Wikipedia:WikiProject Objectivism/Cross talk

Proposal: Use C-Class to mean "target for merge or deletion"

There seem to be a great deal of articles about that we want to see merged or deleted. I would propose that we use C-Class to tag these articles. It will make it easier for us to keep track of them all. Thoughts? TallNapoleon (talk) 20:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

You mean paying attention to all those boxes on the talk pages? hmmmm - lol - seems like a bunch of work, and each deletion still gets discussed. How about creating a bullet list with links: adding to the list puts an article on the block, then we discuss only the ones that one or more editors defend, and those left on the block get cut a la speedy deletion as we can presume no controversy (I don't know what a reasonable amount of time would be, 3 weeks?). Just my thoughts. --Karbinski (talk) 20:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I guess we'd template the articles at the same time we add them to the list? --Karbinski (talk) 20:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, since we'd be templating at the same time, this basically just lets us auto-sort things, so less effort on our part, and then discussions can take place at individual articles' talk pages. BTW, is there anyway to include the cross-talk as part of the WikiProject header? TallNapoleon (talk) 21:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Not sure, I just added the project to the cross-talk header --Karbinski (talk) 21:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

What about existing C category articles? --Karbinski (talk) 21:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

If we decided to keep them, we'd recategorize them as "Start" or B-class. TallNapoleon (talk) 21:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I just did some playing around, and created the category: Category:Objectivism_Articles_Being_Considered_For_Deletion - how about using that? --Karbinski (talk) 21:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Just messing around, the C-category thing will be more conveniant, and is already built into the project page, I say yes to this proposal --Karbinski (talk) 21:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of this proposal, but if you must go ahead with it, please use NA instead of C – it's equally trackable but won't disrupt the projects assessment ratings as much.  Skomorokh  17:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Gulching nominated for deletion

The discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gulching. KD Tries Again (talk) 16:20, 16 May 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Journal of Ayn Rand Studies

The "Controversy" section to this article appears to be some gossip from an unreliable source. In addition, it involves the writings of one Andrew Bernstein whose work (for the moment) appears to lack any verifiable notability. That aside, the source used to document the gossip should probably be removed from the article unless a colleague here or on the noticeboard can confirm its importance as a reliable source. Thoughts? J Readings (talk) 02:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Some scattered comments:

Notability is not a requirement for inclusion within articles; relevance is. Bernstein is not so small a fish in the Objectivist pond that his association with the JARS – or lack thereof – would not merit mention. I'm culpable for writing the meat of the article as a stub, thus giving the "controversy" the appearance of undue weight, but that can be rectified through expansion. Until then, reverting to a version like this would ameliorate the coat-racking concerns.

As far as scholars go, Stephan Kinsella is published in the right places, though mostly with respect to law (in which field he is an academic). LewRockwell.com is an established forum for libertarian editorials. I'm not committed either way on the reliability of the source, but it's not an obvious candidate for removal.

Shoring up this article would be a great stride in the ongoing cleanup of the Objectivism articles. Just as it's important to purge Wikipedia of unreliable blogs, walled gardens and Valliants, so too is presenting the most professional representation of encyclopedic Objectivist topics.

 Skomorokh  02:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Its seems what is to be reported is that Objectivists don't contribute to the journal, not because JARS excludes them, but by their own choice. The Bernstein thing is an illustration of the point. I think the first problem here is that its not a controversy qua JARS, or even a personal controversy for Bernstein, it is simply an event indicative of JARS standing amongst contemporary Objectivist professionals. The second problem is that the content is trying to imply "Objectivists don't contribute to the journal, not because JARS excludes them, but by their own choice" instead of being explicit. This may because no secondary sources discuss JARS in this context. --Karbinski (talk) 16:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Personal Information

At this point a great deal of personal information about Mr. Valliant has been revealed on this talk page and others. I think oversight would be in order. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? We should probably move fast, before this gets backed up by bots and spread to all corners of the internet. TallNapoleon (talk) 21:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I was hesitant to go that route unilaterally, but you are probably right - especially as the editor responsible has twice said that Mr Valliant disapproves of what's happening. It seems unlikely that the trickle of information will cease of its own accord.KD Tries Again (talk) 21:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

This is all getting really weird, and honestly, this is why our god-king created admins. I say we notify ANI, bring them in here, and have them clean it out with whatever oversight, etc. is required. TallNapoleon (talk) 21:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I removed a significant block of personal information about him previously, but there are still little bits here and there. Since he has apparently made a public posting elsewhere about the one pertinent fact (his publishing arrangements with Durban House), I don't see any relevance to any personal information that might remain here. It should go. --RL0919 (talk) 21:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any personal information here that represents a violation of WP:OUTING. Pelagius1 made one slightly-too-frank comment that didn't seem very significant, and RL0919 went ahead and removed it. This is not in the same category as revealing someone else's street address or phone number, or making an embarrassing revelation about their personal life. It seems likely that per WP:MEAT Pelagius1 and Valliant would count as one editor for Wikipedia purposes anyway. The sharing of each of the two accounts (IP 160 and Pelagius1) between two people is more troubling, but may not need any immediate action. If Valliant wants the Pelagius1 comment to be oversighted, he can write to oversight-l@lists.wikimedia.org. EdJohnston (talk) 04:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Objectivist_movement#Accusations_of_cultism

