Revision as of 12:02, 28 April 2009 editKarbinski (talk | contribs)1,823 edits →Karlin← Previous edit | Revision as of 12:03, 28 April 2009 edit undoKarbinski (talk | contribs)1,823 edits →KarlinNext edit → | ||
Line 36: | Line 36: | ||
If Karlin is a reliable source, then it doesn't need to say "according to Rick Karlin". Indeed it would actually constitute the use of weasel words. ] (]) 06:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC) | If Karlin is a reliable source, then it doesn't need to say "according to Rick Karlin". Indeed it would actually constitute the use of weasel words. ] (]) 06:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC) | ||
:Agreed. --12: |
:Agreed. --] (]) 12:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 12:03, 28 April 2009
Objectivism was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (December 3, 2007). There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Objectivism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 |
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Template:ReasonPlease add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
Article Cross Talk
Cross-Talk for Ayn Rand and Objectivism Articles | |
---|---|
Articles |
Use of cross-talk page
This section is transcluded from Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Objectivism/Cross talk. (edit | history)There doesn't seem to be much use of the Objectivism cross-talk page lately. I'm the only one who has used it since February. Is it still relevant? --RL0919 (talk) 20:41, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
- Perhaps not. Although I love it, I have to say it now seems like an esoteric feature. Karbinski (talk) 14:25, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Metaphysics
The metaphysics article now re-directs here --Karbinski (talk) 12:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Unnecessary rebuke
From the article:
Rand is not found in the comprehensive academic reference texts The Oxford Companion to Philosophy or The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy. A lengthy article on Rand appears in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy; she has an entry forthcoming in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, as well as a brief entry in the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy which features the following passage:
The influence of Rand’s ideas was strongest among college students in the USA but attracted little attention from academic philosophers. … Rand’s political theory is of little interest. Its unremitting hostility towards the state and taxation sits inconsistently with a rejection of anarchism, and her attempts to resolve the difficulty are ill-thought out and unsystematic.
Allan Gotthelf (chairman of the Ayn Rand Society) responded unfavorably to this entry and came to her defense. He and other scholars have argued for more academic study of Objectivism, viewing Rand's philosophy as a unique and intellectually interesting defense of classical liberalism that is worth debating.
(end of excerpt) Why is Allan Gotthelf's rebuke necessary to include in the text? Why is it noteworthy that an Ayn Rand Society chairmen opposed the description of a philosophy he is attempting to promote as "of little interest"? Please provide a source showing why this is noteworthy. This isn't supposed to be a debate whether Objectivism is interesting or not, it's an encyclopedic article. Every point of criticism doesn't have to be answered by one of the philosophy's preachers - unless it is actually notable. An article built on a "right of respond" to criticism will end up farcical. 81.170.235.35 (talk) 14:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- If math prof. A says problem x is not worthy of study, and then math prof. B counters that problem x is indeed worthy of study, and then wiki-editor C says math prof. B is a preacher of problem x, would it be reasonable to stick with what prof. A and prof. B had to say about problem x? --Karbinski (talk) 15:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- You are comparing Apples and Pears and out of context at that. This is a criticism section, it is not noteworthy that the Chairman of the AYn Rand society responded to criticism, it would be noteworthy if he supported the criticism. Every criticism does not have to have a counter criticism, unless the purpose of the article is to advocate Objectivism and argue that Ayn Rand an intellectual hero. --Snowded (talk) 17:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed. 81.170.235.35 (talk) 18:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- Indeed every crticisim does not have to have a counter criticism. However, the purpose of the article is not to criticize Objectivism and for sure not to argue what Ayn Rand was or wasn't. Intellectual impact is the topic of the section, and the AG content is on topic, as it would be under the Criticism section. --Karbinski (talk) 20:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed. 81.170.235.35 (talk) 18:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- You are comparing Apples and Pears and out of context at that. This is a criticism section, it is not noteworthy that the Chairman of the AYn Rand society responded to criticism, it would be noteworthy if he supported the criticism. Every criticism does not have to have a counter criticism, unless the purpose of the article is to advocate Objectivism and argue that Ayn Rand an intellectual hero. --Snowded (talk) 17:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Karlin
If Karlin is a reliable source, then it doesn't need to say "according to Rick Karlin". Indeed it would actually constitute the use of weasel words. TallNapoleon (talk) 06:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed. --Karbinski (talk) 12:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
- "Ayn Rand at the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy". 2006. Retrieved 2007-07-20.
- "Table of Contents". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved 2008-06-15.
- Ayn Rand Society
- "The Entry on Ayn Rand in the new Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy". Retrieved 2007-07-20., Error in Webarchive template: Empty url.
- Uyl, Douglas J. Den (1998). "On Rand as philosopher" (PDF). Reason Papers. 23: 70–71. Retrieved 2007-07-20.
- Former good article nominees
- All unassessed articles
- B-Class Philosophy articles
- Mid-importance Philosophy articles
- B-Class Aesthetics articles
- Mid-importance Aesthetics articles
- Aesthetics task force articles
- B-Class metaphysics articles
- Mid-importance metaphysics articles
- Metaphysics task force articles
- B-Class epistemology articles
- Mid-importance epistemology articles
- Epistemology task force articles
- B-Class social and political philosophy articles
- Mid-importance social and political philosophy articles
- Social and political philosophy task force articles
- WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
- B-Class Atheism articles
- Mid-importance Atheism articles