Talk:Objectivism

Ignored - Bias

"Academic philosophers have mostly ignored or rejected Rand's philosophy." This is a clear well-poisoning propaganda technique. If you want to put that into a criticism section, that's one thing, but to conclude the introduction of the article with "well it's basically bullsh!t, but those crazy lolbertarians believe in it anyway!" is blatant duplicity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.191.15.34 (talk) 15:27, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but with that many high quality citations it's unlikely to be just an opinion. Noting its influence is absolutely fine for a lead. Prinsgezinde (talk) 22:08, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Disagree. I believe a middle ground would be to start the sentence with "many" rather than globalize unfairly. 66.87.134.225 (talk) 12:30, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

That would be WP:WEASEL. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:00, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Since various editors (or maybe just one using multiple IPs/accounts – it's hard to tell) continue to try to whitewash and deny what the sources say, I am going to lay out the statements from multiple academic secondary sources:

• Sciabara, Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical: "academics have often dismissed her 'Objectivist' ideas as 'pop' philosophy"
• "Ayn Rand" in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: "only a few professional philosophers have taken her work seriously". Later, after describing Rand's critical attitude towards most philosophers, they add: "Some contemporary philosophers return the compliment by dismissing her work contemptuously on the basis of hearsay. ... she is either mentioned in passing, or not mentioned at all, in the [SEP] entries that discuss current philosophical thought..."
• Gotthelf, On Ayn Rand: "she still gets little attention in academic philosophical journals and courses"
• "Ayn Rand (1905–1982)" in Contemporary Women Philosophers: 1900–today: "Objectivist philosophy is regularly omitted from academic philosophy"
• Machan, Ayn Rand: "Ayn Rand is a popular novelist but not popular among philosophers, and not even given due respect"
• Burns, 1957: The Year that Launched the American Future: "nobody in the academe pays any attention to her, neither as an author nor a philosopher"
• Brühwiler, Out of a Gray Fog: Ayn Rand's Europe: "academia ... tends to treat Rand as a fringe phenomenon not worthy of further consideration. ... neither author nor oeuvre has received much attention from scholars in literary criticism, philosophy, or political science"
• Cocks, Questioning Ayn Rand: "a stubborn resolve to ignore or ridicule [Rand's] work has long been established as an acceptable critical response"

These sources show how academics describe the way other academics regard Rand and Objectivism, and they support the phrasings of "ignored" ("not mentioned at all", "little attention", "nobody ... pays any attention", "ignore", "not worthy of further consideration", "little attention") or "rejected" ("dismissed", "dismissing her work contemptuously", "ridicule"). Some of these authors indicate that academic interest in Objectivism is increasing, but from a small base that is not close to being a majority. I've updated the sentence in the article with some of the more recent sources, as well as adding sources specific to the other part of the sentence (about the existence of some pro-Objectivist academics). --RL0919 (talk) 06:41, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, many of those sources are ironically written by academic libertarians, inspired by her and writing books about her, using victimization tactics hinting that she gets undue weight. Nuances that aren't taken into account in the Wikipedia article. It's also weird to suggest that someone with an entry in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is ignored at all. She is found in many encyclopedias, by the way. You are of course also failing to take the nuances into account in that very source that uses the word "ignore". Cocks describe it as a "stubborn resolve to ...". Anyway. It is in all instances too simplified. We should try to reword it something alike those lines that you can find on the Ayn Rand Wikipedia page.

"Although academic interest in her ideas has grown since her death, academic philosophers have generally ignored or rejected her philosophy because of her polemical approach and lack of methodological rigor. Her writings have politically influenced some right-libertarians and conservatives. The Objectivist movement attempts to circulate her ideas, both to the public and in academic settings."

It appears like that her ideas were mostly rejected in its native form, but inspired academics to develop it into something worth to consider in the following years from 80's. It's the same story you can read in the article Objectivist movement - Wikipedia below Objectivism in academia.

