Talk:Objectivism

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Removal of material from the lead 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Bias 

message: :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)
replies: text: 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  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)
thread_title:  Requested move 3 February 2020 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:23, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion