Talk:Objectivist movement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is supported by WikiProject Objectivism, which collaborates on articles related to this philosophy. Please participate by editing this article, or visit the project page for more details.

Contents

[edit] {{unreferenced}}

The only sources given doesn't seem to match the criteria of WP:V. --Pjacobi 09:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


Since there's no citation saying that Kelley has gained a more "mainstream" audience, I'm deleting the last sentence. Two things about the sentence strike me as suspect: 1) What does "mainstream" mean? It seems like a weasel word. 2) Kelley certianly doesn't have a BIGGER audience; the Ayn Rand Institute is four or five times the size of the Objectivist Center. Further, ARI has many more media appearances, especially on the biggest media outlets, like CNN, FOX, CBS, etc. LaszloWalrus 08:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I've eliminated the statement saying that Peikoff believes that any conclusion not consistent with Objectivism is dishonest. He explicitly denies this in this essay: [1]. LaszloWalrus 23:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Rename from Objectivist movement to Objectivism (movement)

I know the term Objectivism is/was primarily used to reference the philosophy, but isn't/wasn't the most common term used to reference the movement itself also Objectivism? If so, shouldn't the name of this article be something like Objectivism (movement) or Objectivism (the movement) rather than Objectivist movement? --Serge 05:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Not sure, but I don't think so. This source distinctly talks about the "Objectivist movement" as distinct from "the philosophy of Objectivism", for instance. [2] RJII 06:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Sure, some go to the trouble to differentiate, carefully. But see "And it's a kind of large-scale disaster for the philosophy and current movement of Objectivism"[3], "OBJECTIVISM AS A MOVEMENT AND LIVING PHILOSOPHY"[4], "Objectivism: The Philosophy and the Movement" by David Kelley[5], "In the article, McLemee traces the history and significance of the philosophy and movement of Objectivism."[6], etc. etc. The bottom line is that the term most commonly used to refer to the movement surrounding/advocating/promoting the philosophy of Objectivism is also Objectivism. The bottom line is that there are countless bonafide sources that use the term Objectivism to refer to the movement. I think many of the conflicts on the Objectivism article is that some see it as the movement, even though it's about the philosophy. Wouldn't it be helpful to be able to say, "Hey, you're talking about Objectivism the movement... go to Objectivism (movement)?" Telling him to go to Objectivist movement cannot be as effective because that person knows he's talking about Objectivism (the movement), not something called the "Objectivist movement" which he has never heard of. --Serge 06:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Good points. I'm fine either way, but I'm leaning toward your suggestion. RJII 06:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC) On second thought, I'm fully behind you on this. RJII 06:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC) On third thought, I don't know. It almost seems like we would be propagating the confusion. I'll go either way. RJII 07:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This article needs help

This article needs lots of help, I tagged it as such, and will get to work on it when I get a chance. Crazynas 07:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Length of citations

The lenght of some citations is way to long. Please summarize these citations, and include some footnoes if you must. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Some of these contain a lot of useful info. For instance, it would be hard to summarize Walker's comparison to Hubbard as there are several similarities there that are worth mentioning. -- LGagnon 04:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Maybe, but this is not an essay, it is an encyclopedia. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merging

Unless there are any specific objections I will proceed with merging in a few days. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Censorship

So now we have a so-called admin edit-warring to protect Rand from charges of culthood. Gotta love it. Al 04:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest that you keep your sarcasm at bay, and conduct this discussion civilly. I would also request that you take my involvement in this article in good faith. I am not protecting anyone from such charges, I am interested in this article being accurate and NPOV. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure. Thank you so much for threatening to block me. I'm certain you can see how this increases my willingness to assume good faith. I'm equally certain that you want this article to be as NPOV as the one about your Maharaji. Al 04:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

That was not no threat to block you, but a gentle remind you to stop using personal attacks as a way to make your point across, as you have already done several times in this and several other article. This is another reminder to: Do not engage in personal attacks. Discuss the article, not the editor And while I am it, I ask you to put a stop at you inuendo and false accusations, such as accusations of vote stacking, and others. As it pertains to the RfCs, I would also ask you to let the editors comment freely, without challenging each and every one of them. We know the dispute, let's hear what they have to say. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:58, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
For the record, please note that I cannot execercise my admin privileges in articles I am actively involved. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This Article Definitely Needs Help

I have to agree with the above poster who said this page needs help. It does.

