Template talk:Ayn Rand

Article Cross-Talk

Neo-Objectivist

Apparently there has been an article laying around at the title Neo-Objectivist. It was transwikied to Wiktionary in March 2010 and tagged as such, but nothing was ever done to delete it or redirect it to a more robust article. Recently Byelf2007 (talk · contribs) did some cleanup/expansion and started linking it from other articles to de-orphan it. However, it is still a stub at best, and it isn't clear to me that a separate article is needed for this subject. Thoughts on what to do with this article would be appreciated. Merge/redirect to another article (such as Objectivist movement? Delete as non-notable? Keep and expand with sources? --RL0919 (talk) 21:45, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Self-follow-up: I notice that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neo-Objectivism (ism vs. ist) was held in May 2009 and resulted in a redirect to Objectivist movement. --RL0919 (talk) 21:52, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Either way is fine. If someone eliminates the article, they better integrate all of it into the "Objectivist movement" article. byelf2007 (talk) 02 September 2011

Is Objectivism (Ayn Rand) ready for Good Article status?

I read the article (lol, how often do you read the article? and how often do you just check the version history?), and it reads pretty good to me. --Karbinski (talk) 21:35, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

This discussion and the one below it, though old, shed some light on what might need to be done. Skomorokh 08:19, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

The single biggest problem IMO is the excessive reliance on primary sources. This is one of the issues noted in the 2008 GA review, and it is still true today. Apparently it is possible for editors to find relatively obscure primary sources to cite, but secondary sources such as Smith, Sciabarra, Machan, Gotthelf, etc., tend to be alluded to broadly (e.g., notes that say, "see X for more", or inclusion in the sources list without any notes citing them) rather than cited directly. --RL0919 (talk) 14:45, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

No, the article is too detailed and gives undue weight.92.252.87.151 (talk) 04:05, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Reformatted to footer

Reformatted to footer template, and modified the articles that utilize the template accordingly. This makes more room for additional entries to be added to the footer template, if relevant/appropriate. Also added some bottom links to sister projects, for pages/categories related to Objectivism/Ayn Rand. Cirt (talk) 05:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Merged with Template:Objectivism

One nice big template for ease of navigation, and with the Template:Navbox formatting and footer-style, there's more room to display additional relevant articles. Cirt (talk) 20:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

One comprehensive template

It is best to have one, comprehensive, navigational footer template for this topic. Cirt (talk) 22:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

• The 2nd sentence of the article on Ayn Rand:
  • She is widely known for her best-selling novels The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, and for developing a philosophical system called Objectivism.
• The 1st sentence of the article Objectivism (Ayn Rand):
  • Objectivism (Ayn Rand) is a philosophy developed by Ayn Rand in the 20th century that encompasses positions on metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics, and aesthetics.

Cirt (talk) 22:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Why, the article on "Objectivism" even has "(Ayn Rand)" in its title, as Objectivism (Ayn Rand). Clearly they are inseparable. Cirt (talk) 22:29, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, here is an example of a comprehensive navigational footer template on a person that is used widely and works quite well: Template:Mohandas K. Gandhi. Cirt (talk) 22:35, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, and no-one is happy with that particular piece of disambiguation. Ayn Rand and Objectivism are two distinct, related topics. One is a writer, the other a philsophical system. To merge these is to step on a POV-minefield, institutionalising the notion of Objectivism as the personal philosophy of Rand and a closed system. It is as if the philosophy ceased to exist forty years ago, the ARI schism never happened, there are no Objectivist philosophers who are not thoroughly Randian. The analysis you give above is, with respect, completely superficial. The works of Ayn Rand, like those of other novelists and writers, should be in an author template with a clear and focused inclusion criteria. The Objectivism template should stick to the philosophy and institutions of the Objectivist movement the skomorokh 22:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

That discussion does not seem relevant to this one about usage of a template as a navigational tool. If the two are not inherently related, why is the article called Objectivism (Ayn Rand)? To make the title of the article "Objectivism" itself have the term "Ayn Rand" right in the title, shows that there is consensus that the two are most certainly related and tied to each other. Cirt (talk) 22:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no consensus that that article be titled "Objectivism (Ayn Rand)"; prove me wrong. The two topics are certainly related to each other; that does not change the fact that they are two and not one topic. The reason Rand is in the lede of those articles is for disambiguation: there are many objectivisms. I again submit that you are only taking into account superficial details and not the crux of the relationship. the skomorokh 22:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

See also my examples below and above, for other people templates that take a more comprehensive approach. This is the best way to do it. Cirt (talk) 22:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