But I don't have time, but I hope there are people out there taking NPOV seriosly. I will remove "ignore" because it's redundant and misuses the soure. But it isn't enough. 213.237.93.149 (talk) 21:37, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

It's by the way a bit strange to argue this on Wikipedia whose founder has described himself as an objectivist. 213.237.93.149 (talk) 21:51, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

No, it is not strange when people working on a project have another viewpoint than the founder of that project. It is strange that you think that variety of opinion is strange - maybe you live in a dictatorship with an ideological monoculture, but most of us do not. --Hob Gadling (talk) 21:57, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

You ignore the entire point I was making. I agree, it wasn't very relevant, but

Jimmy was 'in September 2017, he was awarded the President's Medal of the British Academy "for facilitating the spread of information via his work creating and developing Wikipedia, the world's largest free online encyclopedia'. Anyway. 213.237.93.149 (talk) 22:05, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

You also hint that I'm against different viewpoints, but my effort is only increasing the nuances and NPOV. I haven't even removed any viewpoints, just reduced the reduncancy. 213.237.93.149 (talk) 22:09, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I ignore lots of things because my time is not infinite. My response was a response to that one line, as you can see from the indentation. I did not respond to other stuff you have talked about because I had no reason to. I also have no duty to respond to everything everybody writes. And I do not hint at what you claim I hint at. Please stop this. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:30, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

@Sirfurboy Sup. Do you have any inputs to what I have already written? Let's enter a dialogue. The sources use many different words for "rejection", but what's the point of going through every synonym? I will go the other way - keeping "ignore" and removing "rejecting" - if no one disagrees. Under all circumstances it's flawed as it is now because servere nuances are lacking as explained. I hope you find a solution. Cheers 213.237.93.149 (talk) 03:44, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

My input is this: on Wikipedia we go with what the sources say, so what you need to provide to support your edit is sources that show that this is, in fact, taken seriously by a mainstream of philosophers. I don't see any of those above. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:15, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I find it strange that the IP editor encourages using the wording in the Ayn Rand article, then immediately proposes removing words that are used in that article. Also, 'ignore' and 'reject' are not redundant since they describe different reactions. Which is actually another oddity in the argument: saying that "nuances" are missing, while trying to make the wording less nuanced by reducing the range of reactions described. One could get the impression that the argument is secondary to the desire to remove the offending words. --RL0919 (talk) 13:58, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Alright, @RL0919, @Sirfurboy. But you misunderstand Wikipedia policies. Sources are only reliable within its area of expertise. What we are talking about isn't a discussion of philosophy, but how much ideas have been spread (within academic settings btw) - something akin to survey research or intellectual history. With regards to nuances, we should talk about how she had no academic influence from the beginning, but received more after her death because that appears to be the story. It could also be nice if RL0919 could give us insight into the entire paragraphs where he found those passages, so we could capture the nuances - many of those passages don't even show the entire sentences which make them kind of useless.

Anyway, I understand your concerns, and I will show good-faith, so I will use the wording that appears to be most common according to your sources. That is "paid little attention to" ish and "dismiss". 213.237.93.149 (talk) 16:29, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Professional philosopher

Hi @FreeKnowledgeCreator,

I'm afraid I do not agree with your revert. You claim that the description of "professional philosopher" stresses the contrast between Peikoff and Rand.

The adding of the qualifier "professional" can suggest multiple things here.

• being a philosopher is Peikoff's profession. True, but not notable in this context
• Peikoff has shown professionalism, pointing to his reputation.

In this context it's not clear that Rand wasn't a philosopher by profession, and to me it looks like the article is saying Paikoff is considered a "professional" and Rand was not, moren of an amateur or a hobbyist. Thoughts? soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:26, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I gave a clear reason for my revert, which I consider reasonable. Noting that Peikoff was a professional philosopher stresses the difference between him and Rand, who was not a philosopher by profession. I do not have the faintest idea what you mean by saying that the fact that Peikoff was a professional philosopher is not "notable in this context." What "context" do you mean? It is meaningless unless you are specific. The justification for including the information is perfectly clear. You are, furthermore, mistaken to think that "professional philosopher" could have multiple meanings. It has a single clear meaning. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:30, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, no, as I've shown with the link to Wiktionary, "professional", has several meanings. "That person is a professional lawyer", "Babe Ruth was a professional baseball player" or "we're doing this professional", "he's professionally chugging that beer". So, no, there is no single, clear meaning to it.

It depends on context, and the context is the lead on this article, Objectivism. In the lead, it does not say Rand wasn't considered a "professional philosopher", but states Peikoff is. It doesn't emphasize any contrast, as it is not clear Rand wasn't.

Statement 1) The floor is below.

Statement 2) The ceiling is up and is painted blue.

These two statements do not make it clear whether or not the floor is blue.

Statement 1) Rand was a writer.

Statement 2) Peikoff is a professional philosopher.

These two statements do not make it clear whether or not Rand was a professional.

Begs to question, what is a "professional philosopher"? The article on Ayn Rand describes her, among several things, as a "philosopher". Not "amateur philosopher" or "semi-pro philosopher". The article on Leonard Peikoff doesn't use "professional" either, so why should this article? soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

There is only one meaning to "professional" that anyone who understands English would think applies, which is that it refers to someone's profession. That Peikoff was a philosopher by profession is obviously relevant information for the lead, which is why it is mentioned here. Saying that the information is not "notable" in the context of the lead is vacuous. Notability on Wikipedia concerns which topics may have articles created about them, per WP:NOTE: "On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article." Were you using the term in some other sense entirely? The lead could, and perhaps should, be rewritten to note explicitly that Rand was not a professional philosopher, but anyone of at least normal intelligence should be able to grasp the fact that noting that Peikoff was a professional philosopher implies that Rand wasn't. As for why this article should call Peikoff a professional philosopher when the article about him doesn't, I can simply note that the Objectivism article has a different focus from the article about Peikoff, and that there is no reason why it shouldn't be written differently. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:55, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

"Anyone that understands English" still might have a different view, because for a third time, professional shows there are multiple interpretations of the word, also for "anyone of at least normal intelligence". The WP:LEAD is a summation of the article body - but nowhere in the article is Peikoff described as a "professional", also not on the article Leonard Peikoff. So again, why is it necessary to emphasize his profession? What reader "of at least normal intelligence" would come to think of him as an amateur philosopher? Rand is described as a writer, not as a philosopher, in any capacity. It's not notable (noteworthy, important, necessary, etc) to point out that next person mention is a "professional" one, because in this context, Rand isn't described as a philosopher at all. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 00:25, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Please don't patronize me by repeating yourself. You already made your point that the word "professional" can have multiple meanings, and it isn't the important point you seem to think it is. A great many words can have multiple meanings, but that isn't a justification for removing them from articles, because we assume that people are able to read properly and judge meaning based on context. Suggesting that the term "professional" should be removed because someone might conceivably misunderstand it and think that it referred to something other than someone's profession is bizarre. Your point about WP:LEAD is trivial. If the fact that Peikoff was a professional philosopher is not mentioned in the main body of the article, why, by all means it can be added there. Why are you inventing so many weird excuses to try to get rid of that word? I already explained the rationale for including it; why expect me to repeat my views? It is clearly helpful to explain that Peikoff was a professional philosopher, and it remains helpful regardless of the fact that Rand is only labelled a "writer" in the lead. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:00, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Me patronizing you? If you don't want to see your own words used against you, maybe refrain from using sentences like "anyone that understands English" and "anyone of at least normal intelligence", huh?

If I made my point, do you agree that are several interpretations of the word "professional"? Because it's not bizarre to suggest a change; I am saying it's not clear to what "professional" refers to and the WP:MOS mentions to avoid ambiguity in the lead. You're saying that it is helpful that the word "professional" contrasts the fact that Rand wasn't professional. I do not find it helpful, but ambiguous. I consider myself to be of normal intelligence and I do understand English, yet still I do think it's odd. How bizarre!

Instead of hearing my thoughts on the matter and trying come to a solution, you're dismissing me. I've cited several guidelines on the matter, not "excuses". Let's turn the tables: why are you so hell-bent on keeping the descriptor "professional"? Would the lead read entirely different to you then before? soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 01:20, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

It is clear what "professional" refers to. The context does not suggest any meaning other than someone's profession. There is no ambiguity there. Nor is there anything "ambiguous" about the contrast between a writer who is not a professional philosopher but who writes about philosophy and a professional philosopher. The reason I dismiss your arguments is that your arguments do not make sense. None of the guidelines you refer to support your position. I am not going to repeat myself simply to satisfy you. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:24, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Would you agree to a WP:THIRDOPINION and/or WP:DRN? soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 01:34, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree with soetermans. On first reading this, I thought the tone of "professional" carried the implication that Rand was unprofessional and sounds opinionated. I don't think it's appropriate for an encyclopedia article. Jamison 9 (talk) 08:54, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, you are both wrong. I suppose it is true that some people who read Wikipedia articles will get weird ideas about what words mean and react to them strangely; there is nothing that can really be done about that. The description of Peikoff as a professional philosopher is accurate and relevant information and there is no reason it should be removed; I have already explained the rationale for it, and I stand by it. And Rand was of course "unprofessional" in the literal sense of the word, since she was not a philosopher by profession. That fact should be emphasized, not hidden, even if there are some people who dislike it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:50, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