So when Pelagius brought up Walker, I decided to take a look at the "Accusations of cultism" section in that article. It's a mess. Breaking it up by the individual authors making the charge is really clumsy and leads, in my opinion, to problems with weight. Plus, we again have the separate "response" section. It would be much, much better if all of this could be integrated into a single section, with Rothbard leading, others following, and criticism integrated. TallNapoleon (talk) 08:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense. I never wrote the section, but it does appear to be choppy. Also, I have to say, I just started looking at some of these citations and -- My God people -- once again the reader is treated to a host of self-published sources, partisan self-published blogs, unspecified archives to I-don't-know-where and everything under the sun expect what should be there: academic journals, newspapers, and books. I can't believe (and I know I'm not) the only editor who has access on Wikipedia to a public library or electronic databases. J Readings (talk) 09:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I really dislike choppy, and yes, reliable sources all around! --Karbinski (talk) 13:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Taking a quick look at the sources, I think there are more "reliable" (within Wikipedia standards, not saying that I agree with them) sources than it might seem at first. A number of the web links are to materials that were published and simply happen to be available online now. Others can be fixed by updating the source to something more direct (e.g., quoting a book directly rather than quoting it "as cited by" a website). I'll see what I can do with them later this evening. As to rewriting the text for better flow, that's probably beyond my available time at the moment. --RL0919 (talk) 19:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I tried to edit one and I keep getting a database error. So I guess I'll try again tomorrow. --RL0919 (talk) 04:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks like the db error is gone, so I'm starting to update the citations. The first update involved deleting a link to my own website! --RL0919 (talk) 13:13, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, I know I said before that I probably wouldn't have time to rewrite the section, but I gave it a try anyway. The subheads for each critic are gone, the citations are streamlined (before the same site often appeared two times in a row, even within the same sentence), and I generally tried to make the writing better. I also neutralized a POV remark about Scientology being a cult. I'm sure further improvements can be made, but I hope this is a good first pass. --RL0919 (talk) 14:57, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Archiving

Is there some way we can get Miszabot to archive this, even though it's not a talk page? TallNapoleon (talk) 00:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

You would have to ask Misza. If not, it would not be too much of a chore to do manually. I think sections can be archived two weeks after they have been <noinclude>d. Skomorokh  03:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that bot archiving would be desirable. At present it won't work because all the sections on this page use headers with the triple equal sign, i.e. ===This style of header=== instead of what MiszaBot expects, which is ==This kind==. Do you think people would agree to change the header style? Would the template still work right? EdJohnston (talk) 04:36, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

My goal was that each host talk page would have a Article Cross Talk section with sub-headers. But I think this is generally accomplished by making the Article Cross Talk header of style '='. At any rate I agree with Skomorokh that archiving this will be/is a trivial chore. --Karbinski (talk) 13:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Center for the Advancement of Capitalism

I have proposed this article for deletion due to notability concerns. If you think it can be rescued, please add references and remove the {{prod}} tag; alternatively, {{prod2}} can be used to endorse the proposal.  Skomorokh  03:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I've got nothing against the Center, but I seriously doubt it has sufficient notability to warrant an article. The only mainstream press coverage I could find was when they filed a friend of the court brief in the Microsoft antitrust case, and that was years ago. --RL0919 (talk) 23:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Yet one more dead plant in this little walled garden. To the compost heap with it. TallNapoleon (talk) 23:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The WP:PROD notice expired and it was deleted by an admin today. I removed it from the Objectivist movement template and de-wikilinked it in all remaining main-space articles. Links to the deleted page now exist only in Talk, User, etc. pages. --RL0919 (talk) 00:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Valliant: Attempt at a Summary

I know Karbinski asked for a vote above. I'd like to see if I can narrow the terms of the vote a little more specifically. Here is where I think we are:

• A number of editors (with different perspectives on Objectivism) expressed reservations about the numerous citations to "PARC" across several Rand-related articles; by consensus, the citations were removed (NOT, please note, all references to "PARC" which rightly remains listed in Bibliography of work on Objectivism). The removals were (in part?) reverted and the initial consensus challenged.
• My own opinion is that this week's discussion has provided no reason to overturn the initial consensus. Indiscriminate citation of "PARC" remains problematic for the following reasons:
  • 1. Not a Reliable Source per WP policy (nothing to do with whether it's accurate or not, still less whether works it criticizes are reliable or not). Any editors still in doubt should check the policy. "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors...The scholarly acceptance of a source can be verified by confirming that the source has entered mainstream academic discourse...Reliable non-academic sources may also be used, particularly material from reputable mainstream publications..." I acknowledge that there can be a problem with a topic like Objectivism, which is generally not part of mainstream academic discourse, but we nevertheless have plenty of acceptable references in the Rand articles.
  • 1.(a) And this is huge problem where "PARC" is making claims about living persons.
  • 2. Probably Fringe, i.e. under "novel re-interpretations of history" (this still doesn't mean it's wrong), and not even notable fringe, i.e. has "been referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory."
  • 3. A product of a publisher widely reported as a vanity/subsidy press (whether or not exclusively). I agree that this is circumstantial; the author - who reads and comments on these Talk Pages but will not participate see here- has stated otherwise (same reference). For some editors that is probably an end of the matter, but it brings me to the elephant in the room.
  • 4. Almost certainly a Conflict of Interest is reflected in the extent of citation before the cites were removed. It is undisputed that IP User 72.199.110.160 was the editor primarily responsible for these multiple citations. Per Wikipedia's Duck Test (as an Administrator pointed out to me) it is beyond serious doubt that the 72.199.110.160 is closely associated with the author of the book/his friends/his house/his computer.

