This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

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)

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)