@FreeKnowledgeCreator, adding another reference does not make Peikoff more professional or Rand less. It's not what this is about either: I'm not saying Peikoff is not professional, I'm saying the word doesn't belong in the lead. Furthermore, you clearly copy-pasted the reference "Contemporary Authors Online, s.v. "Leonard Peikoff." Accessed March 2, 2008" directly from Leonard_Peikoff#cite_note-cao-2, as it was last accessed March 2, 2008. The first reference, "The Heirs of Ayn Rand", does not describe Peikoff as "professional" either. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:38, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Indeed not. What makes Rand not professional are the facts of reality, most importantly that she was not a philosopher by profession, a basic piece of information that there is no valid reason to exclude from the article and actually should be emphasized. You are correct that I copy pasted a citation that I found in the Leonard Peikoff article. I did so in good faith, assuming that it does support the statement that Peikoff was a professional philosopher. Do you have any evidence to the contrary? The mention of Peikoff being a professional philosopher can be removed if there is no valid citation to support it, but I remain to be convinced that this is the case. Finally, since a brand new account that has never edited Wikipedia before has suddenly popped up to support you, and made reverting me at this article among its very first edits, let me suggest that we should wait to see what more established editors interested in the article, such as Karbinski and RL0919 have to say. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:58, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

You're using reverse logic here, and that's not how Wikipedia works. I do not have to prove it shouldn't be there and I do not have to prove that Peikoff isn't a professional philosopher, but that's beside the point, which you still seem to fail to grasp. That Rand was or wasn't "professional" or "a professional" is not the point either. The issue is that you're using a descriptor for the second person mentioned, to emphasize that the first one does not have those qualities. I'm saying that in the lead of this article, which is about Objectivism and not about Rand, not about Peikoff and not about their relationship, it is unnecessary to mention. While I agree your support, @Jamison 9, yours is a recently created account. Per WP:BRD, we're discussing the changes, not reverting each other back and forth. I wouldn't mind some additional input. I'm mostly concerned with video game articles (I stumbled upon Rand, rereading the article on BioShock) and I consider my fellow WP:VG members @Sergecross73, Czar, Dissident93, Salvidrim!, and Masem: all to be of normal intelligence. Perhaps they can shed some light on this issue. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 10:29, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I see nothing wrong with "using a descriptor for the second person mentioned, to emphasize that the first one does not have those qualities", except possibly that the point could be made more explicitly, by noting in so many words that Rand was not a professional philosopher. That might be a good idea, as already noted. That Peikoff was a professional philosopher is obviously relevant to an article about Objectivism (since it shows that Objectivism also managed to interest professional philosophers). It is beside the point that the entire article is not specifically devoted to Peikoff. No one has presented any valid reason for removing the mention of Peikoff being a professional philosopher - just made-up and unconvincing reasons. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 10:36, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

• Why is this included in the lede when it isn't sourced in the text/prose? If this distinction is important, a reliable, secondary source will have made it for us to cite. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 11:47, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
• Since I was pinged, I will comment with an expression of indifference: I don't think it is a wrong word to use, but I also don't think it is necessary or important that this particular word is included in this particular sentence. --RL0919 (talk) 15:27, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Czar, the statement that Peikoff was a professional philosopher is cited. No one has shown any evidence that the citation does not support that description of him. I'm aware that material in the lead should also be present in the main body of the article; in this case, it would be perfectly simple to add a mention of Peikoff being a professional philosopher to the main body of the article, so that does not seem a substantive reason for objecting to the mention in the lead. I think the distinction between being simply someone who writes about philosophy and a professional philosopher is clearly important, and that this justifies mentioning that Peikoff was a professional philosopher. It is important information for readers. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:21, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Removal of material from the lead

IP editor 67.68.204.230 is edit warring to remove properly cited content ("Peikoff characterizes Objectivism as a "closed system" that is not subject to change") from the lead, as visible here and here. I have every intention of restoring that content again. In my judgement, the reasons given by the IP for removing it are utterly specious. The first reason given for removal was, "Upon closer inspection, Peikoff's full statement was that "all philosophies are closed systems" - this is mentioned not only in the reference for the statement I removed, but in the previous citation (#2). Clearly, this statement is banal - he is literally stating that all philosophies are closed systems, and Objectivism is a philosophy".