For one-- why is this article called "Objectivist movement" in the first place? It seems to discuss the controversy surrounding Objectivism and the responses to that criticism. That would lead me to expect a title like "Controversy over Objectivism" or "Objectivism: Support and Criticism" or even "Objectivism: Cult Accusations" or something like that. Setting aside the fact that the current contents of this article aren't well represented by the current title, "Objectivism movement" doesn't strike me as a very good title anyway-- why should the movement be a different article than Objectivism (Ayn Rand)? Normally we just incorporate the movement of supporters of a Philosophy into the article about the ideas Philosophy itself. Sure, we could make an argument that the IDEAS and the Movement are separate-- but it seems easier just to talk about the two in one article. In this case, however, all the current text is about the controversy-- there's really not a lot of "movement" text anyway. For the time being, I'd suggest moving most of the material here to a page named one of the other titles, so as to create a "Controversy and Responses" page. If you can put in enough stuff about the history of the Objectivism movement here, then keep it. If there's no objections, I may create the controversy page myself in a few days.

I notice that Responses to Objectivism duplicates some of the content in this page. The cult accusations part of that page should probably be merged over to the Controversy page. "The Ayn Rand Collective", "Ayn Rand Institute", "Nathaniel Branden", and "Leonard Peikoff" seem to have a lot of what I would expect to find in a page on the "Objectivist movement"-- so incorporate their text into this page as needed.

It doesn't seem to me that the Cult Accusations do a very good job of presenting its case. It mentions some people have called it a cult, but doesn't really explain their reasonings, etc. There have been whole books and websites about this-- I'm sure we could find some short concise discussions of why people feel it is a cult.

I also have to frown upon the text that compares Objectivism to Scientology or Satanism. Certainly, there are similarities, but there are also many extremely huge differences. It seems like the criticism of Objectivism should be about Objectivism itself. The current arguments go "Objectivism is like Scientology, and Scientology is bad, so Objectivism MUST be bad, right?" It would be much better to just talk about Objectivism itself, rather than liken it to other things. The Satanism "guilt by association" is particularly bad. "LeVay liked her, and he's a SATANIST!" That's a little like attacking Vegetarianism by pointing out Hitler was one-- it's just a lousy argument. I was tempted to delete the Scientology and Satanism sections outright, but, right now Wikipedia had Ten Bazillion articles about how wonderful Objectivism is, and only a few paragraphs calling it a cult, so... for the sake of balance, i won't just delete those parts-- but they probably should be replaced with something more substantial.

--Alecmconroy 10:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peron Article Reference

I just edited a reference to an article by Jim Peron, which previously called him "Jim Peron of the Objectivist Reference Center." As the owner of of that site, I can definitively say that no one is "of" it other than myself. Peron's article was published several years ago in an online magazine, and I have simply "reprinted" it on my site (with his permission). I have updated the mention and the associated footnote accordingly. Since I am making a change that relates to a reference to my own website, I wanted to explain fully. (I wish I had time to fix some of the other issues with this article. Perhaps in the future.) -- RL0919 19:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

I removed the NPOV tag because there doesn't seem to be much discussion over this article anymore. --24.220.246.20

