Talk:Bibliography of Ayn Rand and Objectivism

Good idea -- and nice job merging the criticisms section of the Objectivism page.

I think I can probably pull some additional titles out of my literature review and add them here. Alternatively, if somebody else wants to see my review, I'll send it to you on rquest.

Scottryan 22:30, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Some descriptions of the critiques describe their utility, which is very subjective unless one has an agenda to refute Ayn Rand, in which case it's POV. I'm considering removing the judgments of the quality of the articles, unless someone can tell me why they belong there. --24.118.77.253 00:01, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Looking at the list of of "Works by other Objectivist writers," there appear to be a number of items that are by authors who may happen to be Objectivists, but which are not about Rand or Objectivism. For example, the first work listed, Martin Anderson's The Federal Bulldozer does not contain the word 'Rand' or the word 'Objectivism' according to Google book search, nor have I ever seen it included on a list of works about Objectivism anywhere except here. Perhaps I'm missing the point of this article, but it is titled "Bibliography of work on Objectivism." I think including works by "Objectivist writers" is only appropriate if the work itself discusses Rand and/or Objectivism. Does anyone disagree? --RL0919 (talk) 19:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we need a new title, one that suggests the inclusion of Peikoff's Ominous Parallels and excludes Anderson's The Federal Bulldozer. --Karbinski (talk) 21:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The Ominous Parallels does discuss Objectivism and has an introduction by Rand, so I think it would be included in any list of books by/about Rand/Objectivism. Anderson's book (and some others) seems out of place, but I wanted to make sure I wasn't missing anything about the intention of the list. --RL0919 (talk) 22:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to solicit input on the current division of the non-Rand works between "Objectivist" and "Critiques." There are POV issues with this arrangement. Some Objectivists would object to (for example) David Kelley's later works being included as the work of an Objectivist. Others might not consider some of the "critiques" to be particularly critical (e.g., Scibarra's Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical). There also doesn't seem to be a place for works by non-Objectivists that are not critiques, such as Mimi Reisel Gladstein's The Ayn Rand Companion (which isn't listed but should be). So my thought is to scrap the division and just list every book except Rand's in an "Other Books about Objectivism" section. Then have separate sections or subsections for other media (periodicals, articles, films, etc.). Thoughts? (I know, I'm not very bold.) --RL0919 (talk) 00:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I decided to take the plunge and reorganize along the lines I discussed above. Because the different lists weren't formatted the same way, the current list is transitional. Stuff to do:

• Switch the entries originally on the "critiques" list to use the same citation format as the other entries. done
• Add missing entries. done for books; more articles/book chapters/pamphlets/etc. could be added if desired
• Add details (ISBN numbers, etc.) for individual entries. done

--RL0919 (talk) 15:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Updated above. --RL0919 (talk) 23:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Although the bibliography is much more thorough now than it was, there are some external web sites that have even more information about things like articles, reviews, multiple editions, unpublished works, tables of contents, etc. So I think an External Links section would be appropriate. Unfortunately, this creates a potential conflict of interest issue, because one of the most obvious sites to link is my own. So I'd prefer either that someone else add the links to the article, or that the idea gets some approval (or at least no objections) on the talk page before I add them. Here are the links I had in mind:

• Goldberg, Todd H. (2006). "Chronology & Bibliography of Ayn Rand's Life & Works". Archived from the original (text) on 2008-02-15. Retrieved 2009-05-27. — Detailed chronological listing of Rand's articles, books, lectures and other works.
• Lawrence, Richard. "Books about Objectivism or Ayn Rand". Retrieved 2009-05-27. — Lists of books related to Objectivism with detail pages including tables of contents, ISBN numbers for multiple editions, and links to reviews.
• "Ayn Rand Bibliography". Retrieved 2009-05-27. — Bibliography for Rand, including adaptations and unproduced dramatic works.

The middle entry is my site. If these are unobjectionable and someone just wants to copy them from here into the article, I did try to make it easy for you. :-) --RL0919 (talk) 23:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Lacking any objections, I created an external links section and added the three links above. --RL0919 (talk) 20:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Per discussion on the cross-talk page, this article needs more clarity around the criteria for what works should or should not be included. So here are some thoughts.

General:

• Since this is the English Wikipedia, only works in English.
• No duplications. For books, this means that books with two differently-named versions (such as Nathaniel Branden's memoirs or the Ellis book) should only have one version appear on the list. I'd say the most recent would be appropriate. For other works, this means no items included in other sources, such as anthology books or periodicals, that are mentioned elsewhere in the article.

Books about Ayn Rand or Objectivism:

• Only books from academic or commercial publishers; no vanity/self-published works.