I appreciate Karbinski's "use with caution" option above, but I am concerned that one editor's caution will be another editor's license-to-promote. And so here's my specific proposal:

The citations to "PARC" in Rand/Objectivism-related articles should remain deleted, per the initial consensus. If an editor can identify a specific location in an article where a citation to "PARC" (or a citation to Rand quoted in "PARC" - bearing in mind the care required with using Primary Sources), the editor should first make the case either here on the relevant Talk Page, and achieve consensus before inserting the citation. Agree, disagree, comment, whatever...KD Tries Again (talk) 17:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Disagree strongly Let's take things one at a time. Item #1 says that PARC isn't a reliable source. It's a published book sold in major bookstores. The author was granted access to Ms. Rand's journals by ARI, which is a major Objectivist institution. KD Tries Again acknowledges somewhat dismissively the fact that Objectivism is rarely covered by the mainstream media and academia. Since the subject here is Objectivism, what constitutes a reliable source must be seen in the context of Objectivism. Therefore, if the book has been discussed by Objectivist sources which are considered mainstream in an Objectivist context, the book must be considered a reliable source. It is only by dropping context entirely that PARC can be considered other than a reliable source.

I've discussed my issues with Item #2. It is not a "novel reinterpretation of history". The sole accounts with which it disagrees are those presented in two books, each one written by another involved party. While the books written by Nathaniel and Barbara Branden have been discussed in scholarship, and Barbara's book was even made into a movie, no one has produced a single scholarly source which examines the claims made by the Branden and concludes that they are accurate. Said claims were merely assumed to be true in the absence of any rebuttal. With no scholarly weight behind the claims of the Brandens, those claims cannot be considered the standard interpretation of history against which all others must be compared. A matter of two decades does not suffice to turn unsupported claims into "the mainstream view".

Point #3 is contentless. Rumors of vanity publishing by the publisher of PARC are just that. Rumors. Until and unless they are substantiated, they simply don't enter into the discussion. And point #4 says that neither Valliant nor his roommate (?) should be modifying the content to include Valliant's book. I'll stipulate that, but in terms of whether the content belongs here, it's a bit of an ad hominem argument. I've never met the author. I found the book very difficult to get through. No offense, if Mr. Valliant is reading this, but I found myself skimming. Maybe I'm just not cut out for reading legal briefs or books written in that style. But I still think the content belongs here. So being that there's no COI in my case, I don't see how #4 relates to the question of the content itself.

So here's my counter-proposal. PARC should be used as a source on an equal par with The Passion of Ayn Rand and Judgement Day. Neither Valliant nor his roommate should be allowed to insert or modify references to this book, per COI. Claims of vanity publishing should cease pending hard evidence (which does not include rumors). -Lisa (talk) 21:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the scope of PARC is narrow and consequently that proper usage of it as a source will be exceedingly rare. I think there is no concensus here that it fails WP:RS, but that the policy informs us to proceed with caution if using it. To go off-topic, let the trimming effort cut deep - all the point & counter-point tripe is an indication of too much detail for what is supposed to be a summary. --Karbinski (talk) 22:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I agree with Karbinski. Briefly, Lisa, Objectivism doesn't provide the context for mainstream reliability, Wikipedia policy does. Wikipedia policy precisely overlooks the context you propose. The Branden books just are acceptable sources per Wikipedia policy (it's the easiest thing in the world to find hundreds of citations of The Passion of Ayn Rand in the secondary literature) - I haven't a dog in the race as to their truth (remember, Wikipedia's threshhold is verifiability, not truth). In any case, whether PARC is a reliable source can't be inferred from whether or not someone else's book is a reliable source. I think that responds to everything (I don't rely on the subsidy publishing point), but more importantly - which specific claim in which article do you want to use PARC to support? Where must it be used in order to improve Wikipedia? I am agreeing with Karbinski that the need to use it is rare.KD Tries Again (talk) 22:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

I also agree that appropriate use of PARC will be rare. If there is a specific situation where it is a crucial source for something that properly belongs in a Wikipedia article (not original research, POV or excessive detail), then it should be used and appropriate explanation provided. And of course the author and his close associates should not be the ones placing citations to it. --RL0919 (talk) 00:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Lisa, Nathaniel and Barbara Branden knew Rand. In addition, Barbara Branden interviewed over 200 people for her biography. Valliant didn't know Rand and didn't interview anyone, so far as I can tell. No one is saying the Brandens' books are the last word on the split, but Valliant's book is not a source on their level, with the exception of the diaries. Incidentally, the current issue of the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies has an essay by Rand scholar Robert Campbell (The Peikovian Doctrine of the Arbitrary Assertion) which discusses Valliant's book and the discussion is quite negative. This is the only print discussion of the book that I'm aware of (with the exception of the Kirkus review, which I haven't seen).--Neil Parille (talk) 14:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Neil, Rand knew Rand even better than the Brandens did. She also knew the Brandens. Furthermore, some of the editors here have not been trying to ban the book "with the exception of the diaries". They've been trying to ban it in toto, including the journal entries. -Lisa (talk) 18:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Lisa, this is not about banning the book. It is quite properly cited in the Objectivism bibliography. It is a discussion about where it can be used to support claims in articles in accordance with WP policy. It would be helpful if you could either (a) explain to me or other editors where we are wrong about WP policy, and (b) what passage in which article you specifically want to use PARC to support. As for Rand knowing Rand, please see policy on using primary sources. I think you are the only editor (without a potential COI) holding out against the consensus, so I think the burden falls on you either to tell us exactly where the rest of us are wrong, or let us move on.KD Tries Again (talk) 15:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

May I ask for that "summary"? Per consensus, may the Valliant book be cited or used at Wikipedia outside of the Bibliography? Pelagius1 (talk) 6 June, 2009

This is the letter sent to Mr. Wales from Ayn Rand heir, Leonard Peikoff, PhD, on May 29, 2009 (posted with his permission here):

"Dear Mr. Wales,

"I learned recently to my astonishment that while books by Nathaniel and Barbara Branden, attacking Ayn Rand and her personal life, enjoy the status of reputable references in Wikipedia, a book disputing their claims and presenting the opposite viewpoint has been removed from your list as non-reputable. I refer to The Passion of Ayn Rand’s Critics by James Valliant published in May 2005. On its face, this is a policy of egregious injustice on your part.

