Talk:Ayn Rand

NPOV check

An opinion about Rand as a philosopher, namely the word "amateur", has been added to the lead sentence. "Amateur" is an opinion word, and not all sources agree on it. The lead sentence should give the nationality and profession(s) of the subject. It should not introduce opinions which are not held by all sources. The rest of the article should be checked for the misuse of editorial opinions. Yworo (talk) 22:09, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Then it should not call her a Philosopher as that opinion is not held by all the sources either - see extensive discussions above ----Snowded ^TALK 22:12, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

That's simply not true. Many sources give one of her professions as "philospher". That's not an opinion, it's a description. You seem to be a bit misguided about what the lead sentence is for. By the way, I am not a fan of Rand's. But if any number of reliable sources call her a philosopher, we also call her a philospher. Picking and choosing what sources are "better" or "more accurate" is a form of original research. The correct way to do this is to detail the range of opinions in the body of the article along with who holds each opinion. If this is done, then the word "philosopher" can be qualified by "according to some sources". We don't pick the opinion which best matches our own and try to push it. That's POV-pushing, and there are Arbitration enforcements in effect against that for this article. Be careful, Snowy. Yworo (talk) 22:17, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I have no objection, in principle, to calling Rand an amateur philosopher, but if you look you'll probably find that most sources do indeed simply call her a "philosopher." So it's not much use to insist that she cannot be called just a philosopher. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:23, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

)Some sources describe her as a philosopher, others as as an amateur philosopher, others specifically exclude her from that title. The quality and origin of the sources also counts. So the decision to exclude her from a major international dictionary of Philosophy is significant. Our job is to balance those sources and come up with some that reflects the balance of the sources. To do so is to demonstrate proper care. If you (Yworo) bother to check above you will see various suggestions including self professed. You can of course participate in that discussion or you can make silly threats and use childish abbreviations of user names. Your call ----Snowded ^TALK 22:25, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Does any source other than the Oxford Companion to Philosophy call Rand an amateur philosopher? The other terms that have been proposed, including 'self-professed', are quite unacceptable. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:32, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

You are incorrect, Snowded. It is not our job to judge or balance the sources other than to make sure that they fit the criteria of reliability. To do so is to engage in original research. What our job is to do is to present what the sources say, in detail. Where they disagree, we detail who says what. But we don't do it in the lead sentence - we summarize it in the lead section. "Amateur philopher" is not a summary of what the sources say, it is the choosing of one opinion from among several, and we should not be doing this. Period. Yworo (talk) 22:35, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

In addition, the exclusion from a "major international dictionary of Philosophy" is actually moot. Because an international dictionary of Philosophy is a tertiary source, which we are actually supposed to be avoiding in preference for using secondary sources. So, your argument is simply a bad one that ignores several different policies and guidelines about sourcing and how to deal with ranges of opinion when sources differ. Including opinion in the lead sentence is not something that can be done by "consensus", so the long and tedious discussions you refer to above are also moot with respect to this issue. Yworo (talk) 22:40, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

IN fact a whole bunch of major sources where she should be mentioned if she was considered a philosopher ignore her completely. You can't say that if there is one source that says something that established it when calling her a philosopher is controversial. That would mean that the lede was taking one perspective only. I am not wild about 'amateur' as it doesn't reflect the rejection of any claim both stated and defacto by significant authorities. So if it is to be in the lede there has to be an accurate summary of the position. So we need to explore options rather that write 'Period' at the end of our posts as if that somehow or other conferred them with special authority. We could just leave it out, or that say its controversial or say that she has been called, or called herself a philosopher. What we can't do is to assert a controversial title without qualification. ----Snowded ^TALK 22:47, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

That some works of reference dealing with philosophy don't mention Rand at all is totally irrelevant. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:52, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

But again, you only know this because you are doing original research. Not permitted. Period. RFC opened below on the topic. Let's get some real biographers in here instead of the usual collection of pro- and anti-Rand people sniping at each other. From Wikipedia POV, it's only "controversial" if you have one or more reliable sources that directly state that it is controversial. Do you have such sources? If you did, then you wouldn't be relying on synthesis and original research. Wikipedia policy does not allow us to conclude anything by doing original research to compile a dubious "list of sources she would be in if she were really a philospher". That's utter crap as a research technique. Yworo (talk) 22:49, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh my God, more 'periods' and the odd swear word. If someone is a philosopher one would expect to find him or her in the major dictionaries and encyclopaedias on the subject. Its a bit like pseudo-science articles. If a few sources say its objective but the majority of sources simply ignore it then we take the weight of sources into account. We also have sources which reject or qualify the word. You seem to be assuming that one position (that she is) should be in lede despite the fact that the designation is controversial. I think that puts you onto one side of the 'usual collection' ----Snowded ^TALK 23:18, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's not acceptable reasoning. The absence of a particular person from an encyclopedia or dictionary of philosophy doesn't mean that the person in question isn't a philosopher - it may mean that they are a philosopher, but that the editor or editors of the work didn't consider them an important enough philosopher to be worth including. In any case, the simple absence of someone's name from such works doesn't cancel out statements by other reliable sources that the person is a philosopher. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:38, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

“Ayn Rand (1905–1982) was a philosopher and a novelist who outlined a comprehensive philosophy ….” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Fall 2013 ed., s.v. “Ayn Rand.” http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ayn-rand/ --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:34, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment: Qualifying "philosopher" in the lead sentence

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Ayn Rand is described by multiple reliable sources as a "philosopher". Some, but not all, of these sources qualify this by adding opinions such as "amateur", "self-styled", etc. Is it appropriate to include any of these opinions in the lead sentence, or should they rather be discussed and compared in detail in the body of the article without including any of the qualifiers in the lead sentence? Yworo (talk) 22:47, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

The opening statement by Yworo is neither neutral nor factually correct, therefore this RFC is invalid. They key source, which it does not appear anyone actually read, is here. 16:03, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

If I call someone an amateur gynecologist, I'm not sharing my opinion of them, I'm qualifying the designation to highlight the fact that they're not actually licensed to practice medicine. In the same way, if we call Ayn Rand a philosopher without qualifications, we would be implying that she has the academic background and standing in the field. This is flatly false: the consensus of actual philosophers pointedly excludes her from their ranks.

The question is not whether she is some sort of philosopher, but precisely what sort she is, hence what sort we must describe her as. MilesMoney (talk) 03:31, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of reverting your striking of Yworo's comments. Please do not do that kind of thing. Alter the RfC if need be, but don't do it that way. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:00, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Alter it how, then? I didn't want to remove the dishonest framing because then I couldn't point out its dishonesty. MilesMoney (talk) 04:23, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Alter it as I have now altered it. Remember that the revision history of the talk page stores all past versions of it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:32, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I've altered it. They can go look at the history if they're curious. MilesMoney (talk) 04:58, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

You are not permitted to modify anyone else's talk page comments. I started and framed this RfC, you do not get to change it. That's standard talk page rules. Don't you or anyone else do it again. Yworo (talk) 22:24, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Do you need a license to be a philosopher? Is there an expectation that a philosopher has a license? -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 04:04, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

You do need a degree or equivalent knowledge to be anything but an amateur philosopher. Rand had neither, as our sources confirm. MilesMoney (talk) 04:23, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

She is a trained philosopher, she studied Philosophy in the University of Petrograd, I think this case is closed, we can remove qualifiers like amateur, self-styled etc --DagonAmigaOS (talk) 08:15, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

That's like saying that if I took woodworking for shop in primary school, I'm a carpenter. We don't get to do such original research; we have to trust our sources when they say she's not trained at the level expected for a professional. If they call her an amateur -- and they do -- then we must. MilesMoney (talk) 12:40, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

How about, if you make things out of wood as your occupation, then you're a carpenter. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 14:48, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

How about that's not what our sources say about Rand so we have to go with our sources. Making stuff out of wood, even if you get paid for it, doesn't mean you work at the level that professional carpenters do. Professional carpenters get to evaluate your work and decide if they also consider you a professional, if they accept you as one of them based on your abilities. That's how it works with philosophy, anyhow, and it's why Rand is an amateur. MilesMoney (talk) 16:14, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

That's interesting. "Amateur" has more than one meaning. One of them is purely factual: in that meaning, the person pursues an avocation without pay or professional position. This is somewhat true of Rand (she did get paid for her philosophical writings, but did not have any formal position). The other meaning is an opinion about the quality of the person's work: it means inept or lacking in skill. If Quinton (the author whose article you consistently cite as the source for "amateur") classified Rand as "amateur" because he evaluated her work as lacking, then that is his opinion of her and should be attributed as such in the article. (See the policy at WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV.) For instance, in the section on academic reaction, it might say, "Philosopher Anthony Quinton described her philosophy as "amateur" in an article for The Oxford Companion to Philosophy." Such an opinion should not go into the basic description of the person, although if it were shared by enough sources (more than one actual, explicit source, not just referring to one source as "our sources"), then it might be mentioned somewhere later in the lead. --RL0919 (talk) 16:54, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you know what an opinion is. MilesMoney (talk) 17:03, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• No qualifiers in lead. Discussion about ranges of opinions of a biographical subject belong in the article body. No one of several conflicting opinions should be arbitrarily be chosen to qualify a profession in the lead sentence. That is a direct violation of WP:NPOV. Yworo (talk) 22:58, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

This view is refuted by the problem of the amateur gynecologist. If we wait until the body to mention that he's not actually a trained, licensed gynecologist, we mislead the many people who never make it out of the lede. The term, without qualifiers, is not accurate, so we have to use qualifiers from the start. MilesMoney (talk) 12:58, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

• Maybe - It all depends. Some terms ("self professed", or "self styled") are so obviously biased that we couldn't use them. In other cases, such as "amateur", they might be acceptable, but it depends on exactly what the sources say. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:02, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
  • If all the sources agreed on a single term, sure. But if they don't, we can't make it "as if" they did. Yworo (talk) 23:04, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
    • By the same logic, since they don't agree that she is, in the unqualified sense, a philosopher, we can't call her that. MilesMoney (talk) 04:31, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
      • Based on what RL0919 has said below, I am changing my vote. Exclude qualifiers from the lead. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:12, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't base anything on what RL0919 says. Go read the source for yourself. MilesMoney (talk) 16:05, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• Wrongly phrased but has to be qualified given evidence - the designation philosopher is controversial so its use is problematic (and a violation of WP:NPOV without either qualification in some way or as an alternative removal from the lede. ----Snowded ^TALK 23:21, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

• Needs qualification - We have many sources which qualify her brand of philosophy as "popular", "amateur", "self-styled" and "self-professed", while others intentionally exclude her from the list of philosophers. This includes the Oxford Companion to Philosophy, which is over a thousand pages long and has plenty of room for a paragraph or two on her, yet the editor stated that he chose not to include her. We cannot call her, without qualification, a philosopher. We have to use "amateur" or "self-styled". MilesMoney (talk) 03:31, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
  • We can't use "self-styled" - it's a blatantly biased, unencyclopedic term. It wouldn't be NPOV to use it in the lead, just as it wouldn't be NPOV to use a term like "fraudulent so-called philosopher", even if it did appear in a reliable source. Regarding the Oxford Companion, what edition are you talking about? What does the editor actually say? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:27, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

The current edition, which is to say the second. I quoted from it above; go look. MilesMoney (talk) 04:23, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

The second edition excludes Roger Scruton as well. He is well known as a philosopher, and had been included in the first edition. Obviously one can't use exclusion from that volume as evidence that someone isn't a philosopher. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:27, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

The second edition identifies Rand as an amateur philosopher, and it goes out of its way to say that it rejected an article on Rand, along with one on "marital act", because they "did not penetrate [the editor's] fortress of philosophical principle". Sounds pretty clear; she's not a philosopher in general, she's am amateur philosopher. MilesMoney (talk) 04:40, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't use Scruton as an example because, while he doesn't have a biographical article, he is referenced as a source over half a dozen times. Rand is mentioned twice, both times dismissively, and never as a source. MilesMoney (talk) 04:44, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

What exactly does it say about her? Could you please quote the relevant passages? (I looked at your comments above, but there weren't any direct quotations, as far as I could see). FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:51, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Please take a look near the bottom of Talk:Objectivism. Search for 762, the page number. MilesMoney (talk) 05:00, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I looked, but I didn't find anything. Is that the right page? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:32, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, that's the disambiguation page. It should be Talk:Objectivism (Ayn Rand). Again, search for 762. MilesMoney (talk) 05:43, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, I found it. But it doesn't really answer what I wanted to know - does the work use the specific expression "amateur philosopher" to describe Rand? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:53, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

