Talk:Ayn Rand

A Cogent Argument for Why Rand Can't Be a Philosopher

To be a philosopher, one must be engaged in the study of philosophy. Philosophy is divided into three fields: natural philosophy, metaphysical philosophy, and moral philosophy.

Natural philosophy is scientific. That is, it relies on empiricism -- the study, interpretation, and categorization of sense phenomena through schema in order to produce a coherent world-view. Since Rand's beliefs are very strongly rationalist (the very basis of Objectivism is that there is a single, external, objective truth which is both observable and knowable), she is clearly not a natural philosopher.

Metaphysical philosophy is based in revelation (that is, insight and religious, theological, or spiritual discovery). Given that Rand states the metaphysical does not even exist. she can hardly be considered a metaphysical philosopher by her own lights -- although I would argue personally that this is exactly what she is, a metaphysical philosopher dedicated to the religious study of an unproved and unprovable (and non-existent) objective external universe of physical matter. I doubt the local Randroids care to have Rand defined in religious terms.

That leaves only moral philosophy, and indeed, this is generally where Rand is placed. Rand is often at least mentioned in university courses which study moral philosophy. The problem is that the system of philosophy she preaches, based roughly around egoism, is not described by Rand herself as being a system of morality. Rand argues that the entire Universe in fact operates in this fashion, regardless of the desire of humans, and that she is merely codifying what she believes to be an objective truth. This takes her from moral philosophy fo metaphysical philosophy -- and since she, herself, would have rejected (with great repugnance) her categorization as a metaphysical philosopher, we must be left to conclude that, if we are to take Rand on her own terms rather than attempt to interpret her work (which would be WP:OR anyway) Rand is not a philosopher. -- SmashTheState (talk) 21:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It's OR to cite RS's which say she (for better or for worse) created a philosophy and was a philosopher? But it's not OR to deduce through various lines of argument that the RS's simply must be wrong, without citing RS's to back it up? arimareiji (talk) 22:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Full disclosure - I don't particularly like Ayn Rand or her conclusions. I don't much know her from Adam's housecat; the little I know about her, I don't find impressive. But I find no common cause with those who would turn her Wikipedia page into an attack page, or with those who would strip her of her accomplishments (such as they are) without any RS basis. arimareiji (talk) 22:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

SmashTheState's argument is not only OR, but it isn't that cogent. Take a look at a realistic divisions of philosophy. --Steve (talk) 22:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Steve's right. StS's argument is very, very heavily OR. TallNapoleon (talk) 22:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

StS also doesn't understand what "metaphysical" means (or what Rand said). There is a Wikipedia article he can look at that will help him on metaphysics if he wants. --Steve (talk) 23:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The section title mentioned something about a cogent argument. Apparently they were just joshin'.TheJazzFan (talk) 11:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I understand what "metaphysics" means quite well, thank you. For the record, I didn't just pull those divisions out of my hat. They're based on those used by Carl Hempel, which I thought appropriate given Rand's naturalist leanings. As for my argument being OR, there is no prohibition against using OR on a talk page as a rationale for what to include or not include on the article page. Wikipedia would be in pretty sorry shape if every statement on a talk page had to be cited. -- SmashTheState (talk) 15:56, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

SmashTheState isn't consistent, his OR isn't useful, he doesn't understand what metaphysics means, he doesn't understand Rand's positions, and, according to him, nothing exists anyway...

• Not consistent: He says in his first post in this section that Rand is not a natural philosopher and then in his last post, just above, he says "given Rand's naturalist leanings".
• His OR isn't useful: It is the original research that he claims is the reason for not listing Rand as a philosopher that is the issue. He can spin theories all day long, but what we should be discussing are not his theories of what constitutes a philosopher, since that is of no help.
• Metaphysics isn't revelation: He said that metaphysics is "based in revelation (that is, insight and religious, theological, or spiritual discovery)," which is not the case for Objectivism - maybe his personal metaphysical beliefs have to do with reading bones, or tea leaves or something, but neither Rand nor Aristotle used the term that way - like I said, he doen't know what the term means.
• He doesn't understand Rand's positions: If he did, he would not characterize her understanding of 'truth' as something that exists out there in the external world, as some intrinsic quality of existents. She said, "Truth is the product of the recognition (i.e., identification) of the facts of reality."
• We are all just a dream, or something... He personally does not believe in a, "unproved and unprovable (and non-existent) objective external universe of physical matter." Hey, I'll bet he still doesn't step in front of any unproved and unprovable moving busses. --Steve (talk) 20:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say Rand was a naturalist, Steve, I said she had naturalist leanings. To be a naturalist, she would have to drop her faith in an unknowable Universe-in-itself. Naturalism, science, and empiricism rely entirely and exclusively on representational reality -- that is, the reality of the senses and the symbolic representation we manufacture from our sensory data filtered through schema. And I understand Rand's position quite well. Her belief in "truth" is not scientific. Science cannot and does not make truth claims. The problem is that when she says "reality," she is really referring to the representational reality of perception, but is claiming it is the thing-in-itself (to use Kantian language). It's at best disingenuous on her part. In any case, it prohibits her from being either a naturalist philosopher or a metaphysical philosopher, as she denies both possibilities through her lack of understanding of the difference between the knowable representation and the unknowable real.

As for your mocking about my lack of faith in an unknowable objectively external reality comprised of physical matter, I have never claimed things aren't real. In a phenomenological sense, whatever I perceive is real, because this is the source of knowledge itself. My experience is dasein, and hence all the reality which is required. The realization that the theory of physical matter is internally inconsistent has been known since at least Berkeley's Three Dialogues, and has been demonstrated empirically many times in the laboratory since then (see superfluidity, for example). Although why I should need to defend myself in order to support my argument is rather mysterious. -- SmashTheState (talk) 05:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

she would have to drop her faith in an unknowable Universe-in-itself - I don't know who you're talking about, it apparently isn't about Ayn Rand. Show exactly where she referred to an unknowable Universe.

The realization that the theory of physical matter is internally inconsistent has been known - let us know when your car one day turns into a cactus or spontaneously melts.

Dear Bureau of Weights and Measures:

Since it's obvious that physical matter is internally inconsistent I insist that you cease operations immediately. I mean, you might as well - trust me, nothing is anything. In fact, I hope this letter doesn't simply evaporate before it reaches you.

Sincerely - SmashTheState

This:

The problem is that when she says "reality," she is really referring to the representational reality of perception, but is claiming it is the thing-in-itself (to use Kantian language)

Doesn't even make sense. This verbal muddle aside, Rand asserted that reality exists independent of man's consciousness. As Steve stated, you seem to have no genuine grasp of what she said. Of course, you've also got several kindred folk voicing their "opinions" related to the Rand article who demonstrate no grasp of what she said either.TheJazzFan (talk) 11:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I assure you that it makes perfect sense. I'm guessing that you're unfamiliar with Kantian terminology, and are attempting to "common sense" your way through a philosophical argument. I'm not being deliberately obtuse, the problem is that the CoPR is the basis for almost all modern Western philosophy. Some of the terms I'm using, such as the thing-in-itself or schema or representational reality would take a lot longer to explain in plain English than could reasonably be devoted to it on a talk page unrelated to the subject.

This is not entirely off-topic, however, because the brusque, jeering tone you and SteveWolfer use is part of the problem we're having with the Ayn Rand article as a whole. It is part of the Objectivist mindset, and something Ayn Rand herself both promoted and engaged in. It makes any kind of consensus impossible where Objectivists are concerned. You have a religious faith that you have access to the One Really Real Objective Truth, and so you mock anyone who stands athwart your path in the perfect faith that they are wrong and you are right. Those of us who understand that objectivity simply does not exist -- quantum physics reveals that there are no black boxes, and that simply staring hard enough at the facts are enough to make them change -- will never be able to convince you that our uncertainty is more useful (and incidentally more honest) than your faith in an objective external reality. It is a flaw you share with your prophet, Ayn.

None of which alters the fact that my argument (that Rand cannot, by her own beliefs, be a philosopher in the technical sense of the word) is internally consistent and therefore completely logical, whether or not you agree with the conclusion. -- SmashTheState (talk) 14:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Notice that SmashTheState is certain that one can ever be certain. We can know that his arguments make perfect sense because he "assures us" that they do. It is only our ignorance that stands in our way. The fact is, he says, that there is no objective external reality. (Evidently, he was able to take a quick look, before anything was moved by the force of his stare, and he assures us, there was nothing there.) My favorite part of his post, is his statement that it is the mindset of others that is the problem. --Steve (talk) 16:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Editing proposals

Just a crazy idea, but we might want to use this page for discussing actual edits? ^_^ (I'm as or more guilty than anyone.)

Transposition of "opponent of communism" by Peter Damian

This one's pretty minor, so please limit to agreeing or disagreeing with an explanation as short as or shorter than the sentence for proposed move. If you have a counter-proposal, please give it its own subsection:
[1] moves "She based some of her writings on her personal experiences and was a fierce opponent of communism." from the first paragraph to the third paragraph about her beliefs, and trims it to "She was a fierce opponent of communism." arimareiji (talk) 18:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Update - including the editor, five in favor and two opposed so far. Please note that unlike Minnesotans, we're allowed to change our votes. arimareiji (talk) 05:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• Agree - arimareiji (talk) 18:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
• AgreeStevewunder (talk) 19:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
• Agree - Idag (talk) 20:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - support alternative either delete as innacurate and undue weight or move, if corrected to alternative wording below. But the DEC 31 version is the consensus version, and I support reverting to that and the adding the text.Kjaer (talk) 02:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Whether to revert to the Dec. 31 version is something that will be addressed by ArbCom. I also support deleting it, but for now, do you support moving it? (we can discuss the deletions after we get the rest of this mess sorted out) Idag (talk) 00:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I again insist on primacy of arbcom issue. I would prefer rewrite to delete to move to status quo.Kjaer (talk) 02:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• Agree - J Readings (talk) 22:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
• Agree But with corrected language (opposed all forms of totalitarianism and only We the The Living bears the stamp of Russia. The sentence could be improved, could be moved, or could be deleted and it would be acceptable. It is tolerable as is, but substandard. No change should be made till after ArbCom. (unsigned, but added by Steve (talk) at 0149 8 Feb 2009)

alternative wording

She was a fierce opponent of all forms of collectivism and statism,, including Nazism, communism, and the welfare state Her fictional anti-collectivist novel We the Living was based in part upon her personal experience in Soviet Russia.

The problem is not the move, but the wording. I suggest either fixing the problems and moving it or deleting the phrases entirely. First, to say that she based "some" of her writing on personal experience is either inaccurate or empty, since all writing is to some extent based on personal experience, and only one book of Rand's, We the Living, was based on her personal experience in Russia. Second, Rand considered herself an opponent of collectivism and statism, which includes Nazism, communism and the welfare state. To mention only her opposition to communism is misleading (e.g., Catholics and Nazis also opposed communism for quite different reasons,) and amounts to undue weight.

I would find the above unobjectionable, but I repeat my insistance that the JAN 6 version was imposed without consensus, and that the proper move is to revert to the DEC 31 version, and make all changes from there.Kjaer (talk) 01:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

My understanding was that the wording above was based off Sciabara's book, which details how her life experiences shaped her philosophy. ChildofMidnight, since you originally added that sentence, would you mind clarifying what you meant (and what sources you were referring to)? Idag (talk) 00:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of CoM's source, the flaws exist, and I have provided wording with specific refs that correct them. I could provide dozens more.Kjaer (talk) 01:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

1. The first three would need to be attributed: "XYZ, as reprinted in The Ayn Rand Lexicon by Harry Binswanger, published by, etc etc." Sources can only be directly attributed when they're taken straight from the original - alternately, all three should probably be shortened to one ref since they did all come from one ref.
2. The second sentence may be true, but it's not what the source says.
3. If this is made as its own separate counter-proposal, it can be voted on and I would be inclined to agree if the second sentence is sourced or removed. Continuing to leave it as an addendum to the above proposal does not act as a stumbling-block, since the two questions can be separated. arimareiji (talk) 05:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Arimareji, the sources are correct as stands, the pages cited are not pagenumbers from Binswanger's compilation, they are the page number of the original source, such as The Virtue of Selfishness. I am not sure what you mean by saying that the second sentence is not what the source says. The second sentence, as rewritten Her fictional anti-collectivist novel We the Living was based in part upon her personal experience in Soviet Russia. is factually correct, and the reference is simply provided to support it. The original wording is problematic for the reasons I stated, is offered without unsources, and I cannot support it. Kjaer (talk) 00:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

1. Regardless of whether Binswanger names page numbers, the source is Binswanger. See Wikipedia:CITE#SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT for clarification.
2. You may personally know facts which can be added to your source's assertion of "Ayn Rand said that her first novel, We the Living, was the closest she would ever come to writing an autobiography." to reach the conclusion of "Her fictional anti-collectivist novel We the Living was based in part upon her personal experience in Soviet Russia.", but that would be both OR and SYNTHESIS. If I simply missed seeing evidence for that sentence in the source, please provide a quote?
3. Noted; you maintain your Oppose to moving it. If there's consensus for replacing the sentence instead of moving it, then that can be done. arimareiji (talk) 17:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Consensus

I don't see where in the above there was a consensus to the changes applied overnight (my time). I think a fair number of them are good edits, but we still have the overemphasis on the Texas reference (surely if there has been an increase in interest there is a more recent one, otherwise several years on it is only evidence of a temporary and isolated interest (its funding source also needs mentioning by the way). The total removal of the paragraph about US influence also seems to have lost some material. I have not reverted as overall there seems to be some progress being made. The shift to collectivism from communism has my agreement (to take one example) but I don't see agreement to that above. --Snowded TALK 06:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I have to concur. Only three of us discussed it at all beforehand, and only one expressed unqualified acceptance. I think the majority of it is good editing, but I also think this needs to be brought back to Talk to get consensus first. arimareiji (talk) 18:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Reword of political philosophy to match source by Lo que pasa

[2] purports to remove wording not supported by the source and replace it with wording from the source. Please limit to a short explanation and agreement or disagreement, or counter-propose in either a new section or the next subsection. arimareiji (talk) 21:24, 7 February 2009 (UTC) Update - including the editor, three in favor and three opposed* so far. Please note that unlike Minnesotans, we're allowed to change our votes. (* - opposed to changing it in the near future; see WP:DUCK) arimareiji (talk) 05:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• Agree - I think it's a good catch wrt what the source actually says. arimareiji (talk) 21:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
• Agree - Idag (talk) 00:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
• Tentative Agree But just three votes is not consensus, please wait esp for arbcom. Kjaer (talk) 01:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
• Agree But only after ArbCom - no edits should be made till then. --Steve (talk) 01:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose, the opinions of Professor Hicks are better placed elsewhere. CABlankenship (talk) 05:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
• Strong oppose You're trying to rewrite a paragraph in the introduction based on a single source that expresses one person' opinion. The existing paragraph summarizes article content. The revised paragraph is also confusing using ambiguous words like liberalism and leaves out specifics of her positions such as her opposition to Communism. The trimmed version isn't clear at all. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

maybe you could suggest a rewrite and provide more sources? I do ahttp://www.aynrandlexicon.com/ree that not all refd sentences must be reduced to a quote of ref. This http://www.aynrandlexicon.com/ should be very handy.Kjaer (talk) 02:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The introduction is meant to summarize the article contents. So one person's opinion generalizing her political views is a very bad idea.

In addition to the sourced content already in the article about her personal experiences with COmmunism, her first book We the Living ("We the Living is so anti-Communist that it makes Doctor Zhivago look like The Communist Manifesto." and "On paper, the novel's anti-Communist theme was acceptable to the state, which controlled film production. But the film follows the book rather faithfully, and to Rand Communism was less a specific political movement than a free-floating governmental fog that suffocated the individual." [3], her testimony against communists in Hollywood, here's another source; "American intellectuals of the 1930s did not share Rand’s distaste for communism" [4]. The introduction is meant to be a summary giving a clear description of the article contents and maing points about the subject. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no question that she opposed communism. But so did Hitler and the Pope. She opposed communism as a form of statism and collectivism - that is the appropriate comment, see the refs I provided for my alternate statement, they are quite strong. Of course, I want the article reverted to the DEC 31 consensus version first.Kjaer (talk) 04:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

---

Paragraph 4 of Lead

I still don't understand why the extremely negative tone of paragraph 4 of the lead has been allowed to stay in its location for so long. Is there really support for that paragraph? Stevewunder (talk) 19:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

If you have a specific wording change in mind, please toss it into the fray above? I can't guarantee that responses will be positive or even civil, but it's worth a try. arimareiji (talk) 20:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Depending on how many changes you want to make, the Sandbox is a useful tool. Though you'll have to copy the final text here, as the sandbox is cleaned out regularly. Idag (talk) 20:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The text should be deleted entirley, as part of the proper move, which is to revert to the DEC 31 version which suffered none of these difficulties. An RfC was held to see if there was consensus for the JAN 6 rewrites which included this paragraph and a radical reinterpretation of the cited Library of Congress survey. The RfC failed, and the Jan 6 rewrites should be reverted. This is the subject of the current arb com. Kjaer (talk) 22:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no consensus for such a revision. Said RFC is not accepted. TallNapoleon (talk) 22:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Probably not a good idea to use command words like "must" in the subject header, Kjaer. It's a little off-putting. J Readings (talk) 22:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The RfC says that there WAS consensus. You are right that it failed. So, you prove my point, over and over and over. On the basis of your finally coming to reason and admitting that you did not have consensus, please act and revert the article.Kjaer (talk) 01:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I miswrote. I meant to write that there was no consensus to revert--as in to revert to Dec 31. The RFC was invalid, and I do not accept its results. TallNapoleon (talk) 01:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

That paragraph does not belong in the article unless it is supporting something in a criticism section. But no changes should be made till after ArbCom. --Steve (talk) 01:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I actually agree with Steve that that paragraph cannot stay as written. Until someone can propose something better I'm in favor of deleting it. TallNapoleon (talk) 01:56, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, I am completely in favor of rewriting it. But I think some points from the criticism section should be in the lede and that's why I think we should keep it. Idag (talk) 04:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Let's have formal votes:

delete unacceptable POV Kjaer (talk) 02:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC) See WP:!vote. TallNapoleon (talk) 02:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

delete after the ArbCom. --Steve (talk) 02:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Strong keep with some rewriting - the lede is supposed to be a summary of the main points in the entire article. - Idag (talk) 04:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Delete as it is. Something like it, but substantially shortened and rewritten to be less WP:POINTy, would be good. arimareiji (talk) 05:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Revise Perhaps something like "While Rand's work has failed to generate much interest outside of Objectivist circles, her books continue to sell in high volumes, and intellectual collectives dedicated to her ideas form a lively community." CABlankenship (talk) 05:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

First, a small note to Kjaer: please read WP:!vote. There are no formal votes on Wikipedia or anything like it. There is only discussion. SlimVirgen et al., all very experienced editors, mentioned this point to you on several occasions, so it's a little strange why you keep talking about an old RfC and a consensus long since passed. Second, per WP:CONSENSUS, the consensus can always change. Provided that no one is canvassing -- something unfortunately you were guilty of -- a new consensus can always form made by editors wanting to improve the article. All this repetition of reverting to December 31 is really meaningless at this point. Aside from that, and linked to this current section's discussion, I provided several citations for issues regarding Rand and philosophy departments. I would like to incorporate those into the article at some point, in particular the criticism section. I've been waiting for the ArbCom ruling but I'm wondering if it's necessary considering what's happening here right now. Weeks have passed since I posted them for EndlessMike888 and Snowded, so I'll assume that since they meet WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR, they can be used there with a synopsis per WP:LEAD in the lead. J Readings (talk)

agree with your comments re votes. Which references are you saying you posted for me? Sorry there has been so much I may well have missed it --Snowded TALK 21:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I think a good start would be to simply cut and paste paragraph 4 from the lead to criticism. Idag, I disagree that the lead should introduce a strong negative criticism. I think it would be hard to find another good article that does such. It does seem reasonable however that, given the virulent criticisms that exist, the criticism section be longer than most. I think the paragraph should be moved before the results of arbcom because:

1) arbcom is taking forever

2) we are letting what is now a well-agreed problematic paragraph linger

3) if the results of arbcom were to somehow affect this paragraph, we can always change it back then Stevewunder (talk) 00:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, WP:LEAD outlines what we are supposed to do in these instances. The lead is simply a concise summary of everything else in the article. Others, including Arimareiji (I think), have mentioned this point already. Should there be criticism in the lead? Well, yes of course there should be. Why? Because there is an entire section in the article entitled "criticism". So, *something* should be there in order to introduce what the reader will find later on. The next question is: is there support for the assertions already made in those lead sentences? Well, yes and no. Yes, they are cited on the talk page above. No, they are not cited in the article yet (as far as I can tell). I would suggest a revision to the lead that accurately reflects the several citations I already posted on this talk page regarding Rand and philosophy departments -- otherwise, add them to the criticism section and then revise the lead. Something to that effect. J Readings (talk) 01:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

My main point is extreme negativity. "Within academia, her philosophical work has earned either no attention or has been criticized for its allegedly derivative nature,[3] a lack of rigor, and a limited understanding of the issues she wrote about". Note that this is incongruous with fact she isn't called a philosopher in the first place! She is merely a novelist, screenwriter, playwright! You can't have it both ways. You can't not call her a philosopher and then talk about how bad she was at it! Stevewunder (talk) 01:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

In paragraph 3 there is reference to what is termed "theoretical work". This presumably same work is called "philosophical work" only when it is pointed out that it gets no attention. Should we really draw attention to the fact something gets no attention? Why not make the whole article about what she isn't? It seems to be the goal here. Stevewunder (talk) 02:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

So why not talk about this paragraph over and over and over without doing anything to it! The disagreement over moving this paragraph isn't editing by consensus, it is filibustering. Stevewunder (talk) 02:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I moved it again since no one else would. So ban me. Stevewunder (talk) 02:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

No need to be hostile, Stevewunder.J Readings (talk) 03:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

It would need to be revised a little bit, I happily acknowledge that (I never wrote that sentence to begin with). But there is enough support found in independent third-party newspapers for what disinterested third-parties would already acknowledge by reading these sources: that philosophy departments generally did not (and still do not) teach her work for decades. Only someone trying to push an agenda would attempt to halt that point from being cited in the article, I think. After all, Rand was first and foremost a novelist based on what the preponderance of sources say. Then, there are the sources presented by independent third-parties discussing the situation. Here's a sample: Stanford University's philosophy department did not teach the ideas of Ayn Rand writes Jennifer Nuckols in the University Wire (if a course were to be taught, it was by the students themselves not the professors who wanted nothing to do with it). Today, “Rand remains an obscure figure in Israeli academia even though many Israelis read her novels in their teens and 20s including Prof. Elhanan Yakira head of the philosophy department at the Hebrew University. ‘I don't know anyone with us that really teaches her philosophy he said." Orit Arfa, “The nexus,” The Jerusalem Post, FEATURES, July 13, 2007, pg. 26. “Ayn Rand generally held little regard for academic philosophers, and philosophers have tended to return the favor,” writes David Glenn in the Chronicle of Higher Education, "'It used to be the kiss of death to your career to say that you liked Ayn Rand,' says Jurgis Brakas, an associate professor of philosophy at Marist College, whose work is not supported by any Rand-affiliated foundation." And so on, J Readings (talk) 03:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

It needs to be deleted. The Austin chair was already mentioned above, and the lack of academic attention is noted directly below. Also, if we are doing this, then I shall rewrite the opponent of communism, personal experience section and move it as per above, and restore the philosopher attribution with the DEC 31 qualifying footnote which is the obvious consensus. Kjaer (talk) 03:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Kjaer, it needs to be rewritten, not deleted entirely. And please don't touch the "philosopher" issue in the lead until ArbCom decides on their interpretation of WP:UNDUE. Let's not get into another debate on this issue, Kjaer.J Readings (talk) 03:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

J Readings, I agree entirely with what you just wrote. I think "Her ideas and work, however, have generated much criticism." is a good final sentence to the lead, and well alludes in a neutral tone to the criticism to come.

Kjaer, I don't see how it follows that you should restore everything else. Not one person argued to keep paragraph 4 as it was, which is different than restoring what is under major debate. Stevewunder (talk) 03:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't put words in my mouth. I did not say restore everything. I said rewrite the "oppose communism" sentence per the above discussion, and restore the word "philosopher" with the DEC 31 footnote which is this:

Her New York Times obituary (May 7, 1982, p. 7) identifies her as "writer and philosopher." She was not an academician. Some sources simply label her a "philosopher," others prefer language such as "espoused a philosophy." One writer comments: "Perhaps because she so eschewed academic philosophy, and because her works are rightly considered to be works of literature, Objectivist philosophy is regularly omitted from academic philosophy. Yet throughout literary academia, Ayn Rand is considered a philosopher. Her works merit consideration as works of philosophy in their own right." (Jenny Heyl, 1995, as cited in Mimi R Gladstein, Chris Matthew Sciabarra(eds), ed (1999). Feminist Interpretations of Ayn Rand. Penn State Press. p. 17. ISBN 0-271-01831-3.

I also suggest you look at the DEC 31 intro wording as to her being controversial, since that will not have any objections whatsoever.

But if everything is up for grabs, then everything is up for grabs, and I have no problem with that. Contrary to Tall Napoleon's false assertion below, I never insisted upon arbcom, I explicitly opposed it, and supported we continue editting. Kjaer (talk) 03:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with revising the oppose communism sentence, if it is mostly agreed on here. The "philosopher" label, however, is the most controversial issue here. I am in favor of making progress on areas of the article which aren't under major dispute and not of letting the major dispute stop everything else. Perhaps if we can find common ground on other issues, when we return to the major item of dispute we will be more able to work together on it. But maybe not. Stevewunder (talk) 04:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

MiszaBot parameters

The talk page is now 568k, and it's chokingly long to load. All in favor of reducing the (old) parameter from 30 days to 14 days (causing the bot to archive old threads sooner)? arimareiji (talk) 05:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• Agree arimareiji (talk) 05:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose we have an active arbcom with links here. You should consider deleting such nonsense as Rand Was a Psycho above and othe offense comments. But I oppose outright archiving.Kjaer (talk) 06:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - not until the ArbCom is complete. Agree but everyone needs to check their links to be sure that they used diffs rather than links to a section heading in the talk page - we need a few days to do that. --Steve (talk) 23:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
• Support - Arbcom evidence links should be permalinks. We can notify them that we're archiving. I'm sure they won't mind looking through an Archive--and if they do they'll tell us. But 570k is absurd. TallNapoleon (talk) 20:56, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose (for now) - a lot of the links in ArbCom would need to be remade. Though I'll be more amenable to this proposal if there's no decision a month from now. Idag (talk) 04:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: Why don't we just ask ArbCom? After all it won't do them any good if they can't load the page. TallNapoleon (talk) 06:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

• Vassyana posted this on the talk page; ArbCom does not have any problem with us archiving. Considering how huge this page has become, I propose that we do this immediately. TallNapoleon (talk) 21:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed per above. Idag (talk) 22:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

• I think it's fair to say we have consensus for archiving now that it's clear that ArbCom would actually prefer it. How long until the bot parameter should be revised, given the opposing needs of those who have asked for extra time and the needs of those whose browsers keep choking?
  • 8 hours (08:01 10 Feb):
  • 24 hours (00:01 11 Feb): arimareiji (talk) ;
  • 1 week (00:01 17 Feb):
  • Option D - (time / ~~~):

Comment: AFAIK, archiving shouldn't make it noticeably more difficult to convert to diffs. The page history isn't lost. arimareiji (talk) 00:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I would say let's do it sooner. If you have links in ArbCom to the current talk section, just correct the link after archiving so that they point to the right section in the archives. It'll take all of 10 mins. Idag (talk) 00:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

It's been well over a day, and three four people have said this should be done by now to one who's said a few days. I'm making the edit to MiszaBot's parameters. If a second editor (other than the one who already said a few days) who supported archiving objects, please discuss before the next bot pass (est 0100 12 Feb UTC). arimareiji (talk) 02:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Archive soooner Stevewunder (talk) 05:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit's been made, but it'll take until the next bot pass before we see the result. Thank you for the additional support. arimareiji (talk) 06:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The DEC 31 Consensus

Here is a detailed explanation of recent events surrounding the recent "edit war" in which certain editors have attempted to "complete[ly] rewrite" an article which had held a consensus as encyclopdic and NPOV since May 2008. The editors Arimareji, ChildofMidnight, TheJazzFan, Brushcherry, Rklawton, SteveWunder and anyone else new to the talk page should be aware of these events. I ask that editors refrain from making comments within the flow of my argument, there is plenty of space below.

The following two paragraphs are the December 31st lead. It was the consensus lead since May 2008. Note especially the footnotes and please read them fully. Here is the text, with my comments below:

Ayn Rand (/ˈaɪn ˈrænd/, February 2 [O.S. January 20] 1905 – March 6, 1982), was a Russian-born Americannovelist, philosopher, playwright and screenwriter. She is widely known for her best-selling novels The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, and for developing a philosophical system called Objectivism.

Rand advocated rational individualism and laissez-faire capitalism, categorically rejecting socialism, altruism, and religion. Her ideas remain both influential and controversial.

First, note that while Rand is described as a philosopher, a matter fully referenced throughout the article, and with innumerable references above, the matter is footnoted in the lead and fairly qualified in the footnote. Yet this material was removed from the article by the "anti-Rand" faction. Her works were quite fairly described as controversial. There is no 'glorification' of Rand, contrary the the endless repeated assertions of the same faction.

After the December 31st freeze was lifted, we know that the cited and balanced reference to Rand as a philosopher was repeteadly removed and modified against consensus, such as this contentious edit by snowded "I refuse to call it a philosophy" where, without citation, he labels the object of his ire an amateur, later to remove the cited

TallNapoleon, who describes Rand as "godless"" removes cited scholarly descriptions of the "criticism" leveled against Rand and, surprise, removes all comment and three references to William Buckley's religious feud with Ayn Rand.

And then, of course, Peter Damian, who honestly admits he has done a "complete rewrite of intro" (1)entirely delets the referenced description of Rand as a novelist and philosopher, (2) replacing it with a description of her as a writer of fiction (what, gay erotica?) and "works" on politics and philosophy.

This entirely dishonest paragraph is added, compare what it says, and what the footnote indicates:

She has attracted an almost fanatical popular following in parts of America, and her views have influenced a number of public figures in the United States, notably Alan Greenspan. .

Note that a simple Library of Congress survey that makes no such claim is deceptively used to support a claim of "fanaticism" limited to "parts of America" yet since (understandably) the Library of Congress survey Americans it can make no claim on foreign influence.

And finally, Damien adds this POV piece de resistance:

Her philosophical work, however, has had little recognition among established philosophers, who have been scathing about her lack of rigour, the derivative nature of her thinking, and her apparently limited understanding of philosophical subject-matter. Even as a writer of fiction, she has enjoyed almost no critical recognition outside the United States.

Again, read the notes! One single hostile author is cited as reference for the general "fact" that she lacks rigour and is derivative. Perhaps. But honesty would require this to be placed in the Criticism section and be attributed to the author who said it. William Vallicella, a blogger who reads this page religiously, is cited not personally as a Kant scholar who disaproves of her work (no surpise, given Rand's admittedly scthingly hostile view of his hero) but as general proof of her incompetence. Again, this remark belongs in the Criticism section, labelled as a Kant student's opinion expressed in a blog.

And of course the fact that one single source (Oxford Compainon to Literature) does not have an article on Rand is cited as proof positive that Rand has enjoyed no recognition outside the United States. Well, beside the fact that these very same editors removed a list of people influenced by Rand domestically and abroad, including such notorious right wing American politicians as the influential Turkish actor and movie director Sinan Cetin, [full list ] thus hiding the actual extent of an influence which they deny, the fact that an author is omitted from a work says nothing about that author. Indeed, if there is no article on Rand, how could that non-existent article describe her as without influnece. Well, at least we know that Ira Levin, James Clavell, Steve Ditko, Frank Miller and Terry Goodkind thought she was influential. Or at least we used to know it until the section was censored.

Well, does all this make you question the wisdom of the edits to the page done after the DEC 31 freeze was removed? If you wonder if there was a consensus for these edits, you might want to know what happened when we held an RfC that saked "whether there was indeed consensus for these changes since the removal of the freeze." Welll, it turns out that that RfC failed. Evidently, by a vote of 9 to 3 (or 7 to 5 if you discount some voters and hold a recount for others who didn't vote) there was no consensus for these edits above. I repeat, the RfC asked not if the edits above should be reversed, but just if they were supported in the first place. The RfC fialed, they wre not.

So now you know. I suggest you take this into consideration when voting, and when considering whether to make new edits, or support returning to the much more balanced article of DEC 31. I invite comments, but request that they be made below mine, not within them. Kjaer (talk) 06:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the lede edit war happened AFTER you began your RfC and it was pretty much confined to ChildofMidnight and Peter Damien. I have absolutely no problem with doing major rewrites of the lede (with the exception of the "philosopher" issue), as the current lede is horribly worded. Idag (talk) 07:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted to add a caveat, the preceding post should not be construed to mean that I consider that RfC in any way valid. Kjaer (not a neutral amin) closed it after it was up for only one day. The final vote was somewhere around 7-5 (which is not a consensus for a mass revert) and apparently Kjaer had to canvass on Objectivist forums to get even that slim majority. As I've stated earlier though, I have no problem with reworking the lede. Idag (talk) 07:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Idag, I welcome your willingness to rewrite the lead. I am confused by your generosity here, yet your insistence on the Evidence page that my having an opinion of what has happened is a an insistance that it is "my way or the highway." Where di I ever say that? You seem to be accusing me of making an argument, to which I happily plead guilty. As for your repeated claim that I closed the RfC, prove it - show the diff where I removed the page from the RfC bulletin board. I simply commented on the results, one day (my cycle) after everyone who have been editting the page had commented. No one was prevented from adding any comment. No person has said he was unable to comment on the RfC. I have showed you nothing but respect, Idag, which you can verify on my evidence and when I petitioned that you be unblocked. (Evil me?) I take this remark as a repeated baseless falsehood, and ask you again to show where I removed the page from the RfC bulletin board or be honest and retract it. Kjaer (talk) 08:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Kjaer, the ref provided did not in any way speak of or support the notion of a "religious feud" between Buckley and Rand, and that conclusion is based on OR and Synthesis. TallNapoleon (talk) 08:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I provided THREE refs, (here is one more from the Buckley side: "'Buckley said that Rand never forgave him for publishing the review and that "for the rest of her life, she would walk theatrically out of any room I entered!'[8]") and had you read the source, you would have seen the reference to the feud. If your problem is that we need more sources, you should say this, rather than saying that Buckley's Catholicism was irrelevant. You did not ask for more sources. You did say that Buckley's Catholicism is irrelevant. And you are the one who accuses ME of lying? You need to get your story straight.Kjaer (talk) 00:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that shows that Rand loathed Buckley for his Catholicism and the Whittaker Chambers review. However last I checked it took two to feud. What you need to show is Buckley hated Rand because he was Catholic, not that Rand hated Buckley. TallNapoleon (talk) 05:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, not exactly - I need to show that his Catholicism was relevant to their hostility - the reader can judge. As a Catholic and a friend of many Catholics who admire Rand I think I would find it impossible to show that Catholicism=hatred of Rand. But in his case I think it is quite easily shown to be relevant. Does the word godless not appear in the criticism? I'll put the ref's bavck when I have one more for you.Kjaer (talk) 05:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

And Kjaer, you declared the RFC closed after ONE DAY, and began using that as a justification to revert. For reference most RFC's last THIRTY days. TallNapoleon (talk) 08:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Let me just repeat that this is not quite true - I did not close the RfC, I commented on its results once all the active editors had voted. And no editor complained of not being able to vote. Hopefully with the new consensus on alll but "philosopher" this is moot.Kjaer (talk) 05:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The RFC was a nonsense, it can't be opened by a strong protagonist and closed by them, added to which it came after multiple edits each in different ways had consensus. Trying to force votes now is crazy when we are waiting for Arbcom rulings. --Snowded TALK 10:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Kjaer, I did not state that you were evil, I stated that you were blocking efforts at dispute resolution because of your fixation with this RfC. I have provided the pertinent diffs to ArbCom. If you or Steve actually attempt to enter into some type of compromise, I will of course post those diffs, but so far all you have done is repeatedly restate your position and demand that everyone else adopt it (hence the "my way or the highway" phrasing). While there's some debates that are thorny (e.g. "philosopher"), there's plenty of uncontroversial things that could be done to improve this article and we should work on those (i.e. rewriting the lede that everyone agrees is crappy). Personally, I'm not a big fan of having giant ArbCom restrictions placed on this article, which is why I've been trying to get some of this content stuff resolved while we can still craft some sort of compromise on our own terms. Idag (talk) 04:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Bioshock may actually be a good exception to include. Rand's ideas really permeate the game. TallNapoleon (talk) 06:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Rand in Popular Culture?