"As Ayn Rand’s executor, heir, and longtime personal friend, I will testify in any forum to the accuracy of Mr. Valliant’s book. I do not pretend to know every detail of the clash between Rand and the Brandens, but I do know firsthand the essential truth of the Valliant book. I leave aside here my own personal observations and discussions on this issue with Rand, because the book itself contains lengthy excerpts from her own personal notes, which completely bear out Valliant’s thesis in her own words. I released these notes only after a 20 year wait, because in Valliant I found at last a writer who would give her personal viewpoint a rational hearing, neither hostile nor worshipful.

"My understanding, which may not be correct, is that one of the instigators of your new policy is Barbara Branden, one of the two persons identified in the Valliant book, with substantial corroborating evidence, as hostile to Ayn Rand. Surely such an individual and her claque have a transparent motive to kill this book. Can you justify removing one side of this dispute, the one endorsed by someone with my credentials? Do you describe as 'reputable' only enemies of Ayn Rand?

"There are those in the academic world who question the objectivity of Wikipedia. I hope that your action on this matter will prove that they are wrong.

"Sincerely yours,

"Leonard Peikoff

"Executor, Estate of Ayn Rand" Pelagius1 (talk) 6 June, 2009

Incidentally, the Wikipedia biography of Peikoff currently reads: "Kelley has worked with the libertarian movement in the United States and other groups with which Peikoff refused to associate. Nathaniel Branden, whom Rand herself had publicly repudiated, later joined with David Kelley and The Objectivist Center. This resulted in a number of members ending their own association with Kelley's group.[citation needed]" The needed citation, of course, are the numerous statements of scholars and writers influenced by 'The Passion of Ayn Rand;'s Critics.' This is bizarre, as most did not leave until they read Valliant's book. Have you decided to omit history as well? Pelagius1 (talk) 6 June, 2009

Valliant's eyewitness testimony re Rothbard, the actual Rand notes themselves, his arguments -- whatever the positive Kirkus Review said about it the book -- the impact of the book on scholars within the movement, are all censored, while the factually dubious works of Walker, Shermer, Rothbard, Ellis, and the Brandens are not? Pelagius1 (talk) 6 June, 2009

<outdent>Pelagius1, you've brought up a bunch of issues, so pardon the somewhat lengthy reply. First, regarding consensus, I'm not sure that there is one. There is some unresolved tension between the "use with caution" and "don't use at all" perspectives. "Use freely" seems to be a distant third. Not every dispute is resolved on the first (or second or third) pass, and this is probably such a case. There does seem to be a general willingness to consider the use of PARC as a source in a specific case if arguments are brought forward as to why it is the best source to use in that particular instance. No one has taken the initiative to offer such a specific case yet. If you want to do so, I'd suggest picking the absolute strongest case you can find based on Wikipedia sourcing standards.

Regarding that, I think it needs to be said again that the standards for using a source in Wikipedia are not focused on whether the source is factually accurate. Most editors simply are not in a position to evaluate the specific factual claims made in all of the sources that may be used in even one article. Instead, editors look at more general guidelines for considering a source reliable or not. For example, Barbara Branden's biography of Rand has the necessary indicators (e.g., major commercial publisher, positive reviews, widespread use as a source in academic literature). I think Shermer, Rothbard, Ellis and Nathaniel Branden are more dubious for use in support of claims of biographical fact, but they are mostly cited about their own criticisms of Objectivism. Since these individuals are notable and their criticisms have been widely repeated, that seems an appropriate use. Neither Barbara Branden nor these four are relevantly similar to Valliant.

Walker is the closest parallel to Valliant. Walker's book is similar to Valliant's in a number of ways: Both have been trashed as unreliable by reviewers. Both have strongly tendentious approaches to their subjects. But both also give voice to opinions that are held by "better" experts, but which those experts do not care to express in their own writings. For Walker, these are academics who disdain Rand and do not wish to dignify her with discussion; for Valliant, these are prominent Objectivists (Peikoff, Gotthelf, etc.) who detest the Brandens and prefer not to even mention them in their works. Walker's book is treated pretty much as I think Valliant's should be treated: it is used sparingly, when it attests things widely believed but not often mentioned in reliable sources. IMO, this is the appropriate use for a source like this.