No, it does not. The entry is titled "popular philosophy", which the author breaks into three subgroups, one of which is "amateur philosophy". In the discussion of this subgroup, the author states, "In the twentieth century amateur systems increasingly failed to find their way into print..." The author then lists some exceptions, one of which is "Ayn Rand, strenuous exponent of objectivism and self-interest." The exact phrase "amateur philosopher" is not used in the article to describe anyone. --RL0919 (talk) 12:20, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

You tried this before, and I asked you what sort of philosopher makes an amateur philosophy. You were unable to come up with any way to avoid the obvious answer: an amateur philosopher. Basic English comprehension is required. MilesMoney (talk) 12:43, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Your comments are just an excuse for engaging in original research. It simply isn't appropriate to call someone an "amateur philosopher" if there is no source that actually uses that expression to describe her. I will be changing my vote to exclude the qualifiers from the lead - and I thank RL0919 for explaining what the Oxford Companion actually states. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:01, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

There's no original research in understanding basic English. Someone who makes an amateur philosophy is an amateur philosopher. This is uncontroversial and obvious, but RL0919 put his little spin on it. MilesMoney (talk) 16:18, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

You are of course free to conclude whatever you want from the Oxford Companion, but WP:NOR is a very strict policy. If the sources don't call someone an amateur philosophy, then we can't do so either. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:15, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

You need to actually read WP:NOR before you say stuff that's not true. What it actually says is:

"Best practice is to research the most reliable sources on the topic and summarize what they say in your own words, with each statement in the article attributable to a source that makes that statement explicitly. Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication"

Like I said, you can't argue that this summary changes the meaning, unless you can somehow explain how a professional philosopher makes an amateur philosophy. You can't, of course, so you're misinterpreting policy to avoid accepting what our source say. This makes you opinion incorrect. MilesMoney (talk) 04:20, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• No qualifiers - You don't need a license/degree to be a full-fledged philosopher any more than you need one to be a full-fledged author or painter. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 04:06, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

According to our sources, creating a philosophical system while lacking a degree or equivalent knowledge makes you an amateur philosopher. MilesMoney (talk) 04:24, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Where do they say that? -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 04:30, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

One place is page 762 of the Oxford Companion to Philosophy, which is an extremely high quality source. MilesMoney (talk) 04:37, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

The Ayn Rand Society is affiliated with the American Philosophical Association which hosts talks about Objectivism with Academic speakers i.e. Fred D. Jr. Miller (Bowling Green State University), Robert Mayhew (Seton Hall University), Christine Swanton (University of Auckland), Lester Hunt (University of Wisconsin–Madison), William Glod (Institute for Humane Studies), Allan Gotthelf (University of Pittsburgh), Gregory Salmieri (University of North Carolina–Chapel Hill). It appears that in the USA Academia it is recognized as a philosophy with no qualifiers. --DagonAmigaOS (talk) 20:01, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your original research, but it's irrelevant. The ARS is a group of actual philosophers, but Ayn Rand is their inspiration, not a member. Think this through and follow our sources, not your heart. MilesMoney (talk) 16:22, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Good catch, Miles. What these philosophers study is obviously not Ayn Rand's philosophy, but her hair cut.(/s) μηδείς (talk) 20:18, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Rand is dead, so Objectivism is no longer hers alone. If they wish to rescue it from amateur status, they're free to try. MilesMoney (talk) 04:20, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• No qualifiers is my first choice, simply because it is clear from the past weeks of debate that any qualifier will be perceived as POV by some group of people. This was also the stable wording for several years before the current dispute. I had proposed "non-academic" as a neutral qualifier that is supported by several sources, but apparently some think this is somehow too flattering. "Amateur" and "self-styled" are obviously negative POV and only rarely used in sources -- note that one editor keeps referencing one source for "amateur", and it doesn't even use the specific phrase "amateur philosopher". "Popular" is used in a number of sources but could be interpreted as positive POV. Another phrase used somewhat commonly is "public philosopher", but this doesn't seem to offer any information beyond the plain term "philosopher". I have worked up a list of sources using various phrasings here. --RL0919 (talk) 12:20, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for showing us that you don't understand WP:NPOV. Neutrality means following our sources, not avoiding those which might make her look good or bad. Your evaluation of the positive or negative connotations of these terms is wrong in the details, but it's wrong-headed to begin with. The unquestionable fact is that academic philosophers generally have a very low opinion of her qualifications. Is that "negative"? We don't care. We just report what our sources say, even if some of her fans are offended. MilesMoney (talk) 12:45, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

And you don't understand WP:NPOV either. We don't put such opinions in the lead sentence. We detail them, with sources, in the article body. Yworo (talk) 22:14, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

As I explained in the stuff you erased, this is not an opinion, it's a qualification. If I say someone is a Russian author, the "Russian" is a qualification of "author", so that you don't mistakenly assume they wrote in English. It's a fact, though, not any sort of opinion. Likewise, we have to call Rand an amateur philosopher, qualifying it so that nobody mistakes her for an academic philosopher. MilesMoney (talk) 16:01, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

If we don't want anyone to mistake her for an academic philosopher, the most direct qualifier to use would be "non-academic". That's undoubtedly neutral, since it doesn't have the alternate negative meaning of "inept" (as "amateur" does). It is also used to describe Rand in several peer-reviewed sources -- more than use the term "amateur". --RL0919 (talk) 16:11, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

No, non-academic is incomplete. The OCP article mentions non-academic philosophers who are nonetheless not counted as amateurs, but counts Rand as an amateur. As for the negative connotation, so what? Even if it's true, it doesn't matter; the negative connotations are accurate according to our sources. MilesMoney (talk) 16:26, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Source. You keep citing one and referring to it with the plural. It's interesting how some folks are OK with a negative connotation supported by one source, but a term used by many more sources ("popular philosopher") is unacceptable to them because it might be interpreted with a positive connotation. Anyhow, if a source (or sources where multiple exist) expresses an opinion about the quality of Rand's work, then it needs to be characterized as such rather than presented as an undisputed fact. --RL0919 (talk) 16:54, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

The problem with "popular" is that it's doubly-ambiguous, not that it's positive or negative. It's ambiguous in that the OCP offers three definitions, applying only one to Rand. It's more ambiguous because the common meaning is that she's popular, which is uncontested but also irrelevant to this issue. You claimed that you didn't understand what "popular" meant, so we narrowed it down to the specific intended meaning: "amateur". Deal with it. MilesMoney (talk) 17:13, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

The problem with this interpretation is this one OCP article is the only place where "amateur" is a subset of "popular". In standard usage the two don't mean the same thing, so unless someone specifically references the OCP article or gives a similar explanation to it, there is no reason to think they mean "amateur" when they say "popular". "Popular philosopher" in most cases is going to mean "philosopher who writes for a general, non-specialist audience". (In a few cases regarding Rand it clearly means "she's popular" because the text is explicit about it.) That person might or might not be an amateur. Mortimer Adler, for example, was a popular philosopher who was also a trained professional. --RL0919 (talk) 17:26, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

That's why it's misleading: she's not a trained professional who writes for a general audience. She's someone who bypassed the training, bypassed writing for academia and wrote only for the general audience. That's what makes her an amateur. MilesMoney (talk) 17:41, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• No qualifiers - You don't have to be a card-carrying philosopher to be a philosopher, but in any case, Rand has a card - from the University of Petrograd. The addition of various qualifiers, invariably with negative connotation, is a blatant NPOV violation. To argue that using a neutral term is guilty of positive POV is disingenuous to say the least.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 13:34, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your original research, but that "card" was viewed and rejected by the experts, so we have to go with their view, not yours. Calling her "amateur" is factual. If you dislike the term itself, come up with a better one. People have tried: "self-professed", "self-avowed". MilesMoney (talk) 15:59, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Original research!! How, might I ask? There are numerous high-quality sources which use the term without qualification, and numerous more which verify her education. Yes, there are other high quality sources which explicitly disagree with that view. In the case of numerous, high-quality sources which are in disagreement, the correct course of action is to use the most neutral term in the lead (unqualified) and then detail the controversy, such as it is, later in the body. Your insistence that a non-neutral term is needed to reflect what your perceive as a majority POV is a severe misinterpretation of WP:NPOV.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 05:47, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

There are numerous sources that call Canseco an athlete, yet we have to mention baseball. MilesMoney (talk) 05:57, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Your example is NPOV. Your proposal is not.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 07:36, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

You're offering a conclusion without reasoning. That's not persuasive. MilesMoney (talk) 19:45, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I'll spell my reasoning out for you: I find the sources sufficiently reliable to verify Ayn Rand's unqualified status as a philosopher.I don't think I've ever had an editor so barefacedly refuse to engage - please Miles, take a step back and consider your behaviour. -Yeti Hunter (talk) 23:05, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Nowhere in there do you explain why we should ignore the Oxford Companion to Philosophy. MilesMoney (talk) 00:11, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't for a moment think we should ignore the OCP. It is an excellent ref for the controversy over Rand's status. However it does not negate the numerous RSSs that do consider her a philosopher. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 03:58, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Everyone considers her to be some sort of philosopher, but the idea that she's a regular philosopher is directly contradicted by our sources, and I don't just mean OCP. We've seen her philosophical status qualified with a variety of terms, from "popular" to "self-avowed" and, yes, even "amateur". With all this, we can't just call her a philosopher because it would be misleading. We have to say that she "wrote philosophical essays" or "created an amateur philosophical system", both of which are verifiable. MilesMoney (talk) 04:03, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Amen, brother! "Everyone considers her to be some sort of philosopher" - I couldn't have said it better myself.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 04:43, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, some sort, but not a regular philosopher. That's why we have to specify that she's not a regular philosopher, just some sort of one. MilesMoney (talk) 05:42, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• No qualifiers as she is known mainly for her philosophy and such terms as "amateur" and "self-styled" are inappropriately biased against her views.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:09, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

She's known for her Objectivism, but not for being a proper philosopher. We call her an "amateur" because that's the neutral, accurate term. It doesn't matter if it offends her fans. MilesMoney (talk) 15:56, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• Qualifier needed Philosophers overwhelmingly rejected her philosophy as preposterous. Many RS qualify her as an "amateur" or "popular" philosopher. She held no academic position or formal training in philosophy. Steeletrap (talk) 05:00, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
  • How do you know this? Did someone survey philosophers worldwide, to find out what they think of Rand? I would be surprised if most philosophers had expressed any opinion about her at all. Some philosophers outside the Anglo-Saxon world probably haven't even heard of her. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:23, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
    • But that is the point, she is ignored because nearly all serious philosophers who even look at her realise quickly that she wasn't one. Its far from clear that she even read Kant despite criticising him. We now have specific evidence of rejection as well as de factor so its perverse to deny it. The odd source making a claim against the weight of evidence would skew a lot of wikipedia pages----Snowded ^TALK 06:34, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
      • It's pointless to debate why most philosophers don't mention Rand (though I suspect most philosophers pay little attention to anyone, besides a handful of recognized major figures, outside their own specialities). The more important issue is that, despite assertions to the contrary, there doesn't seem to be a source that specifically calls Rand an "amateur philosopher". FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:28, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
        • Pointless if you don't want to deal with evidence maybe. Your suspicion is a complete nonsense if you do the most basic research on some of the very minor figures included in the major dictionaries of Philosophy. The fact she is excluded and adversely commented on even by objectivists in respect of her abilities is significant. Its something her fans don;t like but it is a simple fact that her status as a philosopher is controversial ----Snowded ^TALK 08:05, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
          • I've asked you about this before, do you have a source that says that "her status as a philosopher is controversial"? Because that's what Wikipedia needs if you want to present it as "controversial". You can't just say "the sources disagree" if the only way you know that is by doing original research. Yworo (talk) 08:56, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
            • If you go back into the history, her exclusion from the Oxford companion, the statement that she had not read Kant, the major objectivist philosopher who questioned her ability. The talk pages of this example a littered with examples over the years. Given that we have to summarise what the weight of the sources say. To do so is not original research, the idea that every statement has to be directly sources is a common error of naive editors; if we followed that all articles would simply string together quotes. What we are not allowed to do is draw a conclusion not present in those sources. If you take that attitude vast swathes of the article have to be deleted. ----Snowded ^TALK 09:39, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
              • WP:OR is pretty explicit: To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented. Yworo (talk) 10:01, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
                • And explicitly not including her in a list of philosophers is directly related ----Snowded ^TALK 14:28, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• No Qualifiers Very few professions require a specific acedemic degree to be recognized in that field. You must have an accredited medical degree to call yourself an MD, but others, like Nate Silver are called Statisticians without the appropriate acedemic degree. Rand is known for promoting Objectivism, a philosophical system. To say that you can't call her a philosopher would be as stupid as saying you can't call Socrates a philosopher because he didn't have a PhD, yet he is credited with philosophy. Arzel (talk) 16:00, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your original research, but the source that calls Rand an amateur does not consider Socrates one. Again, we have to go with our sources, not your beliefs. MilesMoney (talk) 16:11, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for completely missing the point. Your source, by the way, would consider Socrates an Amatuer. Arzel (talk) 17:02, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

You mean the source that says "Amateur philosophy as a genre is really a creation of the nineteenth century with its mass literacy and self-education"? Thanks for playing. MilesMoney (talk) 17:10, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Your basic argument is that you need to have an acedemic degree to be called a philosopher. Based on your own logic, several well known historical philosophers fail. You lose your own game. Arzel (talk) 17:31, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

You are mistaken: that is not my argument. The OCP is very clear on the possibility of someone lacking a degree but not being an amateur. I suggest you read the OCP article and re-read what I've been saying, because you're showing a lack of understanding. It's not that we disagree, but that you're mistaken about what the issues are. MilesMoney (talk) 17:43, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

These are your words. In the same way, if we call Ayn Rand a philosopher without qualifications, we would be implying that she has the academic background and standing in the field. You stated them at the top of the RfC. Clearly this is your primary objection. If this wasn't an issue for you than you should not have made this statement. Arzel (talk) 20:45, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry you misunderstood, but my words don't mean what you'd like them to. You should learn to read more carefully, and maybe you should ask questions instead of jumping to assumptions. MilesMoney (talk) 00:47, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Not sure how it is possible to misunderstand when you made them so clearly. In the future don't make arguments that you can't defend without saying that the other party didn't understand your porly written argument. Arzel (talk) 15:04, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how to answer this without, in effect, calling you stupid, so let's move the focus away from your error and back to the topic at hand. Regardless of what you imagined my argument to be, it's not what you said. Where does that leave you? MilesMoney (talk) 15:13, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

You have no defense for your argument so you resort to personal attacks. I would say this is pretty standard for your MO. Arzel (talk) 16:07, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

You invited me to personally attack you, but I declined. You have successfully attacked an argument I never made, then fallen flat on your face when the straw-manning was pointed out. Is this your standard MO? MilesMoney (talk) 16:16, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Great response, so you are saying that you would call me stupid but that would be a personal attack so you won't call me stupid. In effect you did call me stupid. And you continue to deny you plainly stated words, plus you have used that same reasoning several times against other editors. I would call you a liar, but that would be a personal attack, so I won't call you a liar. Arzel (talk) 13:41, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Bringing this back to the topic, I'm gonna point out your error. No amateur philosopher has a degree in Philosophy, but not everyone lacking such a degree is an amateur. Rather, some people have equivalent knowledge, so they're not amateurs regardless of education. Rand, however, is an amateur because she has neither the degree nor the equivalent knowledge (says OCP). Now that your error has been made clear, you conclusion has been invalidated. Nice chatting! MilesMoney (talk) 04:28, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually all you did was invalidate your own argument. Good Job! Also, your understanding of set theory is lacking. Arzel (talk) 15:05, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

You should know by now that bald conclusions are unpersuasive. As far as I can tell, your unsupported statement just means you didn't understand what I said. If you have a concrete argument, rather than an unexplained rejection, you're still free to share it. In its absence, I don't know what else to say other than I've shown you to be mistaken. Have a nice day. MilesMoney (talk) 16:07, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Then why do you continue to make them? I am not sure why you continue to deny what you have said. It does you no good to refuse to accept your own words. That you are unable to understand your own words is no fault of mine. In the future don't make arguments you don't understand. Arzel (talk) 16:52, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Your comments are neither accurate nor relevant to this discussion. I find them counterproductive and counsel you to reconsider your actions. MilesMoney (talk) 19:33, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• No Qualifiers the wording is not only obviously from a hostile POV, it is simply false. She did her senior oral exam on Plato. Any qualifications belong in the text, not the lead. μηδείς (talk) 19:23, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Hostility is not a disqualifier. Consider that an article on Creationism is going to describe the scientific consensus even though it's "hostile" towards the subject. It is a simple fact that Rand is not highly valued within academic philosophy, and yet it's academic philosophy that sets the standards for professionalism and therefore gets to judge Rand an amateur. In short, your argument is based on a false premise -- that we can dismiss the consensus due to "hostility" -- so the conclusion doesn't matter. Not that it matters, regardless, as this RFC is invalid due to the biased opening statement. MilesMoney (talk) 19:28, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

That's just silly. You admit hostility plays a role yet say we should ignore that? The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and The New York Times call her a philosopher, a chair at Austin studies her philosophy, there are dozens of books written on her philosophy, her books are shelved in the philosophy section of bookstores and libraries, there's no such thing as being a licensed philosopher, yet she is not a philosopher because....why, exactly? Can we have the exact reason why she, as opposed to the playwright Sartre, is not a philosopher? μηδείς (talk) 04:24, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

What's silly is that the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy says outright that academia is hostile towards her, but you want us to ignore that. She's not an unqualified philosopher because, according to philosophers, she doesn't have the training or equivalent knowledge. Instead, she is acknowledged as an amateur in the field. It is our job to reflect our sources, and if they're dismissive and hostile towards her, so be it. We are not their censors. Why don't you go complain that Adolph Hitler makes him sound like a bad man? MilesMoney (talk) 05:04, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

if the "Freaking Adolf Hitler gets an opening sentence that describes him in neutral terms. --RL0919" I don't see why Ayn Rand can't get a neutral opening. In the Standford encyclopedia and other encyclopedias gets a neutral opening she must get a neutral opening in the wikipedia too. Some philosophers are critical to her not all of them as the sources I gave you before point out and the space to point it is the criticism section. --DagonAmigaOS (talk) 11:07, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

No, we don't hide criticism in its own section; the WP:LEDE is expected to "summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies." Your attempt to bury the controversy is part of a pattern of consistent bias on your part, and it is counterproductive.

As for Hitler, look at what it says about him as a painter. He was a "professional" in that he sold a few paintings, but he was ruled as an amateur by the organization capable of giving him professional status. Ayn Rand was a philosopher the way Hitler was a painter; they both made stuff, sold it, but were considered amateurs by the pros. MilesMoney (talk) 14:56, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

There is no consensus by the "pros", there are "professional" philosophers in the USA that consider her a philosopher. The Standford Encyclopedia of philosophy is a highly respected source and refers to her as a philosopher without adjectives. At best you could write in a paragraph in the lead section that most of the British "pros" consider her as an amateur philosopher. The lead should start with a NPOV description like "Ayn Rand was an American novelist, playwright, an essayist and a philosopher" --DagonAmigaOS (talk) 15:41, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

In the SEP bio that everyone's always pointing at, it says, "Contemporary philosophers, by and large, returned the compliment by dismissing her work contemptuously, often on the basis of hearsay or cursory reading." Note that this is not restricted to the UK. The pair of sentences before that explain why she was dismissed: "Her views of past and contemporary Anglo-American philosophy, however, seem to have been based largely on summaries of philosophers' works and conversations with a few philosophers and with her young acolytes, themselves students of philosophy. Unfortunately, this did not stop her from commenting dismissively, and often contemptuously, on other philosophers' works." In other words, she criticized philosophers without a basic understanding of their views, which explains why the OCP calls her an amateur.

Regardless of the word "amateur", the lede absolutely must make it clear that she was dismissed by philosophers. MilesMoney (talk) 16:21, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

We have a deal then :) Start the lede with the NPOV "Ayn Rand was an American novelist, playwright, an essayist and a philosopher" and then put on your own words and sources this fact. --DagonAmigaOS (talk) 13:24, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm not authorized to make "deals" that violate policy. MilesMoney (talk) 19:10, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

She is listed in The Dictionary of Modern American Philosophers which is an indispensible reference work for scholars. Nowhere in this source is she mentioned as an amateur philosopher or with any other kind adjective. In fact it says "Peikoff is the preeminent interpreter of the ideas of the novelist-philosopher Ayn Rand." pp 1889 novelist is no adjective, it is just her other vocation. We follow the sources and we stick with a NPOV description of her. --DagonAmigaOS (talk) 15:55, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

No, a novelist-philosopher is a writer of philosophical novels, such as "Atlas Shrugged". It's yet another qualified subset of "philosopher". Speaking of which, I'm going to gently point out that you're an WP:SPA, so your opinion should be taken lightly. MilesMoney (talk) 04:30, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

You obviously ignore her philosophical essays like Introducing Objectivism, The Objectivist Ethics, Collectivized “Rights”, The Nature of Government and books like the Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, The Virtue of Selfishness, Philosophy Who Needs It etc. Leave the Ad hominem arguments and stay on the sources that I present like the Dictionary of Modern American Philosophers etc If she only had philosophical novels on her resume then you may had a point (even though you don't need to leave written text in order to be a philosopher, i.e Socrates) but she was both a novelist and a philosopher and she has the books to prove it, and philosophers that are objectivists, and sources that refer to her as a philosopher without adjectives --DagonAmigaOS (talk) 11:34, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

You'd think that a single-purpose account like yours would at least be good at that one purpose, but you keep making the same mistakes. Mostly, you just don't read. As the SDP article points out, her essays did not stand alone; they quoted from and required knowledge of her novels. Even when writing philosophical essays, she took the novelist's approach!

I've pointed out a few times that the OCP article directly excludes ancient philosophers from amateur status, but you keep bringing up Socrates as if he matters. It also doesn't matter if some sources call her a philosopher; we need to reflect all of our sources, and give more weight to higher-quality ones. We can't call her a philosopher because we have too many sources that qualify this term in various ways. That's the bottom line argument that you cannot refute. MilesMoney (talk) 16:13, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Stay on topic and leave the personal attacks out of this discussion. Many of her books stand alone without any knowledge of her novels, your source is British and just one, my sources are of high quality and American like Ayn Rand was and that's the place where she developed her philosophy. As I said The Dictionary of Modern American Philosophers is an indispensible reference work for scholars as is also the Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. In Britain Objectivism never took off and we can't take Oxford Companion book as our primary source. No offence to British, I'm not American, I'm European but that can't be the primary description, only a criticism --DagonAmigaOS (talk) 21:07, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I looked it up: I'm allowed to mention that you're an SPA; it's not a personal attack. And I'm allowed to criticize your argument for being so weak; also impersonal. You don't deny what I said about Socrates being excluded, so you're the one ignoring the points being made. Does that mean you accept that you're wrong about that? If so, say it.

This is Wikipedia, not Amurkapedia; we don't exclude sources for being British, or even for not speaking English at all. It's also a big fat lie to suggest that Rand was loved by the American philosophical establishment while Britain spurned her. Everywhere around the world, professional philosophers mostly ignore Rand, and when they don't, they most typically express extreme unhappiness with her. I'm not American, either, and I can tell you that my non-American intro-to-philosophy professor immediately shut down the poor Objectivist who spoke up and supported Rand. This is normal! Whatever merit her work had, it has not made much headway in academia.

Quinton used "amateur" matter-of-factly, not simply as an insult. He didn't single her out as being bad, he just recognized that her work wasn't up to professional standards, yet it got published. We have other sources admitting this even while defending her (see below).

So, in the end, you didn't even tackle some of my points but I refuted everything you said. Try not to take this as a personal attack, but for someone whose sole purpose on Wikipedia is to defend Rand, you could do a lot better. For one thing, you could actually address your opponents' arguments while defending your own. MilesMoney (talk) 22:06, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

So, is that what this is all about, your anti-Amurkan bigotry? Seriously? μηδείς (talk) 22:13, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I'm going to have to insist that you redact your personal attack. I am not a bigot. I was arguing against the notion that we should exclude non-American sources. MilesMoney (talk) 22:24, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• No qualifiers I am reminded of this dialogue: "We," said Majikthise, "are Philosophers." "Though we may not be," said Vroomfondel waving a warning finger at the programmers. "Yes we are," insisted Majikthise. "We are quite definitely here as representatives of the Amalgamated Union of Philosophers, Sages, Luminaries and Other Thinking Persons, and we want this machine off, and we want it off now!" "What's the problem?" said Lunkwill. "I'll tell you what the problem is mate," said Majikthise, "demarcation, that's the problem!" Warden (talk) 10:04, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

It does not appear that your reasoning has anything to do with Wikipedia policy or the content of the sources. It seems like original research. MilesMoney (talk) 19:46, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

• No qualifiers. As proposed, I find this lacking in neutrality. There are better ways to describe this controversy, such as Rand faced opposition from academics who viewed her as an amateur. This can be stated in the lead, outside of the first sentence. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:22, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not against a more balanced lede, overall, but why start by misleading (no pun intended), only to correct later? MilesMoney (talk) 16:13, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• Alternative – describe her as a "philosophical essayist". This term has not been suggested in any of talk, here or in the archives. – S. Rich (talk) 16:06, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

That's better than claiming she's a philosopher. MilesMoney (talk) 19:27, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok, here's some direct support, from SDP:

"She wrote polemical, philosophical essays"

I think this is both clear and unassailable. MilesMoney (talk) 19:49, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but making up special terms like that is called wikipedia:synthesis. You won't find 1/100th the number of sources calling her a "philosophical essayist" than you will denying she's a philosopher, let alone the sources calling her a philosopher. μηδείς (talk) 21:47, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

With all due respect, you are showing your ignorance on the facts. "Philosophical essayist" is no more a "special term" than "amateur philosopher", and has a least as much support when applied to Rand. More to the point, it may be a way out of the current debate over "amateur". Your comments are out of touch with reality and highly counterproductive. MilesMoney (talk) 22:12, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

"Philosophical essayist" is no good. It's just a fancy euphemism for "philosopher." FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:27, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

And she's not a philosopher, at least not a regular one, right? But this actually sidesteps the problem. Whether she's qualified as popular, amateur, non-academic or whatever, nobody denies that she wrote philosophical essays. MilesMoney (talk) 22:31, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

The point is that calling someone a "philosophical essayist" cannot mean anything different from calling them a "philosopher." So there is no possible advantage to using such a term. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:09, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

That's not an objection if you believe she should be called a philosopher. MilesMoney (talk) 23:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes it is. "Philosophical essayist" means the same thing as "philosopher", but it's a bad way of saying it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:37, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• No qualifiers. Best explained in the body for many of the reasons given above. Jason from nyc (talk) 13:41, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
• Solution! Take a look at the second paragraph of Journals of Ayn Rand#Contents. We see her describing herself – in early years – as an amateur philosopher. Thus we add "in early years she described herself as an amateur philosopher". If this quote (in the Journals article) is correct, then it satisfies the Less Filling faction because it uses that particular term, and the More Taste faction gets their way because the article does not go on to keep the "amateur" moniker as the be all and end all descriptive. – S. Rich (talk) 22:32, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, while she recognized that she started as an amateur, she was convinced that she'd become trained herself out of it. Hwoever, According to Quinton, she didn't stop being an amateur until 1982-06-03. MilesMoney (talk) 22:38, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RFC wording

Yworo, if I were you, I would simply accept the rewording of the rfc. There's not much point in complaining about whether it is "permitted" for someone to alter the wording, if altering the wording has the effect of making the rfc more neutral. Why insist on a slanted wording, when it could be neutral? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:29, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I will not permit it to be changed. Period. Don't like it, wait until the RfC is over (one month) and start your own. Yworo (talk) 22:31, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Changing it indicate that you also don't know how RfCs work. The wording of the originator may be picked up and used elsewhere, such as on a list of RfCs. This is an RfC I wrote, neither you nor anyone else get to change it. Yworo (talk) 22:34, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Also, the changes made the presentation less neutral, not more. Yworo (talk) 22:35, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Neither the original wording nor the revised were neutral. They just slant in different directions. In theory it should be worded neutrally, but in my experience it doesn't make much difference what the slant is as long as it is obvious. --RL0919 (talk) 22:37, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that changing it clearly violates WP:TPO and also means that the various respondents are responding to different questions, queering the outcome. Nobody gets to change other people's comments, even an RfC, even if they think it is "non-neutral". Sheesh. Idiots. Yworo (talk) 22:41, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Yworo is behaving foolishly. He was obviously biased in how he framed the rfc, and now he can't or won't admit this. His comments really aren't worthy of any further reply - and I do have better things to do than to discuss this with him. (Maybe he should be reminded about WP:NPA, however?) FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:44, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

The revision history of this talk page shows that Yworo directed an obscene comment at me, then immediately removed it. This is unambiguous vandalism. I hope that the user won't continue such infantile behavior. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:08, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Yworo, you won't permit your biased opening statement to be changed? Well, you can either have your cake or eat it. If you change the statement to something neutral, then you might get enough people unfamiliar with the issue to support you, or you might not, but the results would be binding for a time. But if you leave it biased, then RFC as a whole is compromised and therefore invalid. Nobody has to follow an RFC that's based on a biased opening statement, and nobody will. So you decide which way you want it, but you can't have it both ways. MilesMoney (talk) 15:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

It would be refreshing (and helpful) to see actual suggestions for a revised RfC statement. Consider, this is a debate about the best way to resolve another debate. To complicate matters we see violations of NPA and AGF. – S. Rich (talk) 16:04, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I already provided a revised RfC statement, but Yworo won't "permit" it, as if they have any say in it. MilesMoney (talk) 16:09, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Of course I have a say in the matter, per WP:TALK. And WP:RFC doesn't give anyone authority to override WP:TALK. It says that I may ask for help if I want. If I did want, I wouldn't ask you. Your "revision" was at best equally biased in the opposite direction (that's being extremely generous), and in my personal opinion was way way more intentionally slanted to get your desired result than is my rendition. (Especially since I don't actually give a rat's ass about Rand, I just saw a sitation where I believe that other editors were being repeatedly browbeaten by a couple of forceful personalities using bad arguments and mostly intimidation. Not naming any names, but if the shoe fits, feel free to yowl!) Yworo (talk) 15:40, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

RFC's are not personal property; they're meant to organize the community into a productive discussion. According to policy, you're obligated to:

"Include a brief, neutral statement of the issue in the talk page section, immediately below the RfC template."

By no means was your opening statement brief and neutral, so what you've created is an RFC in name only, and no more binding than any other fraud. Based on the examples, you should have written something like:

"Should we refer to Rand in the lede as a philosopher or should we modify this with a qualifier?"

Then we could have each given our arguments and debated them on neutral terms. An RFC like that would actually count for something and I would abide by its results, however grudgingly. Your "RFC" is halfway between an insult and a joke, and your insistence on owning it is ridiculous and contrary to policy. You show a strong WP:BATTLEFIELD mentality that makes it very hard to work with you. MilesMoney (talk) 03:23, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I think it is an overreaction to suggest the question is biased. Certainly not so biased as to invalidate the RFC, or influence it's outcome in any way. It is factually accurate - "some but not all". If you wanted to be really really balanced, you might add that there also exist some sources which deny she is a philosopher altogether. But that would begin to make the RFC wording clumsy, and in any case the point has been made many many times in the discussion. I suspect a refusal to accept what is looking like a quite decisive outcome in this RFC will not be looked upon forbearingly. -Yeti Hunter (talk) 23:02, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Personally, what we think personally is a lot less important than what policy says, and policy says this is a fake RFC. Read the policy and see for yourself. There's a reason why RFC's require a neutral framing: when they're biased, we get meaningless results. It doesn't help that so many participants are actively ignorant of the relevant sources and policies, and are instead going on gut feeling alone. MilesMoney (talk) 03:23, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I see nothing at WP:RFC which suggests that the RFC above would be invalid. The phrasing is at least close to neutral, certainly not blatantly and shockingly biased as your protestations imply. The suggested change you give above is fine, but only really a less wordy version of yworo's. I have seen many far more long-winded RFCs. While the guideline (not "policy") does suggest that the initiating editor may modify the question at the suggestion of others, they are under no compulsion to do so. You could have suggested a modified opening statement either privately or in a threaded discussion; instead you chose to edit war, cry foul when you were reverted, and respond to every contrary opinion with hostility and condescension. Please - lower the temperature a bit. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 14:27, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to take responsibility for Yworo's absolute refusal to change his long, biased and inaccurate opening statement. He's the reason the RFC is dead in the water. MilesMoney (talk) 16:13, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

That's your opinion. I don't think there is a consensus that it is, and unless there is a consensus that it's invalid, then it's perfectly valid. It's the respondants to the RfC who get to judge this, by consensus, not you alone. You've have your big bold say about it, and hardly anyone responding to the RfC agrees. Yworo (talk) 16:13, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you understand the role of consensus here. Please re-read the policy. MilesMoney (talk) 17:53, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, the RfC has been closed in my favor, with a thoughtful analysis, so I think it must be you lacking the understanding and who has been editing disruptively as well as generating more smoke than light on this talk page. Yworo (talk) 17:58, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

The only thing that makes an RfC valid is its adherence to the rules. This one violated them from the start, so being "closed" by a non-admin who doesn't appear to understand the basics of WP:RFC carries no weight. On the positive side, it does end the farce, since we no longer have to pretend to have an RfC. On the negative, you're going to claim victory and continue to edit war. MilesMoney (talk) 18:02, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I consider your final sentence to be a personal attack. I am glad that you have an opportunity to be a gracious loser. Don't waste it. Yworo (talk) 18:07, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Miles, if you disagree with the close and wish to have it reopened, you can open a discussion about it on AN. Don't try to downplay my close by using scare quotes and calling me a non-admin, as though that actually matters for a close like this (it does not). I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 18:08, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Page protection requested

I've requested at WP:RPP for the article to be full-protected again, since it appears folks just can't let the RFC play out. At least one editor is already at 3RR and a couple of others are at 2RR. Also, anyone who perhaps missed the notice at the top of this talk page should be advised that this page is subject to discretionary sanctions, so please be on your best behavior. --RL0919 (talk) 00:04, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Holy crap, just LOOK at this page. This is what drives people away from editing. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 00:17, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Nothing like an RfC to bring a bit of order out of chaos. I am wondering how long it will take the regular editors to propose actual workable third and fourth compromise options, which seems to have eluded them in spite of such a lengthy prior discussion. Yworo (talk) 02:09, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I offered up a compromise. It just wasn't good enough. Agreed on page protection until disputes are resolved. I want to emphasize that I have not engaged in, nor do I intend to engage in any edit wars. Nonetheless, I cannot in good conscience walk away from what I perceive to be a violation of NPOV and source policy. Adam9389 (talk) 02:20, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Key source for RFC

Before participating in the invalid RFC, you should read the key source here MilesMoney (talk) 18:52, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

How many threads are you going to start on this? You are being disruptive rather than admit consensus. μηδείς (talk) 04:28, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Which consensus is that? The "consensus" of opinions from people who are huge fans of Rand and don't understand what our sources say? MilesMoney (talk) 05:05, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't want this to get lost, so I'm reposting it here:

"It is unfortunate that Ayn Rand’s ideas have not been taken seriously by many professional philosophers. I would like to suggest that readers view Rand’s potential contributions to philosophy as analogous to those of the German writers Goethe and Schiller. Neither of the latter was a professional philosopher—both were poets and playwrights—yet they did write philosophical essays that have been taken seriously by philosophers. Similarly, Ayn Rand was a novelist who wrote philosophical essays that should be taken seriously by philosophers."

Montessori, Dewey, and Capitalism, Educational Theory for a Free Market in Education, Jerry Kirkpatrick, p. 83, http://www.tljbooks.com/MDC.pdf

This is a fine example of someone supporting Rand while still admitting she's not a professional philosopher. She was some sort of philosopher, but not a straight-up one, as this confirms. MilesMoney (talk) 19:41, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

If we want to judge Rand by the same standard as Goethe --their bodies of work-- then Rand is no philosopher at all. Goethe was a polymath and, as with artists then and now, his wide-ranging body of work was his credential. Rand really has no such body of work; she was to philosophy what Richard Feynman was to art: both produced a small body of work that was narrow in scope and not of high quality when judged dispassionately, but is nevertheless appreciated by those with an emotional reason to do so.

The late Eric Hoffer's wiki article begins Eric Hoffer (July 25, 1902 – May 21, 1983) was an American moral and social philosopher. It's a good description. I don't care for his work, but one comes away from it with the feeling that he spent a lot of time thinking deeply, which is pretty much the definition of a philosopher.

Rand could perhaps be described as "a socioeconomic polemicist" or "socioeconomic essayist", but to use the word "philosopher" is at best an undeserved courtesy (note that Sciabarra is described in his article as a "political theorist", not a "political philosopher"). Reading her work, and about her life, strongly suggests to me, a clinical psychologist, that she was little more than a borderline-diagnosable opportunistic narcissist who realized she could make money appealing to others of her kind. 98.118.26.43 (talk) 13:40, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

We definitely have sources that speak of her polemical writings. In the general public, she is best known for her political philosophy, which is to say her support for what everyone but her called libertarianism -- and not for her insights into epistemology. In academia, the situation is often reversed: her political philosophy is treated like garbage, while the more technical material is picked over carefully before ultimately being rejected.

It would not be at all difficult to find sources calling her a narcissist, both in the casual and clinical sense. Keep in mind that her close associate (read: ex-lover) Nathaniel Branden has been instrumental in the pro-narcissism "self-esteem" movement in psychiatry, so it all fits together.

The second-hardest thing is finding reliable sources to support these phrases. By far the hardest is to get them into the article against the wished of her ardent fans. It has been a slog. MilesMoney (talk) 14:56, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 26 September 2013

Remove word "untrained" from lead sentence. It is false. Rand studied Philosophy at University of Petrograd and did her senior oral exam on Plato. [1] So "untrained" is simply not true and should be removed. Furthermore the current consensus in the RfC is not to use any qualifier in the lead sentence. Yworo (talk) 22:43, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I object to this, of course. While I don't think "untrained" is the ideal word, calling her a philosopher without qualifying it appropriately would violate policy by going against our sources.

FWIW, Yworo is factually wrong. Rand took a couple of undergrad classes, but she was by no means a trained philosopher. She has no degree in philosophy, and we have sources calling her self-styled, self-professed and amateur. Yworo quotes a fan site, but the more neutral Standford Dictionary of Philosophy says: "She majored in history, but the social science program in which she was enrolled at Petrograd State University included philosophy, law, and philology." She then went on to attend the State Institute for Cinematography, you know, like any philosopher.

Having said this, I'm not particularly fond of "untrained", even though I'm the one who came up with it as an attempt to compromise. For one thing, the fact that she has any academic exposure, however minor, gives people like Yworo something to complain about. I also considered "undertrained" and "slightly trained", but these aren't so great, either.

I'd be fine going back to "amateur" or "self-avowed". I'd also be ok with leaving it alone for now. MilesMoney (talk) 00:58, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Agreed with Yworo, although I think snow closing the RfC and opening the article is a better solution, with blocks for further disruption by the sole editor here causing it. μηδείς (talk) 04:31, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Is it true that I'm the only editor pushing for qualifying what type of philosopher she is in the lede? No, it is not, so you lied. Is it true that I am the only editor who has restored such qualifications in the article? No, it is not, so you lied. Is it true that you lied? Yes, yes it is. MilesMoney (talk) 05:07, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit protected}} template. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:54, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Consensus has been clearly established above in the RfC for no qualifiers. Consensus does not mean that everybody agrees with it, but there is a clear and snowy majority for removing any and all qualifiers. Yworo (talk) 20:27, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

What exactly is the rush? Putting on my admin hat for a moment, I would say two things: 1) the RFC results so far favor a particular conclusion but are not what I would call "snowy", so (assuming I were an uninvolved party) I would not close it early; and 2) as long as the RFC is still open, I would decline this edit request (again, if I were an uninvolved party). When the RFC closes, an appropriate edit can be made based on how it closes. --RL0919 (talk) 20:38, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Just objecting to the reason the edit was not done. Perhaps the next admin to reply could give a reason that's actually true. Yworo (talk) 20:45, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The RfC was initiated 22:47, 24 September 2013, and 30 days from 24 September 2013 is 24 October 2013. Besides which, there are several other threads subsequent to that where disagreement exists; and on this thread there have been comments from five different people (myself included) which are not in harmony. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:49, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

If that's true, you are "involved" and should be letting another admin respond to this. Sorry, reopening. Should be handled by an uninvolved admin, and if you were an admin who had volunteered for recall, I'd be asking you to exercise it based on this admitted violation of the standard that only uninvolved admins should answer requests. Yworo (talk) 20:56, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

What? Because I declined it once already, I'm now involved? On that basis, no admin could answer the same request more than once, and this request would be waiting for somebody else. No, by placing {{edit protected}}, you are asking that an admin should judge the circumstances, and then take some action - which might be to explain why the request should not be carried out. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:12, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Hey, you were the one who stated that you had an opinion: "comments from five different people (myself included) which are not in harmony". I would have had no idea if you hadn't mentioned it. And yes, now that you mention it, I think it would be good policy for admins not to respond to reopened requests which they handled the first time. The whole point of reopening is frequently to get a second opinion, certainly not to be quickly shut down by the same admin who made first denial. Yworo (talk) 21:23, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Comments are not necessarily opinions one way or the other. By "not in harmony" I was pointing out that not all of the comments were of the same opinion. In my first response, I pointed out that there was no consensus - by which I meant that the original request had been objected to - but apparently, by not agreeing with the OP (you), that automatically means that I took sides with the first objector (MilesMoney). The world isn't black-and-white. Also, please note that it is not only admins who are permitted to decline {{edit protected}} requests: Wikipedia:Edit requests uses the phrase "responding editor", not "responding admin". --Redrose64 (talk) 22:00, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Despite Yworo's, uhm, inflexibility, I think the rest of us are actually making some headway towards consensus. The key may be in avoiding her status as a "philosopher" and instead focusing on her output, which consisted of "philosophical novels and essays". The former gets a lot of heat because one side sees any qualifier as an insult while the other sees the lack as a lie. But by focusing on the paper, not the person, we might get past this. I'm certainly willing to compromise to make the article better and end this bickering. MilesMoney (talk) 22:28, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

The best way to end the bickering would be to accept the sources that call Rand a philosopher and leave it at that. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:03, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

You know we can't do that because it's just not true and we know that because our sources contradict it. She's not a philosopher, pure and simple. At most, she's a philosopher, impure and complex. Her status as a philosopher must be qualified to avoid lying to the readers, who would otherwise think she was a regular philosopher, not a writer who lacked the training or knowledge to be accepted as a professional philosopher. MilesMoney (talk) 23:18, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Nonsense, of course we can do it. If most sources that deal with the question of Rand's being a philosopher call her a philosopher, then a philosopher she is. A small number of sources saying otherwise doesn't negate that. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:42, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

That's not how it works. I've been reading WP:RS, WP:NPOV and the rest. They all say that sources are unequal, with tertiary sources worth more than secondary, and primary being risky. More than that, we don't look at a flat majority and ignore the rest. Instead, we seek out the sources which tell us what the mainstream view is and make sure that's given the most emphasis. In this case, the mainstream view is that Rand does not meet the standards for being considered a professional academic philosopher, which is why we're trying to find a nice way to say that she did work in philosophy but it's not directly comparable to what someone might expect from the unqualified term, "philosopher". MilesMoney (talk) 00:22, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, Miles, you are excluding sources based on your particular presuppositions and opinions. Everyone can see it. Please remember that compromise is required to achieve consensus. You seem to me to be being fairly uncompromising, and it's not really source-based and we all know it. Yworo (talk) 14:27, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Per policy, I don't reject, I prioritize. Sources like the OCP are worth a dozen lesser sources. As for your intimations and personal slights, I find them insulting and counterproductive. MilesMoney (talk) 03:26, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Miles you rejected previous compromises. You wanted a qualifier, you accepted novelist-philosopher as per Dictionary of Modern American Philosophers. This qualifier describes precisely what kind of philosopher she was, she is the novelist-philosopher par excellence. Κατ' εξοχήν novelist-Φιλόσοφος ;-) So how do we proceed now if there are no objections from others? --DagonAmigaOS (talk) 00:22, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I say we proceed by creating a binding RFC, unlike Yworo's. MilesMoney (talk) 03:26, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

"Trained" is generally taken to mean a terminal credential, not anything less, so "untrained" is appropriate. 98.118.26.43 (talk) 16:14, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm the one who added that word and I stand by its accuracy. Unfortunately, there is a lot of pressure from people whose love for Rand exceeds their understanding (or loyalty to) Wikipedia policy. There's no other way to say it than that. MilesMoney (talk) 17:07, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Puppets

Anyone looking at the history of this article will find a series of concerted meat puppetry sites as well as the normal set of socks. Everytime there is a controversy on the page you can guarantee that there will be new pro-Rand SPA accounts created. I'm not sure if there is a wikipedia procedure for a mass check on sock puppets or a bad on newly created editors taking part on RfCs etc but if there is we need it, if not it should be created. If any passing admin has any ideas ....----Snowded ^TALK 03:02, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure you're right, but it shouldn't make any difference. No matter how many "different" people repeat the same view, none of them have the weight of policy and facts behind them.

The RFC is a huge joke because of the biased opening, and the comments are mostly "I love Rand so let's not say anything bad about her, no matter what our sources say". Nobody but nobody has come up with any sort of reasonable basis for calling her a philosopher without qualifications.

I don't see any comment like "I love Rand" what I see is comments like mine with sources like the Dictionary of American Philosophers that call Ayn Rand a philosopher without any adjectives. --DagonAmigaOS (talk) 21:08, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Tell me, if I visit my library and look this up, what will I really find? MilesMoney (talk) 21:22, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

You don't have to, go to the Amazon site and click to look inside. For example in page 1889 she is called novelist-philosopher, nowhere does she have an adjective. You think that novelist-philosopher is a type of philosopher and not two vocations? Fine by me. You wanted the exact type of philosopher she was, there you have it. Are we ok now? --DagonAmigaOS (talk) 21:31, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm ok, but your argument just fell apart. The article not only limits her philosophy with a qualifying term -- "novelist-philosopher" -- but it explains exactly what it means: "Rand worked primarily as a novelist and her philosophy is found in a variety of places, including novels, essays and monographs, but she never wrote a step-by-step explanation of her philosophy as a whole". In other words, she's not a novelist/philosopher, which is someone who is both; she's a philosopher through her novels, not through peer-reviewed papers, like regular philosophers. Your own citations shows that we must qualify "philosopher" when applying it to Rand. MilesMoney (talk) 22:22, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

If you are ok, I'm ok and if there is no objection from any other editors lets proceed with the novelist-philosopher. --DagonAmigaOS (talk) 01:20, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

There are objections. MilesMoney (talk) 03:28, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

So, sure, it does look like there's a lot of fakery, but even if it wasn't the case, they still lose. Well, unless they can trick some admin into doing a quick count and not looking at the details. But that wouldn't be WP:COMPETENT. MilesMoney (talk) 03:06, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

The Rule of Law: 1. If the facts are against you, argue the law. 2. If the law is against you, argue the facts. 3. If the facts and the law are against you, start a new thread with vague accusations. μηδείς (talk) 04:42, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Another way of putting this: 1. If the facts are against you, you pound on the law. 2. If the law is against you, you pound on the facts. 3. If the facts and law are against you, you pound on the table. – S. Rich (talk) 04:47, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Ah, well, then that explains why the two of you are pounding on the table so loudly. MilesMoney (talk) 04:56, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

And the facts of the case (check the archives) are that several editors have been banned for meat puppetry on this article, and new SPAs emerge every time there is a controversy. THe law (in so far as Wikipedia has them) ban this type of activity. I'll leave you to complete that for the third item ----Snowded ^TALK 08:20, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Checking the user contribs, I spot only one blatant SPA on the RFC thread above. By all means point it out, but it does not appear that puppets are seriously influencing the debate. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 12:53, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't matter, because the RFC is framed dishonestly with a deeply biased opening statement, so it's worthless. It doesn't help that the comments are a repetition of "But I like her!", and do not address policy and sources. Nobody will be bound by the results of this fake RFC. MilesMoney (talk) 19:43, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Best I can tell, there are only two editors participating in the RFC who have accounts less than three months old or less than 1000 edits, and those two are on opposite sides of the argument. Most participants have accounts over 3 years old with 10,000+ edits. If these are socks, then they are incredibly well-cultivated. Meatpuppetry is not easily disproved since we don't have access to everyone's off-wiki communications, but I have not seen any positive evidence for it either. More realistically, it seems like some editors are positioning themselves to reject the likely outcome of the RFC. That's unfortunate. --RL0919 (talk) 16:19, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't matter; the RFC is a joke. The OP insists that nobody is allowed to fix the biased statement and has edit-warred to keep it (and the biased subject line) intact. No matter what comes out of it, it does not represent any sort of consensus. MilesMoney (talk) 16:20, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

You may not believe it represents any sort of consensus, however it does. Just becuase you don't like the results does not invalidate the process. You may want to drop the WP:STICK. Arzel (talk) 16:59, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Imagine this:

Request for Comment: Arzel, burn as a witch or drown as a witch?!

