Jump to content

Template talk:Ayn Rand/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Fair Use Image?

Can we change the image on this template? It's definitely copyrighted and I don't think this qualifies as fair use (though I'm no lawyer). --dm (talk) 03:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, I agree, now that I look at it. I'm taking it off. Crazynas t 06:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

At first, I disagreed, but reading Wikipedia's article on Fair Use, it is cover art, but it offers no critical commentary about Atlas Shrugged and so, no, it's not Fair Use. Robocracy 20:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Added some articles to the template

The suggestion to merge "Ayn Rand Collective" to another article was suggested almost a month ago with no chance. Also, the "Neo-Objectivism" article isn't on the template, either. I added both. Robocracy 20:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, on second thought. I only added Neo-Objectivism, not the Ayn Rand Collective, just because it seems that the Ayn Rand Collective was in some way related to the Nathaniel Branden Institute (probably even synonymous), and so, that issue needs to be sorted out first. Adding it would just expound upon pre-existing ambiguity, as both organizations were started by the same people, at the same time, in the 1950's to promote Objectivism. Robocracy 20:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
That's not correct. "The Collective" was the name adopted by a group who met with Rand periodically to discuss her ideas and fiction (including Atlas Shrugged which was then still being written). The Nathaniel Branden Institute was an actual corporation formed considerably later, which provided lectures (live in New York, and recorded for use elsewhere) for students of Objectivism. Some Collective members served at one time or another on the NBI staff, but not all of them, and NBI had other staff members (administrate help, etc.) who were never in The Collective. — DAGwyn 19:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Core?

What does "core" mean? Why not "philosophy?" Endlessmike 888 08:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Some people don't believe Rand was a philosopher or that Objectivism is a philosophy. And they go around changing and deleting - on an anti-Rand campaign. I don't know if that is why 'philosophy' was changed to 'core' or not - but it is a good reason to restore it. Steve 17:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Whoever keeps changing this, please explain yourself. Endlessmike 888 05:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I notice that some of the IP Users that make those changes have no list of contributions, except for the Rand/Objectivism deletions. That means they may be doing it as sock puppets - hiding their real ID. When they don't leave a comment and make repeated deletions, I think Wikipedia considers it vandalism and a request to an Admin can be made to block edits on a given page by IP users - then they have to enter the discussion or use their real ID. Steve 02:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Someone is continuing the vandalism. How does one contact the appropriate Admin to handle this? Endlessmike 888 23:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I finally got around to posting something about this vandalism on the administrators page, so hopefully the vandals will be banned. Endlessmike 888 01:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


I added "and Objectivism" to the Libertarianism and Homosexuality links. Otherwise it looked like the links would take you to articles just on libertarianism and homosexuality. Endlessmike 888 02:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The link between Objectivism and Satanism is tangential at best. I am removing it. This seems to have been added by someone with a history of posting inflamatory unsourced POV stuff anti-Objectivism. samrolken 04:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I had added the link to LaVeyan Satanism under the subsection "Related" as LaVey was highly influenced by Rand and her philosophy. This is an undeniable fact. The differences between Satanism and Objectivism are explained here. Considering that these are the only differences, for someone to claim the two philosophies are not "Related" is false.
I checked out that site, and it significantly misrepresents several aspects of Objectivism, and also says that Satanism denies many of the tenets of Objectivism. Whatever "influence" there was, was minor (and maybe based on msiunderstanding) and in one direction only. — DAGwyn 19:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Some person posting under the screen name samrolken removed it without providing any evidence that the two philosophies are not related.
Further, this poster chose to lie about the person (i.e. me) who had added Satanism to the "Related" section in the first place. I have no "history of posting inflamatory unsourced POV stuff anti-Objectivism."
Let the record show that I had tried to add Ayn Rand to the list of influential philosophers. Others subsequently removed this name from the list. I argued in defense of re-adding her to said list.
Let the record show that I've provided sources for many an article.
Let the record show that the only POV problem anybody ever had with me was regarding a category I created titled "Category:Films which explore libertarian themes." I attached this category to certain films, such as the film for V for Vendetta and The Fountainhead. In fact, I could provide a logical argument for why each of the films I attached that category to had explored libertarian themes. Others, presumably considering the term "libertarian" to be too subjective, chose to delete this category. I put up no ruckus.
Let the record show that I've never been inflamatory on wikipedia.
Let the record show I've never posted anything anti-Objectivist on wikipedia. My problems with Objectivism are mostly epistemological.
Let the record show that although I do not worship Rand like some Objectivists, I respect her and consider her a strong influence. How this makes me "anti-Objectivist," I know not.
There is nothing anti-Objectivist in noting that LaVeyan Satanism is related to Objectivism, just as there is nothing anti-individualist in noting that LaVeyan Satanism is an individualistic philosophy.
Therefore, I am re-adding LaVeyan Satanism to the list of "Related" philosophies. If anyone has a problem with this, please let me know, so as I may defend my reasoning for doing so.
Yours sincerely,
Alex Peak
Allixpeeke 07:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I removed Satanism this time. I don't know why Samrolken removed it. I removed it because there are close ties between the history of Objectivism and Neo-Objectivism/Libertarianism. Each influenced the progress of the other. Satanism is influenced by Rand, but had no impact on Objectivism whatsoever. To include Satanism along with Neo-Objectivism and Libertarianism is to diminish the connection between Neo/Lib. It implies that all three are in some way closely equivalent in importance. Endlessmike 888 21:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
You write, "Satanism is influenced by Rand, but had no impact on Objectivism whatsoever." That's at least a reasonable objection. (Although, to be honest, I'm not convinced Objectivism had much of an impact on libertarianism or its development [especially early on], which was far more influenced by classical liberalism, individualist anarchism [prominant in 19th century America], and the Austrian School of economics. I would nevertheless still advocate Objectivism being mentioned in the libertarianism template.)
Objectivism's main influence on Libertarianism occurred during the late 1960s and somewhat thereafter. I was there, and it was a strong influence at that time. As you say, not much influence in the earlier days (Rose Wilder et al.). — DAGwyn 19:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I may regret getting involved, but let me toss out a possible compromise that might even satisfy everyone involved. I'm just going to suggest it and walk away; I won't even put this page on my Watch list, so you don't have to respond.