With the recent addition of the mention of Rand by a character in a video game we see an example of an unending phenomenon. Would it not be reasonable to create a Rand in Popular Culture article, and redirect such additions to that article? I know that some people would object to this aesthetically, but is it against Wikipedia Policy?Kjaer (talk) 20:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

GOD NO! Kill it! Kill it with fire! Whenever you think of making an "in popular culture" article, see WP:TRIVIA and this, and then DON'T. Those articles are abominations before God and man, they add absolutely nothing of value to the encyclopedia, invariably becoming horribly written collections of utterly irrelevant trivia. Any kind of serious analysis of a figure's portrayal in popular culture, which might be notable, gets buried in the trivia (see Adolf Hitler in popular culture for a particularly instructive example). And even meaningful analysis on these figures portrayals in pop culture runs into immediate problems with WP:OR, WP:WEIGHT and WP:SYNTH. This has nothing to do with my opinion on Ayn Rand, incidentally. I loathe pop culture lists with the firey burning passion of a thousand white hot suns, and I almost always try to get rid of them wherever I find them. TallNapoleon (talk) 21:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

seems a bit flippant.Brushcherry (talk) 05:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)brushcherry

It might help, TallNapoleon, if you could make your opinion a bit more clear here. I would clarify that I didn't want to entitle the article "Serious Analysis of Rand in Popular Culture" and would not be unhappy with "Utterly Irrelevant Trivia regarding Ayn Rand in Popular Culture". I tend to be an inclusionist, but not so much an inclusionist as to think these perennial additions will stop. If there were another article for this, no one would be forced to read it. Once a bit of stuff had been added, no one would be tempted to add it again. On the other hand, if we exclude the latest trivia here, it will certainly be added again within a few weeks, along with the Futurama porn reference , the Ayn Rand School for Tots (notable, I would say) and the South park Chicken Fucker episode. The problem being that some people don't see this as trivia. Kjaer (talk) 21:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

If the additions don't stop we can just keep reverting them. See here's my opinion of pop culture lists: X mentions Y doesn't tell us anything about X. Unless X mentioning Y is notable in its own right, there's no reason to have it mentioned on WP. I tend to be a deletionist, and tbh I actually think that my conflict with you and Steve is much more about inclusionism vs. deletionism. What we might consider doing is adding a section called Cultural Significance, and include only one or two of the most notable references, in the main article. I did this for Dodo about a year ago, removing a bloated popular culture section in the process, and it fairly successfully discouraged recreation of that section, and it also implies that only significant references should be placed there. TallNapoleon (talk) 21:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Dagwyn and I were both against the video game addition. In the game, Bio Shock, the Rand-based society falls apart before the main character even gets there (the game consists of the character going on a shooting spree against the bad guys living in the ruins). Apart from saying that this society fell apart before the game's story began, there's really no Rand influence in this game. Idag (talk) 05:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

GODWIN'S LAW. look it upBrushcherry (talk) 07:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)brushcherry

Oppose. Pop culture lists on Wikipedia can quickly get completely ridiculous. Agree with TN here. Jomasecu ^talk _contribs 00:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the disagree-ers here. Stevewunder (talk) 00:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the disagree-ers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

If the additions don't stop we can just keep reverting them....hello? edit war? if the revertions don"t stop we can just keep adding them? do any of you listen to yourselves? your edits are ok but other edits are not.Brushcherry (talk) 05:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)brushcherry

I don't see where anyone has said that if the reversions don't stop they should still be added. And if even Kjaer, TallNapoleon, and Idag agree (among several others including myself) that pop culture trivia doesn't belong, that's a pretty reliable indicator that it's a Very Bad Idea.

(Personally, I like TallNapoleon's characterization best - "GOD NO! Kill it! Kill it with fire!") arimareiji (talk) 06:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

First Successful Novel?

This wording implies that we the living and anthem are not successes. Sales figures for these novels belie that claim. We The Living (1936) outsells Faulkener's Absolom Absolom and Orwell's Keep the Aspidistra Flying of 1936 by ten to one on amazon, and outsells Joyces best sellers by two to one. That Rand cane to fame with Fountainhead is much more accurate and NPOV and I am making tha change.Kjaer (talk) 05:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Kjaer -- I would recommend that you consult with the reliable source noticeboard in order to see if information gleaned from Amazon.com constitutes a "an independent and reliable third-party source". If Living and Anthem were best-sellers, you should easily be able to find that information elsewhere (e.g., NYT). I'm not saying these books weren't best-sellers. What I am saying is that, in my experience, Amazon.com faces a lot of obstacles for accepted use on Wikipedia as a reliable source -- and this point, incidentally, has nothing to do with the Ayn Rand article. It's a general point about Amazon.com. Best to check with the noticeboard. J Readings (talk) 05:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed some redundancy in the lede with regard to the discussion of her books:

"She wrote the best-selling novels The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged and developed the philosophical system known as Objectivism."

"Her first successful novel was The Fountainhead, published in 1943, and her best-known work is the philosophical novel Atlas Shrugged, published in 1957."

The second sentence and the first part of the first sentence essentially say the same thing, so would anyone mind if one of them was trimmed or the sentences were fused together? Idag (talk) 14:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

"First successful" is a historical matter. Nowadays, everything she ever wrote sells to her admirers. (You could probably get good numbers for The Laundry Lists of Ayn Rand in some circles.) The question is what was successful at the time of its first issue; and that's The Fountainhead. (Amazon, of course, is not a reliable source on anything whatsoever.) --Orange Mike | Talk 14:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

That's what I thought. Thanks Orangemike. J Readings (talk) 14:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Everything but Philosopher, then?

If we are agreed on the above comments under "4th para" by SteveWunder, then I suggest we advise arbcom that the ONLY thing we need a ruling upon is the use of "philosopher" and tell them that we will handle the rest on our own amicably.

If this is agreed, then I suggest the "anti-philosopher" faction should either say they want the current wording, or should suggest an alternative, while the "pro-philosopher" faction should either endorse the DEC 31 wording - i.e., philosopher with footnote - and we can have done with this.Kjaer (talk) 04:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Idag if you are going to say criticism, you also have to say enthusiasm. I think the long standing NPOV "controversy" covers both admirably. Plus, you can't logically say that she was largely ignored, then say she generated much criticism. Kjaer (talk) 04:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

You obviously have a very different interpretation of why this is with Arbcom. There is issues on evidence and behaviour, the question of "philosopher' is just one (and the least important in some ways) illustration of the issue. --Snowded TALK 05:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

ayn rand as a philosopher is the least important in some ways? how about you edit the ayn rand page to reflect that she is a philosopher (this being a minor issue and to show your good will). then arbcom can focus can focus on issues on evidence and behavior.Brushcherry (talk) 05:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)brushcherry

Please, David. (Call me Ted.) I think this whole issue is very childish, and that we can all move forward based on the obvious consensus, except for philosopher. If you want to continue this unnecessary hostility, feel free. I have beeen editting so many other pages quite constructively that this one simply turns my stomache. I think we can all get past this if you will only show a little bit of charity towards your opponent. 05:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Nothing hostile in the above Kjaer (and that response to disagreement illustrates the wider issue), there are issues of evidence and behaviour that need a ruling. I am pretty sure that if I restored the qualification on Schools of Philosophy that you would revert it (to take one example) and I am struggling to find the consensus you refer to for at least one of your edits this morning. I am double checking at the moment before reverting. I don't expect Arbcom to make a content ruling on Philosopher, but I do expect some ruling on the nature of evidence. There are wider issues on sources etc. --Snowded TALK 05:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

There seem to be a group of about a half-dozen to a dozen people who are camping this article, and who snipe all new editors as they spawn. These Wikipedian wallhackers seem to feel they have some sort of proprietary right to revert everything anyone else adds to the article until this group of people come to a consensus, whereupon they will bring new rules and regulations and standards and truth to the rest of us, like Moses descending from the mountain. That is not how Wikipedia works, and I will not refrain from making edits to the article. If you believe the article should not be edited then lock it. The article does not belong to you, it belongs to everyone. -- SmashTheState (talk) 12:10, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

What i am trying to grasp is, why does everybody edit, when they know their edit is going to be edited? and then come here to fight about it.Brushcherry (talk) 07:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)brushcherry

Kjaer,snowded,tallnapolean,idag

although my personal opinion leans towards kjaer, i don't trust any of these guys. i want to assume good faith. perhaps some of my posts have been amateurist. i admit that. what little i know about arbcom is that the zealots will take over the argument. somehow, ayn rand will join scientology, isreal/palestine, and the occupation of lithuania, as pages that can not reach a consensus. of course, kjaer,snowded,tallnapolean,idag, have all their arguments ready to go. we have all heard them before. anyone want to be my mentor? me gots lots to learn about wikipediaBrushcherry (talk) 08:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)brushcherry

Hrmm, if you really want a mentor I'm almost definitely not your guy. Check out WP:Adopt-a-user if you're interested. TallNapoleon (talk) 09:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

yes....you are probably not the best candidate for my mentor. thanks for the input though. please dont be so flippant re: request for mentorship.Brushcherry (talk) 09:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)brushcherry

The first thing he'd insist is that you not rely on reason. And he'd lead by example.TheJazzFan (talk) 12:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Jazzfan, that is yet another (of many) breeches of WP:GF. Why do it? --Snowded TALK 16:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Why do I do what, accurately point out that Tnap has explicitly stated that he doesn't believe reason should be held as a primary value and an absolute even though he's never demonstrated where something could be shown to be a better alternative?TheJazzFan (talk) 22:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Was actually being quite serious. I'd be a terrible choice for anyone's mentor. TallNapoleon (talk) 10:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Just curious, ya'll. Is the Arbcom case on this article, still open? GoodDay (talk) 16:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

It is. In addition, please note that there does not appear to be a general prohibition on all editing until ArbCom rules. But please also note that there are some common-sense guidelines to be applied in deciding whether or not any given edit should be made, one being clear and broad consensus. arimareiji (talk) 17:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I have clearly judged very wrongly. We seem not to disagree on one word, but on every word. It is apparently too controversial to call her controversial without qualifying it. We have taken 30 steps forward and 30 steps back. I don't think the article is any worse now, but I don't think it is any better. I'm glad this isn't a group class project, or we would all get F's. Stevewunder (talk) 04:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: steps forward and steps back, yup - as I said here.TheJazzFan (talk) 05:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I mean "drawing both admiration and criticism"??? Isn't that what the word controversial means? Everyone gets negative style points. And I'm disappearing to the L Ron Hubbard site...Stevewunder (talk) 04:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Current AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/On Ayn Rand

FYI.

On Ayn Rand

{{Infobox Book | name = On Ayn Rand | title_orig = | translator = | image = [[File:Onaynrand.jpg]] | image_caption = Cover of the first edition | author = Dr. [[Allan Gotthelf]] | illustrator = | cover_artist = | country = | language = | series = Wadsworth Philosophers | subject = [[Ayn Rand]] | genre = [[Philosophical biography]] | publisher = [[Wadsworth Publishing]] | pub_date = 2000 | media_type = | pages = 104 | isbn = 0534576257 | oclc = 43668181 | preceded_by = | followed_by = }} '''''On Ayn Rand''''' is a 104-page book about the life and thought of 20th-century philosopher [[Ayn Rand]], written by scholar [[Allan Gotthelf]] and published in early 2000 by [[Wadsworth Publishing]] (now part of [[Cengage Learning]]) in its Wadsworth Philosophers series. == Reception == Scholar of Objectivism [[Tara Smith (philosopher)|Tara Smith]] reviewed the work for ''The Review of Metaphysics'': "Gotthelf joins scholarly rigor with firsthand knowledge of Rand’s thought to provide a systematic introduction to Rand’s philosophy, [[Objectivism (Ayn Rand)|Objectivism]]. The result is absorbing … rich with provocative ideas … The book serves as an excellent introduction to Rand’s thought precisely because it is intellectually serious and incorporates substantial portions of Rand’s reasoning."<ref>{{Cite journal|journal=The Review of Metaphysics |first=Tara |last=Smith |volume=54 |issue=3 |month=March |year=2001 |pages=654-55}}</ref> The book was also reviewed in ''Teaching Philosophy'', by I Khawaja: "Gotthelf’s illuminating account of Rand’s epistemology offers an intriguing point of entry...as well as an object lesson on the relationship between epistemology and ethics … ''On Ayn Rand'' is a remarkable success … I can’t think of a piece of writing that better conveys both the systematicity and the grandeur of Rand’s thought than the last four pages of Gotthelf’s book."<ref>{{cite journal|journal=Teaching Philosophy |author=I Khawaja |publisher=[[Bowling Green State University]] |volume=25 |issue=1 |month=March |year=2002}}</ref> Scholar Edward W. Younkins also praised the work, calling it a "fine" but shorter version of Objectivist philosopher [[Leonard Peikoff]]'s biography of Rand.<ref>{{cite book | last = Younkins | first = Edward | title = Champions of a Free Society | publisher = Lexington Books | location = Lexington | year = 2008 | isbn = 0739126482 |page=201}}</ref> == Criticisms == Gotthelf's presentation of Rand's conception of [[abstract attributes]] was criticized by [[Scott Ryan]] in ''Objectivism and the Corruption of Rationality'' (2003) as unclear and obfuscating.<ref>{{Harvnb|Ryan|2003|p=57–58}}</ref> Ryan also critiqued Gotthelf's [[empiricist]] epistemology as over-emphasising the role of [[sensory perception]] in perceptual experience, arguing that like Rand and Peikoff, Gotthelf confused sensation with perception because he failed to consider the possibility that [[reason (philosophy)|reason]] might have a role in perception.<ref>{{Harvnb|Ryan|2003|p=73–74}}</ref> Ryan also found fault with Gotthelf's understanding of [[bundle theory]], and found him inconsistent in his praise of Kantian metaphysics.<ref>{{Harvnb|Ryan|2003|p=165–167}}</ref> Ryan did however, note with interest Gotthelf's claim that the distinction between Rand's [[metaphilosophy]] and that of the [[pragmatism (philosophy)|pragmatists]] lay in the lack of relation for Rand between the practical ends of philosophy and its criteria of [[truth]].<ref>{{Harvnb|Ryan|2003|p=143}}</ref> In a paper on the critical neglect of Rand's [[aesthetic]] philosophy, Michelle Marder Kamhi and Louis Torres criticized Gotthelf for spending a mere half a page of the book discussing the topic.<ref name=neglect>{{cite journal|url=http://www.aristos.org/editors/critneg.pdf |title=Critical neglect of Ayn Rand’s theory of art |journal=[[Journal of Ayn Rand Studies]] |author=Michelle Marder Kamhi |coauthors=Louis Torres |volume=2 |issue=1 |month=Fall |year=2000 |pages=1–46}}</ref> Kamhi and Torres also criticised Gotthelf's statement that one's sense of life is directly dependent on philosophy (in contrast to Rand), and his uncritical acceptance of Rand's definition of [[romantic art]] in terms of the acceptance of man's [[free will]].<ref name=neglect/> == Related articles == *[[Bibliography of work on Objectivism]] *[[Objectivist epistemology]] == Footnotes and references == {{reflist}} ===References=== *{{cite book | last = Ryan | first = Scott | title = Objectivism and the Corruption of Rationality | publisher = Writers Club Press | location = San Jose | year = 2003 | isbn = 0595267335}} == External links == *[http://www.prodos.com/archive079gotthelf01.html "Allan Gotthelf talks about his book, ''On Ayn Rand''"], internet radio interview from Prodos.com {{Ayn Rand}} [[Category:Objectivist philosophy]] [[Category:2000 books]] [[Category:Philosophy books]] [[Category:Biographies (books) about writers]]

Ikip (talk) 18:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Fountainhead making Rand famous

I removed the "famous" part for now until we get a reliable source for it. Idag (talk) 23:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The current reference is a cite to a Cliffnotes. That is not a valid source. Idag (talk) 03:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

It is a source, a valid, verifiable source. It might not be the best, but it is adequate and I can't see any reason to remove it or to question the statement. If you look at the sales figures for Fountainhead, and that she wrote the screenplay for the movie that the book inspired, it becomes clear that this was the book that began her fame. --Steve (talk) 03:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Its not a reliable source. In addition, book sales do not mean that she was famous. If you want to say that she wrote a high-selling book,, then book sales sources can support that. If you want to say that the Fountainhead made her famous, you need a source that says the Fountainhead made her famous. Idag (talk) 03:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't see anything in reliable source that would exclude Cliff's Notes, but here is another that I will add: "The Fountainhead (1943). The novel was rejected by many publishers before finally being accepted by the Bobbs-Merrill Company publishing house. Despite these initial struggles The Fountainhead was successful, bringing Rand fame, notoriety, and financial security." http://www.onpedia.com/encyclopedia/ayn-rand There are other proofs of her fame at that period of time, like the interview with Mike Wallace when Atlas Shrugged had not been out long enough to have taken her fame far beyond where it was at the time, and an interview with her typist at the time, who was typing the manuscript for Atlas Shrugged reported that a bank clerk told her that she shouldn't cash one of the checks she was paid with (one for a small amount) in order to have a souvenir of such a famous person. --Steve (talk) 04:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I like the second source you added, so I removed Cliffnotes since that was an inferior source. Issue resolved =) Idag (talk) 04:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Onpedia is not a reliable source for the purpose of Wikipedia, I believe. It needs to be removed as it seems to be based on Wikipedia itself. See: http://www.onpedia.com/. J Readings (talk) 05:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

There needs to be a discussion before deleting the sources that have been put up. I have two sources for something that isn't even contriversial - Rand was sought out for speaking engagements, for interviews, even for autographs as a result of Fountainhead. --Steve (talk) 05:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you missed the point, Steve. You can't use a source that uses Wikipedia as its source. It's simply not allowed on Wikipedia. This is not my opinion; it's Wikipedia policy. "Articles and posts on Wikipedia, or other websites that mirror Wikipedia content, may not be used as sources." See WP:SELFPUB. Onpedia explicitly states that their material comes from Wikipedia: "Our articles come from Wikidpedia, which is an online encyclopedia that is edited by the general public." Sorry, it needed to be removed. J Readings (talk) 06:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

(unindent)The fact that a novel has been abbreviated by CLiffnotes is, in a way, a proof of its notariety and fame. Rand is one of the most popular and best selling authors in the history of Literature. If I'm not mistaken only the Bible has out-sold Atlas Shrugged...but I'll get back to you on that. I agree w/ Editor:SteveWolfer that requests to verify Rands fame are like requests to verify that Aristole was a Philosopher. There is NO controversy.--Buster7 (talk) 06:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC): Buster7 (talk) 06:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm perfectly happy to have the thing about The Fountainhead in there with a citation needed. It's definitely true, although I can't recall sources atm. TallNapoleon (talk) 06:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

J Readings is correct about Onpedia mirroring Wikipedia and that specifically rules it out as a source and I'll remove that source. The other source, the cliff notes is written by someone with considerable understanding of Rand (check out his other books) and it is a solid source. Besides, this should not even begin to be controversial - like I said, she was being sought out for interviews, speaking engagements, and autographs at this time. --Steve (talk) 07:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Use the Cliff's Notes for now, but there's got to be a better source for that available somewhere... maybe Branden's book? TallNapoleon (talk) 07:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Why not just cite directly to the book that the Cliffnotes are summarizing? Idag (talk) 14:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Jeff Walker and Austin Chair

I removed the "lack of rigour" and Ausin chair sentence as both redundant and unsupported by the Walker ref. I have absolutely no objection to a quote of Walker's criticism appearing under his name in the criticism section. But one hostile author (Ayn Rand Cult) does not support the general statement - and in any case Tibney's statement just below says the exact same thing. Also, the Austin chair was also already mentioned, so no need to repeat it. Kjaer (talk) 06:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it was a bad paragraph, in part because the Austin post (not a chair) is hardly evidence of acceptance given its date and funding source. We do need an agreed form of words that establishes that she is largely ignored within Philosophy and I will give some attention to that later. For the moment I support the deletion on the basis that we going to replace it with something better. --Snowded TALK 06:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

As I have said, I do not oppose simply adding Walker's quote as a criticism, if if is attributed to him and properly sourced.Kjaer (talk) 06:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

dudes, give it a rest. you are never gonna prove that she is or is not a philiosopher.Brushcherry (talk) 09:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)brushcherry

No give rest. If there is a would-be philosopher who should be characterised by lack of rigour, it is this one. Peter Damian (talk) 21:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

hmmmm.you just called her a philosopher (qualified with "would-be)Brushcherry (talk) 07:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)brushcherry

A dead man is not a man, a fake diamond is not a diamond, a would-be philosopher is someone who would be a philosopher, but isn't. Peter Damian (talk) 20:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Undue weight of politics in lead?

Rand said "I am not primarily an advocate of capitalism, but of egoism; and I am not primarily an advocate of egoism, but of reason. If one recognizes the supremacy of reason and applies it consistently, all the rest follows." Yet the lead gives two long sentences on Rand's politics while stating nothing of the fact that she published a book on aesthetics and a book on epistemology and took positions on issues in all major branches of philosophy. I intend to add the above quote and mention her work on concepts and aesthetics. Do people wish to leave both sentences on politics? I would move the second to the body of the article, but some may feel it is best left in the opening.Kjaer (talk) 06:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The bit about her politics does seem a little, well, out of place. And it's not saying much to say that she opposed Nazism. It'd only really be newsworthy if she had supported it. TallNapoleon (talk) 06:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

call me crazy...but....i think the different camps occasionally play nice to validate their wikipedia editor credentials. well of course i agree with you my fellow editor, lets correct this situation. meanwhile, they edit war on whatever it is they edit war about. that is, in this case, ayn rand's status as a philosopher. Brushcherry (talk) 09:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)brushcherry

Assume Good Faith. TallNapoleon (talk) 09:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

[WP:AGF | Assume Good Faith]].Brushcherry (talk) 09:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)brushcherry

Bushcherry, please stop talking about your assumptions as to the motivations and actions of other editors and address content issues. I suggest you delete your response above. --Snowded TALK 16:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Snowded, please stop framing your issues with with pro-rand sources as anything other than "they don't agree with me" so they are wrong, or don't count. Same thing for Kjear with his attitude towards ant-rand sources. i have freely expressed my "OPINION" that ayn rand is a philosopher. Snowded and Kjear are, in my "OPINION", are the problem. feel free to ban me from wikipedia. but the ayn rand page is in the same company as "the irish potato famine" "isreal/palastine" "scientology". CongratulationsBrushcherry (talk) 08:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)brushcherry

Brushcherry, where have I ever removed antiRand comments? Please show diffs.

Since no one oppose the quote above which balances her politics, I will add it.Kjaer (talk) 21:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you made the right decision to seek out a mentor Bushcherry --Snowded TALK 21:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I propose removing that quote. Its long and cumbersome and violates WP:Quotes. Since it essentially says that Rand developed a complete philosophy that values reason, we can simply paraphrase that meaning. Idag (talk) 22:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I will read the quote policy. The problem is that the concentration on Rand's politics amounts to undue weight, and the quote balances it quite well, while your abbreviation is basically meaningless. I have no problem with a sufficient alternate text. But this should stand until we have something better to balance the politics.Kjaer (talk) 22:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

No, it is not a violation of WP:Quote. This is the only quote of her in the article, and the "paraphrase" does not contain the point she makes.Kjaer (talk) 22:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Here is the pertinent policy statement:

"while quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them" (emphasis in the original)

That quote says that Rand was trying to make a complete philosophy whose primary value was reason. Or did I miss something? Idag (talk) 22:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Rand herself was frustrated by the undue weight that people gave her politics. She said this specifically to counter that perception, anfd I think it speaks quite clearly for itself - not capitalism but egoism, not egoism but reason. If the point had been to emphasize reason, there are many other quotes or sources. But "reason" by itself is prety empty. The point here is to balance the mention of politics in the previous sentences, and there is no more elegant means of doing that than this quote which shows the subordination of politics to ethics and ethics to epistemology.Kjaer (talk) 22:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Hence the mention of a "complete philosophy" and a transition that contrasts the previous views about politics with the views expressed in the current sentence. We could also simply put in a phrase along the lines of "she viewed politics as merely one aspect of her ideal of reason." Use of quotes should be avoided (unless they are of particular importance) and that quote is unnecessarily long given its content. Idag (talk) 23:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I just cut it in half for you. Kjaer (talk) 00:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I can live w/ it. Idag (talk) 00:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

No, the original text was Nazism. Read the history. Read the sentence. It says that Rand opposed all forms of statism and collectivism such as and then gave three very specific concrete examples, Nazism, communism, and the Welfare State. That is, the forms of collectivism found in germany, Russia and the UK. Rand's journals, for example, show her opposition to hitler in about ten cites in the index, but fascism isn't mentioned but once.

I don't see the impulsive need to mess with every single phrase without even asking first if there is some rationale. Please spend a little time trying to get these matters straight, please ask first before you delete and rewrite. And please show good faith and restore the text.Kjaer (talk) 05:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, it said fascism when I started editing this evening. I'm assuming that was the consensus, especially given that I seem to recall that you didn't object to it being changed from Nazism to fascism. UPDATE: It was Steve who agreed with changing from Nazism to fascism. Sorry for the confusion. TallNapoleon (talk) 05:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Out of sync

I propose that we change the first thread to "Early Life" and move the "Later Years" and "Declining health and death" down in the article. As they are now their location is out of sync and disjointed. For instance, Brandon is mentioned without any clue as to his importance in her life. Im not sure where they fit in since the article turns into a discussion of her philosophy and rightfully so. But where this info is presented now is only confusing to our reader.--Buster7 (talk) 06:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I do not oppose this in principle, (have thought the same myself) but doing it without controversy will be difficult. Kjaer (talk) 06:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, I think we can move a lot of the philosophy stuff to the Objectivism article and leave stubs in this article so that it can have a greater focus on Rand's biography. I mean why have two articles that repeat the same detailed information? Idag (talk) 14:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

it would be a good test of intent and action. I agree with the suggested change and it would remove several controversies. --Snowded TALK 16:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• Moved section to the end of article, above Legacy, where it logically should be--Buster7 (talk) 23:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Please Do Not Add Material Below This Section

Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry

The IEP entry by philosophy professor Stephen Hicks seems to be the clearest source for the "philosopher" usage, so I've added that with proper reference. Let me know what you think. — BRIAN0918 • 2009-02-11 17:44Z

Yes, but keep in mind that Professor Hicks was a senior fellow at The Objectivist Center. CABlankenship (talk) 21:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Not an independent source, considering the connection. Peter Damian (talk) 21:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Stephen Hicks is the chairman of the philosophy department at Rockford College. During a sabbatical from Rockford, in 1999-2000, he was a senior fellow at the Institute for Objectivist Studies. Post-Doc fellowships are common and in no way diminish the reliability of this source. It is inappropriate to imply that his scholarship or integrity are somehow impaired from that connection. --Steve (talk) 21:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't diminish his scholarship to say he's not independent. Basically, we need independent sources--sources not related to Rand or Rand-institutes. TallNapoleon (talk) 22:04, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Considering the "playing field", Professor Hicks may not be the best choice to be the home plate umpire.--Buster7 (talk) 22:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Hicks is a crappy source when there are far more reliable and more respected sources. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

reverting

I have reverted to the version we agreed upon until the Arbcom decision. A number of my edits were reverted on the same grounds, so can we have level playing field here please? Peter Damian (talk) 21:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Peter, Arbcom clarified that we could keep editing the article. It does seem to appear that a new consensus is very slowly beginning to develop, so I don't think the reversion was necessary. TallNapoleon (talk) 21:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

It is necessary. The 'lack of rigour' stays. And, sorry, what consensus. Consensus means everyone. Peter Damian (talk) 21:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)]

Actually it doesn't. See WP:What_is_consensus?#Not_unanimity. TallNapoleon (talk) 22:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Peter, you don't really appear to care about consensus, since you demand that the 'lack of rigor' stays - and there certainly is NO consensus when you have to revert to have your way. I suggest we look at the changes you just forced upon everyone, and see which ones, if any have ANY concensus. You rolled over the work a number of us did today, some of which involved sourced material. This is a particularly poor time to be heavy handed with reversions when we are trying to find common ground while working with ArbCom. --Steve (talk) 22:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

@Peter...There should be no claim of consensus or prior agreement without a wikilink to the relevant thread(s) that supposedly established it. This would have created the least friction and been a significant step showing collaborative progress.--Buster7 (talk) 22:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Peter, you do not set consensus yourself. please do not destroy the hard fought good will version accepted by Snowded, myself and many others. Your behavior is unacceptable. I have reverted to the actual latest consensus with philosopher omitted, and mention of both praise and criticism.Kjaer (talk) 00:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that Peter made some edits, there was no discussion of content issues before making a mass revert. Please stop mass-reverting without prior talk page discussion and a consensus for such a revert. If you agree/disagree with something in the lede and the consensus is unclear, just discuss it on the talk page. Idag (talk) 00:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Peter did more than just make a few edits, he massively and unilaterally changed the lede without any consensus. We need to find a way to work together better than this. Idag, Kjaer did not do a mass revert, he put it back to where it was before Peter's massive changes... and, yes, you and I lost a small changes we had worked on. But the difference in her influence in America versus the rest of the world is best handled in the Influence section. What is most important now is to control ourselves short of an editing war. --Steve (talk) 01:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

After all this, I wouldn't want to be around when the parents get home. Stevewunder (talk) 01:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The way to avoid an edit war is to have a talk page discussion BEFORE doing a mass revert. Adding/removing a sentence or two, that's fine, but when you mass-revert a section, get a consensus first. Doing the revert and then dropping a talk page comment about it is not the proper way to do it. Idag (talk) 02:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Adding a sentence or two is fine? so i can add philosopher to writer? i can change "respected" to "would-be". Don't worry, i am not going to ever edit the ayn page, you guys have to much fun without me.Brushcherry (talk) 08:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)brushcherry

Get Consensus

People are making changes without seeking any consensus and on this article, with its contentitious history, that is not a good idea. Childof Midnight takes out the Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged and put in "two" - but that reduces the amount of information and is incorrect because she had more than two best sellers. TallNapoleon removes the information about Rand being an opponent of Nazism even though it had been sourced and fought over in the recent past. For anything in the lede we should always try it out here on the talk page first. --Steve (talk) 17:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Nazism

Per WP:LEDE, the only way this belongs in the lede is if the article includes a great deal about her opposition to Nazism. Frankly almost all Americans opposed Nazism by the late 30s, so I don't see that having it in the lede--despite it being sourced--adds much of anything. TallNapoleon (talk) 17:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The short phrase you removed, just a few words, expanded what was included in her political opposition. I don't think that Nazism was the correct word to use. What should have been there was "fascism" - because that is the generic term as opposed to the historically specific term of 'Nazism'. And it should be 'socialism' rather than communisim (that being the more generic). It is important to include these, and 'welfare state' or 'mixed economy' when using the concept of 'opposed to collectivism,' since many readers wouldn't understand what is implied in that opposition and because some political theorists wouldn't oppose the same things. This is what I recommend we put in: "She was a fierce opponent of all forms of collectivism and statism, including fascism, socialism, and the welfare state." That gives us accuracy, and avoids errors in understanding from those not familiar with these terms. --Steve (talk) 18:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. Do people think the term "welfare state" is possibly too loaded? TallNapoleon (talk) 18:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

"Welfare state" can be seen as loaded, but reads better. "Mixed economy" would be the closest neutral phrase, and is a touch more accurate since it can be a mix of facist controls and/or socialist programs with free enterprise. It would read, "She was a fierce opponent of all forms of collectivism and statism, including fascism, socialism, and a mixed economy." Or that last phrase could be, "..., or any mixture thereof." --Steve (talk) 18:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, not all mixed economies would necessarily be welfare states (consider a state with heavy economic regulations but little or no social welfare programs, for instance). A welfare state would, however, be included under the rubric of the "mixed" economy. TallNapoleon (talk) 18:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

"a state with heavy economic regulations but little or no social welfare programs" - you mean like the US? ;-) arimareiji (talk) 20:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Deleted sentence

I have deleted this sentence

"She frequently depicted heroes standing against the mob, amid derisive depictions of trade unions, socialism, altruism and egalitarianism, arguing for rational self-interest"

There is a confusion as to whether the depiction itself is standing amid (among) derisive depictions, which is probably what is meant, but not expressed by the grammar, and the literal grammatical meaning which is a hero standing in the middle of depictions, which is what logicians call a 'category mistake'. 'Depictions' occurs to soon after 'she depicted', which is poor style. And the word 'arguing for rational self-interest' is probably meant to refer to Rand, but grammatically refers to the hero. Either way, it is an abomination and I have removed it. Peter Damian (talk) 20:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] I think the last sentence is also weak. "While her ideas and work have drawn both admiration and criticism, her influence outside the English-speaking world has been limited." The word 'while' is usually intended to draw a contrast between the two sentences it joins. I don't see any contrast or connection here. You might say 'While (or 'although') her work has been popular in English-speaking world, her influence outside the English-speaking world has been limited. Which is not true anyway, as the many Brits on this page have observed. The fact is that while Rand has enjoyed some success in America, her influence outside America has been limited. For that is the truth. I first came across Rand from an article by Quinton in the Oxford Companion calling her an 'amateur philosopher'. Peter Damian (talk) 20:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Someone reverted and replaced 'depicted' with 'dramatized', but has clearly failed to understand what is still wrong with that sentence. Need for a course in basic English, or writing school. Or just school? Peter Damian (talk) 20:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you should step back and reread WP:NPA. Your insults are not warranted. If you think a sentence has a grammatical error, then fix the error, don't delete the sentence. Also, I fixed the participle, but perhaps you didn't read the correction. Kjaer (talk) 21:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I was just deleting illiterate nonsense. You still don't understand what was wrong with the sentence. Read carefully what I said above. Peter Damian (talk) 22:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Psychological criticism

Steve, you didn't even try to provide a rationale for your removal of the psychological criticism section. It was suitably cited and perfectly factual. There is a sizable body of work by respected clinicians such as Albert Ellis who say that Ayn Rand caused psychological harm to her followers. Whether or not you agree with that statement, it is factual. Is there some reason other than you, personally, believing something different that you removed it? -- SmashTheState (talk) 21:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I can not imagine a respected clinician claiming a novelist caused psychological damage to a "follower. It may be a statement, but I doubt that it is a factual statement.--Buster7 (talk) 22:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Smash, since that's going to be a controversial section, how about you post the proposed language on the talk page so that we can all discuss it? If possible, I would ask you to wait to do that until ArbCom is over so that we can straighten out some of the current issues before we tackle a new one. Idag (talk) 22:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I was wondering something similar. What was the exact wording in the original text? Did Albert Ellis explicitly call Rand a "psychopath"--and if so, why? Best to cite the passage in full. That would make for interesting reading I would think. If Smash was paraphrasing, I would still be interested in reading the original text. Either way, provided that it's factual, I think it adds to the article considering that it's coming from Ellis. J Readings (talk) 22:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Returning to the Popular Influence section

Kjaer restored the list of individuals that were being examined before the warring froze the page. At that time we had agreed that work needed to be done - perhaps a side box to hold names, and perhaps some pruned out all together - and perhaps a little better organization.

If we don't start with that previous version of the section on the article, then we need it here - on the talk page or in some sand box - because we need to regain the degree of consensus we had back then and to move and finish that section.

Popular Influence is an important section because Rand put her philosophical work out in the public domain, as was once done by all philosophers, as opposed to making it primarily an academic activity as the more recent philosophers are doing.

Also, there is the need to deal with her popularity as a novelist. And we need more definitive answers to the influence in America versus the influence outside of America. Quotes saying, "...limited..." don't give any real information. We should be able to get sales figures for different countries and languages and let them tell us the ratio.

Comments? --Steve (talk) 21:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The main question is do we want lots of names. You would normally just have major figures which is the current state. I suggest resolution of that first. Your statement on Philosophers and the public domain is not really true. I can list several (Blackburn, Williams and others) who have published popular works. Its not something special about Rand. --Snowded TALK 22:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I would limit the language to just a few people and actually explain how Rand influenced their lives. Otherwise the section turns into a glorified Trivia section. Idag (talk) 22:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Exactly -- who needs a glorified trivia section? When Nietzsche influenced Heidegger, or when Schopenhauer influenced Nietzsche, or when Kant influenced Schopenhauer, or (different tract) when Hegel influenced Marx -- these were meaningful, specific, path breaking, historic moments that every reader interested in the subject matter of political thought should know. I suspect that I was not alone in finding the "influence" section of the Ayn Rand article to be a meaningless piece of shallow advertising with absolutely no use to the reader whatsoever. How did Ayn Rand influence the "deep thoughts" of actress Angelina Jolie or Wikipedia-founder Jimbo Wales or any of the countless others listed? If citations from reliable, independent secondary sources cannot be provided, I strongly suggest that (first) the name should be discarded from the list. Second, if the name does have reliable sources, but lacks any historical "punch," I would agree with Idag that it be limited to a handful of specific "successors" in thought who followed Rand's work to new notable roads. Otherwise, the article will revert to its gradual disintegration into becoming a shallow "fan piece" devoid of any real substance. J Readings (talk) 00:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry but we have the same editors who want to comment on how Rand's following is limited to the right-wing political fringe in America and who argue that she is not taken seriously in philosophy or elsewhere wanting to delete references to philosophers and such people as Turkish director Sinan Cetin who belie such claims.

The debate was whether to keep the section or to shorten it to an info box. There is no justification in deleting verifiable material about notable people. This is not a trivia list, it goes directly to contested issues, and in reality it is only objectionable material because it shows the extent of Rand's influence. Add all the actual criticisms you like under the criticism section. I have never argued to delete it. When it gets too big it can be its own article. The same here. If the section gets "too big" then we will simply follow WP policy and split it out to a separate article. Kjaer (talk) 00:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

There is plenty of justification and I just gave it. J Readings (talk) 00:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, Kjaer, if we take you at your word that "there is no justification in deleting verifiable material about notable people," then I expect you to be at the forefront of those wanting Prof. Raymond Boisvert's criticisms of Rand re-added to the Criticism section. After all, Prof. Boisvert's criticism was both "verifiable" and from a "notable person." One cannot have it both ways in this discussion. J Readings (talk) 00:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I have absolutely no problem adding Boisvert to a list of people who were critical of Rand. I will not pretend that his saying Rand is "out of sync" with Modern America was a philosophical criticsm. Perhaps he did offer philosophical criticisms of her. But if he did, no one offered them. Let's here one and we can put him in the proper section. Kjaer (talk) 03:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Last month's version of the influence list, which I more or less support:

Rand has had an influence on a number of notable people in different fields. Examples include philosophers such as John Hospers,George H. Smith, Allan Gotthelf, Robert Mayhew and Tara Smith, economists such as George Reisman and Murray Rothbard, psychologists such as Nathaniel Branden, historians such as Eric Daniels, and political writers such asCharles Murray. Former Chairman of the Federal Reserve Alan Greenspan, U.S. Congressmen Ron Paul, and Bob Barr, and Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States Clarence Thomas have acknowledged her influence on their lives. The "Randex" website lists recent media references to Rand or her work. Although not Objectivists, the popular right-wing pundit Rush Limbaugh makes frequent positive reference to "Atlas" on his radio program, and former PresidentRonald Reagan described himself as an "admirer" of Rand in private correspondence in the 1960s.

TallNapoleon (talk) 00:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Idag (talk) 02:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, you are not offering any WP rationale for censoring the list. People like David Kelley and Tibor Machan are quite notable, and proof of this has been offered before. You have no grounds for excluding these people. They are notable and Rand's influence in each case is verifiable. And it is a strange show of good faith indeed for people who wish to say how little influence Rand has had to want to exclude mention of people who exhibit that influence. If you have a problem with the size of the list, we can always have another article. Let us stick to WP policy and not personal preference. Kjaer (talk) 03:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The people themselves may be notable, but is Rand's influence on them notable? I would notice that the current more concise list has now been up for quite some time, and there is still no elaboration for how Rand influenced any of these people in a notable way. Do that first, and then we'll talk about expanding the list. Idag (talk) 14:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

An Apology

I posted a lengthy list of sources on this talk page a while back. It was not intended to be exclusive, definitive, or in the form of finished cites. But it was put forth as supporting Rand as a philosopher (which she is). But I included two sources (The Oxford Companion to Philosophy and The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy) that should not be there.

This was pointed out to me earlier by an editor (Snowded?), and then again by CABlankenship who rudely and inaccurately called me dishonest (ArbCom Evidence). I had several sources on a list that I wanted to check when I went to the library, they ended up being copy pasted onto the list of supporting sources, which in turn was pasted into the talk page. I made an error, but it wasn't a matter of dishonesty, it was an accident. It turns out that Rand IS mentioned in The Oxford Companion to Philosophy (page 704 in the 1995 edition, page 740 and also in the front matter on the 2005 edition), but the mentions are very minor. If that list has not been archived I will strike out those names. Too late, it's been archived. --Steve (talk) 03:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I can't locate any reference on p 740, but I have the 1995 edition. As for the mention on p 704, I have for a long time pointed out that this refers to her as an 'amateur philosopher' Peter Damian (talk) 15:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

In the spirit of the apology (and the hopeful realisation that long lists without supporting evidence are a bad idea), can we have the name of the Philosophy Professor in california who you (Steve) have on several occasions claimed takes Rand seriously? As Peter has pointed out, the context of any mention is as, if not more important to understand if the evidence can be used. --Snowded TALK 15:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, Snowded. Long lists, provided as a starting point for doing research, are better than no lists at all - when they don't contain the kind of error mine did. The problem was in my mixing up two lists, not in attempting to move things forward by supplying leads to good sources. As to the philosophy professor in California, it tickles me that you keep asking for his name. I have no doubt that you will find fault with him, or with what he says, or the source, should I produce it (just because that has been an unrelenting pattern of yours that has no exceptions :-). --Steve (talk) 19:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Lead again

the lead is getting curiouser and curiouser. i don't think my edits were MUCH more absurd than many of the others.

conclusion of Lead now reads: "Yet while she was best known for her political philosophy" -- WHAT? who says THAT? ",Rand developed a full philosophical system" -- I guess the emphasis is on "full" - huh? -- --"saying "I am not primarily an advocate of capitalism, but of egoism; and I am not primarily an advocate of egoism, but of reason."" wait. wait. what the hell sort of INTRO is that? curiouser and curiouser. i think my Amy Winehouse reference was no more out of place in that paragraph.

Declining Health and Death: It takes 3 full paragraphs for Rand to finally die and there is a picture of her tombstone. Why? Every dead person died. Are these details relevant? imagine every bio on WP giving 3 paragraphs to how that person died. with a tombstone.

quit trying to glorify this woman. quit trying to malign this woman.

and why is Noam Chomsky mentioned as a philosopher? surely Ayn Rand is better known as a philosopher than Chomsky. Stevewunder (talk) 03:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

You'll have to take that up at the Chomsky article. Idag (talk) 03:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

i mean the Chomsky reference in THIS article under Criticism.

Because Chomsky was an influential philosopher when he was at his peak. GoogleScholar search for Chomsky=34,000 hits; GoogleScholar search for Rand=5,000 hits. Idag (talk) 03:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

But Chomsky didn't write a single work that would be considered Philosophy in the Western Tradition. Wait? Does the academic world consider Chomsky a Philosopher now? I doubt it. Stevewunder (talk) 04:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

again in the lead: what is the point of saying here work is in the "classical liberal tradition"? the lead is an Intro. it should strive for clarity, not obscurity. it may be a true, cited statement, but that doesn't make it good. most americans will be completely thrown off by the statement, since the classical liberal tradition is not a part of american politics, but european politics -- and of course the "modern liberal" is more or less the exact opposite of the "classical" -- so there is a breezy pretension to the phrase Stevewunder (talk) 03:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

You're preaching to the choire. However, a lede is supposed to provide an overview of the rest of the article, and at the moment this article is way too unstable for us to get a decent quasi-permanent lede. Right now, just work on some uncontroversial content, and then, once ArbCom wraps up, we'll do a list of issues that need to be addressed. Idag (talk) 03:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, another list of deltions. Surprise, suprise. Just don't forget the results of the last RfC as to whether you have consensus for your program.

So you agree, Idag, that more people know Rand as a philosopher than Chomsky? I'll take you at your word on that. So do we delete the mention under his name or restore it under hers? I'll let SteveWunder decide.Kjaer (talk) 03:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

the cite for Chomsky as "philosopher" is from the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, one of those stately tomes we have heard again and again don't call Rand a philosopher. So the question comes down to: Is the Oxford Dictionary of P a credible enough source in deciding who is and ain't a philosopher? If it is, then Chomsky is a philospher and Rand isn't. If it isn't, then Chomsky may not be a philosopher (he isn't, by the way: he is a language theorist and political consipiracy theorist -- he is only a philosopher in a very broad sense of the term) and THUS the fact it doesn't include Rand as a P means should NOT COUNT AS NEGATIVE EVIDENCE. hence, the NEGATIVE EVIDENCE argument is blown. those are my thoughts. Stevewunder (talk) 04:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

i think the very fact the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy counts Chomsky a philosophy -- discredits it as an infallible source in determining philosopher status and sheds a lot of doubt on similarly named reference sources. again, this should do a lot of damage to the Absence of Mention as an evidence argument, since these sources aren't that rigorous. Stevewunder (talk) 04:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Or it could be mentioning Chomsky because, notwithstanding your personal opinion, he is one of the most cited philosophers of the 1980s. In any event, the philosopher debate is on hold for now, so stop beating the issue. There's plenty of noncontroversial edits to be made. Idag (talk) 04:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

It isn't my personal opinion that Chomsky did not write works of philosophy. He did not write a philosophical work. If he is cited as a philosopher, it is because he is known as such in "a general sense" only. you could call his work on language "natural philosophy" -- but in the modern world we call these people scientists not philosophers. And I agreed 2 days ago that there were plenty of noncontroversial edits to be made, but turns out i was wrong. most of the edits that have been made recently are controversial. i have no faith at all arbcom will resolve the philosophy debate. i think we should keep beating each other up over it.Stevewunder (talk) 04:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I will tell Prof. Blackburn next time I meet him that his work has been discredited in the eyes of Stevewunder and he should resign the Chair of Philosophy at Cambridge. Moreover most people worldwide have heard of Chomsky, in respect of Rand the question in Europe is have they even heard of her, and if so she is known as a novelist --Snowded TALK 07:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

surely Ayn Rand is better known as a philosopher than Chomsky

Excellent Peter Damian (talk) 08:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Meanwhile

I am removing that last line again for reasons of style.

"Yet while she was best known for her political philosophy, Rand developed a philosophical system saying, "I am not primarily an advocate of capitalism, but of egoism; and I am not primarily an advocate of egoism, but of reason."

Please think carefully about what you are trying to say. There is still no proper contrast corresponding to the 'while'. And was Rand 'saying' the quotation, or the philosophical system? If Rand is intended, the sentence implies that she developed the entire system while uttering the sentence, just like that. Try and think what the sentence is meant to say, and say it. At the moment it says nothing. The quotation suggests that Rand saw reason as primary, from which her philosophy of egoism, and then capitalism, derives. Fine, now put some words around it that add to that thought, or clarify it, or (preferably) connect it to her life in some way.

We still haven't agreed on a sentence or two that states how little influence she had on academic philosophy. Peter Damian (talk) 08:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Classic Liberalism

What is the objection to this phrase? It places Rand in context, and can be sourced. First of all, the description of CL 'with its emphasis upon ...' is a reasonably good definition. And it is clear Rand was writing in that tradition. There are some sources which claim she advocates 'romantic individualism' and that this is an ingredient in modern libertarianism. Is that the objection? It is important (in an introduction) to place every writer in a historical context. Peter Damian (talk) 09:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a source other than Professor Hicks which makes this claim? I find it highly misleading. Frankly, her individualism has far more in common with the "cult of the hero", as developed by Carlyle and Nietzsche, than with anything in the liberal tradition. One also cannot ignore the fact that Rand despised the Utilitarians, blaming them for the holocaust, which makes any attempt at classifying her within CL even more difficult. The arguments of Locke, Mill, Bentham, Mises, &c., were ultimately utilitarian in nature — something which Rand utterly condemned. Rand objected to all such labels on numerous occasions, and claimed that her only influence and tradition was that of Aristotle. Furthermore, we are left with the fact that the philosophy of the CL's, when taken to its logical extreme (Hume), leads to utter subjectivism (Russell, History of Western Philosophy, p.701). Why classify her within the very tradition against which she utterly rebelled? CABlankenship (talk) 11:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I did see some other sources but don't know how independent they are. Certainly what I have read of Rand's writings suggest she is writing in, or influenced by that tradition. I agree it has as least as much in common with the 'cult of the hero' too. Note: if 'classic liberal tradition' goes, then the rest of what follows goes, because we can easily source that description to the definition of CL. I mean the bit which says 'emphasizes individualism, limited government, and the constitutional protection of the right to life, liberty, and property'. Perhaps 'individualism' should be altered to 'individual freedom' but I don't see a big difference. Also, perhaps add 'human rationality' because both CL and Rand have a big emphasis on that. It would be useful to include a source on the 'cult of the hero' too. But was Rand directly influenced by these writers? She comes across more like the Mills & Boon version of them. Peter Damian (talk) 11:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't really care that much about the quote on classical liberalism. I personally think it's misleading — for reasons already stated — but that's not a reason to keep it out. Frankly, I don't think Rand fits well into any tradition. I think she was consciously a radical; she defies easy classification. And, as I said, she repeatedly refused to accept any tradition for herself other than that of Aristotle. It seems odd to me that we would open the page mentioning her in connection with classical liberalism, but with no mention of her devotion to Aristotle. This seems inconsistent with her own stated influences, and with the tradition she claimed for herself. CABlankenship (talk) 15:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Well her ideas can be seen in the tradition of classical liberalism, while their link to Aristotle (regardless of her claims) is tenuous at best. --Snowded TALK 15:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

On "full" "complete" "wider" and other philosophy adjectives

I put it back to the original because each hack we took at it made it less intelligible and more akward. Why is "full" objectionable? --Steve (talk) 08:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Because it sounds like favorable POV to Rand, and because it does not appear to be well-defined. What makes a philosophical system a "full" system? TallNapoleon (talk) 09:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Note I have removed the sentence anyway - see above. The point that the sentence is trying to make should be made clearer. On what makes a philosophy 'systematic', think what the term implies. It implies detailed, which I don't think applies to Rand's writing, which was mostly novelistic. It also implies a coherent logical structure, i.e. one part deductively connected with another, starting from first principles and taking everything from those, or what can be deduced from those. Her writing is not systematic in that sense (which is why she has largely been ignored by modern philosophers) Peter Damian (talk) 09:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Prefacing the sentence with "although" instead of "Yet while" would be an improvement. TallNapoleon (talk) 09:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I understand that, indeed it is my point. If we join two sentences by 'while' or 'although' it is called a 'concessive', i.e. you concede or allow the qualified sentence, but continue with the next sentence which contains some sort of contrast or even a contradiction to the previous one. 'Although Percy hates cigarettes, his wife is a heavy smoker'. In the sentence I removed, it suggest a similar contrast between the qualified 'Rand was best known for political philosophy' and 'she developed an entire philosophical system'. I don't see the kind of contrast implied. She was best known for her political philosophy and indeed developed a whole philosophical system. (The word 'indeed' or the phase 'not only' is an 'amplifier' or 'expletive' - it creates a relation of emphasis between the second and first sentence - vide my use of 'indeed' in beginning this comment). Peter Damian (talk) 09:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The contrast is implicit. Most people who know of her know about her advocacy for laissez-faire capitalism. Fewer would know about the rest of her philosophy. It's contrasting with what the "average Joe" might know about her. However, come to think of it one could phrase the sentence like this:

"Best known for her political philosophy, Rand explained..."

