Talk:Objectivism (Ayn Rand)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Objectivism (Ayn Rand) was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
December 3, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed


The way you've described it, if accurate, "Objectivism" is nothing more than Locke and Smith, in which case it's hardly been ignored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:41, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't understand what your comment means. Who are you addressing? The article is the work of multiple editors. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:56, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Add Citation[edit]

The following article should be added (minimally) as a reference to this page. It should probably be mentioned and/or linked in the body of the text as well. It details, quite clearly, some of the reasons for which philosophers consider Rand to be an intellectual hack. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:32, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I looked through that article, and it by no means represents a reasoned consensus among philosophers. Not only is it based on one man's personal perspective, but many of the statements in it are refutable. The Wikipedia should not be a vehicle for argumentation. The article already contains enough "opposing view" verbiage. — DAGwyn (talk) 12:05, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Regardless of its content, this is an essay originally posted to a discussion group when he was a student, now reposted on a personal website. We should be using published reliable sources, such as academic articles, for critical perspectives. --RL0919 (talk) 16:03, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Not Russian but Jewish of Russian descent American-based philosopher = Russian Jewish[edit]

The neglect to national charcter is not something one might consider as a "neutral" point of view. See the biographical article: <> — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:07, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Not sure what you're getting at. What are we missing? AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 20:32, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Famous and influential objectivists[edit]

Could we create a list of people who were not merely influenced, but professed to be (and seemingly are) objectivists? This has already been done on the Swedish page. (talk) 18:32, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

On en-wiki at least, that seems more relevant to the Objectivist movement article. But regardless of location, non-list articles should not be overtaken by lengthy lists; narrative descriptions are strongly preferred. You could try starting a "List of Objectivists" article, but I think it would be hard to maintain because of WP:POV issues. That is one reason we have List of people influenced by Ayn Rand instead, to avoid the problem of objectifying (no pun intended) who counts as an "Objectivst" within Wikipedia's neutrality and sourcing rules. --RL0919 (talk) 23:58, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for providing those lists! Were they linked in the article? I think they ought to be, or how else will people find them without a shot-in-the-dark search for "list of objectivists" or simmilar? New users certainly will not know about them.
The problem with these lists however remains... It should be possible to create an index over people who declared or consider themselves "objectivists" I think. If they mistakenly believe they identify with the philsophy, then at least they are likely to lean more towards objectivism on average, then say... a list of "Paul Ryans" and "Donald Trumps"? Which is, as it seems to me, in very simplified terms mostly what we might call the "influenced-article" is about right now. (talk) 15:54, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Re: Request you cease reverting a Good Faith edit that contributes to cross referencing of knowledge[edit]

Reply to: RL0919 I believe you have not revered this edit twice. While you may not see why this is connected, that doesn't mean that is shouldn't be. If you're only reason for reverting it is that you don't understand it, that is not following the Five Pillars of Wikipedia.

Objectivism is linked to the philosophical practice of Transactionalism in key ways as I developing in the linked article. Transactionalism frames a fundamental fallacy behind Objectivism. This link is justified. It is NOT a spurious linkage. I will wait to hear back and am open to any final considerations before I undo the reverted edit. In cooperation, --sheridanford (talk) 00:44, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Smacks of OR. — DAGwyn (talk) 10:14, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
A different editor reverted the addition previously, not me. But your argument above isn't very convincing. Numerous philosophical viewpoints are in dispute with one another. The {{Philosophy topics}} template is available at the bottom of the page to navigate to the myriad of topics that might expose (or at least claim to expose) some fallacy of Objectivism. I suggest you work on placing your link there. --RL0919 (talk) 00:59, 24 August 2016 (UTC)