Endlessmike 888 is right that Satanism doesn't contain any direct mention of Objectivism or Rand. This makes sense because it covers all forms of Satanism, many of which have nothing to do with Objectivism, so I agree with him that the link to Satanism doesn't belong in this template. The article on LaVeyan Satanism does mention Rand, as does the article on Anton LaVey himself, since he was very open about Rand's influence on his religion. Since the "influenced" list on Ayn Rand includes LaVey, maybe the template should include LaVeyan Satanism.

If you agree, then go ahead and add it; I'm not going to get involved in an edit war. Everyone I spoke to about Wikipedia has told me that edit wars are suicide, and I value existence. :-) ThAtSo 13:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow, someone actually read this page and followed my suggestion. Of course, somebody else immediately reverted thanks to what looks like an honest misunderstanding. Instead of having an edit war, could we talk about this here first? ThAtSo 03:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Your compromise doesn't address my concern. There are neo-Objectivist professors, a national libertarian party, and a multitude of Objectivist/Libertarian organizations. To include Satanism along them is to leave the false impression that Satanism is somehow equivalent in importance. Endlessmike 888 02:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I asked that we discuss here instead of reverting. You showed bad faith by refusing to wait until we talked about it before acting. Second, your point is neither true nor relevant. Mentioning LaVeyan Satanism doesn't mean it's equally important, and there's no reason we should worry about whether people will think this anyhow. You're just showing bias against Satanism, which is a recognized religion, not a joke. Unless you have a solid and convincing reason not to list LaVeyan Satanism as being influnced by Objectivism that you can explain here, I see no reason not to put it back. As a show of good faith, though, I'm not going to change the article until you reply. ThAtSo 03:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

There are other groups and people, more influential than Satanism, which are not listed under the "influenced" section. Ronald Reagan was Rand influenced. So was Clarence Thomas. Why leave them out, but include Satanism? Why not include CATO institute? Honestly, I don't think there should be an "influenced" section, because I think it is impossible to give meaningful restrictions to what is and is not included. Also, I reverted everything changed by 67.90.197.194 because he is a serial vandal, as his user page shows. Endlessmike 888 00:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

No, they're not. Satanism is a recognized religion and LaVey's name is well known even among non-adherents, but I've never even heard of "minarchism" even though the term fits me pretty well. I can't find any neutral basis for keeping minarchism while hiding LaVeyan Satanism. I have to ask: Do you have some sort of bias against Satanism? I'm not a fan of religions, but if you're going to have one then it might as well be the sort whose ethics are grounded in Reason.