A comprehensive approach to what?! If you want to write articles on the family, life and times, of influences Ayn Rand and then create a template modelled on Gandhi's, go right ahead. The comparisons you make are ridiculous; you subsume the belief system and social/political movement of millions under the personal heading of one individual. The Gandhi template has one link to his personal philosophy. The pre-[version] contains over a dozen articles whose scope is beyond Rand. There's far more to Objectivism than Ayn Rand, and more to Rand than Objectivism. the skomorokh 22:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The article Objectivism (Ayn Rand) has never been moved since its creation in August 2001. That shows precedent and consensus for a comprehensive approach. Cirt (talk) 23:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, check out these additional templates that also take more of a comprehensive approach towards these notable individuals: {{Richard Dawkins}}, {{Diana, Princess of Wales}}, and {{Sathya Sai Baba}}. Cirt (talk) 22:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, here are yet other articles where there is consensus to have both "Objectivism" and "Ayn Rand" in the titles: Objectivism, Ayn Rand, and homosexuality, Criticism of Objectivism (Ayn Rand), and of course, Objectivism (Ayn Rand). So the consensus and precedent exists across multiple articles for this, not just the one. Cirt (talk) 22:55, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, completely superficial. WE are already agreed that there is a relationship between Rand and Objectivism. Objectivism, Ayn Rand, and homosexuality has both in the title because it deals with both. The other two articles you cite are named so for purely disambiguation reasons; Objectivism (individualistic rationalist capitalist metaphysically realist philosophy) is rather cumbersome. the skomorokh 22:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Not superficial, the fact that multiple articles use this naming convention, shows consensus and precedent for such a naming convention. Cirt (talk) 23:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

NO consensus exists as to the naming of those articles, which is why their requested moves threw up so many alternatives and were closed as no consensus. But more importantly, disambiguation and template scope are two entirely separate issues. the skomorokh 23:08, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no need for you to use CAPS. The fact remains that multiple article titles have both "Objectivism" and "Ayn Rand" in their article titles, and it has been this way for quite some time now, with no article/page-moves. That is precedent and consensus. Cirt (talk) 23:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I capitalise because you keep referring to a consensus you suppose instead of linking to, even though I ahve already shown you an absence of consensus. Both Talk:Objectivism (Ayn Rand) and Talk:Criticisms of Objectivism (Ayn Rand) show anything but consensus. The former discussion was closed as no consensus. And again, disambiguation and template scope are separate issues. the skomorokh 23:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

What you mean is there was no consensus to move the pages away from the current setup of Objectivism (Ayn Rand), and the result was that the page was left as is. That was the end result - no change from having both "Objectivism" and "Ayn Rand" prominently in the title. Cirt (talk) 23:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

In fact, even the earliest version of the article Objectivism (Ayn Rand) acknowledges that Objectivism (capitalized) is the name chosen by Ayn Rand for her philosophy. So Rand herself chose the name for the movement/philosophy, they are directly related. Cirt (talk) 23:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Why need I repeat myself? Yes Ayn Rand and Objectivism are related; Rand started Objectivism. The dog in the street knows this. It does not change the fact that they are separate topics. the skomorokh 23:08, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

If we both acknowledge Rand as the Founder, then they are related, certainly, and there should be a unified template for the movement/philosophy and its Founder and her writings which tie in to that movement/philosophy. Cirt (talk) 23:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Your conclusion does not follow logically from its premises. I mean, Neal Stephensons writings are influential (to a lesser extent) on anarcho-capitalism, but that is no reason to merge {{Anarcho-capitalism}} with {{NealStephensonBooks}}. the skomorokh 23:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not going t contiue this discussion right now because I don't think I am making myself understood and talking in circles is an inefficient use of my time. the skomorokh 23:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

In this case there is a much more direct relationship, I mean, she is the Founder of the movement. Cirt (talk) 23:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Boys in the Band?

Why is "The Boys In The Band" listed in the cultural depiction section? --Jfruh (talk) 02:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Excellent question... --Karbinski (talk) 03:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Removed. Cirt (talk) 03:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Cultural depictions

The "Cultural depictions" category in the template seems to attract listings of random allusions to Rand or her works. The current list omits some of the more trivial references that once appeared there, but still includes items that are not "depictions" of Rand in any meaningful sense. For example, the title song in 2112 tells a story that is similar in some ways to Anthem, and there is a dedication to Rand in the liner notes. That's a reference to her, sure, but hardly a "depiction" or a significant treatment of her or her work. Only Ayn Rand: A Sense of Life and The Passion of Ayn Rand really seem to belong in a template about Rand. I wonder if a change to the name of the category might help keep it on target. Something like "Biographical depictions" or "Works about". This would allow linking to articles about notable books or films that have Rand as a major subject, but hopefully wouldn't draw links to works that only allude to her fiction or mention her in passing. Thoughts? --RL0919 (talk) 22:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

For header name I like just "Depictions," but "Biographical depictions" works too. And yes, I'd agree that 2112 does not belong. --Karbinski (talk) 16:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Atlas Shrugged film

An editor added a link to Atlas Shrugged (film) in the "Biographical depictions" section of the template. Obviously a film of AS is not a biographical depiction of Rand in any way. And unlike the other films listed in the template, Rand did not write the screenplay, so I don't think it belongs in her bibliography. Perhaps there should be a new section for adaptations? --RL0919 (talk) 02:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Could just lump them in with the screenplays, though that would bend the rules of "bibliography". That said, the screenplays aren't listed in the bibliography article to begin with, so perhaps a re-evaluation is in order. Skomorokh 19:46, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, a bit of delay after the earlier conversation (7 months!), but I've added an adaptations section to the template. I included the film of The Fountainhead even though it is already on the template as one of Rand's screenplays. There are also films of We the Living and Night of January 16th and various other adaptations (graphic versions, etc.), but none of those have articles. --RL0919 (talk) 16:23, 18 March 2011 (UTC)