Talk:Ayn Rand

Far too long. Far too detailed Lacks objectivity and a neutral point of view.

This article takes a vanishingly minor intellectual and rather minor cultural figure and treats her work -- of which actual philosophers and literary scholars take little or no note -- as if it were the combined output of the Enlightenment. The article is far too broken to be fixed line-by-line. It should be deleted and begun anew. It need only be a paragraph or two. Its sheer size and detail belies all claims to a "neutral point of view". It seems written by fan-boys, with more objective editors only able to tamp down some of their enthusiasm by introducing some of the criticisms that are made of Rand; this has the paradoxical effect of magnifying her importance by making it seem that actual philosophers think of her much or often, which, because they consider her work so poor and insignificant, they do not. In fact, virtually no philosophers consider her work to be philosophy at all. Articles like this are what keep Wikipedia from being a trusted and citable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.225.29.0 (talk) 03:19, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

You are free to hold whatever view you wish of Rand and her work, but this page is not a forum for discussing people's personal views of Rand. Realistically the article is not going to be "deleted and begun anew", as you propose, so you will have to think of less drastic methods of improving it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:23, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Noting the irony of the title of this section compared with the verbiage posted by the individual created it. TheDarkOneLives (talk) 01:55, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, you probably wanted to contribute something on the "lighter" note, but, in my mind it's hard to deny its substance and point made.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 14:20, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Not hard to deny at all - just look at the reality and the denial is self-evident. It's hard for *you* and the legions of your fellow bashers who've had no such impact on the marketplace of ideas to deny because her thoughts offend your leftist sensibilities. One indicator of the scope of her impact is the legions of bashers - who typically can't even articulately outline what she had to say - that she still keeps busy 38 years after her death - your presence here is self-contradictory evidence of this. :) TheDarkOneLives (talk) 05:19, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Cleanup

I did some copyediting of the article just now, mostly focusing on punctuation and paragraphs. It's a difficult article to write and edit because of how polarizing she was, but I think it mostly succeeds, so I tried very hard not to meddle with this delicate balance. The only non-trivial change I made, and it's still a small one, was to substitute one direct quote to accurately reflect our sources. FollowTheSources (talk) 00:51, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2021

In section `Later years' add ``University of Pennsylvania. Ayn Rand delivered the Annual Oration at the Philomathean Society of the University of Pennsylvania (http://philomathean.org/page/Events/Annual_Oration). 2601:47:4301:A3F0:30CF:EDD5:9753:2C1F (talk) 22:37, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done I don't see a problem with adding it to the mentions of her university appearances, but we should have a source better than the website of a student group. I did a bit of searching but didn't come up with one yet. --RL0919 (talk) 01:59, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

New external link

I would like to suggest a new external link for the article from Jennifer Burns, Stanford University: Ayn Rand: Trump's Favorite Intellectual contribution on Die Zeit. Thanks in advance. --2003:E7:EF1D:F400:705E:6D11:D091:7A52 (talk) 07:14, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Influence on Israeli politicians

An editor has twice attempted to add material about Rand influencing various Israeli political figures. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, but I've reverted the additions twice now because of the poor quality of the sourcing for these claims. Claims about living people need solid sourcing. That means third-party reliable sources for facts (not opinion pieces, blogs, etc.) or an explicit declaration by that person. These sources must actually say that Rand has been an influence on their political thinking. Sources that say they read her novels, identified with a particular character, etc., are not enough to claim political influence. Also, social media posts and interviews are acceptably only for what the person says about themselves, not as sources for claims they make about other people. --RL0919 (talk) 13:59, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

So this means, an article making inferences, such as so-and-so said x, y and z, and Rand said x, y and z, therefore so-and-so was apparently influenced by Rand, does not count and should be treated as speculation. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 15:12, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

It looks like Ayalet Shaked may have said something specifically referencing Rand, but it's hard for me to tell as it's all in Hebrew. It's important to have English-language references here as this is English Wikipedia. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 15:24, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I think Rand's influence on Shaked can be properly sourced. I've added her with The New York Times as the reference. --RL0919 (talk) 03:37, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

The influence that Rand has had on politicians outside the US is certainly of general interest. I have had *personal* conversations with Netanyahu on the matter. It can also be seen in following policy changes over recent decades. I think all references should remain, even if they "spoil" the appearance of a "perfect" article. This will allow editors to butress them with more of the "ironclad" references some seek.These references also appear unchallenged in Hebrew Wikipedia. They go much-much beyond so-and-so said x, y and z, and Rand said x, y and z ... Avisalon (talk) 06:40, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

@Avisalon: You need print references, preferably in English. User:RL0919 has given a good example of what to do. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 14:17, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it would be so nice if all sources were in English... Avisalon (talk) 11:21, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

@Avisalon: Find some, like RL0919 did -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 15:19, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

To be clear, my concern is not about "the appearance of a 'perfect' article". Removing poorly sourced claims about living people is an English Wikipedia policy. I can't speak to what is on Hebrew Wikipedia, but over here it has been pretty common for someone to want to insert a claim about Rand influencing this or that person, with very poor evidence to support that claim. We try to get those resolved quickly, either removing the claim or finding a better source to support it. Leaving poorly sourced content in the hope that someone will improve it someday is not a good option for this type of material. --RL0919 (talk) 16:36, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Also, private conversations or emails are not the kind of thing that you are allowed to reference on Wikipedia. It's hearsay that can't be verified independently. Even if you are sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it.-- Doctorx0079 (talk) 17:58, 29 July 2021 (UTC)