Wikipedia:WikiProject Objectivism/Cross talk/Archive 1

Proposal for Deletion of Content Fork Articles

I propose listing these articles for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Objectivist_metaphysics

• Objectivist metaphysics
• Objectivist epistemology
• Objectivist ethics
• Objectivist politics

Not speedy deletion, as some editors may want to review them for opportunities to merge content with the Objectivism (Ayn Rand) article. Karbinski (talk) 11:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Result

Closed without concensus. --Karbinski (talk) 14:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Merge Criticisms of Objectivism with Objectivism article

A discussion started here: Talk:Criticisms_of_Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand)#An_article.2C_without_an_article --Karbinski (talk) 19:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Result

The merge took place. --Karbinski (talk) 11:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I contend that there should not be a page or section dedicated simply to criticism. Such entries should be merged into the relevant sections of the articles they concern. CABlankenship (talk) 03:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Bibliography of work on Objectivism

What to do about this? It was pointed out on the talk page years ago that it contains unsupported appraisals of the quality of the works listed. Okay, it has a template asking for cites, but I am assuming the commentary is the original work of an editor, and not drawn from third party sources. No objection to it as a straightforward list, like other Wikipedia biography articles. Surely the commentary has to go?

Also, the title is a problem, partly because of the use of lower case "w" which makes it hard to find. I think the article needs to be called something like Objectivism (Ayn Rand) Bibliography, and the current page redirect there.KD Tries Again (talk) 13:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

I was somewhat confused as to why a Bibliography wasn't just a list --Karbinski (talk) 13:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Normally it would be worth posting on the talk page of the editor responsible asking whether he/she could supply citations, but my experience with this IP editor has been that he/she doesn't engage in discussion.KD Tries Again (talk) 14:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Proposed Changes

Here is what I think needs to be done in order that the article can become a balanced, verifiable resource, and be consistent in approach with other articles of this kind.

1. There is a bibliography of Rand's works at Ayn Rand. This article should list only her works on Objectivism and include a link to the Rand page for a full bibliography. Also, her works should be merged into the main alphabetical list. A separate list of periodicals should follow.

2. The section on writers "influenced" by Objectivism should be deleted, as there are no references and the article has been tagged since December 2007.

3. The critiques which are explicitly about Objectivism should be merged into the main alphabetical list. It's not usual practice at Wikipedia, and in fact it's OR, to have editors splitting works into pro- and anti- camps.

4. Same treatment for the works published after her death (why the split?) with the OR commentary removed.

5. The list of "academic" authors who have written on Objectivism has only two references. It seems to be included to make an advocacy point about Rand's recognition by academica - otherwise, why wouldn't the books/articles written simply be included in the main list? Is it suggested that none of the writers in the other lists are academics? I think it needs to go, although the two references given can be merged into the main list. If an editor knows what Michael S. Berliner wrote about Objectivism, then it should be inserted in the main list. A bibliography should be a list of works, not a list of authors claimed to have written on the subject.

6. Finally, there are questions to be raised about some of the works included. For example, Holzer, Henry Mark (2005, McFarland & Co.). Supreme Court Opinions of Clarence Thomas 1991-2006 is actually "about" or "on" Objectivism?

KD Tries Again (talk) 13:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

#1 (no duplication with Ayn Rand#Bibliography)

The bibliography article could be a master list, should it? --Karbinski (talk) 03:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

#2 (zap influenced section)

Questionable relevance, and if the influence is generally not verifiable, prob. should have been zapped long ago. --Karbinski (talk) 03:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

#3 and #4 (sub-lists)

How should the re-structured article be broken down? by AR - books - periodicals / by others - books - periodicals. Hmmm, it sounds NPOV to just have a neutral list, but is it really NPOV to bury the few critiques amongst the rest of them? How about the by others section be sub-sectioned by topic - such as Biographical, Objectivism (about the philosophy - like Objectivism, the Philosophy of Ayn Rand), Influenced (like The Ominous Parallels), Analysis (such as Essays on Ayn Rand's <insert book here> and critiques), ...? --Karbinski (talk) 03:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