Other works about Ayn Rand or Objectivism - This is the section that I personally think needs the most consideration and change from what it has currently:

• Only items explicitly about Rand or Objectivism. That means no articles related only by being written by someone who is/was an Objectivist, citing Rand without making her the specific topic of discussion, or expressing "Objectivist" ideas without identifying them openly as such.
• I think we should consider restricting the inclusion of essays/articles to only be items published in academic journals or books. The number of articles appearing in non-academic sources is too great to track and many would be of dubious usefulness for readers.

The current lists follow some, but not all, of these criteria to varying degrees, but not consistently or explicitly. Other ideas for inclusion/exclusion would be greatly appreciated. --RL0919 (talk) 00:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a good starter set to me.-RLCampbell (talk) 00:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Another criterion: Only serious, non-fiction works. That means no satires or books where Rand is a fictional character. The list currently doesn't have any of these (there are a few), but it should be an explicit criterion. --RL0919 (talk) 01:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

FAQ-ified. (See top of talk). --Cybercobra (talk) 04:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I made a first pass at weeding the books and "other works" lists based on the criteria above. I think the books list is pretty much in line now. I'm less sure on the other works because a few of the criteria are content-based and I don't have every item readily at hand to confirm them. --RL0919 (talk) 04:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Good work on the criteria, all. I would question whether the "only academic" criterion (in the FAQ) is too high – given the historical antipathy between Oism and academia this might exclude some of the more important works on the topic.  Skomorokh  15:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

My concern is that the number of non-academic essays and articles could be unworkably large, so the "Other works" section needs a stricter standard than what we have for books. (The "academic-only" standard is only supposed to apply to the "Other works," although that might not be clear enough in the FAQ.) But the standard doesn't have to be that one in particular. I was just shooting for something objective that would limit the numbers. Alternative suggestions would be welcomed. --RL0919 (talk) 16:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Its not clear to me. If someone collected essays explicitly on Objectivism and published them in a book via a university press, would they make it onto the list as the criteria stands right now? --Karbinski (talk) 16:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

In that case the book should appear on the list of books, but the individual essays should not appear in the list of other works, because of the "no redundancy" criterion. --RL0919 (talk) 16:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, that makes sense. How about for standalone articles/essays we require that they be notable, that is - discussed in a secondary source? --Karbinski (talk) 17:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

It's a possibility, depending on what "discussed in" means. Gladstein's Companion book contains lengthy lists of articles, but doesn't subject most of them to any significant discussion (that is, talking about them beyond including them on a list). So if the standard is discussion, not just listing or citation, that should be relatively limiting. --RL0919 (talk) 17:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Another possible criterion occurs to me: Should explicitly exclude items that are reviews of Rand's books? There are hundreds of those, and most would not be particularly illuminating with regard to her life or ideas. --RL0919 (talk) 17:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The exclusion of self-published/vanity-published works from this bibliography has had unanimous support in the past, so I've continued that exclusion by removing the self-published entries recently added by Redthoreau (talk · contribs). There was a question raised about Enclair Publishing, listed by Redthoreau as the publisher of Reconsidering Ayn Rand by Michael Yang. After a bit of checking I discovered that the original publisher of this book was Winepress Publishing, a known vanity publisher. It was switched to Enclair Publishing subsequently. A check on Enclair's barely-working website shows Reconsidering Ayn Rand to be their only publication, and a whois on the domain shows that Michael Yang is its admin. It seems likely that Enclair is just a self-publishing brand adopted as an alternative to the previous vanity publisher. So I've removed it as well. --RL0919 (talk) 22:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

RL0919, ironically I initially got the titles from --> your own site. I don't see why you would want a Wikipedia bibliography to be less inclusive than your own personal "Objectivism Reference Center"? Additionally, I understand the rationale behind staying away from self-published works as references in articles (if possible), but what would be the rationale of not even including them in a bibliography, even under the sub-title of "self published works"? Certainly Wiki readers can decide the level of credibility to lend to such texts.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 23:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

There is often more detail on specialty sites than there is in a Wikipedia article, but really it makes little difference to me personally whether self-published works are included or not. When I first started revamping this page last year, I left them in, but another editor removed them and there seemed to be agreement from everyone else who commented that removing them was the right way to go. I'm just maintaining that prior consensus. If a new consensus forms to include them, I'll follow it instead. However, if self-published works are to be included, then there are a bunch more than the ones you added. We should at least be consistent: exclude them all or include them all. --RL0919 (talk) 23:15, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

RL0919, certainly I would want all of the SP's to be included to be consistent. My vote would be for inclusion (as I believe a bibliography should be as inclusive as possible), but I'll let that be a matter of WP:Consensus if you would rather wait.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 23:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

