Talk:Objectivist movement

Prose removed

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

The Objectivist moral principle of "sanction"

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I was only responding to my own comment, not the article content you added in. --Karbinski (talk) 21:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

OK. -RLCampbell (talk) 01:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Peikoff/Kelley split

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)

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)

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)

All right, no "reportedly," then.-RLCampbell (talk) 23:25, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I've made a minor change under this heading. For clarity's sake, I edited an important sentence containing a quote from Peikoff, attributing the quote to Peikoff. I believe the previous version was too vague. --MechHead (talk) 16:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Possible additions

I would like to get the community's opinion on adding a section for modern day projects of the movement. Objectivism has a variety of active projects that I believe deserve mention. Two of larger projects come to mind:

1. Philosopher Dr. Diana Hseih has been a very active member of the Objectivist movement. She is a political activist in her home state of Colorado, hosts a weekly Objectivist ethics podcast, and hosts yearly conventions for fellow followers of Objectivism. I believe she is a notable philosopher within the movement that has made a significant impact. If the idea of adding her contributions to this article is well received, I would be happy to draft something for entry.

2. One of the larger Objectivist websites includes www.ObjectivistAnswers.com, a question and answer website for fellow Objectivists to field questions from others interested in the philospohy and its application to a variety of subjects. The site was started in 2010 and averages about 300-400 page views per day. It is hosted by Objectivist Greg Perkins, who also hosts a weekly Objectivism Seminar where fellow Objectivists teleconference in to discuss works of Rand and other Objectivists. Mr. Perkins is also actively involved in Dr. Diana Hsieh's weekly podcasts and her ongoing projects.

These two individuals and websites are important facets of the Objectivist movement today, and I believe are noteworthy enough to warrant mention in this article. I'd be happy to hear any thoughts.

Thank you.

Tetracide (talk) 04:18, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Are they discussed in third-party reliable sources? That would be key to their inclusion. --RL0919 (talk) 15:42, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Let me start with Dr. Hsieh. Dr. Hsieh's work has been published in the The Objective Standard [1] and the Journal of Value Inquiry[2]. As a political activist seeking to further Objecvitivist ideas, she spoke at a campaign hearing in Colorado which was mentioned in an article by the Center for Competitive Politics. Please let me know if these are reliable sources.

As for Greg Perkins and Objectivist Answers; I do not believe he or his website have been mentioned by a reliable source. However, considering Diana Hsieh's resume, I wonder if his involvement with her projects would allow his site to be mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tetracide (talk • contribs) 00:45, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

George Reisman

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)

If "Austrian School" were a legitimate form of economics, then perhaps yes - he could be mentioned. Until then, no, he's another hack and scam artist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.150.176.2 (talk) 13:29, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

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 {{dead link}} 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:25, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Objective Standard Institute

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)

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)

It was created by Carl Barney, who used to be a part of the Ayn Rand Institute's board, last year and apparently with Leonard Peikoff's blessing. I may start creating the section in the next few day's