The entire template is for Objectivism as a philosophy, so the "Influenced" section lists influenced philosophies, not individuals or even organizations. The CATO Institute would be a good example of a libertarian think-tank, but not any better than the Ludwig von Mises Institute. Both are organizations, though, so neither one fits. Reagan and Thomas are individuals, not philosophies, so that's another miss. The link to LaVeyan Satanism is not to the specific church, but to his philosophy, which he says is an extension of Objectivism, so it fits perfectly, as does neo-Objectivism.

If you're really against the entire "Influenced" section, and not just opposing it so that you can hide all mention of LaVey, you should try to come up with some convincing reasons and build a consensus. So far, you're just edit-warring. I really wish you would discuss these issues fully before making any changes to the article.

67.90.197.194 is just an IP number, not a person, so we don't really know which prior actions have anything to do with current ones. Besides, whatever was done by whomever to other articles has nothing whatsoever to do with this one. Even then, I looked at the so-called vandalism and all I saw is that a bunch of subjectivist and postmodernist craziness was removed from Objectivity (philosophy). It seems that this offended some people who reacted by reverting and calling it vandalism, so now the article on objectivity in philosophy once again says that objectivity is impossible. If you're really student of Objectivism, not just an ARIan, this should disgust you as much as it disgusts me. If that's vandalism, we should all be vandals.

Aside from the disputed inclusion of LaVeyan Satanism, the other changes to the template were uncontroversially good. There's nothing about it that even hints at vandalism, and the comments suggest a good faith effort. A whole bunch of of repetition was cut out, the organization is better, and it even looks slimmer. These are all serious improvements, but you seem to be against it just because the editor pissed off some whim-worshipping subjectivists and pomos. I don't understand your thinking.

You're going to need to explain yourself. I'm going to give you one more chance to come up with a reasoned basis for excluding LaVeyan Satanism. If you can't, then I'm going to put it back. In the meantime, I'm going to restore the positive changes that the IP made. I'm advising you in advance to stop edit-warring and assume good faith. Calling someone a vandal for making good changes is silly, and reverting in the middle of a discussion is just plain rude. ThAtSo 05:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Third Opinion

From a request at Wikipedia:Third opinion. First, I will note that User:ThAtSo violated the Third Opinion process' policy by including his username in the request. As Third Opinion is an informal process, no apology is needed. This is just a notification and reminder for future requests.

Many reasonable arguments have been put forward both in favour and against the inclusion of LaVeyan Satanism in the template. I will list them here for oversight:

In favour

  • LaVey was influenced by Objectivism.

Against

  • Satanism has not had any influence on Objectivism.
  • Satanism is a small movement, and including it will decrease the apparent value of the other movements included in the section. Also, it will warrant the inclusion of other small movements, or individual persons.

It will prove hard to convince each other on this page. This is further complicated by the lack of policy on inclusion within templates. My suggestion would be to:

  1. Not include any reference to Satanism in this template for now.
  2. Improve and expand the Influence section of the Objectivism article (link) That section currently has the note "See sidebar for articles on the influence of Ayn Rand's philosophy outside the scholarly disciplines." on top. There is no reason why these subjects cannot be addressed in the article.
  3. After the section has been expanded appropriately, most notably with the use of reliable sources establishing the connection between Objectivism and whatever it has influenced, edit the template to fit the content of the section. If mediation is needed then, feel free to re-list this at Third Opinion, or notify me.

--User:Krator (t c) 15:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I signed wrong; I'm new at this and it wasn't intentional. If you haven't already done it, just erase my name. I was more concerned about keeping the description neutral.
The first point against inclusion is irrelevant, because we're only saying that Objectivism influenced Satanism, not the other way around. Really, this is a red herring, and I don't understand why it keeps getting brought up. It shows a fundamental misunderstanding, perhaps even an intentional one.
The second point not only looks like pure anti-Satanist POV, it's also irrelevant. The list is not of movements, but of philosophical stances, which is why it includes minarchism (when was there every a minarchist movement?!) and Neo-Objectivism (which is just a catch-all for those influenced by Objectivism who disagree on enough points that they don't feel comfortable claiming to be Objectivists as such; fellow travelers). The reason minarchism is mentioned is that it's strongly influenced by Objectivism, just like LaVeyan Satanism. If there's any concern over bloat, it can be addressed the moment someone suggests another philosophy for inclusion. Until then -- and it's not clear this will ever happen -- there's nothing to discuss.
The idea of putting more mention of LaVeyan Satanism in the main Objectivism article is a good one, but the truth is that most of the people listed in the Objectivism box aren't mentioned in the article, even though they're important to Objectivism. The box is necessarily more inclusive than the article. Also, the place where extensive explanation of Objectivism's influence on LaVayan Satanism is in the latter article.
In any case, thanks for adding your opinion. ThAtSo 16:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm copying a block of text from above so I can respond to it in a living thread instead of one that's overdue for archiving.

