles related to this project. This was appropriate, because there were a number of non-notable subjects and unnecessary forks that needed to be managed. But as RLCampbell notes in the section on "The Penumbra" above, there are relevant subjects that don't have articles. So I'm starting this section to discuss some possibilities. Perhaps some can be created immediately (as happened with Mimi Reisel Gladstein in the "Penumbra" discussion), or we can add them to the "Potential articles" section on the project page to tackle them in the future. Please add your suggestions or comment on the suggestions of others. If you think a suggested article is a bad idea (not notable, better handled as a section in an existing article, etc.), that's worth saying also. --RL0919 (talk) 20:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Standalone bibliographies and further reading sections

There have recently been some radical changes to these pages, and I think it best that we have a discussion as to the best means of distributing the content in question. See previous conversation. Skomorokh 09:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

My remaining agenda for Bibliography for Ayn Rand and Objectivism was to:
- put the "References" into Ayn Rand's "Further reading"
- remove the single book chapters from "Other works about Ayn Rand or Objectivism" (borderline trivia)
- split the remainder of "Other works about Ayn Rand or Objectivism" into Ayn Rand and Objectivism's Further reading sections
- redirect Bibliography for Ayn Rand and Objectivism to Bibliography of Ayn Rand to comply with CC-BY-SA
and then the "Further reading" sections of Ayn Rand and Objectivism will then just need significant pruning. I swear, standalone bibliography articles that are not for a single author are cruft magnets. --Cybercobra (talk) 09:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that deconstructing the bibliography article is actually the best approach, but I'm not strongly opposed if we can work out a couple of concerns:

Distributing the lists of works into the articles could either create significant redundancies or else produce disputes over where each work goes. Ayn Rand, Objectivism (Ayn Rand), and Objectivist movement are closely related subjects, and a number of works cover more than one of these. That's why the article was Bibliography for Ayn Rand and Objectivism rather than one or the other.
There's a reason the "Works cited" (now renamed "References") were separated from the "Further reading". The works cited are, well, cited in the article. The further reading lists were "recommended publications that do not appear elsewhere in the article", just as described in WP:FURTHER. Combining the two erases that useful distinction.

Number 2 is just an implementation detail. Number 1 is the bigger problem. How much repetition are we willing to have across the various articles? --RL0919 (talk) 14:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I think in this case a single bibliography article is best. It will make maintenance easier, and help keep the other articles trim. TallNapoleon (talk) 18:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

That's my view also, but since I put a lot of effort into updating the bibliography article, there could be a bit of WP:OWN at work there. If we do keep the separate bibliography article, I'm not at all opposed to doing a bit of trimming. Removing the list of vanity works, for example, seems absolutely fine to me, and other sections could be thinned some without losing any major works. --RL0919 (talk) 19:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I think a central article wikied into many other articles makes the most sense. The alternative is an endless parade of editors discovering that an individual list is missing entries and "correcting" the problem. --Karbinski (talk) 21:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

To enumerate the problems with a separate bibliography page:

WP:NOT#OR "Primary (original) research" - the choice of which entries to include is somewhat arbitrary, especially when a bibliography is lengthy
WP:NOTLINK "collections of external links" - if one construes "external links" broadly to mean references to external works, then that's all a bibliography is; IMO, Wikipedia shouldn't be a card catalog
WP:NOTDIR "not a directory" - a bibliography is a directory of related reading materials
WP:INDISCRIMINATE "an indiscriminate collection of information" - when the bibliography entries are great in number, the criteria becomes less well defined (i.e. how can these articles be considered 'select' when there are so darn many of them?)

Clearly, pruning the number of entries addresses some of these concerns, but not all of them. --Cybercobra (talk) 22:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

There's no perfect solution here. I think lengthening the further reading sections for the Ayn Rand and Objectivism pages could make the separate bibliography pages redundant. There will still be some duplication across Ayn Rand, Objectivism, and Objectivist Movement however we manage the bibliography issues.-RLCampbell (talk) 20:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Why a separate bibliography page is not a problem:

The idea that specific criteria for inclusion is invalid if a large number of items meet the criteria is bunk.
If bibliographies are a no-no, then George Orwell's bibliography article needs urgent attention, much more urgent than this one ::as it has a table cataloging his works.
They are not external links
Citations can be demanded just as easily in the bibliography article as any other. Specific OR claims are okay, saying OR could happen isn't saying anything at all.

While there may be no perfect solution, I support the solution of a seperate bibliography article to cover Ayn Rand and Objectivism. --Karbinski (talk) 00:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that some of the criticisms given are not applicable. A bibliography is not a directory or a collection of external links, so trying to pull those policies into the discussion is a red herring. As for original research, I would note that there were two bibliographical sources listed in the article, and additional ones could be provided if there is a real concern in this area. The most valid issue is the matter of defining criteria for what is included/excluded. Any list-type article ought to have appropriate inclusion criteria, and I think the bibliography article could be criticized for not having clear criteria. But that can be solved by improving the article rather than disassembling it. Indeed, putting the bibliographical information into several different articles doesn't solve the problem of inclusion criteria. It just spreads it around. --RL0919 (talk) 02:28, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

It wouldn't hurt to make a prefatory statement on the bibliography page as to what the inclusion criteria are. This doesn't ensure that every editor will abide by the criteria, but it should promote transparency. -RLCampbell (talk) 16:38, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems like the majority contributing to this discussion are in favor of keeping the separate bibliography article. If that's the case, I'd like to restore the list of books (minus the vanity works, which are unlikely to meet any inclusion criteria we develop) and begin a discussion on that article's talk page about what the proper inclusion criteria are so the list can be modified accordingly. --RL0919 (talk) 16:35, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I concur. Skomorokh 16:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I restored most of the old text (minus the vanity works) and started a discussion on inclusion criteria at Talk:Bibliography for Ayn Rand and Objectivism#Inclusion criteria.--RL0919 (talk) 00:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The separation of Rand's works into a distinct Bibliography of Ayn Rand article was part of the plan to dismantle the Bibliography for Ayn Rand and Objectivism article, which was stopped per the discussion above, but the articles were never rejoined. Since there is no apparent advantage to having two separate articles, and Rand's works are a natural part of any bibliography about Objectivism, I've boldly combined the two articles, turning Bibliography of Ayn Rand into a redirect. --RL0919 (talk) 00:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Goddess

Goddess of the Market: Ayn Rand and the American Right by Jennifer Burns just arrived on my desk this morning. From a very quick skim it looks like it may be useful as a source in a number of articles, including Ayn Rand, Objectivist movement, and articles on her works and associates. Ayn Rand is relatively well sourced, so I'm not rushing to change anything there unless something from the book really stands out, but some of the less-developed articles are likely targets for the short term. --RL0919 (talk) 17:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Exciting times. While the Rand article is well-sourced line-by-line, I'm hoping that the new biographies can give a sense of perspective on how much context too give the various facets of her life and of how best to present them. Given access, (wo)man-hours and lack of edit-warring, the article could well become of featured quality. Skomorokh 20:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Goddess makes a number of cross-citations to the Anne Heller book, also eagerly awaited. Jennifer Burns' assessment of the Barbara Branden biography should go into the Passion of Ayn Rand article. Will take care of this soon.-RLCampbell (talk) 13:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Burns book added to Passion of Ayn Rand. Thanks to Skomorokh for standardizing the reference.-RLCampbell (talk) 02:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for adding it and sorry if I edit-conflicted you. Say, some of these Objectivism articles are starting to look half-decent... Skomorokh 02:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The Fountainhead (film)

The Fountainhead (film) is in poor shape, lacks a plot section, and currently has no inline references. Viriditas (talk) 09:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Most of the articles about Rand's fiction, both novels and movies alike, need serious work. I wonder if WP:RAND could do something like I've seen on other projects, with a "monthly focus" or some such to encourage improvements to specific articles. I've seen sentiments expressed before about fiction articles being difficult to work with, but the fact is that this is what Rand is most known for, so they should get more attention. --RL0919 (talk) 18:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

her rational/objectivism vs. science's rational/objective rational

A larger section needs to be included about this topic so people are not (irrationally) mislead into Ayn Rand's ideology IE, some people might have difficulty with evaluation / critical thinking and think that "objectivism" rational means objective rational. "Objectivism" is a misleading term because it tries to make Ayn Rand's (personal) rationalism to be something similar to (objective) physics. However, her divide between science and her rational is something that she never really resolved. She had difficulties putting/(fitting) science, including evolution, into her rational. This divide that is never resolved needs to be in her articles because it is the most prominent contention/objection to her rational/thinking. In addition, not making the science vs ayn rand's rational distinction might be somewhat propaganda like because it could mislead people by not giving people full information. IE, that her rational/"objectivism" is not the same nor reflective of science's rational/(objective rational). Sp0 (talk) 18:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