Regarding the email from Peikoff, this is an example of what I just mentioned. If Peikoff endorses Valliant's book and the claims therein, he has many venues available to him where he could say this. He could publish a review. He could write an essay that includes the use of Valliant as a source. He could mention the book in a radio or tv interview. These would be verifiable references from a reliable source that could be used to bolster the book's status, both on Wikipedia and elsewhere. But that would effectively require him to mention the Brandens in public. So what we get instead is a second-hand posting about a private email. While I personally believe this is probably a legitimate email from Peikoff, it is not independently verifiable unless he confirms it directly in some more trustworthy venue. Which brings us back to the practice of not talking about the Brandens. To put it bluntly, the major-league Objectivists need to either crap or get off the pot on this subject. If they support Valliant's view of the Brandens, they should say so in reputable public venues: reviews in third-party magazines, citations in academic articles, etc. That is what will gain the book status as a reliable source. Private emails aren't going to do the trick. --RL0919 (talk) 17:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Far more shocking is the silence of all those (still) associated with David Kelley's group -- since Kelley had overtly called for such a debate about B. Branden's work in his initial attack on ARI. Here, a detailed reply, complete with Rand's own notes is published, and they stand silent after trumpeting the alleged silence of their opponents(!) Of course, this excludes those scholars who left association with TAS ~ because ~ of PARC.

Walker? He spread total nonsense. There is no reason to treat PARC differently from the Brandens' works. Pelagius1 (talk) 6 June, 2009.

Objectivist theory of value

This article survived an AFD a couple of years ago, but as it appears that we are working on merging and eliminating these extraneous articles, I think we should consider doing a merge/redirect. TallNapoleon (talk) 09:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

25 citations. 80% citing Ayn Rand directly; 20% repeatedly citing only two independent third-party sources, one of which (Libertarian Alliance) being a think tank. This is another article that needs better sources or it needs to merge with something else, I believe. J Readings (talk) 11:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree.KD Tries Again (talk) 15:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Anyone want to take a stab at this, or should we triage it and deal with it later? Unlike many of the things from the house of horrors, this appears to have some valuable content, so just blanking and redirecting probably isn't a good idea. TallNapoleon (talk) 22:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Ayn Rand backlinks

If we are trying to find and eliminate inappropriate or gratuitous references to Rand, this should prove useful. As soon as my arbcomm amendment is finalized, I'm going to start sorting through these and looking to see if the Rand references are appropriate or not. We may wish to do this with other Objectivism related articles as well. TallNapoleon (talk) 19:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

One that I found is Problem_of_induction#Ayn_Rand.27s_Objectivism. This section takes up more space than any of the other philosophers discussed--a clear violation of WP:UNDUE. TallNapoleon (talk) 21:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

It also had wikilinks in the section header, which is deprecated. I did a quick fix of that. I'll leave it to someone else to reduce the section to something proportional. (It also completely lacks citations. <sigh>) --RL0919 (talk) 22:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh my, more than Hume and Popper. I'll take a closer look. Done: her claim is pretty clear - it's consistent with her position that empirical truths are ultimately analytic, if only we knew every property of every object. I've tried to express it concisely.KD Tries Again (talk) 14:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Bibliography revisited

There was a discussion here about the Bibliography for Ayn Rand and Objectivism (formerly named "Bibliography of work on Objectivism") last month, but it's been archived, so I guess I'll start a new section. I've spent a fair amount of time of the last week editing the article, and I think many of the issues raised before have been addressed. Assuming that the bibliography article is in good shape, I'd like to discuss how it relates to the bibliographical material in other Objectivism-related articles.

• Objectivist movement has a descriptive bibliography section that is very similar to what the separate bibliography article used to contain, with all the same problems of POV and original research. My take is that this material should mostly be cut in favor of linking to the bibliography article. Some of the narrative about wider influence might belong, but the long lists of works are redundant. Cutting this section would have the side benefit of shrinking this long article by about 20K. Update 2009-05-29: Cut everything except the material about wider influence, which discusses different works than those in the bibliography article.
• Ayn Rand has a further reading section that is, fortunately, just a list of works for further reading. But again it is redundant to the bibliography article, which now has a distinct subsection for biography and literary analysis that contains most of the same works. Update 2009-05-29: Further reading list has been shortened to just introductory surveys and a few prominent longer books.
• Objectivism (Ayn Rand) has a section on monographs and essays that is just a paragraph-formatted list of books. Again, totally redundant. Update 2009-05-29: Section retitled and rewritten.

What all three articles lack, however, is a "Works cited" section. My thinking is that the works actually cited in the article should be listed, but all the "further reading," "monographs," etc. should be cut in favor of linking to the more comprehensive bibliography article. These are contentious articles and I'm relatively cautious about making major changes, so I'm putting notice here before I take the axe to any of these sections. But if no one objects, that is what I intend to do. --RL0919 (talk) 18:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm thinking "Works cited" isn't required on account of the "Notes" sections, yes? --Karbinski (talk) 18:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Depends on how the citations are handled. If the full bibliographical information is contained within "Notes", then in theory you don't need "Works cited". But if the same sources are used repeatedly, it is more compact to just refer to them by name/year (plus page number if applicable) in "Notes" and put the extended information in "Works cited." The references for these articles are a bit of a mess, but there is a great deal of repeat citing of the same books (B. Branden, Britting, Rand's letters and journals). So using abbreviated references might make sense. But that is somewhat secondary for me. My initial goal is to eliminate the redundant bibliography lists. Fixing up the references would be a whole other project. --RL0919 (talk) 18:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks like you did a good job, and thanks also for changing the title to something easier to find. I agree with your comments on the bibiography in Objectivist Movement - a link would surely be enough, and agree likewise on Objectivism. I am comfortable with having a simple list of works at Ayn Rand for readers who just want to get quick info about her - a short list of her books, anyway - but agree further reading could be replaced by a link.KD Tries Again (talk) 18:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

A Selected bibliography simply linking the major works with year of publication is an option; see William_Gibson#Selected_bibliography for an example.  Skomorokh  04:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank Karbinski for the rename, which I agree was an improvement. --RL0919 (talk) 18:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to go through the books listed there that are bluelinks and prod the ones that don't belong. TallNapoleon (talk) 03:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Just stopping by to say that the bibliography article is looking great, and that guidelines governing "works" sections in articles are available at WP:LAYOUT.  Skomorokh  04:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