TallNapoleon (talk) 10:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

With the word 'although' the contrast should always be explicit. The explicit contrast is between, as you say, what most (American) people know about her, and her wider 'work'. Though as many of us have commented here, she is almost entirely unknown in England. Peter Damian (talk) 10:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] With your comments in mind, I have added an amplifying sentence about her attempts at a philosophical system. Peter Damian (talk) 10:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] And that would be the point to add back the sentence about the critical reception of her purely philosophical and metaphysical work. Peter Damian (talk) 10:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Vallicellipedia

So Vallicella has proven "exactly" how Rand got it wrong, eh? That's nice. Put it in criticism.Kjaer (talk) 15:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

No it goes in the introduction. Why shouldn't criticism go in the introduction? Rand is notable for being an extremely bad philosopher. So it goes in the introduction. I have reverted. Peter Damian (talk) 15:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and moved this to the "Philosophical Criticism" section; the introduction should be a brief, high-level overview of the topic of the article, and one specific example from one scholar of how she may have misinterpreted Kant is rather more detail than needs to be there. evildeathmath 16:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

You people. This is not a detail. The fact that she was one of the worst philosophers in the history of the Western Intellectual tradition is not a detail. It is a notable fact. It is one of the few things Rand is famous for among academic philosophers. Read WP:LEAD Peter Damian (talk) 16:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

"[The lead] should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies that may exist. " Rand's terrible and amateurish philosophy is what is interesting and important about her. You would not write about William McGonagall without saying what a bad poet he was. Peter Damian (talk) 16:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

"William Topaz McGonagall (1825 – 29 September 1902) was a Scottish weaver, actor and poet. He is comically renowned as one of the worst poets in the English language." That is the entire intro to the McGonagall article. As he was to poetry, so Rand was to philosophy. Am I getting through here? Are you people understanding? Peter Damian (talk) 16:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the problem here is that the lede is supposed to reflect what is in the rest of the article. As the article currently stands, there is no significant discussion about the qualify of Rand's philosophy. If you would like to add in that discussion, please post the proposed language, including the supporting sources on the talk page, so that we can discuss it. If there's a significant amount of criticism of the quality of Rand's philosophy, we can then discuss the lede. Idag (talk) 16:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Sadly Rand's philosophy was so bad that there is little discussion of her work in Analysis. I will try and put something together for the philosophy section. But, as I said, her famously inept work in philosophy is so notable that it should go in the intro. Peter Damian (talk) 16:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I note also that there is no section 'criticism of McGonagall's poetry' in the McGonagall article, yet the introduction opens by saying about what a bad poet he was. Similarly to Rand, you will find no discussion of McGonagall in journals of literary criticism. I am struggling to get this point across, I fear. Peter Damian (talk) 16:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

It is not Wikipedia's place to judge the quality of Rand's work. The lede should note that she has been harshly criticized, but claims that she is one of the worst philosophers in history need to be sourced and put in the criticism section. TallNapoleon (talk) 17:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree, in fact it is her claims to be a philosopher/create a philosophy which have been harshly criticised or completely ignored and we might be better saying that. --Snowded TALK 17:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not making the claim, in the introduction, that she was the worst philosopher in history, and this is nothing to do with my argument. My argument is that, like McGonagall, she has a certain reputation for amateurism - I will try and locate the quote about 'people laugh at Rand'. Given that notability, it should go into the introduction. That is my only point. I am increasingly irritated by the way that any criticism of Rand is automatically consigned to some outer depths by the crowd of fanatics that inhabit this page. (Present company excepted) Peter Damian (talk) 08:09, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Unrelenting POV Editing

The ArbCom is still going on and already we see a stream of edits that only have one thing in common - they are expressive of a harshly negative view of Rand. They are supported by OR. And these edits are made despite protests, and without consensus. Peter Damian's comments and his edits line up exactly in this fashion. --Steve (talk) 20:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Address the edits not the editor. WP:AGF Idag (talk) 20:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

As Idag advises. When you play personalities and motivations, you end up at ArbCom. This article is far, far within its potential as a scholarly reference work, given the reams of Rand scholarship out there. Skomorokh 20:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Nice to see you back and editing here --Snowded TALK 20:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I would like nothing better than to just edit and to see the improvements show up and watch an article get better and better. Barring that, I'd like to address individual edits and seek a consensus, and to win some and lose some - that's just editing, and good articles come out that process. But it would be ostrich-like to ignore the way the process of editing itself is failing on this article. The ArbCom that is underway is because of that. How can one not point out that some editors make changes repeatedly without consensus, or that they openly express their hostile bias on the subject and that it shows in the pattern of their editing? --Steve (talk) 20:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Its not about winning and loosing Steve, its about seeking consensus and properly using authorities (it always helps to check them before using them). Even if you think that other editors are biased (and I don't think you have evidence) then you still address the edits not the editor. --Snowded TALK 22:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

To add to that, you have to address each edit individually. An editor's edits are not less meritorious simply because that editor has a POV. However, if you believe that there is a 3RR violation or vandalism, you can address that through the appropriate channels. Either way, these concerns should not be addressed here. Idag (talk) 20:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Referring to wp:npov I find that an editor's POV can become an issue to be addressed here:

• "Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias... This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors."
• "When editorial bias toward one particular point of view can be detected, the article needs to be fixed" (unless that is made impossible by edit warring)
• "Undue weight: articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all." (Think 'cult' accusations)
• "A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone" (look at the changes in tone of the lede)
• "There is a temptation to rephrase biased or opinion statements with weasel words" --Steve (talk) 21:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) NPOV is a content policy not a behavior policy. However, WP:AGF, which is a behavior policy, does not permit questioning editor motives on this talk page. Please stop searching for policy loopholes, and address the merits of the proposed edits instead of the motivations of other editors. Idag (talk) 21:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Those aren't loopholes - they are the very bedrock of Wikipedia policy. It takes a behavior, done by an editor, to create content. And if you will look I've addressed edits again and again - not just in the references in the posts above. Do you see consensus for the edits being made? Do you think that edits are being written from a neutral point of view? Do you think that minority views are not being given undue weight? It is WP that says these are non-negotiable. It is because these things are being blatantly ignored that we have an ArbCom addressing them specifically. I have and continue to call for resolving these things on the talk page and not just making flurries of edits without consensus. --Steve (talk) 21:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Steve, stop Wikilawyering. It is also non-negotiable WP policy to assume good faith, a fact that you omitted from your post. While Peter may or may not be POV pushing, you are certainly violating AGF by focusing on the motives of other editors. Idag (talk) 21:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

LOL

I can't believe it. This is the comment that Snowded removed because he felt it needed to be sourced: "A controversial figure, she generates both glowing admiration and harsh criticism." Snowded, please tell us which part of this assertion you don't accept and demand a source for? That she is controversial? That she generates glowing admiration? Or that she generates harsh critisim? --Steve (talk) 22:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

You really need to calm down a bit you know. In the wider world she is hardly known and treated with indifference. You could (I suppose) say that she is controversial in some circles within the US but the wider statement is not valid. All of that aside, the phrase adds nothing to the lede and has little value. --Snowded TALK 22:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Snowded, we usually disagree, but I do get a grin from some of your posts. I don't know why you want me to calm down, "LOL" means Laughing Out Loud - I was laughing - no calming needed (If it helps you with your concern about me, I can tell you that I'm smiling as I write this - again, no calming needed :-). Given that Rand's talk page gets more edits per unit of time than nearly any of the 15,000,000 articles on Wikipedia, I guess you could say she is controversial (unless you think these many edits would not constitute controversy). Given that she has people that treat her like an idol, and others that call her an idolator. Too funny! You keep saying that she isn't known anywhere but the US is false. Her books sell in large numbers in Europe, UK, South America, etc. - many of her books have multiple editions that have gone out in foriegn languages. I am quite willing to believe that she is MORE popular in the U.S., but that isn't the same as saying she is not popular elsewhere. What you keep putting up is unsupported OR. The phrase adds a great deal to the lede, whose purpose is to foreshadow what is to come in the article as a whole, unless you have decided that there should be no criticism as well as no positive statements that might be seen as admiration. It is a statement about Rand that can be supported with many, many sources. --Steve (talk) 00:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

read through these pages Steve and see just how many reference books she is not in (not just philosophy). Terry Goodkind (a novelist of the same kind and quality) sells lots of books it does not make him controversial. As I said in my comments she is loved/hated within a fairly small community, most ignore her. I have a copy of Atlas which I read as a teenager, I had forgotten it until the Wikipedia activities of her followers brought her name back to my attention. The Wikipedia edit count reflects the activities of her partisans, intruding her definition of philosophy, seeking to claim the title objectivism from philosophers of greater pedigree etc. etc. This requires some, shall we say counter-editing to get some sense of balance. The phrase in the lede which I deleted was OR and implied a greater prominence than was appropriate. If you want to suggest something which does not make such claims and which acknowledges reality then I am open to it. Oh and if I have caused you to laugh, well maybe I have done some good, taking yourself, and dear Ayn less seriously might be the next step --Snowded TALK 05:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

This is absolutely right, S. Peter Damian (talk) 08:20, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Condense Legacy and Objectivist movement

Certain editors have expressed their desire to shorten the article. I question the need for both a legacy and an Objectivist movement section that overlap. I would welcome suggestions as to how to condense this.Kjaer (talk) 22:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The best place to stick in the movement would probably be Rand's Work subsection of the Legacy section. It already touches on those areas, so it wouldn't be too much work to fuse them together. Idag (talk) 22:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

A good start would be getting rid of the unnecessary stuff about the different institutes. I would mention ARI and TAS as the most notable, maybe mention that they hate each other's guts and be done with it. TallNapoleon (talk) 04:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem is how to integrate NBI with the others. I think we should have a bit of detail about her and NBI, mention the split with Branden, and then simply refer readers to the other article to reference the institutes that have existed since her death. I don't see a reason to exclude the other minor institues from mention, but I think all detail of splits after her death should be relegated to the other article, since she had no involvement.Kjaer (talk) 04:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the solution would be to treat the NBI separately. It's not really part of her legacy, given that it went belly up well before her death. The schisms should not be treated in detail, but one sentence would likely be good. TallNapoleon (talk) 04:49, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Stick the NBI in with the personal info about the heresy of the Brandens? Skomorokh 09:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Reverting again

I have reverted again. My logic:

(1) If we mention views such as "individualism, limited government, and the constitutional protection of the right to life, liberty, and property. " then we have to mention classical liberalism, because that is what classical liberalism is. Certain people here want to delete the 'classical liberal' but leave the rest in. Logic dictates that if we delete one, we delete the other, if we keep one, we keep both. This is simply a matter of definitions.

(2) I have reinstated the criticism section in the lead. This is again a matter of logic and Wikipedia policy. Everything notable about a subject goes in the introduction. It is notable about Rand that she and her supporters claim she is a philosopher, whereas she has received almost no recognition by established philosophers, and that the few established philosophers have been scathing about her work.

Peter Damian (talk) 08:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

On your first point, the classical liberalism angle is not at all emphasised in Rand scholarship, as Rand drew very little explicit influence from philosophers of that persuasion; you would have to stretch back to Aristotelian eudaimonism and so on to responsibly situate the philosophical roots of Objectivism. Even when the classical liberalism commonalities are raised, attempts to link Objectivist politics to constitutionalism are, shall we say, thin on the ground. Similarly, the political dimension of Rand's work was rather overplayed vis a vis the literature.

On the second point, Wikipedias guideline on writing lead sections emphasises that the lead ought to be a summary of the article, rather than a collection of everything notable about the topic (of course, in a well-written article the two converge). Secondly, the critical sentence there was very poorly written, with peacock terms and weasel words, misreprenting the source (one individual's criticism masquerading as critical consensus), and the source itself was merely the blog of one individual, making an original argument, rather than a literature review of credible scope published by a respected academic or commercial publisher. So to put it lightly, I don't think we miss to much in its omission. Regards, Skomorokh 09:39, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I have some sympathy with the argument that the liberal inheritance is less relevant (especially given the common understanding of the language in common language). Now we have a long standing issue here, that if we could resolve it in a civilised way would be goodness. Very few philosophers even dignify Rand with a mention, a few do (for example the reference above). So there is less a critical consensus against per, more a critical consensus that she is not relevant. If we could find a form of words that reflected that then we might resolve the lede. Skomorokh, any suggestions? --Snowded TALK 09:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

So we are arguing that "individualism, limited government, and the constitutional protection of the right to life, liberty, and property." is actually not classical liberalism, but is Aristotle? Peter Damian (talk) 10:05, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Who are you quoting? I made no such claim. Sincerely, Skomorokh 10:26, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

On SK's point that "the classical liberalism angle is not at all emphasised in Rand scholarship, as Rand drew very little explicit influence from philosophers of that persuasion", why does Stephen Hicks (Rand scholar) write "Her political philosophy is in the classical liberal tradition, with that tradition’s emphasis upon individualism, the constitutional protection of individual rights to life, liberty, and property, and limited government"? Peter Damian (talk) 10:09, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh I see you are quoting Hicks. Is it the IEP article or a different work? It's not in dispute that Objectivism shares much with the classical liberal tradition; it's a question of weight. It would not be giving undue weight to mention that Rand's work is in the c.l.t. in the lead (and would give the reader vital context when dealing with such a fringe subject), but it certainly gives undue weight to include the whole rigmarole about life liberty and mom's apple pies when say, the empiricist foundations of Objectivist epistemology, the foundationalism of Objectivist metaphysics and Rand's great debt to Aristotelian logic go unexpounded on. The lead section really ought to be a brief summary, not overloaded with elaboration; there is plenty of space in the body of the text to elaborate upon the specifics of classical liberalism as Rand inherited it and so forth. Regards, Skomorokh 10:26, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I am afraid this comes across as trolling. You said above On your first point, the classical liberalism angle is not at all emphasised in Rand scholarship, as Rand drew very little explicit influence from philosophers of that persuasion. But Hicks, in the introduction to the article in IEP, says "Her political philosophy is in the classical liberal tradition, with that tradition’s emphasis upon individualism, the constitutional protection of individual rights to life, liberty, and property, and limited government". Peter Damian (talk) 10:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh not at all, I don't believe you are trolling, there is just a gap of communication I am sure, no need to fear. To clarify, it is quite an uncontroversial claim that Objectivism has similarities with classical liberalism, though it is somewhat less accepted that it is the source or influence of Rand's moral and political philosophy (her tutelage under Lossky and appreciation for Bastiat notwithstanding). I hope this makes the point simpler to comprehend. Regards, Skomorokh 10:42, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

No I meant you come across as trolling. Best Peter Damian (talk) 10:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

(EC) No, I think you have a sound point that you cannot claim the qualities without the label. I am suggesting we might find a different way forward, which involves some use of Randian language. I also think there are difficulties here with the common use of the term "liberal" especially in the US. So I agree with you on its drop both or none, but wonder if a new form of words could be found. (and I have learnt not to argue Aristotle with you so I am staying away from that one!) --Snowded TALK 10:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Precedents for point (2) above

Below there are three samples from introductions to articles about 'fringe figures' where it is clearly identified that the person has been marginalised by the scientific or academic establishment. (I have formatted them to make the point clear)

• Rupert Sheldrake's ideas have often met with a hostile reception from scientists, including accusations that he is engaged in pseudoscience,
• Although Official Scientology biographies present L. Ron Hubbard as "larger than life" figure with numerous accomplishments, sources which are not connected with Scientology often give a contradictory accounts.
• Wilhelm Reich was also a controversial figure, who came to be viewed by the psychoanalytic establishment as having succumbed to mental illness or somehow gone astray.

It is very important for the credibility of this encyclopedia that it is not used as a vehicle for promotion by advocates or followers of such figures, who will naturally want to present them as having more credibility in the academic world than they do. Peter Damian (talk) 09:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

This is all very interesting, but it smells very strongly of original synthesis. Do secondary and tertiary accounts of Rand's work make these connections explicitly? If so, cite them and let's take it from there. If not, they have no place in a serious scholarly reference work. Regards, Skomorokh 09:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

One comment, in the last day or so Skomorokh and Peter between them have improved the article, albeit from different perspectives. I think if the pair of you could reach agreement on these points then it would create some stability in the article. --Snowded TALK 09:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Nice work reverting everything I have contributed, including the bad referencing and citing the prestigious Ayn Rand Lexicon as your source. It really makes me want to devote several more hours sorting through all this. Skomorokh 09:28, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

It is very hard to locate scholarly accounts of Rand's work, because the establishment have largely ignored her. But I have given one source, and can locate some others. See my essay WP:FLAT which includes a discussion of the problem of science not discussing pseudoscience. Peter Damian (talk) 09:20, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

That is a curious interpretation of the high water mark of secondary literature on Rand; have you seen the Bibliography_of_work_on_Objectivism? Smith and Sciabarra to name two well-credentialed analytic philosophers at top-class departments in the US who have recently published in the field. To what source do you refer? Skomorokh 09:28, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I have reviewed the list - note I mention Sciabarra below - and note a number of writers who belong to or are affiliated with the Rand institute. Can you name any independent sources please? Peter Damian (talk) 09:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Secondary literature published by one of the Objectivist institutes would be of questionable Independence, surely, but a scholar at the top-ranked philosophy department in the English speaking world, published by Penn State press, is really beyond the pale. I'm not sure if you are familiar with the vetting such works need to go through before they are cleared for publication, but it involves blind peer reviews by credentialed academics who have previously published in the field. If you're seriously maintaining that such works are unreliable sources, we can take it to the noticeboard of course, but it scarcely seems worth it. Regards, Skomorokh 09:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Which work are you referring to? And yes I am familiar with the vetting that such work goes through. I have successfully gone through this process many times myself, and going through it again with a substantial work which this silly row is preventing me from making headway with. It is now 10 o'clock where I live and I started work at 8. No real philosophy has yet been done. So, what is your argument? The question is whether academia takes Rand seriously. There is considerable evidence that it does not. Peter Damian (talk) 09:56, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I should have been explicit; I was referring to Sciabarra's biography Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical. My question was how you can consider this and similar works (professional scholars at prestiguous institutions of analytic philosophy publishing through rigourous requirements with academic publishing houses) unreliable by Wikipedia standards. I wasn't aware that you yourself were a scholar, how nice to have such company on Wikipedia's woeful coverage of philosophy! Regards, Skomorokh 10:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Back to the point. The claim I am making is that she had 'little recognition' among established philosophers. I am suspicious of the claims of any of the Rand institute philosophers to be 'established philosophers', and note it is actually quite easy to get published by RS (after all they published me). But I use the qualifying word 'little' rather than 'no', nonetheless. And Vallicella is an established philosopher. Watson is not, but he is young and highly regarded in the profession. You still haven't replied to my point about classical liberalism. Peter Damian (talk) 10:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Peter, not everyone agrees with your narrow definition of classical liberalism. For instance, Bertrand Russell feels that the most important trait in defining Liberalism is its rejection of dogma in favor of a tentative, empirical, and scientific approach to opinions and knowledge.(Unpopular Essays, p.15-16). While it's true that many Liberals came to the conclusions that you ascribe to them, many did not. And many scholars, such as Russell, point out that Liberalism is more about how we hold positions, rather than what positions are held. I object to your entire mode of argument on this matter. CABlankenship (talk) 19:20, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree, but that is the distinction between the classical variety and the 'modern' variety, isn'it it? I'm not sure we are so far apart as you suggest. Peter Damian (talk) 21:11, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Russell was discussing "classical" Liberalism with his definition: Hume, Locke, Bentham, &c. My point is that one has to presuppose the truth of a disputed definition in order to make the Rand entry valid. In my opinion this is highly problematic, and also quite dubious. I don't think that inserting contentious claims such as this adds much to an already contentious subject. CABlankenship (talk) 22:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Some independent sources

There is no synthesis. Here are some sources:

1. See the article here where Chris Matthew Sciabarra (one of the small but supposedly growing number of academic supporters of Rand). He says "I know they laugh at Rand". That is important because when a non-independent source effectively admits the position claimed by independent sources, you can probably trust it.
2. There are the Vallicella posts referred to in the disputed sentence itself (V is an established philosopher).
3. There is Brandon Watson here
4. There is the article on popular philosophy in the Oxford Companion to Philosophy where Quinton describes her as an 'amateur philosopher'.

