Talk:Objectivist movement

message: Though much of what was removed in this edit was redundant to the Bibliography of Ayn Rand and Objectivism article, much descriptive prose was removed also. I wonder if this is an improvement to the article.  Skomorokh  01:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Essentially the same material (particularly the descriptions of the critical sources) used to be in the bibliography article also. It was cut a while back (not by me) due to issues with POV, lack of source citations and apparent original research. If the text was problematic in that article, it is presumably just as problematic in this article. But there may be bits that could be extracted for re-use elsewhere. --RL0919 (talk) 01:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That article is a list, so prose is discouraged. Uncited/originally researched content in otherwise well-referenced articles ought generally to be tagged first rather than removed.  Skomorokh  01:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the removal of this material from the old bibliography article was based on that article being a list (although that would have been valid reasoning), but rather on the material itself being OR. However, the name of the bibliography article has been changed since, and I don't know how to access the previous talk page. Anyhow, I'm looking through to see if any of the deleted material could be used elsewhere. --RL0919 (talk) 01:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

text: Follow-up: I re-incorporated some material, but most of what was originally cut was either redundant or original research that I can't support. However, it is relevant to discuss some of the works either in this article or in the Objectivism (Ayn Rand) article. So I'm going over them one-by-one and trying to find proper sources to cite. Fortunately, Gladstein's The New Ayn Rand Companion is a godsend for this. But it will take some time. --RL0919 (talk) 03:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prose removed 

message: The phrase "Objectivist moral principle of sanction" is used in the subsection on The Peikoff-Kelley split, but that phrase is not defined and is unexplained in this article or in the Objectivism article.  The same is true for "sanction" in the context of Objectivist moral principles.  If the Objectivist moral principle of "sanction" is significant enough to lead to a major schism in the movement, I submit that it is significant enough to be defined somewhere in the article.  Austinmayor (talk) 16:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  Used alone 'sanction' in Objectivist terms is short for 'Moral Sanction'.  Can't think of where to pull it from off the top of my head (for the article), but the idea is that to sanction evil, for example murder or statist government, is a moral crime in itself (although it isn't and shouldn't be a legal crime) - only what is morally good ought to be granted moral sanction.--Karbinski (talk) 19:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The quotes here should provide a start. I think this would belong in the Objectivism (Ayn Rand) article, presumably in the section on ethics. In the Objectivist movement article, the word 'sanction' could be wikilinked back to the section in the other article. I don't think a detailed explanation is appropriate in the movement article itself. --RL0919 (talk) 19:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a quick explication of "sanction" to the section on Peikoff vs. Kelley, but I'm sure it can be improved. -RLCampbell (talk) 13:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to note, one sanctions evil in action, and depending on the action, the sanction may very well be properly illegal. --Karbinski (talk) 19:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, but the context is the Peikoff-Kelley split, where Kelley was allegedly sanctioning libertarianism and the sale of Barbara Branden's unauthorized biography of Rand.-RLCampbell (talk) 20:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was only responding to my own comment, not the article content you added in.  --Karbinski (talk) 21:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. -RLCampbell (talk) 01:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Objectivist moral principle of "sanction" 

message: Making the Objectivist movement page the main locale for the Peikoff-Kelley split seems to be working (there was no need for it to take up so much of Leonard Peikoff's article with the description of that schism).  Brandonk2009 recently added some detail about Leonard Peikoff and Laissez-Faire Books.  That's fair game, as it comes from the cited source.  However, I didn't cite Peikoff's reported reason for no longer working with Laissez-Faire Books (he had just realized that they carried ... anarchist books) because I didn't think informed readers would believe it.  LFB had been carrying anarchist books since the store's inception. For instance, it was always a place where customers could pick up books by Murray Rothbard, who Peikoff had to know was an anarchist. I'm OK with leaving Peikoff's alleged reason in the article, however.-RLCampbell (talk) 21:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Meanwhile RL0919 has deleted the word "supposedly" as editorializing.  Would "reportedly," which might have been a better word choice, also have been construed as editorializing?  In the end, it scarcely matters.  Why would Leonard Peikoff have needed to be told that LFB carried anarchist literature? -RLCampbell (talk) 23:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Any wording that makes it sound like Wikipedia is questioning the veracity of the claim, as opposed to a source questioning it, would be a problem. In this particular case, the current source reports the turn of events but doesn't question it: "Then the even more rigorous Randians pointed out that we had carried anarchist books. So Leonard broke with us." Whether Peikoff already knew about those books is surely a reasonable question to raise. But we would need an outside source that raises it. --RL0919 (talk) 23:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: All right, no "reportedly," then.-RLCampbell (talk) 23:25, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Peikoff/Kelley split

message: Should Dr. Reisman be mentioned in this article? He is maybe the only Objectivist economist, since he has adapted some elements of the Austrian School with his objectivist philosophy. --186.136.170.81 (talk) 16:51, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  George Reisman 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Objectivist movement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://the-undercurrent.com/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040909052502/http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer to http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:25, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This article seems quite out of date. In particular it really needs a section on the relatively new Objective Standard Institute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RicoRichmond (talk • contribs) 20:37, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Has it been covered in any independent, reliable sources to show that it is actually a significant presence in the movement? If it has, then you could add something, or provide the source info here and others can look at it. --RL0919 (talk) 21:43, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Objective Standard Institute