For the record @Maltazarian MOS:MOVEMENT explicitly excludes proper nouns/names. These are always capitalized in Wikipedia (lead of MOS:CAPS). Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 23:56, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes I know. The fact that BarrelProof made the argument that MOS:MOVEMENT applies is implicitly saying that "Objectivism" isn't a proper noun, and SchreiberBike more or less explicitly did so after you responded as he is literally quoting the bit about proper names from that guideline. So when you simply assert that it is I'm presented with contradicting statements with nothing supporting one over the other (except someone claiming anecdotal experience). I'm not willing to declare a 2-3 !vote a consensus when that's the state the discussion is in. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 00:11, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Not to be petty but if you knew then you wouldn't have said one saying it's a "proper noun" without addressing why MOS:MOVEMENTS shouldn't apply. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 00:29, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Alright, I'll bite: no, that is actually exactly what I would say. Granted I was a bit sloppy here waving you off by saying "Yes I know" as I now realize you didn't mean what I think you meant. I thought you were referring to the exception for movement names derived from proper nouns/names, but apparently you seem to be saying that MOS:MOVEMENT contains a clause that says a movement is exempt if it's a proper noun. So, to clarify, I will give my full reasoning of what I meant:

MOS:MOVEMENT is saying that movements aren't proper nouns, full stop. Guidelines often say "usually" or "normally" or something to insinuate exceptions, but this one doesn't. It firmly states [List]..are not capitalized, unless the name derives from a proper name. It goes on cover how this applies to words like Platonism (derived from the proper noun Plato, of course). It is saying that unless that is the case, the movement's name is not a proper noun, without making an exception. Objectivism is derived from the word objective, which is not a proper noun. The fact I said what I did was because you stated "it's a proper noun" without any reference to guidelines, when the others have referenced a guideline saying it can't be treated as a proper noun on EnWiki. I would say this is accurately described as saying it's a "proper noun" without addressing why MOS:MOVEMENTS shouldn't apply.

I'm not even sure I was right to close the discussion the way I did. The support side could make the argument that the close is incorrect as the arguments referring to secondary sources capitalizing it as a proper nouns aren't based in PAG because MOS:CAPS says There are exceptions for specific cases discussed below. and MOS:MOVEMENT is on that same page and says what has already been discussed above, which seemingly completely rules out allowing the capitalization of Objectivism by not saying "usually" or something similar. Chalk it up to the pressure of having someone who has contributed to the project for nearly as long as you've been alive tell you in no uncertain terms that you're doing something wrong. I'm fine with receiving criticism for that and any other close I do, and I don't mind pettiness, but I find you implying that I don't read the PAGs relevant to the discussion I'm closing to be outright offensive. I'm not winging it without a thought here; I have spent hours reading, analysing and observing how others apply PAGs; however, the truth is that they are often unclear or outright contradictory, and they're certainly not easy to apply in a fair and consistent manner, but don't say I'm not trying. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 02:14, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Couple things:

• MOS:MOVEMENT doesn't say that movements aren't proper nouns, full stop. I'm not sure what gives you that impression.
• Platonism isn't just derived from a proper noun, it is a proper noun in its own right, regardless of its derivation. Likewise Objectivism is its own proper noun, what it "derives from" is irrelevant.

I'm sure you are great at what you do and have read all the PAGs, but you are also a mere mortal and mistakes happen. To be fair proper nouns are very confusing, hence there are thousands of articles that switch capitalization on and off for the same word seemingly at random. But this one is a clear proper noun, a named thing if you will, and therefore always capitalized. Sincerely appreciate your work and all the best. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 02:33, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Sorry if I came off as a bit thorny. For the first point I'm getting that from Doctrines, ideologies, philosophies, theologies, theories, movements, methods, processes, systems or schools of thought and practice, disciplines and fields of academic study or professional practice are not capitalized, unless the name derives from a proper name. It just says movements aren't capitalized except for those derived from a proper name. It's a poor choice of words as it makes it into an absolute and I'm not sure why it felt like that was necessary for this one.

For the second point yes, absolutely, and I understand what you're saying grammatically, but Wikipedia guidelines don't always make sense. I'm not sure this guideline was even intended to mean what it does, and it's certainly messy, and that's why I was happy to give the consensus leeway.

It's not even hard to fix the problem in this case, I might go and see if I can get it changed to say ..are usually not capitalized, unless the name is or derives from a proper name. because right now it's not adding up with the spirit of the rest of MOS:CAPS and clearly isn't matching with how the community operates. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 04:33, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

I thought the same thing. MOS:CAPS is weird, because most of it just says "x should not be capitalized... unless it is a proper name". Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 10:19, 24 April 2026 (UTC)