I think in all fairness there should be mention of the small number of philosophers who do take her seriously (I am rather sceptical of the fact that these have all been supported by grants from Rand foundations), but that was the original plan, anyway. The U of Texas was to have been mentioned in the intro. Peter Damian (talk) 09:31, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

What claims do you intend these references to support exactly? I'm guessing Rand not being a philosopher, Rand misreading Kant, Rand being disregarded by academic philosophy and by reference works? Skomorokh 09:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Read the disputed claim in the intro please. "Her philosophical work, however, has had little recognition among established philosophers, some of whom have been scathing about her lack of rigour and her apparently limited understanding of philosophical subject-matter." Note the qualifying 'little'. She has achieved some recognition in largely Rand-institute sponsored work. And some philosophers - not all - have been scathing about her lack of rigour and limited understanding. I strongly object to your claim about 'shoddy references' by the way. Quinton is not a 'shoddy reference'. Nor is Vallicella. Peter Damian (talk) 10:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah I see; which source specifically supports this assertion? The above seems to be an attempt to piece together individual nuggets of disregard to make a novel conclusion, which obviously won't fly as far as Wikipedia is concerned (though I do not have access to the Quinton piece at present so I might have missed it there). "Shoddy" referred to the mode of presentation, not the quality of the work (that said, Dr. Vallicella does not seem to have any articles on Rand published in scholarly journals, nor books); re-introducing bare URLs and so on gives an amateurish impression to the reader. In any case, back to the point at hand, not that it ought to need to be said, but claims regarding Rand's legacy and the reception of her work need to be sourced to reliable sources (preferably recent) which, in the absence of a literature review, give an overview of her current standing. Skomorokh 10:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

No, it is not piecing individual nuggets of disregard. It is quite clear with citation supports which claim. I was very careful about that. I am beginning to suspect you don't know what you are talking about (see your remarks about Aristotle and classical liberalism above). Could that be possible? Peter Damian (talk) 10:18, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Vallicella by the way has published a lot, e.g. on Kant. He obviously would not publish anything on Rand, why would he? Peter Damian (talk) 10:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment on the contributions, not the contributor please; there are enough playground tactics afoot with the article already :) If we agree that Vallicella has never been published in the field, how on earth are you maintaining that citing his blog posts is sufficient support for the sweeping claim that Rand is dismissed by established philosophers? Skomorokh 10:28, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Vallicella has studied both Rand and Kant in some detail. He has published much on Kant. He has not published his research on Rand because there is no need to. Vallicella was cited because of his claims about her misunderstanding Kant, and because of her lack of rigour. Quinton in the OCP was cited because he supports the 'dismissal' claim. He explicitly puts her in a section of the article on amateur philosophers, all of whom have been dismissed or ignored by the establishment. On ]comment on the contribution' I think it is valid to question whether you know what you are talking about when you make such sweeping and incorrect claims as the one about Rand scholarship and classical liberalism. Equally on the Aristotle bit. I happen to be an Aristotle scholar. Peter Damian (talk) 10:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Stop making large numbers of contested changes without any consensus

Peter, what you present is all Original Research. Your sources are blogs by Christian Apologists.

The Oxford Companion to Philosophy is a blog by a Christian Apologist? Brandon Watson is a christian apologist, but if you read his post, you see he is sympathetic to Rand. He just has to admit she is a hack when it comes to formal, academic philosophy. And Sciabarra is an objectivist! He is the one who says 'they laugh at Rand'. Peter Damian (talk) 09:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Peter, you have made it clear that your POV is that Rand is a bad philosopher and you wish the world to recognize this. Unfortunately, the world does not recognize this. That is why almost everything you say is considered here to be OR. I personally agree with you that Rand was a bad writer, novelist, philosopher, everything... but I do not believe that that is how she is recognized in popular culture. Steinbeck is pretty fucking horrible, but you won't find that on his page. Camus is a laugh as a novelist, but you won't find that on his page. We have to go with popular convention here, whether you can accept that or not. Stevewunder (talk) 10:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

You are entirely wrong. A recent arbcom decision was that Wikipedia should reflect academic consensus view. 60% of Americans believe the world was created in 4000 BC. That does not mean Wikipedia reflects that popular view. That is the whole point of an encyclopedia: to educate. Peter Damian (talk) 10:21, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of the Oxford Companion to Philosophy, I still want to hear the argument for Chomsky as a philosopher. I don't get how his linguistic and cognitive theory work is considered philosophy proper. His political screeds certainly aren't. Stevewunder (talk) 10:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

If you check back you will see that the references and the arguments for that have been made (including the citation in the text). Interestingly if you look around the field you will see that cognitive and linguistic work over the last few decades has been increasingly close with several practitioners in common across the disciplines (Freeman, the Churchlands and others) so he is not on his own. Your comment on his political "screed" is interesting. Are you about to essay the argument that the quality of political discourse can determine philosophical status? That would create an interesting precident--Snowded TALK 10:31, 14 February 2009 (UTC).

My point, Snowded, is that political discourse has nothing to do with philosophy. Stevewunder (talk) 10:46, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

There is a lot of anti-american shit here. where the fuck do you get off saying that 60% of americans believe the world was created in 4000 BC? that's crazy fucking shit -- and i don't believe it. you have found some ultra-liberal (but not classically liberal) biased source that simply wants to believe all americans don't know shit from a hole in the ground. we are not quite as stupid as you think. Stevewunder (talk) 10:28, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

This page is for discussing improvements to the Rand article. If you have behavioural problems with users, take it to WP:WQA, WP:3RRN, WP:ANI etc. please. Skomorokh 10:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

the whole point of academia is to publish or perish, not to educate. Stevewunder (talk) 10:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about the American bit - it was just meant as a logical point - the fact that a majority of the public believe in X does mean we represent X as a fact in an encyclopedia. That was the only point. Peter Damian (talk) 10:32, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

yes, but by popular i don't mean a phone survey of the mid-west -- i mean that what the New York Times writes is more or less the conventional wisdom, more so than scholarly journals when it comes to how a person is known in public. that is what we are arguing about. how she is most generally presented to the public. scholarly journals are better if the subject is nuclear fusion. but if the subject is pop culture, the newspapers are a better record. Ayn Rand is known as a philosopher in pop-culture. Let's not pretend that WP is any more or less than representation in pop culture. I am with you on not considering Rand a philosopher of note. And I don't believe she was a novelist at all, in the academic sense of novelist. But this isn't OR. The morning newspaper is a better source for our purposes than arcane journals. Stevewunder (talk) 10:44, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Well then we get back to my original point that we should call her a 'pop philosopher' and leave it at that. Peter Damian (talk) 10:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm ok with calling her a pop philosopher. It's exactly what she was. Stevewunder (talk) 10:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

but she should be called a pop novelist also. Stevewunder (talk) 10:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

and Peter, you are way off on your William McGonagall comparison. Few these days would dispute McGonagall was a bad poet, yet many would dispute Ayn Rand was a bad philosopher. You and your friends might view her as such; me and my friend might view her as such, but like it or not there are many who think otherwise. our personal views matter very little here. Stevewunder (talk) 11:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Disputed sentence

I have removed the 'discuss' tag and replaced the sentence with a new version that explicitly links each separate claim to the source. Peter Damian (talk) 10:59, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

[update] SK has replaced the 'disputed' tag, o/a of Vallicella not being published on Rand. I.e. while he concedes (or at least has not challenged) V's identity as a recognised scholar of Kant, and therefore able to comment authoritatively on whether Rand understood Kant or not, his objection is that Valicella published this in his blog, and not in RS. This is exactly the precedent we need to establish in the Arbcom hearing. Peter Damian (talk) 12:21, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, one doesn't have to wait for ArbCom for this particular issue. I believe that admin User:DGG (a highly respected admin on Wikipedia and long-time established editor) would argue (successfully in virtually all cases I've read with his involvement) that recognized authorities in the field by their peers precludes a literal reading of the blog as an unreliable source. In particular, precedents have been set for the use of blogs by respected economists and New York Times journalists which have been used repeatedly as reliable sources for Wikipedia articles when it comes to commenting on matters which they know intimately. If you were to go to his talk page, he could elaborate on this point (perhaps even here on this talk page). For example, if I remember the discussion correctly, it would make little sense to cite an independent third-party economist for issues of social gossip involving others, but would make perfect sense to cite him/her for independent economics-related commentary to his or her blog if it's within the expert's field. It couldn't hurt to ask DGG what the current state of play is on this front across Wikipedia. J Readings (talk) 14:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

This case is slightly different. What about the argument that Vallicella has no published material relating to Rand (though I happen to know he has read a great deal of Rand)? The problem is that he is criticising Rand's understanding of Kant as a Kant scholar, not as a Rand scholar. I happen to agree with you - logic suggests that if he is an expert in Kant, then he has correctly identified problems with Rand's understanding of Kant. But playing devil's advocate, does the citation stand, do you think? Peter Damian (talk) 14:46, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with MR. Damian on this point; Using Vallicella as a source is fine for claims about Rand's understanding of Kant (even his blog), because V has been published by independent RS's in this field. Vallicella would be a fine addition to the Ayn Rand and the history of philosophy article (and section here) for example. But we can do a lot better for general assessments of Rand's work and its reception, without having to stoop to citing Objectivist publications. Skomorokh 15:20, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Devil's advocate, because I agree for WP:IAR reasons although I disagree in principle: If Valicella's blog is fair game, then why do we maintain the prohibition against experts using their personal expertise to make edits on Wikipedia? I.e. if a Latin scholar comes across a claim that "void ab initio is a Latin phrase," they need to cite sources before correcting it to "void ab initio uses the Latin phrase ab initio". So why would we accept an expert's SELFPUB outside of Wikipedia when we reject an expert's SELFPUB inside of Wikipedia?

To the first point, can Skomorokh be clear about whether he now accepts the Vallicella citation in the intro or not? I.e. can we remove the 'dubious' tag? To the second devil's advocate point, the principle would be that if we can get reliable sources for the fact that X is an expert on the subject, then we can accept any statement, within reason, by X. Of course we should always prefer RS proper. But I can find no mention of Rand's treatment of Kant in the scholarly literature. Nor would I expect to. Peter Damian (talk) 15:42, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Technical point: wikipedia articles are always considered unreliable, never mind who writes them. Among other things, anyone can change, tweak or put out of context the content introduced by the expert. If he publishes in his blog then we have a fixed copy of his arguments, and only himself can change it (and no, I don't think that it's good enough to link to a diff unless it's some very very very special case) --Enric Naval (talk) 17:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Peter, the reason the RS guidelines exist in the first place was to avoid lawsuits. The fact that precious little stands in the way of a garden variety blogger and his or her publications made the risk too great for any of us to take, especially when it came to biographies of living persons. Not so in this case. Rand is not only dead (something the WP:SELFPUB category allows for), but the "blogger" in question is a highly respected academic. Like I said before, the precedent for the use of a specialist commenting on his or her blog regarding his specialty has been allowed in the past. Unless you are going to argue that Valicella has a poor reputation and likely to alter the blog to include outrageous personal claims, I don't see what the problem would be here. J Readings (talk) 17:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

DGG has left some very helpful notes on this problem here. I suggest we leave the article with the 'dispute' tag on it, while I find a way to address the issues he raises. The main thing is that 'some philosophers' is not good when it should read 'at least one'. But since I am sure other established philosophers have raised similar issues to Vallicella, that will not be a problem. Peter Damian (talk) 17:47, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I would not be surprised to see an established philosopher reference an author such as Rand in a blog, but not write an academic article on her; she is largely ignored after all within Philosophy. I can see nothing in policy that prevents its use. In this respect there is little difference with the various Randian Institute web sites which are used elsewhere in this article --Snowded TALK 07:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

<undent> The Kjaer problem. This person is now removing well-sourced material (the Quinton citation). I have agreed to leave the 'dispute' tag on the Vallicella citation, until I can source other mention of the her 'sloppy' approach to philosophy. In the meantime, KJ is a major nuisance. Is there something that can be done? Peter Damian (talk) 17:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Popular philosopher

In his article in the Oxford Companion to Philosophy, Quinton distinguishes two kinds of popular philosophy. (1) Where established philosophers write popular works accessible to the general public. For example, Simon Blackburn. (2) Where non-established philosophers write philosophy intended to emulate the work of established philosophers. He calls these 'amateur philosophers'. He includes Rand under (2). Which variety is intended here? Should we not go with Quinton's classification, on the grounds that it is more specific and less ambiguous? Peter Damian (talk) 15:46, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The Anthem Foundation for Objectivist Scholarship

This section has a fact tag and I propose to delete it shortly unless someone provides a reliable source. When I looked into this before the only source was a press release from said foundation. I searched the Warwick web site and made some enquiries (I have a visiting fellowship there) and could find nothing. There was a hint that might have been some funding for a seminar but not in the Philosophy Dept. per se. --Snowded TALK 11:08, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll add a few. Kjaer (talk) 23:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I already did. I put in two sources - one being the Anthem Foundation, and the other being the Univ. of Texas. If more are needed, they aren't hard to find - mostly news articles. --Steve (talk) 23:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

University of Texas accepted. The Anthem foundation on the other had is not adequate. The Universities listed are under " Such funds include support for visiting scholars, workshops and conferences, lecture series and writing projects." This could mean anything, for example a simple travel grant and would not be notable. I have removed three universities from the list pending evidence been presented other than a list on the Anthem site. See my comments on my checks on Warwick above.

No claims were made as to what was given, and it is OR to claim that it is just a travel grant. Your not finding anything at Warwick doesn't meet the standard of verifiablity - and NOT finding anything isn't the same as it not being there. And, you broke the link when you moved it. --Steve (talk) 07:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I corrected the link shortly afterwards. Wikipedia has a clear test of notability, the mere listing of a grant does not achieve that as it could be for anything (I made no claim as to what it was for by the way please read other editors comments). This section is being used to establish credibility and it therefore clearly subject to a test of notability. --Snowded TALK 07:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Continuing the Consensus

I am dismayed by some recent edit warring resulting in editor blocking, including multiple reverts, POV edits (unattributed individual criticisms cited in the lead rather than the criticism section) and repeated restoral of the philosopher attribution now that we have decided to await arbcom for a resolution of that matter.

In the spirit of good faith I have provided multiple citations to support calling Rand controversial, and have replaced the word fae with notoriety in the lead. Hopefully we can focus on the rest of the article.Kjaer (talk) 23:32, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

TallNapoleon please discuss controversial deletions and gain a consensus first. Your removing references to Rand's early influences such as Schiller and Rostand which are easily sourced (I have done so) is little better than outright vandalism. Deleting Rand's honors with an edit summary that syay this is not the logical place would be fine if you then put them in their logical place. Keep in mind that this article is still under arbcom, and that we are editting on the assumption of consensus and established WP policy, not personal objection on whatever basis.Kjaer (talk) 05:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me to put the Honors list back in. I simply don't understand why it matters that Rand liked Nietzsche and Rostend when she was young. Unless the article is going to build on that there is simply no point mentioning it, and frankly doing so may be placing undue weight. Furthermore I would remind you to assume good faith, which means not throwing around terms like vandalism when someone makes an edit you disagree with. TallNapoleon (talk) 05:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Screenplays

Rand was credited for the screenplays of two movies in 1945, Love Letters, and You Came Along. This is mentioned in an orphaned section at the end of the article. There are two issues, where to better place the seciton, and how to improve it internally. I think it could go in the fiction section before Fountainhead but after her earlier novels. Any comments?Kjaer (talk) 00:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

If we're going chronologically it should go after the Fountainhead. TallNapoleon (talk) 04:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Not exactly, if we are looking at them as screen plays. The earlier two were released in 1945 while the latter was released in 1949. That's not a huge issue tho. I am wondering if a section on movies as separate from novels might make sense. There are Noi Vivi/Addio Kira', Red Pawn (sold, not produced, 70p synopsis published) Fountainhead, Love Letters and You Came Along.Kjaer (talk) 04:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think they should get a full section. A very brief mention is appropriate, but frankly Rand is not very well known for her screenplays. TallNapoleon (talk) 04:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

This continued logic makes no sense. You continually say that Rand was "not well known" for X, thus we should not mention it. What do you think an encyclopedia is for? This is simply absurd. Few people could mention the elements on the periodic table. Do we then delete them? The policy is notable and verifiable. Oscar nominated movies, international hits that were the subjects of lawsuits, these are interesting things, much more interesting that the over forty footballers whose obituaries are linked to on the portal page of wikipedia so far this year.

I have editted the two existent sections on film adaptations to be more logical, spearating out films based on the subject, and including together films based on Rand's work.Kjaer (talk) 05:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

We cannot include everything that is notable and verifiable. The purpose of an encyclopedia article is to provide a brief summary. If the reader comes away from this article knowing everything there is to know about Rand then we have done something wrong. The article is already too long. An entire new section about her screenplays--which again she is largely not known for--is totally unnecessary when we can sum them up in a sentence. We might add one more sentence about the film version of The Fountainhead, but really, that is plenty sufficient.