Jeff Britting

Dubious notability on this--his only claim to fame appears to be the soundtrack to Ayn Rand: A Sense of Life, which was nominated for an academy award. Perhaps redirect to that film, and mention that there, while including his book in the bibliography? TallNapoleon (talk) 03:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The references include several links to mainstream news coverage. Perhaps this one should be stubbed first to see if someone can make a reasonable article out of the source material. --RL0919 (talk) 04:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The links at the end of the article establish notability per WP:GNG; it would be a solid keep at AfD. That said, again, there is such little content that a merge elsewhere might not be a bad idea.  Skomorokh  05:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, looking at those links he definitely shouldn't be deleted, and probably shouldn't be merged, as he has notability for two things, his book and his music. Speaking of music, Ayn Rand: A Sense of Life is an awfully short article for a film nominated for an Academy Award. I'm gonna bump its importance up a notch, and maybe see if I can get some folks from one of the film projects to help with it. TallNapoleon (talk) 05:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Someone's noticed] the complaints about A Sense of Life :)  Skomorokh  22:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I posted a request at Wikiproject Film and they knocked it out of the park :) TallNapoleon (talk) 23:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The Foreign Policy of Self-Interest: A Moral Ideal for America

No evidence this book is notable enough to get its own article. Could easily be merged or redirected to Schwartz if we decide to keep him; otherwise, would people oppose prodding it? TallNapoleon (talk) 03:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Not notable. I don't even see a need for a redirect. Just prod it. --RL0919 (talk) 04:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Redirects are cheap, and it's a plausible search term.  Skomorokh  05:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Final outcome: Article Redirected to Peter Schwartz (writer)

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)

The Objectivist Forum

I have prodded this as well, as it also appears nonnotable. However, it could also be redirected/merged with the bibliography. TallNapoleon (talk) 03:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Four sentences is barely a section, much less an article. I just put additional publishing details in the bibliography article. The sentence about Rand helping to found it is appropriate for the Ayn Rand article. I don't really see a need to redirect unless there is a concern that it will get repeatedly re-created. If there is a redirect, it should probably be to this section. --RL0919 (talk) 04:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the benefit in deletion. I'd rather see the Objectivist periodicals covered in a combined article; they are very relevant to the history of the movement, and the content should not be difficult to verify.  Skomorokh  05:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I would say the best place to do that would be in the bibliography. List the periodicals Rand was involved in with chronology and explain how much the newsletters helped sustain the movement and how important they were. TallNapoleon (talk) 05:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The suggestion was made previously to merge the articles for The Objectivist Newsletter and The Objectivist, which I support. I've been working on The Ayn Rand Letter article recently, and most of the same sources could be used to support a fully merged "Objectivist periodicals" article. So it is plausible to redirect them all into one. The Objective Standard could also be pulled into this. So could The Intellectual Activist, which currently redirects to Peter Schwartz (writer), a redirect that I frankly think is inappropriate given that Schwartz sold the magazine almost 20 years ago. So overall a combined article seems like a good idea to me. However, I do not think the bibliography article is the place to do that. A bibliography should be just that, not a more detailed history of the magazines. --RL0919 (talk) 05:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I concur in full.  Skomorokh  05:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. What should we call it? TallNapoleon (talk) 06:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

"Objectivist periodicals" seems reasonable to me, but I'm open to suggestions. --RL0919 (talk) 06:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Objectivist periodicals Who wants the honor? --Karbinski (talk) 14:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Lower-case 'p' (fixed above). I may be able to work on it later today, but if someone else has time sooner, that's fine too. --RL0919 (talk) 15:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Prod tag removed by me. If there is a merge then it will redirect, and if the merger idea crashes then we can discuss whether this article should be deleted when the dust settles. --RL0919 (talk) 17:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I created the Objectivist periodicals article. I created an outline for it, gave it a lead, and then copied in the content from the separate articles. Where there was no separate article, I put in some extremely basic starter text. I copied the Works Cited from The Ayn Rand Letter (the only article from the group that had any) and added preliminary See Also and External Links sections. It still needs considerable cleanup and expansion, but it at least looks something like what a combined article would. Please take a look. If this seems like the direction we want to go, then merge tags should be added to all the relevant articles. Or if folks think this looks like a bad approach, then we should discuss options. --RL0919 (talk) 17:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

No strong object, but I wonder if it wouldn't be better (and the information more easily found) as a section in the Objectivist Movement article?KD Tries Again (talk) 15:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

The movement article is already over 50K. A fork article on a well-defined, non-tendentious topic that has notability and reliable sources is a good way to control the length of the article. --RL0919 (talk) 16:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I have placed merger tags on the articles for The Objectivist Newsletter, The Objectivist, The Ayn Rand Letter and The Objectivist Forum, proposing that they be merged into Objectivist periodicals. Please visit the Talk:Objectivist periodicals page to register your support of or concerns about this proposal. --RL0919 (talk) 03:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Reason's harvest

Prodded per WP:NFT. Dear God... TallNapoleon (talk) 06:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a speedy deletion would be more appropriate than prod. --RL0919 (talk) 06:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree with speedy --Karbinski (talk) 14:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