#5 (zap list of authors)

Lets do this real soon - clearly not relevant to a list of works. The list of works sorted by author just needs to be re-sorted (and the item entries changed) --Karbinski (talk) 03:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

#6 (quality filter)

There will be "discussion" I'm sure, I would recommend this is left as the ongoing task of editors after this re-structuring effort. --Karbinski (talk) 03:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I largely agree. I don't really mind how the list is sorted, and I don't have strong feelings about the suggestion for 3 and 4, but I'm not sure I have the knowledge to do it. I'll zap 2 and 5 unless someone raises an objection here soon.KD Tries Again (talk) 23:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Cleaned up pretty much. For myself, life is too short to edit the Rand cites into the same list as the other writers.KD Tries Again (talk) 03:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Hard work - someone took out all the critical works? I re-added them. If someone else wants to re-add the online sources, go ahead.KD Tries Again (talk) 04:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Discussion opened for Epistemology article to be blanked-out

Talk:Objectivist_epistemology#Blank-out_and_re-direct_to_section_in_Objectivism_.28Ayn_Rand.29 --Karbinski (talk) 21:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, support.KD Tries Again (talk) 16:57, 25 April 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Result

Was blanked-out and re-directed --Karbinski (talk) 21:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Discussion opened for Ethics article to be blanked-out

Talk:Objectivist_ethics#Blank-out_and_re-direct_to_section_in_Objectivism_.28Ayn_Rand.29 --Karbinski (talk) 21:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Result

Redirected to Objectivism (Ayn Rand). Skomorokh 22:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Evasion (Objectivism)

I have proposed the Evasion (Objectivism) article for deletion. Please by all means feel free to decline the proposal if you can find significant treatment of the topic in reliable sources. Thanks, Skomorokh 19:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Result

The tag expired and the article was deleted  Skomorokh  04:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deployment of Template:Objectivist movement

I have made this navigational template to facilitate browsing between articles on the topic. I propose that it be deployed on pages related to the movement, and that {{Ayn Rand}} be used on pages about Rand or her works. Skomorokh 22:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

This is a useful and very beautiful template. Some things need to be changed (e.g. "Neo-Objectivism" redirects to "Objectivist movement" now), but it's something that's been needed for a long time. I say, go ahead and deploy it. -- eksortso (talk) 05:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words and helpful edit. I'll start introducing it tomorrow unless there are objections. Skomorokh 01:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've rolled out the template on a limited number of articles (mostly the longer biographical ones), it may need to be included on more articles but I'll leave that up to editorial discretion. Skomorokh 08:08, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I appreciate Skomorokh's hard work so I hope he won't take offense at a few observations. First, I notice that James Valliant is linked in the template under "theorists". He might want to hold off on that one. Second, I was reviewing a few others on that list, and I am beginning to wonder if they, too, meet the notability guidelines for WP:ACADEMIC and/or WP:N. In particular, I've tagged one (Andrew Bernstein) already. I haven't looked into the background of these authors (obviously some are highly notable), but a few are sketchy at best. J Readings (talk) 23:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to remove Valliant once the article was redirected, got that now. Shining a little light into the dark corners of Objectivism on Wikipedia is part of the rationale behind the template; the goal is to have a series of properly integrated and linked articles on worthy topics related to Objectivism, and I think finding and addressing potentially unworthy topics is fully in line with that goal. Thanks for the kind words,  Skomorokh  23:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm all for the inclusion of the template. I think it's a useful tool for encyclopedia readers and, as I said, I appreciate Skomorokh taking time out of his busy schedule to make it. My only concern is that a few of these listed "theorists" may not meet the notability criteria for inclusion. I suppose, should a few of them be deemed irrelevant to the project, they can be removed easily enough at a later date. There's no rush. J Readings (talk) 00:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

James Valliant in strange places...