[edit] A Modest Proposal

One way to think about the Objectivism phenomenon is to see it as a political ideology, though not only that. The discussion of political philosophy in this article makes it clear that Objectivists are, like many conservatives, pro-market, and elsewhere in the article, like many liberals, secularists. But one would never discover from this article that the preponderant majority of Objectivists, including the two main think tanks (ARI, TOS) are very hawkish on foreign policy, holding views analogous to many so-called neoconservatives. Since isolationism is such a prominent feature of the libertarian tradition, this feature needs to be addressed somehow. I hate to see the drafters of this article descend into yet more controversial topics, inviting more edit warring, but promoting the War on Terror has become a central feature of contemporary Objectivist culture, and this is not merely a "movement" issue. The Objectivist view is that governments which violate the natural rights of their own citizens have no legitimacy, and thus are "fair game" for military intervention. This view conflicts with a widely held view that governments cannot legitimately engage another country militarily unless it has been attacked itself, and is thus of philosophical interest. The War on Terror is of especial interest to Objectivists because of the convergence of issues (conflict with religion in the form of Islam, defense of capitalism, the legitimacy of pre-emptive military attack on rights-violating governments, etc.)

I haven't looked at all the Objectivism-related articles to see if there is a discussion in any of them, but I think that we should be talking about this here first. And perhaps people can direct me to discussions elsewhere in Wikipedia if such already exist. Agent Cooper 14:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shermer

According to this, Shermer has recanted his cult accusations in the latest issue of The New Individualist. The most current issue online is from December. Does anyone have a copy of the latest issue to confirm, disconfirm or explain what Shermer says? If he has fully or substantially recanted his position, this article needs to be substantially re-written. Endlessmike 888 00:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge from Randroid

Please merge any relevant content from Randroid per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Randroid. (If there is nothing to merge, just leave it as a redirect.) Thanks. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-26 08:49Z

[edit] Complete re-write

This article has massive problems, that much is obvious. So I've re-written it. I still have a lot of references to gather, so the re-write is held on my user page. I've included a history of the Objectivist movement (which will be more heavily sourced in due course), since the topic of this article is 'the Objectivist movement', not 'why Objectivism is a cult.' You can look at what I've got so far here. If I've made any factual errors please correct them, and if you know some of the sources please include them. I'll post some suggestions on the talk page, since I think the article should include a few more things. Once it is fully sourced then we can take the next step. Endlessmike 888 21:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I was told by several other editors that my updates were excellent, plus I've corrected several of the main problems with the original. Lack of sources and total lack of info on the Objectivist movement, for example. My update preserves everything in the original, but now the article has a flow, rather than seeming like a splatter paint of random information about Objectivism. Endlessmike 888 02:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I think the tags about sources, clean-up, and neutrality can go now. Endlessmike 888 02:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Also thanks to SteveWolfer for helping. Endlessmike 888 02:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Very nice. It is a monumental improvement over the original article. It feels a lot more like a real article now. Kukyona 17:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Things to do

The claims made in the sections dealing with NBI need sources, which can be found in back issues of The Objectivist Newsletter and The Objectivist. I won't have access to my back issues until Monday, so please fill those in if you have copies to find the refs. Endlessmike 888 02:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] cult accusation

Compare the LaRouche movement article with the Objectivist movement article. Why is it ok that the LaRouche section on cult accusations is tiny, while prior to my revision this entire article was about cults? The LaRouche movment is widely known for encouraging kids to drop out of school, live in a group home, and raise money for LaRouche. Hence the cult accusation against LaRouche is timely, pertinent, and important. Yet the Objectivist movement does literally the opposite (encourages kids to get college educations, encourages them to not live in group homes, and gives them scholarships and free education). Moreso, this accusation against Objectivism is becoming more obscure as time goes on, and Objectivism is for some reason required to have extensive sections dealing with the cult accusation! Sense made = zero. I'd like to see some reasons why Objectivist related articles need such extensive discussion of this accusation, while an actual cult (or at least something more commonly agreed to be cult-like) does not . Endlessmike 888 08:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


the cult accussation needs to be treated neutrally, currently you present all the counter arguments much more significantly than the argument, that is likely because you support that side, and thus are not 'neutral' but try to give the claims their merits.--Buridan

You didn't answer my question. Why is it acceptable to devote major space on cults in the Objectivist movement article, when the standard set by an actual cult (LaRouche) is much lower.