It does not meet any speedy deletion criterion.  Skomorokh  15:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Guess I should refresh myself on the criteria. Anyway, prod it is. I just seconded. --RL0919 (talk) 15:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Final outcome: Article deleted by an admin based on the expired prod, June 5, 2009. --RL0919 (talk) 19:15, 5 June 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. There are two such wikis on Objectivism that I am aware of, that of Wiki Index and Objectivism Online. The latter 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)

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)

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)

Lindsay Perigo

There's a lot of really dubious sourcing here, and given some of the extravagance of the claims that Readings tagged and I removed, I'm not sure how much I'd trust all of them. It's not clear that he's sufficiently notable. If we AFD him, though, I think we might well expect trouble from his corner of the Internet... TallNapoleon (talk) 06:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I've pretty much exhausted my list of source databases. I found one independent article comparing Lindsay Perigo to Rush Limbaugh. That was it, I'm afraid. Of course, there's also the Perigo biography by his own former company employer so I don't know if that really constitutes "independent". Further consultation might be a good idea. In any case, I don't know what to think about this article if multiple independent reliable sources are unavailable. If we leave it the way it is, it (at least) should be tagged for notability and have someone (perhaps one of his fans or followers) fix it. If none exist, we can come back to it. J Readings (talk) 08:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Check lindsayperigo.com, it's not independent but it strongly suggests notability. Is it possible your databases don't cover NZ too well? TallNapoleon (talk) 16:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

What in particular on lindsayperigo.com do you think strongly suggests notability? I remember getting involved late in the game with writing the biography of G. Edward Griffin who kept saying to his fans and followers that anything one ever needed would be found on his self-published website. So that's exactly what happened. Fans and followers wrote the entry based entirely on what Griffin supplied. It didn't help that there weren't any independent third-party sources for the claims being made about winning this or that award that no established editor apparently heard of, or making claims that independent third-parties didn't state. Because other editors couldn't confirm virtually any of the material in the article, another editor put it up for AfD and it was deleted by consensus.[1] As expected, Griffin's fans and followers flooded the AfD to vote keep without providing the third-party sources needed. Slp1, another editor and I managed to re-instate the article after deletion when we showed what the databases had to say. The closing admin agreed; the article was re-instated and only high-quality sources were used thereafter. The Griffin fans and followers were overjoyed, but they weren't helpful either. They naturally assumed that anyone questioning the article was out to get G. Edward Griffin. Hardly. J Readings (talk) 20:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of Slp1, I'm going to ask if she could do me a favor and cross-check my research results on Factiva and the other databases. Hopefully she still has access to them. I want to see if she and I can save this article somehow. J Readings (talk) 21:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The quote from Metro Magazine calling him the doyen of something or other was striking. I also saw a YouTube hit that appeared to back up that he was in fact well known in NZ. Neither of these are good sources of course (I couldn't corroborate the metro quote on google). They suggest notability, but don't prove it. TallNapoleon (talk) 21:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I also checked these places. No luck in independently verifying any of this stuff, assuming the magazine counts as reliable (it probably does). Apparently, there is a Metro magazine in Australia, one in New Zealand, and another in New York. I'll try the National Diet Library here in Tokyo, Japan. It's the Japanese equivalent of the US Library of Congress. J Readings (talk) 22:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a look Factiva, Lexis-Nexis etc soon, but it seems to me that there are plenty of (admittedly usually fairly brief) mentions of him on Googlenews and the NZ herald archive. calls him a "renowned right winger"[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12] and no doubt there are more. I think it's clear he is indeed notable. These sources, on a cursory look, seem to give a somewhat different spin than the current article, and I would certainly suggest a significant effort at appropriate rewriting based on the sources --Slp1 (talk) 22:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Also being quoted by prominent person; this bookthis one (all three University presses); and this one and various others.--Slp1 (talk) 22:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Excellent! Thank you, Slp1. It's much appreciated. I'll read these links and let's see what we can do about re-writing the article. J Readings (talk) 22:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, we already knew about the Perigo! biography. J Readings (talk) 22:50, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. I've taken a quick look at Factiva, and my version seems to include NZ papers; here's a very useful looking one "FUMING PERIGO CALLS PRIME MINISTER A WOWSER" from the Sunday Star Times, 22 June 2008 about him and his career more. I could download it and send it to anybody who was interested, if it isn't in some online archive somewhere. There are others too--Slp1 (talk) 23:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

No. I don't have that one (can you please send it to me?). I've got the Rush Limbaugh article that discusses Perigo's controversial atheist right-wing opinions in comparison with Limbaugh's pro-religion conservative views, but that was the only one that specifically focused on Perigo rather than articles written *by* Perigo (which don't count for establishing notability) or brief mentions of Perigo in throw-away contexts (that weren't exclusively about the subject). If there is another independent third-party article in a reliable source that focuses exclusively on Perigo, I'm basically satisfied with the notability requirements. Now, it's just a question of re-writing the article to reflect what the independent sources actually say. Thanks, J Readings (talk) 23:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Dagny Taggart, John Galt, and Gail Wynand

As near as I can tell, these are the only ones of Rand's characters to have their own articles devoted to them. Howard Roark, for instance, does not. I would be strongly in favor of merging Dagny Taggart and Gail Wynand into their respective parent articles, List of characters in Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead (there is no List of characters in The Fountainhead). I would also lean towards doing this for John Galt, however as he has become an iconic figure in his own right there is a stronger case for keeping his article. TallNapoleon (talk) 05:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree on all counts.  Skomorokh  05:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree on all counts as well. --RL0919 (talk) 06:06, 1 June 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)

End of the little house of horrors

---

Yaron Brook

Somehow this wasn't listed here. He's one of the most publicly prominent Objectivists around, so I sorted him into mid-importance. That said the article may have some length issues. TallNapoleon (talk) 06:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