Would you say than an RFC framed like this would be valid? Also, which of the two do you prefer, witch? :-) MilesMoney (talk) 19:37, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I would prefer is you are going to make some lame analogy that it have some logical thought behind it. Arzel (talk) 14:33, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

However we frame the RfC it is absurd to insist that the editors responding are confused, tricked, or not making their informed opinions perfectly clear. I am reminded of a friend from junior high who would invite us over to play scrabble, then overturn the board when loss was inevitable. μηδείς (talk) 21:41, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Sound like you're talking about Yworo's refusal to allow his hugely biased and factually inaccurate opening statement to be corrected, although comparing him to a child is probably a personal attack on your part. And if framing didn't work, millions wouldn't be spent on it. MilesMoney (talk) 23:20, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Close and Implement RfC

Can someone who knows how to go about such things get an admin to close and implement the RfC? μηδείς (talk) 18:22, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

The 'default' for RfCs is 30 days. (Please note, the "is/is not" discussion at Talk:Ayn_Rand#Again.2C_not_a_philosopher started 6 August and picked up in earnest on 21 August.) Perhaps WP:SNOW can be applied. So you might look at WP:ANRFC. Otherwise, the show must go on. – S. Rich (talk) 18:40, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I thought it was seven days. Roseanne Roseannadanna. μηδείς (talk) 20:43, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

See WP:RFC#Ending RfCs. 'Default' means the RfC gets dropped off the noticeboards after 30 days. Not that they do or should continue for 30 days. – S. Rich (talk) 20:48, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

If there had been no new input for a while then an early close might be justifiable, but the discussion in this one is active, with new participants expressing preferences as recently as yesterday. I realize the discussion is somewhat one-sided (as of this posting, 10 participants favoring "philosopher" with no qualifier, 3 wanting a qualifier, and 1 suggesting alternative wording), but that alone isn't ground to close it now. WP:SNOW is for even more egregious situations, such as lone proponents pushing items that have been recently rejected in a lopsided way. That's something that might happen after this RFC, but it isn't the situation at the moment. Better to let the discussion run its course and then have it cleanly closed by a neutral party. --RL0919 (talk) 21:18, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Agree that having a neutral party close is a good idea. Arzel (talk) 00:28, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Can't close what was never opened. However, an invalid RFC can be retracted and replaced with a legitimate RFC which consists of a brief, neutral question. That's my suggestion. MilesMoney (talk) 03:32, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

The internet equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and screeming "La la la la la la la" is not going to improve your argument. Arzel (talk) 14:36, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

You're right, I'm not listening to you; I'm following policy. MilesMoney (talk) 16:14, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

You are still standing here reading my comments, but you are definately not following policy. At least you give the impression that you will not follow policy when the RfC is closed. Arzel (talk) 16:32, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Policy says that this wasn't a legit RFC. MilesMoney (talk) 18:12, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Why the RfC must be closed as invalid

1. WP:RFC requires the opening statement to be neutral and brief. Yworo's started with two sentences selling his desired conclusion by inaccurately summarizing and framing the issue. This directly violated both requirements.

Much of the bias came from omission, such as failing to mention that every tertiary source goes on to explain that Rand was not a philosopher in the plain sense of the word, since she had no academic standing and was not accepted by academia.

Some of the bias came from the use of "opinion" to describe these qualifiers, when they are not opinions at all, but facts. For example, it is an uncontroversial and incontrovertible fact that Rand is a non-academic philosopher.

As a result of the bias in the opening statement, editors coming to this RfC started off with a biased understanding.

2. WP:RFC suggests that the opening statement is not owned by anyone and is subject to correction. It recommends asking someone else to write the statement for you if you aren't sure you can be neutral, or just doing your best and then inviting others to improve upon it.

When I tried to correct the bias in both the opening statement and the section header, Yworo edit-warred to retain the biased version. He then falsely accused me of violating WP:TPO, which explicitly allows changing text that is not owned by any editor.

As a result, the initial bias could not be corrected.

3.WP:RFC states that RfC's which are relevant in multiple categories are to be listed in all of them. Despite this, the RfC was listed only with WP:Requests for comment/Biographies, not WP:Requests for comment/Religion and philosophy.

This omission meant that the RfC was advertised to editors with no particular interest in or knowledge of philosophy, meaning that they were not likely to understand the technical issues relevant to whether Rand could be called a philosopher. Instead, they were taken from the group that deals with WP:BLP issues and could be counted on to be particularly sensitive to the appearance of disparagement. (Not that BLP applies to dead people or that the suggested qualifiers were disparaging.)

As a result, the RfC was not brought to the attention of those most qualified to deal with it.

These are severe errors. Because of them, the attempted RfC excluded the editors most likely to be able to understand the technical issues in favor of those concerned with avoiding defamation, misinformed and biased those who came here, and therefore does not represent the consensus of a meaningful cross-section of editors. This can be confirmed by reading the stated reasons behind each vote and noting how many of them are inconsistent with policy.

I made a concerted effort to fix these errors so that we could have a meaningful RfC, but Yworo prevented me from doing so. As a result, all that remains is to declare this RfC invalid due to non-compliance with policy and start over again, only following policy this time. MilesMoney (talk) 09:12, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Three sentences is brief enough. Numerous RFCs have longer openings than that. Your own revision of the statement was even longer, and more augmentative. The only mild bias in the initial wording was in referring to the qualifiers as "opinion". That's hardly enough to throw off the many experienced editors participating in the RFC, especially when you have personally responded to every single participant (save one) who did not endorse your position, often engaging in extended discussions with them. You cannot plausibly claim they are giving their opinion based solely on the RFC opening statement. As to topic placement, that was easy to fix, but you didn't even try to. The RFC is only half over, so I guess we'll see if the additional topic placement has any material impact. You are also free to notify various wikiprojects (if you can muster a neutral notification per WP:CANVASS), but have not. Regardless, it isn't particularly relevant to complain about your changes being reverted when they didn't address any of the concerns you think "invalidate" the RFC: they didn't make the intro shorter or less biased (just biased in a different direction), and they didn't add it to any more topics. Basically you've just used the reversion as a justification for ignoring the opinions of the majority of participants in the discussion. --RL0919 (talk) 15:46, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

RL, it would be very easy for me to debunk your comments. For example, if you thought my version went too far in the opposite direction, why didn't you make it neutral as opposed to restoring the original? Yeah, hard question and you have no answer. I'm willing to discuss all of my points with an admin who's here to close down this mess, but I don't believe it would be productive to keep on repeating myself with you. MilesMoney (talk) 17:53, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I didn't restore the original; Yworo did. I said it didn't matter much which wording was used. Sensible editors can see past minor biases in wording. --RL0919 (talk) 18:20, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

To declare the RfC invalid, you will need a consensus of respondants saying so. You ain't got that, and never will. You need to get a new hobby other than attempting to force this article to your preferred wording. I'm sure there are plenty of other articles waiting for your expertise, Miles. Yworo (talk) 16:15, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

No, actually, we don't. Please read policy. MilesMoney (talk) 17:53, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Please include some mention of the opening of "Anthem" in New York, September 2013.

Altho the main article may still be in dispute, I truly hope the dominant editors of Wikipedia will allow some mention of the play, "Anthem", opening in New York in September 2013. Tripodics (talk) 03:46, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I've played a role in the article being locked down so I apologize for the inconvenience that it's caused you. It's absolutely reasonable to give the new "Anthem" staging a sentence, perhaps near the end of Ayn_Rand#Popular_interest. What you could do is write up that sentence here, including a citation to confirm it, and we can ask for it to be inserted into the article. How does that sound? MilesMoney (talk) 03:55, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Frank O'Connor

I noticed that Frank O'Connor, Ayn Rand's husband, does not have his own article on him. (However, he does on Simple English Wikipedia, which is interesting.) Even if his acting career was not significant enough to grant him a separate article, he did illustrate the original cover of Atlas Shrugged, which is a pretty notable feat. Anyone else have thoughts? Michipedian (talk) 06:58, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Poor Frank. I feel sorry for him, sometimes. Sure, he's notable enough for his own article, but there's just not a lot to say. I read that small article, but if you write it in typical English, it gets even smaller. If you take out the duplication with this article, it's barely a stub. Still, it's a completely reasonable idea and you're welcome to try. Maybe you could find some material about how he reacted to the Branden affair; there's plenty from Barbara's POV but Frank had to have said something, right? MilesMoney (talk) 14:40, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

There is actually an "article" page for him, but currently it redirects to this article. This was decided after a discussion in 2009 about whether he was truly notable. Notability is not inherited, and as far as anyone was able to determine, all discussion of him in sources stems from his relationship to Rand. Historical discussions at Talk:Frank O'Connor (actor)#Notability and Wikipedia:WikiProject Objectivism/Cross talk/Archive 5#Inherited notability. --RL0919 (talk) 14:52, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Poor Frank, always the third wheel. MilesMoney (talk) 14:59, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Ending the War on Philosophy.

At some point, the RFC will expire and it's going to lead to a mess. Since its opening statement directly violates WP:RFC by being long and prejudicial, it's not going to be universally accepted as binding, which will put us right back where we began. We can expect the article to be frozen on and off for extended periods, stymying all our efforts to gradually improve it.

In the meantime, Rich and I brokered an alternative that finally puts an end to years of fighting that stems from calling her a philosopher in the lede. It would look something like this:

Ayn Rand (/ˈaɪn ˈrænd/; born Alisa Zinov'yevna Rosenbaum; February 2 [O.S. January 20] 1905 – March 6, 1982) was an American novelist, playwright, and screenwriter, who later in her career wrote philosophical essays aimed at the general public.

Nobody denies that she wrote these essays, but this wording avoids deciding whether writing them makes her a philosopher, an amateur philosopher, a popular philosopher, a novelist-philosopher, the best philosopher ever, or the second coming of Hitler. It's neutral, it's factual, it's uncontroversial. It's a compromise that doesn't please everyone, but avoids the RFC mess entirely and lets us get back to work. I endorse it. MilesMoney (talk) 14:34, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Your proposed wording is preposterous. I am utterly opposed to it. It's simply another misguided effort to avoid calling Rand a philosopher, and it's downright bizarre - there is no meaningful sense in which writing "philosophical essays" is not the same as being a philosopher. The proposed wording is not even factually accurate - Rand undoubtedly wanted both the general public and professional philosophers to read her work. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:45, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I've written philosophical essays, even polemical ones, but it would be preposterous to call me a philosopher. Maybe I'd qualify as an amateur philosopher, but that's stretching it a bit. MilesMoney (talk) 21:17, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Try addressing the issue seriously. It's not relevant what you have or haven't written (and your opinion that something you wrote qualifies as a "philosophical essay" may not necessarily be shared by others). FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:33, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm using myself as an example to prove a point: just writing a philosophical essay doesn't make someone a professional philosopher. Having it published by a peer-reviewed periodical might be an indicator, but I think we both know that Rand was ignored by academia during her lifetime. MilesMoney (talk) 01:02, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Additionally, that lead sentence does not mention Objectivism, which seems to be rather significant. Michipedian (talk) 13:14, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok, that's a fair criticism. We should definitely mention Objectivism prominently. Let's try:

Ayn Rand (/ˈaɪn ˈrænd/; born Alisa Zinov'yevna Rosenbaum; February 2 [O.S. January 20] 1905 – March 6, 1982) was an American novelist, playwright, and screenwriter. Later in her career, she extended the political ideas in her novels into polemical philosophical essays aimed at the general public, which formed the basis for Objectivism.