I checked out that site, and it significantly misrepresents several aspects of Objectivism, and also says that Satanism denies many of the tenets of Objectivism. Whatever "influence" there was, was minor (and maybe based on msiunderstanding) and in one direction only. — DAGwyn 19:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Considering how much difference of opinion there is about Objectivism even among fellow students of Objectivism, it's no surprise that the LaVeyan view of Objectivism doesn't match yours. Like so many who were influenced by Objectivism, LaVey took a pick-and-choose approach, borrowing the ethical philosophy and modifying them to his needs, without keeping the rest of the system. LaVey himself admitted that his Satanism was "just Ayn Rand's philosophy, with ceremony and ritual added". The case for strong influence doesn't get any clearer than that!

LaVey's actions were similar to what Rand accused Libertarians of doing -- extracting her political philosophy from the cohesive whole and reinterpreting it -- yet there's no controversy about including Libertarianism as a philosophy influenced by Objectivism. Rand rejected Libertarianism vehemently, and I strongly suspect she would have rejected Satanism if asked, but that doesn't change the fact that she significantly influenced both. Of course, whether either one of them ever influenced Objectivism in turn is entirely irrelevant, since the listing is for "InfluenceD", not "InflunceS".

For these reasons, I believe that your argument for excluding LaVeyan Satanism has been refuted. ThAtSo 20:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd like you to stop suggesting that those who disagree with you have some hidden adgenda against Satanism.
You say that the "influenced" section should include only other philosophies, but not people or institutions. Why? The template includes people already. Why limited the influenced section to just other philosophies? Templates include links to important information related to their subject. This would include people and institutions, as well as concepts and philosophies.
But let's say we do limit to just philosophies. On what grounds do we include Satanism and not, for instance, Neo-Tech? Neo-Objectivism is IMPORTANT to Objectivism. Libertarianism is a well known, influential cousin of Objectivism. Satanism is not important to Objectivism. Nor is it well known or influential. It's a "recognized" religion. But so what? That doesn't mean it belongs in a TEMPLATE about Objectivism. Remember, a template is supposed to include ONLY the major topics related to its subject. That does not include Satanism, recognized religion or not. Endlessmike 888 00:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Also, no one is edit warring. The template has stood as fat as it is now and without Satanism for quite some time. That is, until recently when an anonymous editor using the same account as a known vandal changed things up. Since you are in the minority here and your changes go against the long standing consensus, please stop antagonizing by accusing your opponents of edit warring and having hidden adgendas. Endlessmike 888 00:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

You're edit-warring because you keep making changes without credible justification, patience or anything like a consensus. You're not even writing meaningful edit comments. You've also refused to discuss our disagreement and come to some compromise before making changes. In short, you've violated Wikipedia etiquette and just plain common sense.

Putting aside the matter of LaVey for a moment, the new, narrower format of the box is obviously better. For example, take a look at the wide box's first two sections:

Overview of the Philosophy
Objectivism (Ayn Rand)
--
Detailed Articles
Objectivist metaphysics
Objectivist epistemology
Objectivist ethics
Objectivist politics
Romantic realism

Now here's the narrow box's version:

Overview
Objectivism
--
Principles
Metaphysics
Epistemology
Ethics
Politics
Aesthetics

This isn't just more compact and streamlined, it avoids boring repetition ("Objectivist X") and inconsistency ("Romantic Realism"). Since you have no basis for reverting back to the wide version, I just put it back. ThAtSo 03:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I just changed "People" to "Individuals", which is more clear and consistent. ThAtSo 03:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

---

Ok, now, back to LaVey. First of all, the reason the Influenced section is limited to philosophies is that the article is about a philosophy, so its influence on other philosophies is relevant. We don't list individuals influenced by Objectivism in the template, though we do have a whole section for people who are an important part of Objectivism, including Rand herself. The Ayn Rand article itself does have a list of influenced individuals, which includes Anton LaVey.

Now, if you wanted to argue for another section, listing influenced organizations or people, you could do that, but it would be irrelevant to the issue of LaVeyan Satanism's inclusion as an influenced philosophy, so we're not going to discuss it now.