Also, I deleted the addition of the Randroid section. I already covered BOTH the term Randroid, and Rothbard's paper. There was no need to repeat the exact same thing again. Endlessmike 888 19:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citcations

There are a few citations I need help with. First, the Brandens dispute Valliants claims. But they've only done so on web forums. I assume that a web forum would count as their own testimony and therefore be okay to cite? Second, Buridan you asked for a cite to justify Laissez-Faire Books as a libertarian bookstore. Their parent organization is The Center for Libertarian Thought. I added that but just wanted to double check that it was satisfactory. Endlessmike 888 19:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Walker

The comment is cited. Plus it is a stupid criticism. (Analytic philosophy claims to be based on logic. So I guess analytic philosophy is similar to Scientology in some important respect). I say keep it. Endlessmike 888 02:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] good faith?

My edits were all in good faith. I suggest you look at them. I requested citations, put in NPOV where appropriate, and made good faith changes to make the rest of the article fit. I started editing it because people deleted the one bit of text from it that there was a consensus in afd to preserve. Then i edited the npov out of the header so it conformed to that standard, then i went through and asked for citations for any fact that was unreferenced or likely opinion. In short, I made this article a better article by wikipedia standards. Deleting the books, as the books were not related to the objectivist movement, but just imports that belong more appropriately on other pages, was the only bit that is really debatable. --Buridan 17:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

You requests for citations were reasonable. I filled most of them, though a few more remain. I should have them filled by the end of the day. Also I found a cite for the lack of an Objectivist organization, so I retract my claim that such citation would be impossible.

About the books, limit the list to both of Peikoff's books, Kelley's Contested Legacy, and Smith's recent book. Those are the ones relevent to the movement. Then just link to the bibliography. That's my two cents. Endlessmike 888 19:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Buridan, your attacks on Rand and Objectivism have a long history. Here is a quote from your user page that speaks to your motivation: "I have a theory about the value of wikipedia and its subsections.... It is called Randrot. Randrot is the pernicious expansion and promotion of Ayn Rand as a significant and important figure in any given area other than literature and book sales. As Randrot grows, the value of wikipedia decreases so that you cannot click more than two links without seeing a mention of Rand...This, I view, as evidence of the inability of editors to discern and promote the actual state of affairs from the ones they wish to promote. When wikipedia becomes more about the promotion of someone's status, than the actual status of that person.... it loses value."1. And then there your belief that Objectivism killed tens of millions of people " 2. And you say you have no personal POV to push. I guess all of the other pages in Wikpedia were unavailable or had reached perfection so you came over here to be helpful. Steve 19:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
look randrot exists, and try to cite appropriately. i actually only came here because the randroid bit was deleted, which if you go read the afd for it, you'll find they wanted it preserved here. so i moved it here, and then like i suggested would happen, it was deleted. it should have a place here under criticisms. below is the content you keep deleting and there is a consensus to keep. anyway, i see it is integrated, just without the negative bits. the article does need to recognize the negative a bit more.--Buridan 21:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Randroids

Randroid is a pejorative term for some or all followers of Ayn Rand's Objectivism. It is a portmanteau of Rand's name with the word android.

Murray N. Rothbard considered Objectivism to be cult-like.[1] Libertarian writer Justin Raimondo has referred to Objectivism as a "death cult",[2] due to the foreign policy positions advocated by Leonard Peikoff and Yaron Brook.