There's room for improvement here, but I think it satisfied your requirements. MilesMoney (talk) 14:46, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I think that's on the right track, although Objectivism entails considerably more than the political ideas in her novels. It also fails to encapsulate the movement behind Objectivism, with which Rand is very much associated. I think something like this may be better:

Ayn Rand (/ˈaɪn ˈrænd/; born Alisa Zinov'yevna Rosenbaum; February 2 [O.S. January 20] 1905 – March 6, 1982) was a Russian-American novelist, playwright, screenwriter, and essayist. She is most widely known for her two best selling novels, The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, and for developing a philosophical system that she called Objectivism.

I'm not sure how Objectivists would feel about this intro, but I think that from a WP:NPOV, it works. Michipedian (talk) 19:42, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

It's an absurd, tortured attempt to avoid the obvious. The RfC will close soon, we'll revert to going by the sources, and this incessant disruption will cease. μηδείς (talk) 19:47, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

There is no RFC. There was never an RFC. MilesMoney (talk) 21:11, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I completely endorse the comment by Medeis above. Pretending there is no RFC won't help. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:12, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

What makes something a binding RFC is that it follows WP:RFC. From the start, it violated these rules, and my efforts to fix this were refused. As a result, what remains fails to meet the requirements for an RFC. If you disagree, explain how even the opening statement is consistent with what that policy requires. MilesMoney (talk) 08:03, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

We don't actually have to care how they feel so long as those feelings conflict with policy. It looks fine. MilesMoney (talk) 21:11, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Cool. One thought I had was that we could include the fact that some consider her a philosopher while others do not. I feel that a sentence in the lead that addresses this would be helpful as it characterizes the divide in public opinion of her. Michipedian (talk) 21:25, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't disagree, and in fact have supported similar changes, but it's something you can expect her fans to fight to the last. A few of them piled on here and refused to accept that we have extremely good sources that call her an amateur philosopher. Now consider how they'll react to her not being called a philosopher at all.

My view is that she's "some sort of" philosopher, but not simply a philosopher, the way someone with a proper degree might be. I'm ok with calling her a philosopher so long as we qualify it, and I'm ok with avoiding the issue through sentences like the ones you suggested. I just don't want to lie to readers by making them think she was a philosopher in the plain sense of the word. MilesMoney (talk) 21:29, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with all of that. The problem with descriptive words like "amateur", "untrained", or "non-academic" is that they come off as belittling. I think being honest about the fact that her status as a philosopher is contested may be the fairest way of writing the lead. Maybe with a sentence like:

Many consider her a philosopher, although some contest this title as she was not an academic.

Just a thought. Michipedian (talk) 21:47, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not convinced they're belittling, but even if they were, there's actually no prohibition against that. If anything, our requirement for neutrality is defined with regard to mainstream sources, and since academic philosophers routinely belittle her as incompetent or worse, we are obligated to reflect their views.

However we phrase it, we must make it completely clear that she was not a philosopher in the sense that someone might expect if we just used that word alone. She had no training, nor equivalent knowledge, and she was rejected by those in the field. There's no way to say this without offending some of her fans, but we're not here to lie about her to make her sound better than she was. MilesMoney (talk) 22:03, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Good point. Is there a way we could get an official definition of "amateur philosopher" on Wikipedia? Then people will know this is a factual designation and will not be constantly at risk for being edited. Michipedian (talk) 22:07, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, what's needed is a strong reliable source, and we have one. I've copied and pasted the relevant part here.

There was some disagreement over whether we could call Rand a "popular philosopher", where my concern was that the term was ambiguous. Besides its technical meaning, it could very easily be misunderstood as saying she was popular, which is true but irrelevant. Even its technical meaning, which is what that article I linked to is about, admits to three different senses of the term.

According to the article, the sense that applies to Rand is that she's an amateur. The summary of why amounts to what I said earlier: she lacks the training or equivalent knowledge, and is not accepted as a professional philosopher by professional philosophers. But read for yourself. MilesMoney (talk) 22:21, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, according to that definition, Rand was certainly an amateur. I'm not sure about including this in the lead though because one might ask why we don't call Descartes and Hume amateur philosophers in their introductions. Michipedian (talk) 00:21, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

The OCP article explains why the category wouldn't apply to them:

"amateur philosophy, presupposes the existence of professional philosophy to define itself against [...] In that last gap all notable philosophers, from Descartes to Hume, were, formally, amateurs. Amateur philosophy as a genre is really a creation of the nineteenth century with its mass literacy and self-education."

They're only amateurs formally, whereas Rand's amateur status is not just a formality. MilesMoney (talk) 00:30, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Ah, you're right on that point. Well I think that is a pretty solid definition. It should be clarified though that if her views were ever to catch on in academia, she may be at the ranks of simply a philosopher, as the article you cited clarifies for Coleridge. That being said, with her current status, she should not be called a philosopher without qualification.

This then raises the question of whether or not Objectivism be considered an amateur philosophy. Albeit few, there are professional philosophers who fully advocate for Objectivism. (Leonard Peikoff, for example.) Does that qualify her philosophy as professional? Michipedian (talk) 00:49, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Rand will remain an amateur, regardless, because she's not going to get a doctorate from beyond the grave. Objectivism started as an amateur philosophy made by an amateur philosopher but it can be plausibly argued that Peikoff and others have since renovated it until it meets the basic standards for a philosophical system that can be addressed by academia. This is what I most recently wrote for the lede of Objectivism (Ayn Rand). MilesMoney (talk) 03:33, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Please note that this classification is the opinion of one source. There are many sources, including other encyclopedias of philosophy, that call her a philosopher without any "amateur" designation. (See the lists here for multiple references.) Promoting the opinion of one source in the lead as if were simple fact is not appropriate, as the clear majority of participants in the RFC have affirmed. --RL0919 (talk) 01:02, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Ah, did not know about that. I don't know. Michipedian (talk) 01:50, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Mich, meet RL. He's a great big fan of Rand; even runs a web site that's a shrine dedicated to her memory. He has strong opinions about all things Rand, yet these sometimes deviate from reality. For example, he's wrong about this issue.

Yes, some other sources do call her a philosopher, but they typically go on to explain that she's not a philosopher in the plain sense of the word. Academic philosophers also tend to judge her very harshly, due to issues of basic competence.

I alluded to this earlier, in the context of how she's often called a "popular philosopher", which we can now decode to mean amateur. RL doesn't like it, but he can't deny that it's well-sourced.

As always, I recommend testing all claims that you find suspect, and even some you don't, just to keep everyone honest. MilesMoney (talk) 03:33, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, checking the other sources is a good idea. I've included a number of quotes. She certainly wasn't an academic or writing primarily for academic audiences, and no one claims she was. So an acknowledgement of that in the lead, through a term such as "popular philosopher" or "non-academic philosopher" would be fine with me, but Miles and others in the RFC minority have repeatedly denounced such phrasings as being too flattering to Rand. She is in fact called a "popular philosopher" in a number of sources. 'Popular' doesn't mean 'amateur' in general parlance -- it would mean either "targeting a general audience rather than specialists" or "widely liked". The source that brings the two terms together is the same one being relied on for the "amateur" designation in the first place. So we're back to the problem of promoting the views of one source in the lead. --RL0919 (talk) 15:34, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I think "non-academic philosopher" is pretty fair. It doesn't have any confusing connotations (like "amateur" and "popular"), and it is clear what it means. It seems that people on both sides of the debate would be OK with this, as well. The lead sentence would then start out with something like:

Ayn Rand (/ˈaɪn ˈrænd/; born Alisa Zinov'yevna Rosenbaum; February 2 [O.S. January 20] 1905 – March 6, 1982) was a Russian-American playwright, screenwriter, novelist, and non-academic philosopher. She is most widely known for her two best selling novels, The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, and for developing a philosophical system that she called Objectivism.

Thoughts? Michipedian (talk) 04:55, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

As I've pointed out previously, the OCP article distinguishes between the non-academic and the amateur. It offers examples of non-academics who are nonetheless professional. It then pointedly excludes Rand from this list. I don't see why we should ignore this reliable source by using a term that is more ambiguous. MilesMoney (talk) 05:16, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

The problem with the amateur distinction seems to be the lack of reliable sources that use this term. Do you know of other sources that have the amateur classification? Michipedian (talk) 05:29, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Don't let RL convince you that the bar is impossibly high. Nowhere in policy does it say that we need more than one reliable source using a specific word in order to include it. In fact, we don't need any at all.

Editors are free to accurately summarize these sources, as opposed to quoting them. Plenty of sources say, in a variety of ways, that Rand is not an academic philosopher both because she lacks the education and the associated skills. For example, the SEP says:

"For all her popularity, however, only a few professional philosophers have taken her work seriously. As a result, most of the serious philosophical work on Rand has appeared in non-academic, non-peer-reviewed, journals, or in books, and the bibliography reflects this fact."

I would say it is entirely fair to summarize this as "amateur". MilesMoney (talk) 08:01, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I can't say that I agree with that, honestly. Why are you opposed to using something less controversial, like "non-academic"? It seems like "amateur" is technically true according to this one source but has insulting connotations. "Non-academic" does not have bad connotations, is factually true, has a clear definition (unlike "amateur", which would most likely require people to view the source to understand what it means), and pro-Rand people have accepted it. Michipedian (talk) 09:08, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Any negative connotation is acceptable because it accurately reflects our sources. Academia generally rejects the notion that she is qualified. It is not neutral to suppress a view simply because it's unflattering. MilesMoney (talk) 18:27, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

There are also multiple sources for it, unlike the single source Miles so strongly emphasizes. Funny thing is, it's not even that great of a source for information about Rand. Sure, it's generally of good quality: a reference work from a respected academic publisher. But the specific article isn't from an expert on Rand. Quinton has never written a book or article about her, not even the one cited -- it's an article about "popular philosophy" that mentions Rand in half a sentence. It's also a tertiary source. Tertiary sources can be particularly useful when they explicitly summarize what is generally believed in a field, but this particular article doesn't claim to do that. Otherwise, secondary sources are the most preferred for Wikipedia sourcing. WP:RS and WP:NOR are both explicit about that. If we turn to peer-reviewed secondary sources from academics who have expertise on Rand but have no personal association with her -- basically the gold standard for WP sources -- then you find statements such as the following:

• "...this book is devoted to an assessment of Ayn Rand the philosopher. All the contributors to this volume agree that she is a philosopher and not a mere popularizer." (Den Uyl & Rasmussen, The Philosophic Thought of Ayn Rand, p. x)

That is just one example, which I note is from academics who are not Objectivists, so critics can't dismiss them as biased "cultists". There are more from other sources that just call her 'philosopher' without qualifiers. Of course there are secondary sources that do refer to her with various qualifiers before 'philosopher', although 'amateur' isn't typically one of them. For example, looking for "nonacademic", one could find this:

• "Arguably the modern thinker who best represents the egoistic stance in ethics has been the popular writer Ayn Rand (1905-1982), Russian immigrant turned novelist and nonacademic philosopher." (John C. Merrill, "Ayn Rand: Rational Self-Interest" in Ethical Communication: Moral Stances in Human Dialogue, p. 86)

There are a few others with 'nonacademic'/'non-academic' (although not as many for that as for no qualifier or for some others). I'm not going to repeat every source I already assembled in a separate list, but basically there are enough to overwhelm the one source that Miles is promoting in terms of quantity, relevance, and author expertise on the subject. --RL0919 (talk) 13:42, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

As the RfC dealing with the lede sentence is closed, is this section needed or helpful? I closed a number of other RfC related threads and I urge that this one be closed as well. New topics abound, and will be discussed (I'm sure) in a more productive fashion by opening new threads. – S. Rich (talk) 04:45, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 8 October 2013

Remove the word "untrained" from the lead sentence, per closed RfC above. Yworo (talk) 18:04, 8 October 2013 (UTC) Yworo (talk) 18:04, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

This request is controversial and is not supported by consensus. MilesMoney (talk) 18:29, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Your edit is was controversial and is was not supported by consensus. How could you possibly think this would be non-controversial given the discussion above? I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 18:35, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Read the requirements for editing a protected page. You seem very unfamiliar with the policies you are trying to follow and enforce. MilesMoney (talk) 18:40, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not talking about editing a protected page. I am not sure if you understand or not because you've fixed this indentation for me-- I am referring to your original edit for which Yworo is now requesting removal, before the page was protected. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 18:58, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

You know, an RfC establishes consensus much better than endless arguing, bickering and nitpicking. By not having an RfC on the matter, you've been able to bully the other editors on this page, Miles, but not anymore. I suggest you go find something more useful to do. Personally, I'm thinking about a User RfC and/or referal to arbitration enforcement with respect to your continued disruption. Yworo (talk) 19:24, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

•  Done No comment on the merits of the RFC or it's close, but per consensus determined by the close.--v/r - TP 19:29, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

  Thank you, TParis. Yworo (talk) 19:30, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

A romance to remember?