There'd be nothing wrong with listing Neo-Tech as an influenced philosophy, since it's clearly derivative of Objectivism, except for two things. First, there is no article on Neo-Tech, just the tax-cheating founder and his fraudulent publishing company. Second, it's even more obscure than minarchism. In contrast, LaVeyan Satanism is not at all obscure, and its inclusion would actually help readers understand where Objectivism fits into the web of philosophies.

In short, you've failed to assume good faith, repeatedly violated etiquette and have no viable arguments for excluding LaVeyan Satanism. Since you've decided not to bother waiting for discussion before making changes, I see no reason to bind myself to a standard that you refuse to honor. I'm changing the template now and you'd do well to fully justify your suggested changes here in talk before making them if you don't want to be reverted automatically. This is about as polite as I can be, given the situation. ThAtSo 03:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Unilaterally adding in the link again was a bad decision, and not favourable for the discussion process. There is no consensus here - the fact that you believe that no arguments remain does not mean that is true, as others believe the opposite. I encourage you to edit the Objectivism article. You will most probably find a lot of resistance there as well in including Satanism in the influenced section - whatever compromise is reached there, using the normal Wikipedia instruments of WP:V etc, which are not available on this page, can be mirrored in the template. I will discourage you from getting in a revert war here. --User:Krator (t c) 10:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

As it turns out, there is already an entry for Anton LaVey on the Ayn Rand article, listing him as being influenced. This represents a long-standing consensus among editors of Objectivism-related articles to accept that LaVey took a big part of his ethics from Rand, so this is not anything new or genuinely controversial.

I've tried to be patient with Endlessmike 888, but he's simply not responsive to Rational argument, and I don't expect him to change anytime soon. He's been hostile, quick to revert, and generally obstructionist. In contrast, I'm sure you're acting in good faith, but you just got here and don't know all the facts yet, so you've made some mistakes. That's why I've disagreed with your conclusions.

If you look at the history of this article, you'll see that, while I voiced agreement about including LaVeyan Satanism as influenced, I hadn't acted on it because I consider edit wars pointless. I even made a point of saying that I wouldn't add it myself. My recent involvement has come as a response to some anonymous IP who saw the comments here, acted on them, and was immediately reverted. Since I'm one of the people whose views were the basis of the action, I felt responsible for dealing with Endlessmike's hostile reaction, which is how we wound up where we are today.

I apologize if I've come across as impatient or rude, but this is really an open-and-shut issue that's been dragged on too long due to obvious partisanship. ThAtSo 11:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

If you ask for a Third Opinion, you should be prepared to accept it, rather than assume the one giving the opinion is wrong or uneducated in the subject matter if he disagrees with your point of view. I suggested a solution, and I encourage you to employ it. See if it works or not before dismissing it. --User:Krator (t c) 12:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I asked for a third opinion, and I listened to it, but while I'm obligated to take it seriously, I'm not obligated to agree with it or to accept it without argument. I've taken your suggestion so far. ThAtSo 06:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
In response to ThatSo's comment, "This represents a long-standing consensus among editors of Objectivism-related articles to accept that LaVey took a big part of his ethics from Rand, so this is not anything new or genuinely controversial." If you look at the Ayn Rand article, you'll see that LeVay appears alongside James Clavell, Terry Goodkind, and Alan Greenspan. None of which appear in the template. The "long-standing consensus" is that he was influenced by Rand (duh, no one ever disputed this). The consensus on the template is that LeVay does not rise to the significance of the other people and ideologies mentioned, and is thus not worthy of conclusion. Endlessmike 888 20:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
As you say, Clavell and Goodkind are in the Ayn Rand infobox as influenced individuals but not in the Objectivism template. That's because they're primarily writers, not philosophers, and are not significant contributors to the philosophy. On the other hand, contrary to what you say, Greenspan does appear in both locations, because he was a part of the Collective and is notable as an economist.
LeVay is notable enough to be listed in the infobox as an individual influenced by Objectivism, but of course he's not a significant contributor to the philosophy, so he doesn't get a place alongside Rand, Greenspan and other individuals who are. However, as he is known as a philosopher and his philosophy was strongly influenced by Objectivism, his brand of Satanism does fit into the list of influenced philosophies.
The problem here is that you'd like to write off LeVay as insignificant, even though his Satanism is much better known than, say, minarchism. This is purely an expression of your bias against his religion, and not the least bit relevant to what belongs in these templates. You have absolutely no argument against Satanism other than your personal whims. ThAtSo 04:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I encourage you two to move this discussion to Talk:Objectivism (Ayn Rand), where more involved editors will take notice, Wikipedia policy can be applied, and ultimately a more productive discussion can be achieved. --User:Krator (t c) 22:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
If you take a look at the Objectivism article, you'll see that the talk page sends people here. ThAtSo 04:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Then the notice sending people here is wrong. The three reasons above (more involved editors, the ability to apply policy, and a more productive discussion) still only apply there, not here. --User:Krator (t c) 09:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Krator, I followed your suggestion; the Objectivism article has a short section that mentions the link to Satanism. After a little bit of negotiation, it's neutral enough that nobody seems unhappy with it. It's been stable for a few days, so now I'm going to do the next part and update the template.

I realize it's been hard for you coming in as a third opinion, and I'm sorry if I made things any harder than they had to be. Thanks for being patient and I'm glad this is settled for now. ThAtSo 02:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

No one has an objection to giving Satanism a few sentences in the already very long Objectivism article. It still does not belong in the very essentialized template. Endlessmike 888 06:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, let's look at the influenced philosophies that you don't object to, in no particular order.

- Libertarianism. Nobody disputes that Libertarianism is important to Objectivism. Of course, it's a bit strange that it's listed as influenced, as if it it didn't exist long before Rand was born and didn't influence her first, or even as if Objectivist political philosophy weren't a form a Libertarianism. But let's move on.

- Minarchism. Never heard of it. The minarchism article says it's a specific type of Libertarianism, but it's not mentioned once in that "already very long Objectivism article". It gets one line in the Ayn Rand article, but only in the context of a bit of original research that claims someone -- it never says who -- thinks Objectivism is minarchistic, but even then it goes on to admit that Rand never used the term. Wow, this absolutely must stay.

- Neo-Objectivism. Never heard of it. The neo-Objectivism article just says that some people influenced by Objectivism don't call themselves Objectivists. Fascinating. Of course, it's not mentioned in either the ("already very long") Objectivism article or the (also pretty long) Ayn Rand article. I see.

Well, that was educational. Now, for contrast, let's look at the one you object to.

- LeVayan Satanism - Hey, I've actually heard of that one! Never knew it had anything to do with Rand. Wow, I love it when Wikipedia teaches me something new by showing the links between ideas that I had imagined were only coincidentally related. Anyhow, it has its own little sub-section and two sentences, both of which are cited (and the first is mostly a quotation).

It's pretty obvious that LeVayan Satanism is more essential than some of the material already in this "essentialized template". Of course, you might not agree, which would be unfortunate, since we'd be back at a deadlock again. Oh, wait, we solved that problem by bringing in a third opinion. While I didn't get along with Krator and actively resisted his input, I've managed to satisfy his requirements, allowing us to come to a hard-won consensus that I am loath to discard. It would be great if you were a part of that consensus, but strictly speaking, your agreement is not required.

Since I've demonstrated the existence of a consensus to keep the link and I've refuted all of your arguments so far, I think it's just fine for me to go ahead and put it back. Of course, since it would be bad for this to turn into an edit war, I suggest you avoid removing it from the template until you've convinced me and Krator first. 10:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

That you are edited an article on Objectivism and you've never heard of minarchism and neo-Objectivism says a lot about you, but nothing about whether or not Satanism should be included. Also, last count there were four people (samrolken, DAGwyn, Krator) against your two (ThAtSo and Allixpeeke). Unless Krator somewhere changed his mind since he wrote (August 8 10:13) that adding the link again was a bad idea and that no consensus existed? Four to two is not a consensus in your favor. Endlessmike 888 22:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:V

Just a note to the above discussion - the criteria for inclusion on wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. In other words, we aren't here to say if LeVay Satanism violates the precepts of Objectivism or not, that's original research without a backing source. However, if it has been documented, repeatedly, that LeVay said his brand of Satanism was heavily influenced by Objectivism, that's verifiable, and therefore suitable for inclusion as something influenced by Objectivism. WLU 15:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

My argument is not based on how Satanism may or may not violate Objectivism. I don't know if it does. My argument is based on notability. The template includes the most important and notable information related to Ayn Rand/Objectivism. This doesn't include Satanism. Endlessmike 888 22:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Based on the sources I've seen, I'm inclined to agree. I think it has a place on the main Objectivism page, but not on the template unless a more substantial set of sources comes up. WLU 01:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Please move any discussion to Talk:Objectivism (Ayn Rand) - a productive discussion is going on there, which will most probably produce a good consensus on this topic. --User:Krator (t c) 21:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Ayn_Rand/Archive_1&oldid=1048311779"