If it is "the most prominent contention/objection", then it shouldn't be difficult to find some reliable sources that can be used in Objectivism (Ayn Rand)#Criticisms. I'm not sure that this particular line of criticism really is that prominent, but if the sources can be found then there is a spot for them. --RL0919 (talk) 21:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

That Objectivism is at odds with science is an extraordinary claim, requiring an extraordinary source as per WP:RS. Objectivism does not include any physical science, disagreement with Objectivism aside, it lays the philosophical ground-work required for science. --Karbinski (talk) 22:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

The common strains/strings of thought are with Kant and her epistemology -- (i am not talking about ethics here) -- being different. Her criticism section is lacking, it mentions this without fervor/great expansion. It briefly says that she never developed a philosophy of science. If it is "extraordinary," then it is because of the lack of scholarship and willingness to do meaningful thinking and scholarship on this topic... rather work is done in realms of culture wars and things like that rather than analysis of her thought. If you want a brief zeal of the argument it is that Ayn Rand is a type of rationalism that tries to fit reality within (her) rational and call it objective(ism) rather than studying reality within reality as objects are in reality -- which is what science is and what scientist ethic is. If you continue to think it is "extraordinary" or very shocking or something of the sort, then I re-assert my suggestion about non-full discloser and how non-fully telling her followers criticism like this is somewhat like propaganda. Again, objectivism is not objective rational. In other words, Ayn Rand's rational/objectivism is not science's rational/objective rational. Sp0 (talk) 21:10, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a (theoretically) neutral encyclopedia, not a place to advocate for or against Rand's ideas. If there is scholarship in reliable third-party sources that discusses differences between Rand's views and more common views on the philosophy of science, then this could be included. If this is just your personal view about what people should know about Objectivism, then you should take it to a blog or discussion forum. --RL0919 (talk) 21:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Let me say it differently or say something different, the criticism section is lacking. It could give how her views are different than the scientific method, especially since work has not been expanded on her "philosophy of science" as already stated in that section. It could also expand on the criticism and state more about how she did not develop a "philosophy of science." In addition, it could also give how her epistemology differs from Kant's, especially since she saw Kant as somewhat antagonistic to her views of reality not just in ethics. If you want a start in the scholarship of this, her own words give suggestion that she had difficulties fitting "evolution" into her rationalism ideology/reality. http://solohq.org/Articles/Parille/Ayn_Rand_and_Evolution.shtml . Thus, it is suggestive from that her ideology contained a form/extreme form of rationalism whereas she formed an ideology that made or contained a type of reality rather than her viewing reality as reality, including its objects, is in reality -- (like Kant would suggest and do). In other words, her epistemology is suggestive of trying to fit reality within her rational rather than seeing reality as it is in reality (like Kant would do). To sum this up, her antagonist relations with Kant, her own words, and the criticism that she never developed a "philosophy of science" -- (like the criticism section already says) -- is already there. IE, these things are already there (in reality).... they are mostly lacking in the section and maybe in scholarship/third party sources. If you have problems with it being not for or against Rand's ideas or not having a criticism section, then those three things can be presented as factual or expansionary of her views or lack of views in certain areas. Sp0 (talk) 21:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The relationship between Ayn Rand's Objectivism and contemporary natural science is worthy of comment. Ayn Rand's own published writings (along with at least one posthumously published journal entry) make clear that she was ambivalent about biological evolution. Some of her followers, notably Leonard Peikoff and David Harriman, have responded to 20th-century physics with attitudes that range from suspicious to dismissive (it is not clear to what extent she shared these attitudes, but Peikoff and Harriman obviously qualify as Objectivists by the criteria employed here). However, a Wikipedia article on Objectivism is not the place where the relationship between Objectivism and recent natural science should be getting addressed for the first time. (There are, in fact, some articles in the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies that touch on these questions, though they may not get into enough detail.) Another contentious issue in Objectivist epistemology is the notion of contextual certainty, which recent discussions on this page showed is interpreted in a variety of different ways by reasonably knowledgeable people. Precisely because there has been little critical discussion of contextual certainty in secondary sources, however, it is given minimal treatment in the article on Objectivism.-RLCampbell (talk) 02:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)