There may also be original research issues. Almost every reference note is one of his articles or video clips. --RL0919 (talk) 06:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I stumbled on this article weeks ago and had some of the same thoughts as TallNapoleon and RL0919. It would be nice if we limited ourselves to independent third-party sources when writing these articles. Makes life so much easier. Anyway, he's notable. J Readings (talk) 08:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Ayn Rand nonfiction

Rand published a number of nonfiction works, largely essay collections. Most of these have their own articles, even though they are nowhere close to being as notable as her fiction. Rather, they are more notable as a body of work, in totality. How would people feel about merging these articles together? TallNapoleon (talk) 05:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

In principle this is problematic, as I would argue that more than one of them is notable in its own right (that is to say, could have a good-length reliably sourced article written on them). As things stand, however, once the table-of-contents-esque and unsourced analysis is cut from them, each makes up a nice 1k to 5k paragraph that is very amenable to merging. If at any point someone decided to give one of the books the article it deserved, it could still be included in the merged article in summary style. Note: for ease of access, the articles in question are those in ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Books by Ayn Rand.  Skomorokh  05:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm uncertain about this. I agree that the current articles are weak and could be merged, but I'm also comfortable that at least four of the books (FNI, VOS, RM and ITOE), maybe more, are notable in their own right. The least notable are The Voice of Reason and The Ayn Rand Column. I suspect that Rand's Letters and Journals, which do not have articles, have a better claim to notability than those two. --RL0919 (talk) 06:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

How about we merge the lot, leaving redirects behind, and then decide which redirects will get fleshed out into their own articles? TallNapoleon (talk) 07:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

With the re-directs a merge should work fine for the current content. --Karbinski (talk) 12:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Making articles work together

I'd like to discuss the best way to work out some of the overlaps among what I would consider the three main articles: Ayn Rand, Objectivism (Ayn Rand), and Objectivist movement. Currently they each have sections discussing academic reaction/criticism. In Ayn Rand there's a subsection on "Rand's work and academic philosophy." This is a subsection of the "Legacy" section, but the longest paragraph is about an article that appeared during her lifetime. There is also a "Literary reception" section that discusses critical reaction to her fiction. In Objectivist movement, there is a section on "Objectivism in academia." In Objectivism (Ayn Rand) there is a section on "Intellectual impact," which refers to Objectivist movement as it's main article, but the content of the section is a series of specifics rather than a summary of the supposed main article. The Objectivism (Ayn Rand) article also has a "Criticisms" that is surprisingly tiny considering that criticisms are not distributed into the main discussion of the philosophy (which would be the preferable approach). My suggestions would be as follows:

• Since Ayn Rand is supposed to be about the person, not just her philosophy, then the reactions to both her fiction and non-fiction should be discussed. So "Literary reception" should become just plain "Reception" or "Critical reception," discussing the reaction to Rand during her lifetime from both academic and non-academic sources, literary and philosophical. The "Legacy" section should have a "Rand's work and academic scholarship" section, which discusses the subsequent (after Rand's death) developments in academic discussion of Rand, again considering both philosophical and literary discussions. Because there is a separate article on Objectivism, the details of philosophical criticism and defense should not be in this article.
• Objectivism (Ayn Rand) should have the relevant criticisms of the philosophical ideas (not of Rand's personality or the behavior of her followers) integrated into the discussion of her ideas, eliminating the separate "Criticism" section. The "Intellectual impact" section should continue to direct the reader to Objectivist movement as the main article, but be rewritten as a summary of that article.
• Objectivist movement should continue to discuss the historical progress (or lack of progress, as the case may be) in bringing discussion of Objectivism into academic venues. Any detailed points from the "Intellectual impact" section of Objectivism (Ayn Rand) that aren't already there should be brought over.

Agreements, objections, alternative suggestions, etc., are requested. --RL0919 (talk) 14:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Why do you prefer integrating criticisms into the individual branches of philosophy? Can you give an example? --Karbinski (talk) 15:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with almost all of your suggested changes. The one thing I'm in opposition to is the elimination of the "Criticism" section. I think the present structure is a much clearer and more logical presentation of the philosophy. Interspersing critical arguments throughout the explanation of Objectivism's positions would only convolute the article.Brandonk2009 (talk) 17:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

An example of explanation and criticism being documented in together is in the Philosophy section of the Ayn Rand article. But upon reflection, I think that only works in a shorter section such as that one. In the more detailed Objectivism (Ayn Rand) article, it would make the sections too unwieldy. So I withdraw that particular suggestion. --RL0919 (talk) 14:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Citation Guidelines

Being relatively new to WP:A=A, I want to ask if there are any particular citation guidelines to follow throughout the articles. Is there a particular format or method of citation editors are following? Brandonk2009 (talk) 19:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

There's WP:CITE, but it allows for a variety of different citation formats. Personally, I've recently started using the template for "Harvard citations without brackets" to create compact citations where a work is used repeatedly. (The full citation has to be in the Works Cited list, so it only really saves space if the citation is used more than once.) If a source is only used once, I use one of the citation templates, such as "cite book," "cite journal," or "cite web" for full inline citation and don't bother to put it in the Works Cited list. But that's just what I do personally (and even then only recently), not a standard. And there are a lot of citations that were added over the years by various people, so consistency would require reformatting a lot of existing material. --RL0919 (talk) 19:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Periodical Merges

Looks like we are ready to blank-out and re-direct? --Karbinski (talk) 14:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)