However acceptable that reasoning may seem to the IP, in my view it is a stupid and unacceptable excuse for removing Peikoff's characterization of Objectivism. The reader of the article who is not familiar with Peikoff's views has no means of knowing that Peikoff believes that "all philosophies are closed systems" and that Objectivism, as a philosophy, is a closed system for that reason. The IP is in effect saying that the content should be removed as "banal" because Peikoff's view that Objectivism is a closed system would be obvious to people fully familiar with his views - but it should be absolutely obvious that most readers of the article are not likely to be fully familiar with Peikoff's views.

The IP's second edit summary was, "Undid revision 850800344 by FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) AS I MENTIONED, the statement is NOT RELEVANT, the full quote is ""Yes, it is.... Every philosophy, by the nature of the subject, is immutable." How is that relevant to this particular philosophy?" It is relevant to "this particular philosophy" because Peikoff only mentioned his view that all philosophies are immutable in order to explain his view of Objectivism and the article is about Objectivism. Again, the IP's reasoning is totally specious. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:59, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I definitely agree that Peikoff's claim is not "banal". Even if Peikoff believes that "all philosophies are closed systems" as the IP's edit summary indicates, this is not a universal belief even among those who call themselves Objectivists. More concerning, however, is that nothing about this claim appears in the body of the article. This is the first "don't" at Wikipedia:Lead dos and don'ts. The fundamental purpose of a lead is to summarize the article. This topic does seem relevant, so presumably it should be represented in the body text somewhere. --RL0919 (talk) 15:02, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the point about the lead and the body text occurred to me as well. It ought to be simple to add something about Peikoff's view to the body of the article. I apologize to all concerned if my language was somewhat intemperate; it just gets irritating to deal with this kind of thing. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:31, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

This line in the Lead refers to a relatively arcane dispute between two later philosophers' approach to Rand's Objectivism. It is banal, precisely because, as you say, the view is "not a universal belief, even among those who call themselves Objectivists" - it should not, then, be taken as a defining feature of Objectivism (the article purports to describe Objectivism, right?). The article is discussing "Objectivism (Ayn Rand)" - it should start by giving an overview of the whole. Disputed interpretation and drama between two disciples of the original author are items that belong lower down in the article. What we have here is a controversial statement regarding the nature of philosophy, made by one Objectivist in response to another Objectivist's interpretation of Objectivism - certainly related to the topic at hand, but not definitive (even if Peikoff is Rand's designated "heir"). Rand and Peikoff and other Objectivists' views about Philosophy writ large are certainly relevant to an article about their particular philosophy - but these are not the kinds of statement you drop without further ado in the first paragraph! It bamboozles the reader - a closed system? In what way? No explanation is given as to what this even means. The sentence is meaningless to someone unfamiliar with the debate at hand (furthermore, to someone who has read the citation, it's quite uncontroversial - he's merely claiming that Kelley is being sloppy with Rand's first principles!). It is an explanatory detail that may help elucidate the development of Objectivism and its evolution, but it's hardly descriptive! It would belong in the lead of an article entitled "Peikoff's philosophical beliefs". It is, as FreeKnowledgeCreator says, frustrating to have common-sense edits reverted because one user has designated themself the ultimate arbiter of truth in this matter. Despite FreeKnowledgeCreator's sense of certainty and frustration, this line about Peikoff's semantic dispute with Kelley does not belong in an introductory overview of Objectivism and should be removed from the lead and relegated further down, if deemed relevant there.--67.68.204.230 (talk) 12:59, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Update moved the statement slightly lower in the lead to a more relevant paragraph and added context from the article - also note, "closed system" is Kelley's language whereas Peikoff uses "immutable". Thanks for your input, I hope this is an appropriate compromise between maintaining the integrity of the lead and providing a full and proper context for the reader.--67.68.204.230 (talk) 13:24, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

The relevant line in the lead is, "Peikoff characterizes Objectivism as a "closed system" that is not subject to change". As written, that is not a reference to any dispute. It is a factual statement about how Objectivism is understood by the person who, as Ayn Rand's successor, has the best claim to be its spokesman. In saying that it is "not definitive" you appear to be implying that the accuracy, or lack of it, of Peikoff's view is relevant to whether it should be mentioned in the lead; it's not, as that's not how things are done here. The expression "closed system" is not difficult in the least to understand, and even if it were, the lead explains what "closed system" means: "not subject to change." There is nothing "meaningless" about it. The "added context" that you added, and which I have now removed, is excessive detail that is completely unnecessary to the lead, which is only a brief summary of the article's topic. See WP:LEAD. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:32, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

By your own logic, the line should not be included in the lead at all since it's not discussed in the article. See WP:LEAD. Also, your wholesale reversals are unappreciated and in your zeal, you removed a Citation Needed tag as well. Please refrain from wholesale reversals and stick to constructive editing. Now reverting back to my improved version which provides context for the line in question and uses Peikoff's own word, "immutable", rather than Kelley's term ("closed system"). If you don't like that, then you can remove that line completely; but the status quo cannot stand merely because no one else has looked closely at it before.--67.68.204.230 (talk) 00:19, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I already noted that something could easily be added to the body of the article, making the content more appropriate to the lead, and have now done this; see here. As for your "context for the line in question", I repeat that it is inappropriate and unnecessary detail for the lead. There is no need for a lengthy explanation of exactly why Peikoff views Objectivism as a closed system, and in particular no need for an explanation of his view of philosophies in general. Your suggestion that the statement that, 'Peikoff characterizes Objectivism as a "closed system" that is not subject to change', is misleading is incorrect. The relevant passage of Peikoff's article in The Intellectual Activist reads, "Kelley states that Ayn Rand’s philosophy, though magnificent, “is not a closed system.” Yes, it is." It is quite clear that Peikoff does indeed accept "closed system" as a characterization of Objectivism. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:47, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Bias

Why is it felt that the statement about how academics often rejected her seen as a biased statement? As an objectivist one should desire your information be delivered objectively and that statement is completely objective. Despite completely agree with Rand's work, it is an objectively true fact that many scholars did in fact reject her work, so how is it biased? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MartysGospel (talk • contribs) 01:00, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 3 February 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) feminist (talk) 03:09, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

---

• Objectivism (Ayn Rand) → Objectivism
• Objectivism → Objectivism (disambiguation)

– This use of "Objectivism" is the clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC as demonstrated by the page view stats of the uses listed at the dab page currently at Objectivism, not to mention that the only other significant use of "objectivism" covered on WP, Objectivity (philosophy), is arguably better known as objectivity, not objectivism. In any case, use of the Randian philosophical "objectivism" garners far more interest on WP, making the Randian use the primary topic, since page views of all other uses are negligible. This finding is bolstered by the WP:GOOGLETEST: searching for "objectivism", putting aside the dictionary definition per WP:NOTADICT, yields pages full of references to the Rand connotations, with very few others. The reflected titles should accurately reflect that this use is the primary topic. В²C ☎ 21:17, 3 February 2020 (UTC)--В²C ☎ 21:17, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

• For what it is worth, the last time this was discussed was in 2008, as found at Talk:Objectivism (Ayn Rand)/Archive 11#Requested move. --RL0919 (talk) 01:39, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support - the only other topic on the disambig that would be considered for primary is the poetry topic and, compared to that, the Ayn Rand philosophy is clearly primary for both usage and significance. -- Netoholic @ 04:44, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support. Send the readers to the article they are most likely to be seeking. Colin Gerhard (talk) 09:32, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

This move was a bad idea, made with very little input. I don't have the time or energy to fight for a return to the status quo ante but if anyone in the future wants to fight that fight, this is me registering my support for them. I see Snowded made many good arguments in the last discussion about it 12 years ago, and I pretty much agree with him about that. --Pfhorrest (talk) 00:17, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Ayn Rand quote, American Adventure, Epcot Center, Walt Disney World.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:23, 30 June 2021 (UTC)