Raidroid, using that language, down to the word "portmanteau," is discussed in the first paragraph of the criticism section. Murray Rothbard's criticism is discussed in the immediately following paragraph. Raimondo's criticism isn't about the Objectivist movement, nor does it contain the word "randroid," so it is irrelevent to this article. Endlessmike 888 22:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

yes i saw you included it after i wrote the above. --Buridan 02:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Was that why you added the NPOV tag? I'm removing it, but if you still have some objection to the neutrality of the section put it back and we'll take it from there. Endlessmike 888 22:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
yeah seems well enough to be stable for a while now. --Buridan 19:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] categories

There are two categories listing this article as not citing sources. This is no longer the case. How are those categories removed? Endlessmike 888 04:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I removed them, and Buridan put them back - When the sources have been cited all you have to do is remove the {{Fact}} tag and the category will not be included. Steve 20:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I filled in the last citations.Endlessmike 888 22:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Links section

LazloWalrus deleted a number of links, and ordinarily I'd agree with him that Wikipedia often collects way too many links. But this case is very different. Those links ARE a key part of the Objectivist movement - they are kind of the grass roots connection of the people to the movement and each other. They are the best representation of the differences in groups that make up the Objectivist movement. These links are where they get their news of what is happening in the movement. They are where informal articles are stored. They are where events in the Objectivist's world are advertised and discussed. They are where new ideas are put forth. Steve 18:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The Atlasphere is ok, I think Front Range is, too. (The Atlasphere has gotten national press, and Front Range has hosted numerous Objectivist intellectuals.) But SOLO, RoR, and Objectivism Online are just webforums. If we link to forums why not blogs? Endlessmike 888 20:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
A blog is usually just one person talking - if that person were important to Objectivism then their blog might be included. But a forum is where part of the movement exists - many new comers enter the movement through these web-sites. They are repositories for articles on Objectivism. We mention Internet forums in the article. The Internet and the forums are as important today as the campus clubs were a decade or so ago. These forums are where the differences in the details between different factions are visible. For example - Ed Hudgins, Tibor Machan and Robert Bidinotto - all key players in the movement and all have posted at RoR in the last week or so. Why would we not list these links? Steve 20:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
"We mention Internet forums in the article..." Good point. I say limit it to the big two then: OO and RoR. Endlessmike 888 22:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Steve, I disagree with what you added to the article. While it is true that Barbara Branden, Tibor Machan, Chris Sciabarra, and Ed Hudgins participate in Rebirth of Reason and Objectivist Living, none of the others publish anything online (except on the webpages of ARI and TAS). I'm unaware of Peikoff, Gotthelf, Binswanger, Brook, or Kelley using webforums in any notable way, or in any way at all. Endlessmike 888 18:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Mike, I restored the last revert but then I went in and deleted the names you have mentioned. I was forced to put these in the article in this fashion because of those people who are not friends of Objectivism or an honest article that were deleting them. Steve 21:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] See also

I removed the see also section - all the links were embedded in the body text, so there's no need to duplicate them in a separate section. WLU 13:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Journals

I tried to find proper citations for the journals cited in the academia section, I've removed all the forthcoming ones; since they are forthcoming, they aren't out and until they're published, they don't really exist. Several of the ones that were supposed to exist I could only find as books, so they aren't really journals either. Here's the paragraph that was left iwth the forthcoming articles:

Articles on Rand’s ethical and epistemological views have appeared in journals such as Social Philosophy and Policy,[3] American Philosophic Quarterly,[4] and The Review of Metaphysics.[5]

WLU 14:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV Issues

Seems like discussion on this article died down 6 months ago; clearly, much debate is still needed.

On a "random article" search, I happened upon this one. Reading through the entire article, I was astounded by the unmistakable slant towards Objectivist standpoints. Every paragraph in the "Criticism" section ends with a refutation or marginalization of the critique. The entire tone of the article is defensive, as if the point of the entry is to defend the attacks against the so-called "movement". This poorly made article is yet another crate of ammunition in the anti-Wikipedia camp's arsenal.

[edit] Peron

This last quotation of Peron is too out of context to be properly meaningful, especially to non-Objectivists. I believe the entire discussion of the cult label deals in non-essentials and fails as an argument.

Objectivists are no more cult followers of Objectivism, than are readers and proponents of Adam Smith's economic views. Some understand them properly, some don't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.71.136.147 (talk) 18:31, 23 May 2008