There was a strange change from "affair" to "romance". What's odd is that it was unambiguously an affair because Branden was still married at the time. The fact that he eventually divorced his wife and married his mistress might make it seem more romantic in RL's eyes, but doesn't stop it from being an affair. What's really odd is that the very next second calls it an affair. Why are we doing this? And I have to ask: Is there any possible motive other than trying to make these people sound better than what the facts say about them? MilesMoney (talk) 21:26, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Several weeks ago I saw a particular editor complain elsewhere about how the Rand-Branden affair was treated in the article. Much of the complaint was just anti-Rand spin, but I did take to heart the particular point that Branden's relationship with Scott was described somewhat unfairly given that it was not just a fling. Unfortunately the article was stuck in a quagmire over a different topic. Now that the other matter is resolved, I circled round to this. If you don't like the new word (or just want to WP:BATTLE any edit I make here because obviously I'm filled with nefarious motives for even small changes), feel free to revert. It isn't an especially significant point to me -- not every word change has to have some grand importance attached to it. --RL0919 (talk) 21:42, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Affair and Romance are the same for all purposes here. It would appear to be little more than a stylistic change. I agree with RL that it does not seem to be a big deal. Arzel (talk) 21:45, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

RL, I didn't touch your change because I wanted to give you a fair chance to explain it. Now that you have, I think it makes sense to go back to consistently calling the affair an affair. MilesMoney (talk) 22:32, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Post-RfC article improvement issues

As the question of the lede sentence is resolved by the RfC, editors are encouraged to bring up new concerns here and below (via new threads). – S. Rich (talk)

Rich, I'm not gonna lie you: this looks really bad for you and Yworo. The two of you have been sweeping the talk page clear of uncomfortable discussions about what sort of philosopher, if any, Rand might be.

To remind you, the scope of the RfC was limited to how she should be described in the lede, with many who supported you agreeing that this issue must be discussed in the body. By trying so hard to terminate the discussion, you're interfering with that next step and violating any number of policies. You even edit-warred when SPECIFICO protested your hasty hatting.

Are you going to fix this or do I need to? MilesMoney (talk) 05:26, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand. The RfC is closed and bringing up issues already resolved in the RfC cannot lead to article improvement. Each of the threads I closed was directly related to the closed RfC, but they had unproductive comments. My comment in this section simply encourages editors to start up new threads as appropriate. Please feel free to open new topics, as you have done above. And contest the RfC (or its' closing) if you wish – doing so won't take any skin off my teeth. Please note that I have modified the section heading. Why? I hope editors can get back to WP:TPYES discussions. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 05:46, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I think I was quite clear. The sections you hatted were discussions about what to call Rand, not just what to call her in the lede. The RfC covered only the latter, so you are interfering with the former. The RfC does not justify ending all discussion on the topic of what to call Rand in the rest of the article.

Two editors have asked you to unhat these sections. Are you going to do so? MilesMoney (talk) 05:58, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Gotta admit, I don't think any discussions other than the officially closed RFC should be hatted. There may well be additional discussion to be had about the philosopher/not philosopher/qualified philosopher question in the body. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 12:38, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Consider what was closed. "NPOV check" started off with a concern about the lede and using "amateur". It died off in one day. Dervorguilla's addition simply added the quote from Stanford, but we'd already seen that cite provided a few times before. "RFC wording" dealt with the validity of the RFC, but that is a topic for another forum. Nothing was being added, nor could anything useful be added. "Key source for RFC" provided background reading for the RFC when it was open. But it is no longer needed. "Puppets" sorta dealt with who was contributing, but it had no focus (other than existing as a space for editors to take jabs at each other. "Close and Implement RFC" by its' very title shows it is no longer useful. "Ending the War on Philosophy" is another useless thread that should be closed.

Are any of these threads being used for collaboration? More importantly, would reopening any of these threads lead to more collaboration? WP:TPOC specifically says that off-topic material can be collapsed and/or moved to the talk page of the editor that started the off-topic discussion. And WP:CLOSE says "After a while, it is time to close the discussion so that the community can move on." That is what has been done. Now if editors do not like the fact that these branches of the RfC have been closed, I hope they will look at Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Challenging other closures. Also, WP:JDI may be helpful. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 14:14, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

"Closing" is atypical for ordinary article talk page discussions and seems unnecessary for most of these threads. Several of them had already become inactive even while the RFC was proceeding, and most likely no one will add to discussions about RFC wording, "puppets" in the RFC, etc., after the RFC itself is closed. They'll all eventually be archived by the bot, but in the meantime I don't see any harm in them sitting "open" on the page. --RL0919 (talk) 14:36, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I would strongly suggest that talk page sections here only be archived based on age, rather than how relevant individuals feel they are. This is a contentious enough subject as it is, so we don't need to fight about procedural things like talk page archiving. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:50, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Before I revert my closings, I'll ask – are these "ordinary article talk page discussions"? – S. Rich (talk) 15:09, 9 October 2013 (UTC) Ehhh – really a rhetorical question. The sections are now reopened. I shall continue to follow with interest. 15:28, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 October 2013

"We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission." ―Ayn Rand, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal Please Put The below Information Back In, It Was JUST Removed? Thank You ~ "The author Ayn Rand Attempted a Positive Moral Defense of Laissez-faire Capitalism as such but in Highly Romantic or Literary Terms that Did Not Stand Logical or Historical Scrutiny. ~ The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies 7 (2): 329–349." 76.120.238.155 (talk) 14:19, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't recall either of those passages being in the article in the last few years. If you want them inserted somewhere, you'll need to be a bit more specific about where you think they would be relevant. The second one appears to be text from the Wikipedia article on Capitalism, so maybe you are confusing this article with that one? --RL0919 (talk) 15:51, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

 Not done It's not clear what you're requesting to be added to the article or the sources to support it. Nor do I see any sort of developing consensus after two days and plenty of eyes on it.--v/r - TP 12:11, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Whose movement is it anyway?

Here's the sentence in dispute:

The Objectivist movement she spawned attempts to spread her ideas, both to the public and in academic settings.

I added "she spawned" to make it clear that the movement is something she intentionally created during her lifetime, not simply the work of those who happened to be influenced by her. I am, of course, talking about the Collective and the NBI/ARS. Arzel believes that the phrase is redundant, but it seems to me that it adds a bit. I don't think this is worth a month-long RfC to decide, but I'd like more feedback from others. MilesMoney (talk) 18:17, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't see anything problematic about the clarification as such. The word "spawned" seems oddly physical for this -- I would go with "founded", which is how it is described in the lead of the Objectivist movement article. --RL0919 (talk) 21:05, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm ok with "founded". MilesMoney (talk) 21:36, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Here we go again. Arzel just reverted the compromise and hasn't joined the conversation. If this isn't edit-warring, it's edit-warring's identical twin. MilesMoney (talk) 22:06, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Arzel was quite right to revert that edit, and the reasons he gave were good and sufficient. I would have reverted the edit myself if he had not. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:42, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I did not notice this conversation initially. It is pretty clear that it is here philosophy because it is stated immediately prior. There is no reason to bludgeon the reader with excessive words that state the obvious. I would ask MM why he thinks it is necessary. Arzel (talk) 22:52, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

It is a legitimate clarification. The movement is not the same thing as the philosophy it promotes -- hypothetically the movement could have arisen after her death. I [don't] know that it is a necessary clarification, but it isn't entirely redundant. --RL0919 (talk) 02:43, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it's a helpful but not essential clarification. MilesMoney (talk) 03:01, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I think it's fair to say that the Objectivist movement started with The Collective and then the Nathaniel Branden Institute. Michipedian (talk) 03:11, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Are you ok with the phrasing? MilesMoney (talk) 03:19, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we should be concerned with hypothetical scenarios. The clarification isn't necessary. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:36, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I believe I said that the clarification isn't essential. How is that argument against it being an improvement? Do you have an argument of that sort? Does Arzel? MilesMoney (talk) 04:43, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have clarified that my comment was a response to RL0919, not to you. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:57, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

In that case, you now owe me a response, as does Arzel. MilesMoney (talk) 06:24, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Russian-American

Seems like at least three editors are involved in a dispute over describing Rand as "Russian-American" in the opening sentence. I don't particularly care one way or the other, but it should be discussed here now that there have been multiple reverts. --RL0919 (talk) 21:10, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Right, and we also call her Russian-American on Objectivism (Ayn Rand), so let's be consistent. I don't actually understand Yworo's argument; he made a brief mention of WP:OPENPARA, which is the relevant policy, but never explained why he thinks it supports his version. MilesMoney (talk) 21:36, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

1RR

I have placed this article under a 1RR restriction. When the protection expires, any editor making any edit that undoes the edit of another user more than once within a 7 day period without a clear consensus on the article talk page will be blocked. Clear consensus is determined at the discretion of the imposing administrator.--v/r - TP 01:02, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

So that there is no possibility of misunderstanding here, what you are saying is that anyone who makes more than one revert without consensus per week will be blocked? Is that correct? I ask because a one revert rule usually applies per day rather than per week. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:25, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:1RR specifies that administrators have replaced "per 24 hour period" with "per week" before. I felt it was necessary because some of this edit warring spans days, not hours.--v/r - TP 01:36, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I see. Well, I think the effect of this will probably be to discourage anyone from editing the article at all. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:43, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

1RR is better than locked. --RL0919 (talk) 02:50, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

It's roughly the same as locked, except that it's more likely to generate blocks. MilesMoney (talk) 02:59, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Big lede

The more I look at it, the more I think that the second paragraph is too big. It's trying to be a summary of the philosophy section, but that section is already a summary of the Objectivism (Ayn Rand) article, and even trying to reduce each stance to a single line takes up too much space. The article is on Ayn Rand, not Objectivism, so we should be using that space to summarize her life, not just her ideas. MilesMoney (talk) 06:51, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment on Jreferee's changes

After reading them, I think they're generally an improvement. One part that I think was better before is:

Born and educated in Russia, Rand moved to the United States in 1926.

as opposed to:

After moving from Russia to the United States in 1926, Rand had a play produced on Broadway in 1935–1936.

The new version flows better and includes the part about Night of January 16 (though still not by name). What it loses is the fact that she was educated through college in Russia. Maybe we could have something like:

Born and educated in Russia, Rand moved to the United States in 1926, and had a play produced on Broadway in 1935.

This ditches the unnecessary detail of how long it remained on Broadway, but shows that she went from immigrant to somewhat successful playwright in about a decade. MilesMoney (talk) 13:43, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Some elements of the change were good, others not, but it was inappropriate for Jreferee to edit through the full protection to make substantive changes that had no prior discussion, and especially inappropriate to make a change to the "Russian-American" wording that is part of an ongoing dispute. The entire edit should be reverted -- preferably self-reverted by Jreferee, but if not, then reverted by a neutral admin. Then Jreferee can join everyone else in discussing changes to get consensus, which is what is supposed to happen until the protection expires. --RL0919 (talk) 14:22, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Search the article for Russia and you'll see that the article coveys it as an important aspect of her life (at least 21 years). Factually, she was born in Russia so that is why I wrote it that way in the lead. I left the educated in Russia part out because it did not fit chronologically in the sentence and seemed too much information in that sentence. If she was born in 1905 in Russia and moved from Russia to the US in 1926 and she is a writer and philosopher, the reader will figure out that she was educated during that time and it says where in the body of the article so I did not think it necessary in the lead to say she was educated in Russia. Initially, I did not include the part about moving from Russia, but it was needed for context. As for editing through protection, the page protection and the Talk:Ayn_Rand#1RR do not mention anything about specific Russian American verbiage. There was not really a discussion on the point for which the article was protected until consensus outcome was reached as far as I can tell. I have no interest in the topic. My edit was based on my read through of what the article says and MOS:LEAD - "lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects." I'm headed out for a bit, but feel free to revise what I posted if it does not reflect "an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects." -- Jreferee (talk) 14:33, 11 October 2013 (UTC)