See here. Many if not most of these are inappropriate. In other places his name needs to be de-wikified. Also, someone should remove his snarky comment from The Passion of Ayn Rand, and his accusations against Rothbard in Libertarianism and Objectivism need to go unless a better supporting source can be found. TallNapoleon (talk) 07:00, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I've removed a few, but the book is about the Objectivist movement, and the remaining articles it appears in all pertain to that. What is the problem with the references? Unless I've forgotten, we never established decisively that Valliant's work was unreliable. I trust we're not giving any credence to the unsubstantiated hearsay regarding the identity of IP 160? Skomorokh 08:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, it's a bad idea to remove internal links to James Valliant, even though it's no longer a standalone article. As long as Wikipedia has information on a discrete topic, that topic ought to redirect to wherever the information is, so interested readers can find what they're looking for. Skomorokh 08:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure why he's in the list of sources for Patrecia Scott. I also think it's just a helluva thing to charge that Rothbard was making things up about Rand, especially considering how much of a partisan Valliant is. TallNapoleon (talk) 10:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I confess to not having read Valliant's book, so can't comment on partisanship, but it is subtitled The Case Against the Brandens, so we should expect it to contain material on the Rand-Branden affair and fallout, in which Scott apparently played a major role. The charge against Rothbard is not exclusive to Valliant – see this account of the conflict from a source sympathetic to Rothbard – and whatever its merits, at least it's attributed as opinion in the Libertarianism and Objectivism article rather than fact. I'd like to see full citations with page numbers and quotes, but that's probably wishful thinking. It's a recurrent problem across the Rand articles how to deal with criticism and right-of-reply without seeming to take sides. I'm biased towards Rothbard, but I would like to see a rebuttal from his camp to the charges in Libertarianism and Objectivism. Skomorokh 17:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I would be interested to learn if a single editor was responsible for adding all of these Valliant references throughout Wikipedia, and if so who. J Readings (talk) 01:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikiblame might be able to help you out there. Skomorokh 01:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Interesting tool. Thanks for sharing. Incidentally, would anyone be surprised to learn that anon IP 160 was responsible for adding Valliant's book to The Passion of Ayn Rand? I'm not. J Readings (talk) 01:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

No worries. I'm going to propose the removal of all references to Valliant here tomorrow, after a conversation at Talk:Objectivist movement#Valliant. Hopefully that will clean up some of the dubious content and put suspicions behind us. Skomorokh 01:30, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

[I've done a critique of Valliant's book, by the way: http://www.scribd.com/doc/9421651/The-Passion-of-James-Valliants-Criticism

-Neil Parille]

Proposed removal of references to James Valliant and The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics

Following several discussions calling into question the work of James Valliant as a reliable source (e.g. 1, 2, 3), I propose that all references to it be removed from Wikipedia until such time as it is shown to satisfy the criteria for reliable sources. If there is consensus to do so, I will begin in one week's time.  Skomorokh  15:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm in favor of removing them. J Readings (talk) 18:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Please do.KD Tries Again (talk) 18:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

By fire be purged. TallNapoleon (talk) 22:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I assume that we are good to go here. J Readings (talk) 07:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I would think that it's ok to start getting rid of them. TallNapoleon (talk) 07:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it doesn't look like there will be any more comments on this subject. J Readings (talk) 08:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Result

All known references to Valliant and his work have been removed from the article namespace. Note that Valliant and his book remain listed at bibliography of work on Objectivism, which is a use reliant on neither his reliability or notability.  Skomorokh  01:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Bibliography of work on Objectivism as a good list of articles that should be reviewed.

Tons and tons of the books and authors listed on this page are blue-links. As part of the wider consolidation I think we should go through these and merge/delete as appropriate, much as was done with the articles branching off of Objectivism (Ayn Rand). Thoughts? TallNapoleon (talk) 02:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Reviewing these articles is a good idea – you might also want to check the subcategories of Category:Objectivism. Aside from Rand's work, there are only three books on the list with articles, as far as I can make out. A case could be made against the notability of some of the scholars, but please appreciate that it is very time-consuming to research and reference these articles (to prove notability), so I'd recommend following J.Reading's lead and tagging the problematic ones first (to warn knowledgeable editors of the issue) before putting them up for merging or deletion one or two at a time. There is more than enough reliable coverage to write those sub articles of Objectivist philosophy up again, for example; it's editorial resources that keep the topic from reaching its potential.  Skomorokh  02:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

In this particular instance, since we are discussing books, the relevant notability guideline to read thoroughly is WP:BK. I just started re-reading it myself and I find it to be very useful. J Readings (talk) 02:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'm going to make a request to ArbCom that they allow me to tag Objectivism related articles. I'm also going to create a new article class in the Objectivism WikiProject, which I will call Consider Refactoring, for articles that we should consider merging or deleting. That will help keep them all in one place. Finally someone may also want to take a look at List of characters in Atlas Shrugged, Dagny Taggart, and John Galt (I favor trimming the former, merging the second, and probably keeping the third, although a merge might be justified there too. TallNapoleon (talk) 02:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I'm sorry, I forgot you were topic banned. Have you or Snowded considered asking for early release – time off for good behaviour and all that? I'm sure no-one would object. Custom classes are tricky, as the Project uses {{WPBannerMeta}}; you'll have to take a look at the documentation there and possibly put in a request. I'm not going to touch the characters; fiction articles are cesspools and Gladstein is the only scholar who will have written anything worth referencing for the most part.  Skomorokh  03:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, we could just decide to use "C-class" to mean "this article is on death row awaiting its final appeal". And yeah, I'm putting in a request on ArbComm and will link here when it's up. I intend to voluntarily limit myself to 0RR except in cases of vandalism, if I'm given early release from my topic-ban. TallNapoleon (talk) 03:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Here's my request to Arbcomm. I've not notified other users because the change would only affect me. TallNapoleon (talk) 03:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Gulching

This is something else to look at. It may well qualify as a neologism, and is quite badly lacking in sources. TallNapoleon (talk) 03:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

It takes about fifteen seconds to confirm that neither of the references used are reliable sources. The term doesn't appear in Atlas Shrugged itself. The article has no support whatsoever. It's as if I were to write an essay on "Galting", claim it derived from Atlas, post it to a web page and then write a WP article on it.KD Tries Again (talk) 16:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

See below section on the AfD.  Skomorokh  01:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Culling WikiProject Objectivism Articles (and adding some new ones in)

There are a number of articles in the project that are only related tangentially to Objectivism. I'm of the opinion that the project should be of only narrow scope, and so I will be removing these. I've removed two so far, Murray Rothbard and Whittaker Chambers. I also added in Mozart Was a Red, since it is a satire on Rand. If people disagree with me let me know and I will revert. TallNapoleon (talk) 02:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I had added Rothbard and Chambers simply because they were in a subcategory of Category:Objectivism (Category:Critics of Objectivism), no objection to removal. Good call on Mozart Was a Red also.  Skomorokh  03:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Signing up for the WikiProject

I would encourage our regular editors (Snowded, Karbinski, Skomorokh, J. Readings) to put themselves on the WikiProject Objectivism members list. I feel lonely there :( TallNapoleon (talk) 02:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

...why do I feel like I am signing up for a Summer in purgatory?  Skomorokh  03:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Eh, this isn't that bad. Last year I did a cleanup of schismatic traditionalist Catholic bishops, pretty much entirely on my own. Now that was a mess. But we should still see about getting an admin or two involved with the project. TallNapoleon (talk) 03:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Was planning on it, just didn't want to jump in first, being that I cleared the list. --Karbinski (talk) 12:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Only because you asked TallNapoleon, not sure if it is Purgatorio or the 5th circle of Inferno --Snowded (talk) 17:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Sloth always was my favorite sin. TallNapoleon (talk) 00:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Notification

I am requesting that Arbcomm unban me from Ayn Rand-related mainspace. You can see and comment on my request here. TallNapoleon (talk) 00:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)