More on the lede

Two things: First, I thought we had agreed on mixed economy instead of welfare state, since it's more neutral language and the welfare state is a kind of mixed economy anyway. Second, per WP:LEDE the last sentence simply does not belong there, even though it is true. The lede is supposed to provide a very brief summary of the article; I don't believe that sentence contributed well to that. TallNapoleon (talk) 05:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

i think welfare state is more to the point. the term mixed economy -- maybe i'm just stupid --i guess it means a mixture between free market and government regulation -- but i've never heard the term before. whatever it means, the term is pretty limp. a lead should strive for crisp clarity. one shouldn't have to do further research in order to decipher a lead. my same argument goes for why "classical liberal tradition" shouldn't be used in the lead. an intro should be easy reading. Stevewunder (talk) 06:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, a mixed economy is exactly what it sounds like: one that mixes capitalism and socialism. However, there is no requirement that people shouldn't have to occasionally look up a term. This is not Simple English Wikipedia. Although it lacks stylistic punch it is accurate, which is more important. Honestly, though, I'm tempted to just say that the lede should read that Rand vociferously opposed all political systems other than LF capitalism, which is entirely true and spares us the difficulty of enumerating what she opposed. TallNapoleon (talk) 10:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

i don't know who insists on re-inserting the quote into the lede, but a quote doesn't belong in a short overview, almost no matter what the quote is. it is strikingly awkward in the lede and belongs elsewhere. can you find a feature bio article on WP which has a quote in the lede? Stevewunder (talk) 00:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

ok - i recant my comment about the quote. i see that that there are a number of other bios with quotes in the lede. Stevewunder (talk) 01:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Helen Cullyer Quote

Helen Cullyer has a phd from Yale in classics and at the University of Pittsburgh, she was Director of the inter-disciplinary graduate program in Classics, Philosophy, and Ancient Science. She has published scholarly work on Aristotle. Her quote is an academic evaluation of the importance of studying Rand's ethics. And that goes to the section title, "Rand's work and academic philosophy" --Steve (talk) 06:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, point taken. Normally this would not be important, but since the issue of Rand within academia is so controversial it may well be worth keeping. Is there any way we could have something shorter? TallNapoleon (talk) 07:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Its a review of a book by Tara Smith not Rand. It makes a valid point about the need to consider certain aspects of ethics and might be (summarised) a useful addition to Objectivism (Ayn Rand) but it doesn't belong here.--Snowded TALK 07:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, yeah, having it in Objectivism (Ayn Rand) seems that it would be better. TallNapoleon (talk) 10:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

It works well where it is, but I may put a copy in the Objectivism article as well. It is speaking directly to Rand's ethical system with the voice of a qualified academic - surely that is what we all want. --Steve (talk) 18:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

it doesn't belong here. it would make more sense to get a quote directly from Smith's book about Rand instead of from Cullyer about Smith's book about Rand.

Regarding the "limited understanding" language in the same section -- i think "limited knowledge of philosophy" is much more NPOV. i realize "limited understanding" may be a direct quote-- but it is not a reasonable phrase to quote because no one can get inside Rand's head and say what her "understanding" was. saying "limited knowledge" makes the point that is trying to be made i believe: regarding whether she actually read much Kant or not -- and is more objective. Stevewunder (talk) 00:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Nazism or Fascism

Quick poll: do people prefer saying Rand opposed Nazism in the lede, or that she opposed fascism, or none of the above? Please place a brief (totally nonbinding) vote with a comment explaining. TallNapoleon (talk) 10:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Fascism: Saying an American author opposed Nazism is like saying that a child likes candy--it'd be news if she supported Nazism. Furthermore Nazism is a very specific, almost idiosyncratic form of fascism, which was (and is) a fairly broad philosophical movement, all of which Rand opposed vociferously. So, I think saying "fascism" tells the reader more. TallNapoleon (talk) 10:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Fascism: But I'll go with whichever the majority favors as I don't see that it is a big difference.

it is redundant to say more than she opposed collectivism and statism, since fascism, communism, socialism, the welfare state, mixed-economy, etc. are all under the umbrella of collectivism and statism. one could say that using even both those words is redundant, but i believe they both should stay as "collectivism" is a Randian invented word, to the extent it carries the meaning it does today, whereas statism is a more contemporary word used in popular economic-speak. Stevewunder (talk) 00:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

although i think Rand popularized the word statism as it is used today also. Stevewunder (talk) 01:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

if ayn rand is not a philosopher, why does it matter what her views of "Nazism" or "Facsism"" matter? what is judy bloom's view of fascism?Brushcherry (talk) 10:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)brushcherry

Philosopher question - not argument

I want to understand further the argument against Rand as a philosopher, as it seems to be driven by more than simply the relative omission of her name from academic and reference works.

Perhaps Chomsky and his ilk are key. Correct me if I am wrong, but analytic philosophy seems to be the prime focus of latter 20th century philosophy. With Karl Popper for instance, we see a turning point away from existentialism, which seemed to run out of steam after Camus, and a new emphasis on analytic rigor.

Rand lacks rigor. But so what? Did Neitzsche have analytic rigor? Did Camus or Sartre? Did Emerson or Thoreau?

My point is that fashion matters in academia. If Thoroeau cam along in 2009, he probably wouldn't be taken seriously as a philosopher, because his lack of rigor is unfashionable now. He would probably just be considered a writer.

Rand is no Thoreau, but -- is part of the reluctance in calling her a philosopher here, even a bad one, due to the fact that she is so out of step with trends in philosophy, subject-wise?

Would you expect a Thoreau to be called a philosopher today? Stevewunder (talk) 01:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

and Captain Blankenship, i do not have any conspiracy theories here, but it was awfully neutral of you to insert that language into the text. Stevewunder (talk) 02:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the time to take you seriously is when you stop vandalising the article. --Snowded (talk) 07:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

ok. then don't take me seriously. Stevewunder (talk) 23:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

From a deleted discussion

I see that some people are claiming expertise and saying Ayn Rand was not a philosopher. In 2003 on the now-deleted discussion page for the now long deleted list of major philosophers, an anonymous editor wrote:

Quite literally no one who seriously studies philosophy anywhere considers Ayn Rand a philosopher. Hunt through the index of any philosophy book or journal you like, and you won't find her name cited; look through the philosophy section af any library, and you won't find books on her. Look through the course syllabi for any philosophy department you want and you won't find them reading anything she wrote. In philosophy Ayn Rand is a non-entity, or a rather embarrassing joke.

That of course is nonsense, and I adduced some evidence that may be useful to those discussing that question:

beginning of quote from deleted discussion page

I would submit that the authors and editors of the following works are among those who "seriously stud[y] philosophy":

Encyclopedia of Ethics by Lawrence C. Becker (Routledge 2001), p. 1440.

Concise Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Routledge, 1999).

Philosophy of Education: An Encyclopedia, edited by J. J. Chambliss (Garland 1996), p. 302.

The above list Ayn Rand among philosophers, contrary to the troll's bigotted assertion.

The following professors of philosophy will tell you that Ayn Rand was an important philosopher, contrary to the bigot's assertion:

• Lisa Dolling (head of the honors program in theology at St. John's University in New York)
• Tibor Machan, (Stanford University. See his home page at [5].)
• Douglas Den Uyl (Bellarmine University, Louisville, Kentucky)
• Douglas Rasmussen (St. John's University, New York)
• Eric Mack (Tulane University)
• Aeon Skoble (Bridgewater State College, Massachusetts)
• Tara Smith (University of Texas at Austin)
• Lester Hunt (University of Wisconsin, Madison)
• Randall Dipert (C.S. Peirce Professor of American Philosophy, SUNY Buffalo)
• Roderick Long (Auburn University)
• R. Kevin Hill (Northwestern University)
• Slavoj Zizek (The European Graduate School)
• Michael Huemer (University of Colorado, Boulder)
• Jonathan Jacobs (University of Pennsylvania)
• Wayne Davis (Chair of the Philosophy Department, Georgetown University)
• Stephen Parrish (Concordia University, Ann Arbor, Michigan)
• Stephen R. C. Hicks (Rockford College, Illinois)
• Fred Seddon (University of Pittsburgh? (I'm not sure of this affiliation -- more later))
• Allan Gotthelf, (University of Pittsburgh), (who is also Secretary of the Ayn Rand Society, an official 'group' of the Eastern Division of the American Philosophical Association).
• Andrew Bernstein, (Duke University (I'm not sure this one is up to date))
• Gary Hull, (Duke University)

Michael Hardy 19:46, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)

By the way, the list above is of course a partial list. And also, one may list professors in other humanities fields than philosophy. I will also take up the anonymous posters challenge to list journal articles. That will take some time, but let's start with this one:

• Leonard Peikoff, Aristotle's Intuitive Induction, The New Scholasticism, Vol. 59, p. 30-53, 1985.

Michael Hardy 22:15, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Recalling the dishonest claim again:

"Quite literally no one who seriously studies philosophy anywhere considers Ayn Rand a philosopher. Hunt through the index of any philosophy book or journal you like, and you won't find her name cited; look through the philosophy section af any library, and you won't find books on her. Look through the course syllabi for any philosophy department you want and you won't find them reading anything she wrote."

A scholar at New York University has told me that Ayn Rand has been discussed in the following scholarly journals (contrary to the claim about "any ... journal you like"); I'll try to cite articles on this discussion page as I find the cites:

• Philosophical Books
• Review of Metaphysics
• The Monist
• The Personalist
• Social Philosophy and Policy
• Catholic World
• American Journal of Economics and Sociology
• Germano-Salavica: Canadian Journal of Germanic and Slavic Comparative and Interdisciplinary Studies
• College English
• University of Windsor Review
• Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, and Practice, Impact of Science on Society
• Journal of Popular Culture
• Cycnos
• Aristos
• Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy
• The Occasional Review
• Reason Papers
• Critical Review
• Journal of Libertarian Studies
• The Humanist
• Commentary
• Nomos
• English Journal
• Journal of Thought
• Journal of Philosophical Research
• New University Thought
• Journal of Business Ethics
• Library Journal
• Choice
• Journal of Canadian Studies
• Social Justice Review
• Teaching Philosophy
• Resources for American Literary Study
• Policy Review

Contrary to the claim about "any philosophy book ... you like", she is the topic of articles in the following encyclopedias:

• Encyclopedia of Philosophy
• Encyclopedia of Ethics
• Encyclopedia of Libertarianism
• Encyclopedia of New York State
• American Authors and Books
• American Novelists of Today
• Encyclopedia of World Literature
• Contemporary Authors
• Contemporary Literary Criticism
• Contemporary Novelists
• A Handbook of American Literature
• Contemporary Women Philosophers
• Oxford Companion to American Literature
• Reader's Encyclopedia of American Literature
• Twentieth Century Authors

Michael Hardy 20:17, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)

end of quote from deleted discussion page

Michael Hardy (talk) 19:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

response

I'm not going to take responsibility for a 2003 discussion in which I took not part and I am not sure what the intent here. Lets make a few points:

1. No one as far as I know is denying that there are not sources (including reputable ones) that list her as a philosopher
2. However she is not listed in several reputable sources, where you would expect any philosopher to appear.
3. The long list of philosophers comes without citation so one can not say what they said about her and NOTE, they are all American
4. This is one of the issues for arbcom. She is far more notable in the US than Europe and she is taught on some philosophy courses in the US, but its a very low percentage
5. So the issue is one of weight

Now please stop using words like bigot and if you are going to provide huge lists please do so when they can be checked. We have had Steve doing this in the past with both dubious sources and erroneous ones (mistaken entries) and some refusals to provide more detail (the californian Steve, how many times do I have to ask). This is a policy issue. If policy is that any reputable source counts then, while I will less of WIkipedia, I will happily accept the label on this article--Snowded (talk) 19:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Snowded. These long lists serve no purpose without citations and explanations of origin. Indeed, if I didn't know better I would say that they were more for generating heat than light. As for myself, the lists I provided where verifiable through Lexis-Nexis -- where the methodology was explained and the results checked and cross-checked -- only then to be compared against existing Wikipedia policies (WP:V, WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV) and guidelines (WP:RS, WP:LEAD, WP:FRINGE). Ultimately, Arbcom decides how to interpret policy in this instance -- no one else. J Readings (talk)

Checking out the journal list, only "Review of Metaphysics" and "The Monist" would really count as philosophy journals and neither of those are first rank. Can we have reference to actual articles. I say this because one I checked out some weeks ago (a Warwick academic article) mentioned Ayn Rand, but only to make it clear that when the author talked about Objectivism he was not referencing the work of Ayn Rand --Snowded (talk) 21:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

As a side note, to be sure, "Objectivism" is not synonymous with "Randianism" or "the school of ideological thought founded by Ayn Rand." The more journal academic articles I read on JSTOR where "Objectivism" is mentioned in the economics and politics literature, the more I am convinced that it is a mistake to assume the Ayn Rand school (pre?)dominates the definition. FWIW, J Readings (talk)

I will try to find dates, page numbers, etc.

"Snowded", can you write "neither of those is of first rank"? "Neither" is singular. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Technically you could argue that I should have written "neither RoM nor Monist is" but the form of words I used is common and the meaning obvious. Maybe you can pay the same attention to detail in your various citations? --Snowded (talk) 22:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

As I said, I will try to find page numbers, etc. So I take it we agree on that and on my grammatical point. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

PS: I certainly didn't mean to imply anyone posting to this page is a bigot; only that an anonymous poster to a now deleted page, from whose words I quoted a brief excerpt, was a bigot. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Calling people a bigot is a bad idea, grammatical pedantry on a talk page is an indulgence, issuing long lists before doing your research a mistake. I wonder what we might agree on? --Snowded (talk) 23:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Reflist

DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS SECTION

ALL EDITS MUST BE ABOVE THIS SECTION

New section below references

Why can't I comment below these references? What are they to and what purpose do they serve? They are bugging me, so I'm posting a comment below them. Kudos to Wulfer and Wolfer for tagging and bagging. They are a dynamic duo of article improvement. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Do Not Edit above or below this section.

Is that all it really takes? Brushcherry (talk) 09:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC)brushcherry

Snowded's addition

I approve of noting that she hasn't gotten a lot of recognition in academic philosophy. It seems to me we've floundered around for straightforward wording that isn't inflammatory or unbalanced, and I think this mention is fine. If it were up to me I might tweak it a bit to note her feud with academia (a word that itself would be valuable to include) and the mutual generalized dislike between these these two parties representing the mainstream sphere of philosophy and academic philosophy. But I'll take what I can get. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Happy to include something on the feud - do you have a cite? --Snowded (talk) 22:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, a Google News search of Ayn Rand and Academia [6] brings loads of descriptions of her generally cool reception there (although there's also quite substantial coverage of examples of her influence and being discussed and controversial in academic circles). I have to go so I didn't have time to dig much, but as I recall she has commented on her dislike for academia and academic philosophy and I believe it's been covered in independent sources. As it's an article about her, I think hew views as well as those of her critics is worth including. I suppose improving the coverage in the appropriate section first and then doing the intro might be the way to go, but for various reasons I am not prepared to make that substantial effort at this time. But I wanted to voice my support for fair, accurate and balanced descriptions of her accomplishments, her significance, and the controversies and criticism she's engendered, including substantial rejection from academia (with substantial exceptions as notable). ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Appreciated --Snowded (talk) 23:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

But if she is not considered to be a philosopher in the lede, then why oh why would there be notable reason to mention she hasn't received much recognition in academic philosophy IN THE LEDE? I guess there is such a thing as too much balance. Is that the point you two are making? Stevewunder (talk) 01:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

As Snowded probably knows, I think there is not case to support to omission of the word philosopher to describe her. It is completely a POV fantacism that has wasted a lot of time that could have been spent on improving the article. There is really no case to be made that she isn't a philosopher. There isn't a single source that's been put forth that argues this, and there are an abundance of sources, as you note, that deal with the fact that she wrote and discussed philosophy. Whether it's any good is another issue. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Analytic

I don't know enough about this, but is Rand a part of the Analytic tradition in Anglo-American philosophy? Her fervent adherence of logic and reason suggests that she might have some influence from Russell and Moore. Wandering Courier (talk) 02:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Bill Vallicella's blog quote

The quote from Vallicella's blog in the criticism section is out of line. For one thing, it is from something titled: "Is Ayn Rand a Good Philosopher?" Of course we don't want to put that title into the text (as i have tried) because we don't want anyone to get the impression that Ayn Rand was a bad philosopher, because even that would imply she was in fact a philosopher, which is of course heresy. So we avoid in his quote the fact he does call her a philosopher, but leave in the statement "limited understanding" -- which of course Bill Vallicella could not really know. She might have had deep understanding, but an inability to articulate herself, for instance. The quote is a punch below the belt -- which may be fine for a blog -- he's writing a blog after all -- but should we be quoting from blog-speak in this article? Not to mention the fact that Vallicella is an American academic, which of course makes anything he has to say on Rand suspect to start with. Stevewunder (talk) 03:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

This is not an encyclopedia article type of criticism and it comes from an invalid source - a blog. There is valid criticism of Rand in academic journals for those editors that want to hunt it down. If it were acceptible to use blog's anyone could prove anything, at anytime. Shall we provide sources that the earth is flat, or that aliens have abducted humans for sex experiments? This is a slap in the face to the concept of valid sources, just as the deleting of the very solidly sourced "philosopher" is a slap in the face of WP. --Steve (talk) 05:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Right. I'll delete it again and we'll see what happens. Stevewunder (talk) 05:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Blogs have to be used with caution, but in this case (i) the source is reliable and (ii) it indicates the seriousness with which she is taken. See comments on journals elsewhere. --Snowded (talk) 05:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

it does not indicate the seriousness with which she is being taken. if it were more serious, bill would not use the phrase "limited understanding". the tone is full of vitriol, not professionalism. Stevewunder (talk) 06:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

There are plenty of legitimate sources that criticize her. Let's stick to those. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The use of the term "vitriol" is arrant nonsense. However I am open to an equivalent source which deals with her reading on Kant. We have here a reputably philosopher, addressing (largely with dismissal) a core aspect of her approach. That is important. If you have another CoM, happy to consider it. --Snowded (talk) 06:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Consensus?

All "philosopher" reverts claim there is no consensus. Agreed we are far from consensus in many places. However, it appears there was once a consensus she was a philosopher, and that got changed. Maybe we are on the fence now, I don't know. There is surely no consensus either way. But she has not appeared on the site as a philosopher for a long time now, despite there being no consensus she is not one. Some want to wait for an arbcom decision, which i think is like waiting for Godot and don't believe will resolve anything. If only for some equal air time, we should call her a philosopher for a while now. I don't believe there is a consensus against this. If arbcom actually ever comes around and gives us clear direction on the issue, we can always react to that when it comes. meanwhile, i believe she deserves airtime as a philosopher, however ignorant you brits might think us yanks are being in the matter. Stevewunder (talk) 05:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

This from an editor with a track record (and one banning) for vandalism on the article. If you check you will see that Arbcom notified all editors involved that there are moving to resolution. --Snowded (talk) 06:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

yes, snowded, don't address any of the points i make directly, simply point out i am a vandal and dismiss them due to that. but guess what? this isn't a political debate. i might be editing this from a prison cell on death row for murdering children -- would that change the value of my discussion points? why don't you engage in dialogue instead of dismissing me for my edits you dislike? by the way, my "vandal" edits get reverted in about 90 seconds. there are many other really silly edits that have lasted for weeks. i believe you have made some of them. which is worse? i normally don't engage in the ad hom bullshit, but since it seems to be the method you prefer, verse dialogue over issues, i will. you are a pretentious fuck that resorts to name dropping instead of rational argument. Stevewunder (talk) 06:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC)