Talk:Ayn Rand

Ayn Rand and those influenced by her

The article is about Ayn Rand, not a depository for arbitrary wiki articles of "people" who claim they were/are influenced by her philosophy. In fact, there are (were) many in that paragraph who are Libertarians. Please see what Rand has to say about Libertarianism. Anyway, IMO the paragraph should be removed altogether. I made a compromise by leaving the most "notable". Plus, there are many who are listed in the info box. Remember this is about Ayn Rand, not those who claim to admire her. That paragraph is bloated as it is. How many people know or care about most of those people listed connecting them to Ms. Rand? And how does that improve the article having a bunch of blue links leading to people not remotely related to her in any way? Let's duke it out on the talk page if you disagree, so that consensus can be gained. Cheers. ←Gee♥Alice 01:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

(I copied the above from my in-box.)

The article is about Rand, but that particular section is about her influence. The list of "prominent" (which I changed to "noteworthy") individuals who claim to have been significantly influenced by her has existed for a long time, presumably as a correction to the notion widely promoted by academics that Rand appeals only to ignorant youngsters. There have been many editorial attempts to add several people who are now in that list to the "Influenced" list in the Infobox instead, but the consensus seems to be that the Infobox list is reserved for connections in some kind of graph structure pertaining to academic philosophy. Moving the entries to the cultural impact section seems to have satisfied those editors.

In fact, many Libertarians have claimed to have been significantly influenced by Rand. It doesn't purport to be a list of Objectivists. — DAGwyn (talk) 02:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Just because it's "existed for a long time" does not improve the article or help others understand her and her philosophy. It's a bunch of links that take away from the artcile. The infobox, including prominent and truly "noteworthy" are already there. Why clutter the page with links to articles of people who really have nothhing to do with her, and take up a whole section? It makes no sense to me, anyway. If people keep adding everyone who has an article about them into this article then revert it. Just as we do when people add others to a list of notable alumni or residents. Even though many have their own articles too, which does not automatically make them notable to another subject or article. ←Gee♥Alice 02:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

(The following section, "How does having a paragraph linking to numerous people improve this one?", really belongs here. I'm resuming the discussion here; it was inappropriate to create a new section in the middle of the thread, and GeeAlice keeps undoing my attempts to glue it back into the single thread that it actually is.) In response to GeeAlice's comments below, he/she has ignored the counterarguments and appears to be spinning everything to fit a preconceived notion: The lead sentence of the disputed paragraph was not "added to justify its inclusion" (it is integral to the section containing that paragraph); My example about the female rôle model was just that, one example (illustrating that adoption of the full philosophy is not a germane criterion for inclusion); The analogy with articles about other philosophers is weak, because their cultural influence has not been the subject of dispute (Rand's has); The "edit conflict" was annotated within the Talk page as of 22:30:08, and was mentioned by GeeAlice twice in the edit log as some sort of justification for creating a separate section, as well as in my personal Talk page. I see now that I stand accused of a lack of good faith (with respect to my question about archiving), another indication that he/she is not bothering to understand what is actually said and is instead reinforcing preconceptions. Because valid information that supports legitimate purposes of the article should not be arbitrarily removed, it should be restored until the debate is settled. There is no good reason to let the recently disputed, less informative change stand, as opposed to the long undisputed and more informative original version. — DAGwyn (talk) 04:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, but the peacock term "greatly" or "deeply" influenced is inaccurate, and that is very much discouraged. So I removed that adjective. I also added fact tags to those without wiki articles, as was used in a prior argument that those on the list were notable because they had their own article. Again, inaccurate. If ALL these people deserve a place in this article then please be accurate and source it. Take Clarence Thomas for instance - he never said he was "greatly" or "deeply" influenced by Rand. He supposedly said his favorite movie, yes movie, was The Fountainhead. That does not mean he was "greatly" influenced by Rand as a philosopher. All of Rand's fans find this type of connection when one does not exist. At least not for her psuedo-philosophy. I'm sure this is true for many of the others listed in that section. It is original research to list those that may have enjoyed one of her books, or even a movie, or some antidote of hers, and then report they were "greatly" influenced, etc. It's absolutely irresponsible, and unverifiable. ←Gee♥Alice 03:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The WP policy is that articles are allowed only for notable people, not the converse. Erika Holzer, for example, wrote several novels which sold fairly well (as I recall she won at least one Edgar); among these was "An Eye for an Eye" which was adapted for a major motion picture. I would say she qualifies as a notable person, and she was certainly influenced by Rand; in fact she was one of Rand's associates in NYC. That she does not yet have a WP article means only that nobody has yet created one. Maybe some day when I have more time I will do that myself.

The interviewees themselves tended to use terms like "made a tremendous impact" or "changed my life", so the adverb was fairly accurate. However, we can tone it down, but not so far as to mislead (as "influenced in some way" does). Those in the list were influenced in more than a minor way by Rand, most of them cited as such in the referenced article. In the previous discussion about the list, I remarked that I try to exclude many other persons who have claimed only a minor influence. Over the years I have seen or heard direct quotations from most of the persons in the list verifying the substantial nature of that influence (thus the referenced article seems accurate). As I recall, Clarence Thomas gave an entire interview that focused on Rand's influence on him. Finding individual citations would take a lot of work, and is not necessary where they are already covered by the cited reference. — DAGwyn (talk) 20:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Just having the word "influenced" is enough without an adverb. Not all those listed were "tremendously impacted" or even "deeply influenced" by her. It appears that it was a positive influence, which is not true of the many listed. I will remove the adverb as a compromise. ←Gee♥Alice 08:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually it is supposed to list only "notable" people who have claimed that Rand was a positive influence. If you can prove that an entry is mistaken, it can be removed. I have seen direct evidence supporting most of them. By the way, your claim that Clarence Thomas doesn't belong in such a list is mistaken; to see that he does all you have to do is read his autobiography. — DAGwyn (talk) 16:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

GeeAlice, Don't use the term "randroid" in your edit summaries. It is insulting and a violation of WP:CIVIL [1] You're starting to remind me of a past editorEthan a dawe (talk) 11:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand what is wrong with the reference that made GeeAlice revert DAGwyn's edit. Do you care to explain Alice? Ethan a dawe (talk) 21:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'll explain. If that long list is to stay, and then say that all those people were profoundly, deeply, greatly or positively influenced by Ayn Rand is misleading, and more importantly... not verifiable. This project is about verifiability, not truth. Just because some people read Atlas Shrugged and/or The Fountainhead, does not make one positively influenced by Ayn Rand and her "philosophy". That's what the section is saying. Many high-school and early college-aged kids where influenced by those books of fiction. I was one of those "kids".

Every encyclopedia is primarily about knowledge, which ideally is an attempt to ascertain the truth; the WP's emphasis on verifiability is meant to address discrepancies between different reasoned views of what is true. The people in the list have in fact stated that they were significantly, positively influenced by Rand's works. It has been explained repeatedly that "just having read" was not a criterion for inclusion in that list, and that only the (self-identified) significantly influenced were meant to be included. (If you have reliable evidence that somebody in the list has been miscategorized, we can remove him. I have personally seen or heard direct supporting quotations from many of them.)

The source is verifiable, and from my own observation, accurate. I see no need to research dozens of separate individual quotations (which could in principle be done) to supplement that source, and doubt that it would add any real value to the article.

That Rand's influence is often first felt when people are of the age where they are open to new ideas doesn't signify anything. The list of successful adult achievers is a useful corrective to the often-heard distortion that Rand's influence is limited to such kids and that they "grow out of it", which is undoubtedly true for some people, but it is not valid as a generalization. — DAGwyn (talk) 23:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

If I remind you of a "past editor" that should tell you something, that it may not be right to puff up the article as if Rand is some type of Aristotle or Nietzsche. Dissenting views are allowed on Wikipedia, and I see that this article is protected by those who are deeply, positively and greatly influenced by Rand which does not make for a balanced article. It makes it POV. Even the criticism section is positive and protected against the real criticism out there that is verifiable by reliable sources. This section is not verifiable by a reliable source! Don't you get it? ←Gee♥Alice 21:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Your personal prejudices are showing. The article is not "puffed up" as you describe. Ethan and I (among others) have worked to ensure that it is accurate and presents the facts neutrally, including reasoned criticism. We have omitted reference to the vast amount of wild rantings by people who felt threatened by Rand's ideas, as well as rantings by fanatical "true believers", because including either or both of those "POV"s does not serve the fundamental goal of knowledge and is inherently not "neutral" (it would give equal weight to reason and to nonsense). However, even rantings such as Whittaker Chambers' review of Atlas Shrugged were mentioned if they are historically significant. To take one example for analogy: In the Einstein article, we do not consider it appropriate to present historically unimportant criticism of his theories, even though there was considerable opposition to them, largely by people who didn't understand the ideas (but who seemed to think they did). That isn't promotion of a "pro-Einstein" POV; it's done for clarity of exposition, to reduce misleading, low-quality clutter in an article that is already too long.

The Ayn Rand article has been particularly difficult to stabilize, precisely because there are fanatics on both sides who think that a neutral presentation must be supporting the opposing POV, since it isn't supporting their POV. Don't forget that the article is about Rand, and her critics are only incidental. I think we got it about right. — DAGwyn (talk) 23:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

How does having a paragraph linking to numerous people improve this one?

Why is this paragraph necessary to have "numerous" people with wiki articles claiming to be or have been influenced by her philosophy, when there are already many listed in the infobox? I would like to delete that section entirely, but I made a compromise by just trimming it -- excluding those who are not really notable, at least not to Ayn Rand, and most, if not all, of the people articles I removed are Libertarians or more closely related to that party, which Ayn Rand did not have good things to say about and disputes that it is related to her philosophy. Thanks in advance for comments.←Gee♥Alice 02:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

A major justification for the cultural influence list is to support the claim in the introduction that Rand was "influential". Originally this said "broadly influential", and the cultural influence list conveys some of that breadth. As I note above, that is important information that helps to correct a common misconception; I know of no better way to do that. The fact that it catches one's attention is an intended effect.

Please refer to the first sentence of the disputed paragraph to confirm that it does not serve the same purpose as the Infobox list, and is not limited to wholehearted proponents of Rand's philosophy. Rand touched, in a way they consider positive, the lives of many who didn't completely adopt her philosophy; one typical remark is that her character Dagny provided an inspiring rôle model as a strong, independent female working at a high level in a "man's world". Such influence is notable, and relevant for an article about Rand. (It wouldn't be very relevant in the "Objectivism (Ayn Rand)" article, but that has a different focus.) — DAGwyn (talk) 03:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

As it shouldn't. Just because someone adds a sentence to a paragraph to justify its inclusion is not enough. And the influence section, by your argument, was that she was influential in inspiring role models for women, except for a couple of the names listed most where MEN, not women. Everyone and their mother is influenced by someone, does that mean we include a long list of persons with Wikipedia articles in each philosopher's article they were influenced by? Also, please stop refactoring the talk page. This is my heading and this is the way I intended to present my dispute. It's disingenuous of you to "glue" it to your heading because I encountered an "edit conflict" while I was typing my entry. I'm taking a break because I've become frustrated. I realize that that is not helpful, but I was not frustrated until now. So, leave what is here as it is for now, until I become unfrustrated, or until others weigh in with their views. Good day. ←Gee♥Alice 03:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

(Response in original section, above.) — DAGwyn (talk) 04:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with DAGWyn Ethan a dawe (talk) 13:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

How to archive?

How do we archive past, inactive discussions? I know there is a way, since it has been done for other Talk pages. It would be a good idea to do the same for much of this Talk page. — DAGwyn (talk) 03:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Do not archive the above section that I just noticed, that disputes the same thing that I dispute here. In that, the influence section is too long. So there IS consensus to justify removing many of those names, if all of them. You're making it difficult to assume good faith here. I hope it's just because I'm frustrated with what appears to be your ownership of this article, and your refusal to listen to others. ←Gee♥Alice 03:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't proposing to archive that section, which is clearly relevant for an active discussion. I asked about archiving because in my efforts to glue back together the sections that you artificially split in two, I had to edit the entire article (rather than the usual single section), and found that the amount of text made it painfully slow (typed characters would echo minutes after they were typed, for example). Thus the Talk page is clearly too large, and would be improved by archiving inactive discussions, as has been done for many other Talk pages.

The consensus is not what just what some subset of people said in the course of a discussion, but what the editors all together have agreed to live with for quite a long time now, until you decided to rock the boat. Also, the idea that the list is too long is not identical to the idea that the list should include only people who support Rand's full philosophy, which you have suggested and which I explained before is not what appropriate for the topic of that particular section, which is about cultural impact.

I don't "own" the article, but I do have a strong interest in maintaining its quality (including accuracy, comprehensiveness, fairness, clarity, etc.). If you check, you should see that I've let stand (or occasionally mildly improved) many contributions by other editors, including some by you. It is only the one particular change that I am adamantly opposing. If there is a better way to convey, to the general reader, the intended information about the extent of Rand's popular influence, I am certainly open to suggestion and to working together toward a proper presentation of this important information.

As to a "refusal to listen to others"; isn't that the pot calling the kettle black? I have not yet seen evidence that you have understood any of the counterarguments that I made. — DAGwyn (talk) 04:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Atlas Shrugged

Under this heading the author writes: "Atlas Shrugged has been cited in numerous interviews as the book that most influenced the subject.[27][28]", but does not identify "the subject" (which I assue is Objectivism). Needs a minor edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.109.225.3 (talk) 18:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I belive "the subject" refers to the person being interviewed, i.e. the subject of the interview, but I agree that it seems a bit unclear. Also none of the sources seem to support this claim (the sources talk only about the survey being exaggerated). Tengfred (talk) 19:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it meant the subject of the interview. The reference for the survey being exaggerated is obviously not also a reference for the influence of the book; references can be found for the latter, but generally only one interview per reference, which would be a lot of work. For a more "aggregate" view, the reference used for the list in the "Popular interest and influence" section might be appropriate. — DAGwyn (talk) 20:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Article is not neutral

It appears any edits not favorable to Rand and her "philosophy" are quickly reverted, therefore the article is biased (NPOV). Even the criticism section is whitewashed - in that, it does not included the more harsh criticism of Rand and her "philosophy", which is overwhelming - having many reliable sources to support this. Yet, any changes are quickly reverted that are not favorable to Ayn Rand, her works, and her philosophy. Even the "Criticism" section is more apologetic than critical. Please leave the NPOV tag until the article is allowed to included a balanced view. ←Gee♥Alice 05:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The only "POV" claim(s) for the article I have seen come from someone who has exhibited a clear bias against the subject (e.g. putting quotation marks around "philosophy" above, labeling other editors "randroids", etc.), and has made incorrect claims of fact (e.g. Thomas not being significantly influenced by Rand). His/her concern seems to be that "neutrality" requires not just explaining the subject's ideas, but actively belittling them. That would be imposing a POV.

The question at issue is whether it can be stated from the neutral point of view that Rand is a philosopher and not a writer. The belief that she is, is a belief of people who agree in the main or in total with Rand's views. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.77.96.211 (talk) 17:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

In point of fact, most of the "more harsh criticism" is not worth citing because it doesn't meet normal intellectual standards (e.g. is based on a caricature of the philosophy rather than on the actuality). Reasoned academic criticism has long been included in the article, and absurd criticism has long been excluded. That is the way it ought to be. There is no "balance" in including hysterical denunciations, any more than there would be in including worshipful paeans; both have been excluded in the past and should continue to be so. The facts should be allowed to speak for themselves, with just enough supplementary material to provide context and pointers to closely related information. Challenges concerning factual validity are taken seriously, but we do not promote either an anti-Rand POV or a pro-Rand POV in this biographical article. — DAGwyn (talk) 20:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the criticisms section is adequate. It says that critics found her works "terrible", philosophers did not take her work seriously and her followers have been described as a cult. Her thoughts do not merit the attention that a serious writer or philosopher would attract. --The Four Deuces (talk) 22:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)ю

Certainly that point of view (with which many reasonable people disagree) is represented. Keep in mind that this is an article about Rand, including her works and ideas and the response to them. As to WP:NPOV, that pertains to disagreement over what the (article-relevant) facts are, not to whether other people might hold other ideas (because of course they do). The latter slant on "NPOV" would apply in a general article on ideas, e.g. metaphysics or epistemology, where there are clearly a number of distinct POVs about the facts of the subject as such. In Rand's case, what she maintained on major philosophical issues is usually quite clear from her own writings, so there should be little dispute about presenting that in an article about her and her ideas.

I get the impression that some people are not willing to let facts stand on their own merits (or lack thereof), but want to influence the reader's evaluation by steering it in the "right" direction. That is inappropriate, and indicates a lack of confidence in the reader's ability to think for himself. — DAGwyn (talk) 23:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Literary Criticism POV

"In 1963, Rand wrote an essay titled "The Goal of My Writing" in which she states the goal of her fiction is to project her vision of an ideal man: not man as he is, but man as he might and ought to be. Her 1969 book, The Romantic Manifesto: A Philosophy of Literature, explores more fully the differences between Rand's aesthetic views and those of the academic mainstream." This passage is not a criticism of Rand's work and should either be moved to another section of the article or deleted altogether. 70.21.38.201 (talk) 06:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Whoever put that text there (it wasn't I) evidently intended it as "counter-criticism"; i.e. to balance the criticism, which was primarily based on standards and values that themselves merit critical review. If that text were to be relocated, it would need to be augmented by an observation that Rand's aesthetic principles differed substantially from those of the "establishment", which is true but comes close to OR. It may be best to leave the text where it stands, as it serves a useful purpose there. — DAGwyn (talk) 05:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we could add some kind of transition? I'd do it myself, but I'm not entirely sure how this is supposed to be a response to criticism of her prose. The way this passage is currently phrased is just confusing. 70.21.38.201 (talk) 06:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I reorganized the existing text to provide a better transition and to remove one level of indirection from the quotation (although the reference stays the same). I don't think it would be useful to add much more wording for the connection. — DAGwyn (talk) 07:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Rand being a Jewish writer

Did Rand ever officially renounce Judaism or convert to another religion? Because if she did not, then she is a Russian Jewish writer. 70.21.38.201 (talk) 07:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

1) In Judaism, someone born as a jew is in principle a jew forever, even renouncing the faith. So this is immaterial; 2) "Jewish" in the wikipedia categories that you mentioned or that had recently been removed from the article, is actually more of an ETHNIC than a religious classification, so much so that they include professed atheists and sometimes even converts. And there is no doubt that she was ethnically a jew. So, what is the problem with including Rand in these categories?Justice III (talk) 21:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that she vociferously and unequivocally denounced religion as mysticism, entirely incompatible with her intensely-held beliefs. So as a religious identifier, it is entirely unacceptable. As an ethnic identifier, it is also inappropriate, as per Wikipedia convention, when wiriting about specific groups and individuals we always use the terminology which they themselves would use. So how things are named "in Judaism" is irrelevant, as to endorse that would be to poison the well by already classifying Rand within the framework of Judaism in order to determine whether or not she was a Jew, which is patently absurd. Rand was an Objectivist, fiercely individualistic and resistant to the notion that people should be classified using collectivist terminology. Regards, скоморохъ 22:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

What I am asking is did Rand specifically state that she herself was no longer Jewish. Her opinion on religion is one thing, if she never specifically renounced her own religion, then she was Jewish. 70.21.38.201 (talk) 03:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

You've got it backwards - surely if she didn't declare her Jewishness she was not Jewish. You can argue that one can be born with a Jewish ethnicity, but it is farcical to argue that one can be born with religious beliefs. The burden of proof is on the claimant; if we find somewhere Rand said "I am a Jew", and no sources that said she renounced her supposed Jewishness, then we should include the category. Until then, скоморохъ 03:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

For identification purposes, one who is born into a religion is identified as a member of that religion until they either renounce that religion or convert. There are plenty of Jews who don't believe in God, but are still identified as Jews. Likewise for many other religions. Either point to a source where she said "I'm no longer Jewish", or we state that she was Jewish based on the fact that she was born to Jewish parents. 70.21.38.201 (talk) 03:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

"For identification purposes, one who is born into a religion is identified as a member of that religion until they either renounce that religion or convert."

Oh yeah, says who? Since all individuals are born Pastafarians, we should identify her as a Pastafarian unless a source says she isn't. Since she was born in Communist Russia, we should include her in the category Communists until we find a source that says otherwise. Since she was born an infant, we should...etc. Burden of proof. скоморохъ 04:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Under Jewish law, a child born to a Jewish mother is Jewish. 70.21.38.201 (talk) 04:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Under Objectivist ethics, you are whoever you damn well please, within the constraints of reality and reason. So that doesn't get us anywhere. скоморохъ 05:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

How about a compromise then. Something like "Even though Rand herself was not religious, her birth to a Jewish mother makes her Jewish under Jewish law." 70.21.38.201 (talk) 05:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Certainly, that would be fine if we were discussing what text to include in the article. But as far as I am aware, the issue is whether or not to include the article in Jew-related categories. скоморохъ 05:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I've added the compromise text into the article. As far as the categories, that's a tough one and depends on whether the Jewish category is defined by religion or ethnicity/culture. Are the classifications of other Jewish people in that category done by religion or ethnicity? 70.21.38.201 (talk) 05:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I expressed myself sloppily; that text would be acceptable if it were cited (and not WP:SYN) and relevant. As DAGwyn notes, what ethnicity/religion Rand would hypothetically be categorised under is less than relevant here. Readers want to know what she thought - see undue weight.

Another point is that the article already mentions that her parents were non-observant Jews, and the new text added no new information, just editorializing. Such a remark is probably appropriate for an article on Judaic law, but not in this article, in which Jewishness plays no role. — DAGwyn (talk) 06:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Rand didn't "convert to another religion", because she never professed any religion, insofar as the historical record shows, and as an adult, she definitely "renounced" all religions, as well as all forms of racism and of classification on the basis of accidents of ancestry. Rand did not call herself Jewish, and nobody who knew her would have dared to call her Jewish. — DAGwyn (talk) 05:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

One sentence in a giant article about Rand's Jewish ethnicity does not give it undue weight. As far as avoiding synthesis, how about this source:

"Ethnically, yes, Rand was Jewish. She was born into a Russian Jewish family (see question 4.1 above), although her parents were not particularly observant. As an adult, Rand did not practice Judaism as a religion, since she became an atheist at an early age. A number of Rand's close associates over the years, including Nathaniel Branden, Barbara Branden, Leonard Peikoff, and Alan Greenspan, have also been ethnic, but non-religious, Jews." http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/bio/biofaq.html#Q6.9 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.21.38.201 (talk) 06:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Not to put to fine a point on it, but isn't this the precise source you want omitted from the Cult section due to its unreliability? скоморохъ 06:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I want that source omitted for the cult criticism because it cites Rand's letter as the basis for its opinion on that subject (this is my new account btw, thanks for the tip :-). I assumed that its opinion of Rand's Jewish ethnicity is not based on Rand's writings, but if it is, then we'll need to find another source. Also, since Rand's Jewish ethnicity has no bearing on objectivism, there's no conflict of interest in objectivist research on this issue as opposed to the issue of whether objectivism is a cult. Idag (talk) 06:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

"Rand did not call herself Jewish, and nobody who knew her would have dared to call her Jewish." Do you have a source for that? 70.21.38.201 (talk) 05:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

You can quote me, if you wish. It's not something that ever occurred to me to ask her on the few occasions when I met her, nor in correspondence, but I have heard and read nearly everything she said on the general issue, and have heard and read what her closest friends and associates had to say about her lack of tolerance for such categorization. I am sure that she never called herself Jewish; if you think otherwise. then please exhibit a contrary quotation so that we may all be enlightened. — DAGwyn (talk) 06:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Rand was ethnically Jewish (http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/bio/biofaq.html#Q6.9) and your personal opinion to the contrary does not constitute a reliable source under WP:Sources. Idag (talk) 06:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why what Richard Lawrence has to say matters, but in any event, he just repeated the well-known fact, already present in our article, that Rand was born to non-observant Jews, and that she herself was an atheist. This is not personal opinion, it is recorded fact. The "opinion", given by скоморохъ above as well as others recently and earlier in the editing history, is that it is inappropriate to categorize Rand as a "Jewish" anything. Perhaps you could explain what purpose is supposed to be served by such categorization of "ethnic" Jewishness? Are there categories for Jewish policemen, Jewish Quakers, Jewish criminals? It seems to me that somebody has an inappropriate agenda for claiming Jewishness no matter how irrelevant it might be, and it could hardly be less relevant than in Rand's case. It is misleading in the extreme to label someone as a "Jewish writer" when her writing has nothing to do with Jewish identity and is in fact opposed to that whole notion. — DAGwyn (talk) 06:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The importance of including Rand's Jewish ethnicity is that this is a biographical page not a page that is devoted solely to Rand's thinking (Objectivism has its own article). Rand's ethnicity is certainly relevant to Rand's biographical information. As far as categorizing her as a "Jewish writer", I suggested earlier that we take a look at what types of people are currently classified as Jewish writers and go from there (I'm new to Wikipedia, so I'm not entirely sure how to accurately browse the categories at the moment). Idag (talk) 07:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I also would be interested in finding out what criterion has generally been used for such classifications in WP, but my point about it being misleading still stands, and we can decide on the basis of reasonableness as well as on precedent. — DAGwyn (talk) 07:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I still have problems browsing through the ton of category articles, but I did find an interesting one. Baruch Spinoza was born Jewish, but he was extremely critical of the Jewish religious texts and was even cast out of the Jewish community, yet he is listed under the Jewish categories. Idag (talk) 08:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Cult Criticism

The second half of Cult Criticism violated both WP:POV and WP:Sources and when I fixed it, someone reverted it for "POV Vandalism". What I object to is the following passage in the Cult Criticism section: "The Biographical FAQ of the Objectivism Reference Center website discusses these allegations and refers to a letter in which Rand replies to a fan who wrote her offering cult-like allegiance by declaring "A blind follower is precisely what my philosophy condemns and what I reject. Objectivism is not a mystic cult"".

What this is essentially saying is that in response to accusations that objectivism is a cult, objectivists have stated that they are not a cult. This is obviously not a reliable third party source as required by WP:Sources, so can we either find a better source for this or delete it? 70.21.38.201 (talk) 03:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Surely you're not suggesting that Rand and her defenders not be given chance to respond to the accusations? That does not seem at a neutral point of view. скоморохъ 03:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:Sources requires that "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources" This article is not a forum for Rand and her defenders to respond to criticisms. This article is a collection of information, both positive and negative, about Ayn Rand. Per the WP:Sources requirement, if you find a reliable third-party source that responds to the cult criticism, then by all means, we can include it. However, including a general denial of cult status from the person accused of founding a cult doesn't really add anything to the article. 70.21.38.201 (talk) 03:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Conversely, a section which includes only accusations of culthood violates the same policy, by failing to fairly represent all majority and significant-minority viewpoints. скоморохъ 04:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, you misunderstand the policy. I have no problem with using a response to the criticism, as long as that response comes from a reliable third party source as required by WP:Sources. The current response does not come from a third-party source and thus violates established Wikipedia policy. 70.21.38.201 (talk) 04:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't misunderstand the policy the first time, so I could hardly have done so again! Nothing in your latest reply addresses my last comment. Regards, скоморохъ 04:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The criticisms of culthood come from third-party sources. The response is from Ayn Rand, who is not a third-party source. 70.21.38.201 (talk) 04:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, yes, we've established that. We face the prospect of a well-referenced section containing accusations of culthood with no response at all (if we are to delete Rand's/Objectivist's response). Such a section would violate WP:SOURCES by failing to fairly represent "all majority and significant-minority viewpoints." This leaves us with only three logical options: include a section that violates the policy, remove the section entirely, or find reliable material covering all significant viewpoints. Which do you prefer? скоморохъ 05:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

A logical reading of WP:Sources is that it requires reliable third-party sources that represent these viewpoints. As I stated earlier, if there's reliable third-party material that responds to the cult criticism, then by all means, let's include it. Rand's response however, doesn't cut it under WP:Sources. 70.21.38.201 (talk) 05:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I say we should get rid of the section. While it is certainly true that some followers of Rand have acted like cultists, it is equally true that many others in no way qualify as cultists. This "cult" accusation primarily serves as a way for detractors to denigrate Rand's ideas by associating them with an irrelevancy rather than addressing the ideas on their merits. That might be a popular political ploy, but it's not a valid form of criticism. I note that another recent posting here similarly proposes to eliminate a response to criticism of Rand's literary aesthetic, and there have been other suggestions that the article must not contain Rand's own statements, but only those of "third-party" commentators, who as it happens are largely allied against Rand. I find that a willful misreading of WP policies. Certainly Rand's denunciation of a cult following is important information concerning this topic, and there simply is no better source for her views on this than her own statement. — DAGwyn (talk) 05:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policies have not been misread. Here are the two relevant provisions of WP:Sources: 1) "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" and 2) "All articles must adhere to Wikipedia's neutrality policy, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view." Applying these criteria to the cult criticism, a significant number of reliable third-party sources have leveled this criticism at Rand's philosophy and should therefore be included as significant viewpoints addressing that philosophy. As far as third-party commentators being allied against Rand, we must represent viewpoints with regard to their prominence. I'm sorry that there are so many anti-Rand third party sources, but until that changes we have to fairly represent those sources and not our own personal biases. As far as using Rand in rebuttal of criticism, under WP:Sources, there are multiple criteria that must be satisfied if you want to use a non-third party source and Rand's response to her critics does not satisfy that criteria. Again, I'm sorry if you don't like Wikipedia's policies, but the entire point of these policies is that this is an encyclopedia that represents outside scholarship and not the personal opinions of its editors. 70.21.38.201 (talk) 06:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

You can "prove" almost anything by quoting out of context and interpreting out of context. The paragraph containing (1), which is but one part of the policy on verifiability, reads in its entirety: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Reliable sources are necessary both to substantiate material within articles and to give credit to authors and publishers in order to avoid plagiarism and copyright violations. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require exceptional sources." Thus, the rationale is to substantiate/support claims and to give credit — not to exclude relevant factual information about what the subject of the article said. In fact, that quotation was not Rand's response to her critics, but a reliable third party's response to her critics; Rand herself was responding to a misguided admirer. None of this constitutes "personal opinion of the editors"; it is verifiable statement of relevant factual information. Taking all of the major WP policies and their rationale into account, your anonymous "contributions" (all of which have been attached to the Ayn Rand article and its Talk page, according to the WP logs) are not representative of WP guidelines, and in my view seem suspiciously biased toward establishing an unbalanced negative POV in this article. I think it has had pretty good balance recently, presenting the main information neutrally, including significant criticisms and a small amount of counter-criticism, and would like to maintain that. — DAGwyn (talk) 06:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

First of all, it is none of your business which articles I choose to edit. I make my edits in good faith, so please keep your ad hominem attacks out of this discussion. As far as the rationale for the article, your response makes no sense. The policy clearly requires third party sources to back up claims within an article. To address your concerns, an exception is provided to this rule if the information is 1) relevant to the article's notability, 2) is not contentious, 3) is not unduly self-serving, etc. WP:Sources. In this case, the information is clearly contentious and since the subject matter is the cult status of Rand's own philosophy, her writings on the matter would be self-serving. Idag (talk) 06:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

"self-serving" → "relevant".

It is our business if you are pushing a particular POV and trying to misrepresent legitimate WP policy to justify your agenda. — DAGwyn (talk) 06:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Since we're obviously not going to come to a consensus, I've submitted the matter for a third party opinion. As far as personal attacks, I have assumed that your edits are being made in good faith even though you very clearly have an objectivist bias. I would appreciate the same consideration. Idag (talk) 07:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Third Party Opinion

Here is my opinion as a neutral third party: third party sources are not necessary when the article is quoting the opinion of a particular individual. Since the section is dealing with the perception of Rand's following as being a "cult", Rand's own personal thoughts on this are very much relevant. However, the sentence itself needs to be re-written so it's more NPOV. (language such as "However" and "Rand itself" are not needed). -- MisterHand (Talk to the Hand|Contribs) 17:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I got rid of the "however" and split the Rand quote off to another paragraph, since it's not a response to the first quote. Tempshill (talk) 17:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation

The pronunciation key needs a normal dictionary-like pronunciation on how to pronounce her first name, as opposed to the current IPA guide, which, statistically speaking, nobody understands and nobody uses. Tempshill (talk) 17:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

500,000 books per year

Rand's books continue to be widely sold and read, with more than 22 million copies sold (as of 2005), and 500,000 more being sold each year.

I put a fact tag on this because although there is a citation that gives the 500,000 number, it comes from an interested party. The statistic needs a different source if one can be found. Tempshill (talk) 17:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Any party with accurate information on anything is likely to be an "interested party". The figure seems about right in the context of all the other sales figures I encountered while researching this for another purpose. — DAGwyn (talk) 17:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Zogby Study

User:DAGwyn, maybe you don't understand what I'm getting at. In the revision note you said

No reason to doubt cited reference, which is supported by others (e.g. Economist in 1991, also in article). Zogby info relevant to stated poll challenge. Don't clutter text with ref info.

This is where you added back the statement:

The Zogby poll result can be checked by simple arithmetic: Roughly 8 million copies of Atlas Shrugged had been sold in America by that time; there are around 200 million adult Americans who might be considered the sample space; if 2 people read each copy (fewer than for most magazines), then 8% is the right fraction.

In the article I see the reference to the Economist but it only talks about the number of sold copies. That's fine, but I'm more concerned about the "simple arithmetic". If you are performing this arithmetic then it's considered original research. Otherwise you need to cite your source for this statement. Even if your self-performed calculation was allowed, you still don't cite your source for "200 million adult Americans who might be considered the sample space", and "fewer than for most magazines".

If you still disagree and think your statement is allowable without citing the (non-original) source, then we'll have to go the admins. --WayneMokane (talk) 21:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you seriously dispute that those approximations are near the correct values? Or that arithmetic is objective? Since somebody added a note in the main text that the validity of the polls has been disputed, the objective, NPOV footnote directly relevant to the validity of the result of one of the impugned polls is not only appropriate but necessary. (The other two polls are indeed suspect, and I previously added refs to support that claim.) It seems that you want to justify perpetuating an incorrect implication of the current text. — DAGwyn (talk) 18:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

This isn't about what I think is correct or accurate. It's about Wikipedia's policy (including no original research and verifiability). Discussing whether those policies are good to have is beyond the scope of our little discourse here. The fact is they are established at the moment and must be followed in articles. The only point worth debating here is, whether or not the arithmetic you are doing is considered original research (I honestly thought it was but reading over the policy it may be exempt). We will need some more senior input on this (see here). Now, assuming it is allowable, you still need to cite your sources for the other claims I mentioned above. If you're allowed to multiply a*b=c and use c as a conclusion, then you need to have a verifiable source for a and b. Make sense? --WayneMokane (talk) 21:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It didn't seem necessary to add references in a footnote to well-known and easily verified approximate parameters such as number of adult Americans at the time of the poll. The number of book sales can be estimated in various ways and has been reported in several places, not always in a ready-to-use form. My point is, the Zogby poll results do not appear to be significantly biased, and the 8% figure is an interesting, relevant, and reasonably accurate factoid. Another way of dealing with this would be to move mention of the Zogby poll past the scope of the text and footnotes pertaining to the suspect methodology of the other polls. However, I think the simple calculation is useful for the context. — DAGwyn (talk) 15:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree it is interesting and may bear mention in a certain context. I have read a few other articles this week that do something similar as well. The only concern I have is the same one mentioned on the link I posted above, which basically says that the assertion the poll may be flawed (forgetting the arithmetic for a moment) is itself considered original research unless we can find some other verifiable source which disputes the accuracy of the poll. The way I read the current policy, I honestly do not believe this footnote can be left in its present form without such a reference. --WayneMokane (talk) 04:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I implemented the slight reorganization that I previously suggested, since the only challenges to Zogby polls that I found were merely unsubstantiated allegations on the basis of a priori disagreement with Zogby's purported point of view. — DAGwyn (talk) 15:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Cult Criticism POV

As much as most editors on here love Rand, the latest edits to the Cult Criticism section are ridiculous. Regardless of your views on Rand, it is a fact that a number of prominent figures have accused Objectivism of being a cult. It is our job to accurately represent their views. Thus, when a Cult Criticism section has a one sentence blurb about their views followed by a giant block quote that presents a counter-argument to their views, that's just a tad unbalanced. See WP:Undue Weight Again, I don't care how much you love Rand, your insistence on maintaining bias in an ENCYCLOPEDIA article is keeping this from becoming a better article. Let the facts stand on their own without watering down the facts that you don't like. Idag (talk) 01:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

If the cult accusations are based on erroneous ideas and mis-attributions, should we not mention quotes that show it? As much as you obvioulsy don't like Rand, I think it's ridiculaous and POV to say that any accusation should stand without rebuttal because someone notable said it and you happen to agree. Let the facts speak for themsleves indeed, I agree! So would Rand I expect. How about you? Ethan a dawe (talk) 02:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

That those ideas are erroneous is the view of one Objectivist author. That author should not be given more space in a CRITICISM section than the actual critics. I'm not saying remove the rebuttal, I'm saying don't stick it in a giant block quote. As for me personally, I don't care one way or another about Rand, I'm editing articles whose subject matter I know something about. Since this article has repeatedly failed the Featured Article nomination due to its bias against Rand's criticism, I'm trying to fix that. Idag (talk) 03:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

That a blanket "cult" label is erroneous is not just one person's opinion; it is the opinion of many people who have been in a position to know. My own impression, not expressed in the article, is that people who insist that Objectivism is a "cult" do so because they are unable or unwilling to rebut it rationally, and so they resort to smearing it as an excuse for not treating the ideas seriously, with the hope that they can discourage newcomers from looking into it. The quote from an insider gives useful information not presented elsewhere in the article that bears directly on the validity of the criticism. Leaving out the quote would give critics the last word, which I'm sure is what they want, but that would give undue weight to the claim (doing a disservice to the general reader) since it is so easily rebutted.

Nathaniel Branden has provided much more intelligent and informed criticism pertaining to psychological risks of following some of Rand's ideas, which perhaps should be mentioned here, but he has not used that as an excuse to dismiss most of those ideas. — DAGwyn (talk) 16:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Dagwyn, just because you personally disagree with the criticism doesn't give you the right to water it down. I did some research and most of the notable people who are "in a position to know" and dispute this criticism are Objectivists. Clearly, they are going to say only positive things about the movement and they do not deserve more space in a criticism section than notable third party critics. While you may believe that their criticism is "easily rebutted" a number of notable authors happen to disagree with your opinion. Idag (talk) 16:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Idag you seem to have missed the point. If the criticism is refuted it's refuted. A notable person may think the earth os flat, but that doesn't change the facts that it isn't. There is plenty of room for good criticism, but fallacious criticism should be noted as such. POV people insist that this be included becasue the person who said it is notable, but allowing it to stand as untouchable because of the speaker's notoriety is beyond reasonable. Ethan a dawe (talk) 17:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, I don't mind us including a rebuttal. What I care about (and what WP:Undue Weight requires) is that we not give the rebuttal more space than the actual criticism. Whether the rebuttal actually rebuts the criticism is a value judgment, but a one-sentence summary of the criticism followed by an in-depth exploration of the rebuttal is unbalanced. Since this section was a big weakness when this article was nominated for Featured Article status, I'm trying to make this section as NPOV as possible so that this article can become better than B-class. Idag (talk) 17:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

←From 3O: According to WP:UNDUE, all viewpoints should be fairly represented. At present the rebuttal to the cult criticism appears to be fairly represented, but the actual cult criticism isn't. Increasing the length of the cult criticism section to be at least as long as its rebuttal would properly satisfy WP:UNDUE and the rest of WP:NPOV. Might I suggest inserting a longer summary or even a quotation from one of these critics?

• http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard23.html
• http://www.2think.org/02_2_she.shtml —BradV 23:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I doubt that you can find much beyond merely lengthier assertions saying the same thing that we have already noted in the article. It is certainly true that some of Rand's followers have in the past behaved much like cultists. That doesn't make the philosophy as a whole a cult, and numerous other followers have not behaved like that. I think the Branden criticism would be worth adding, and deserves extra weight because he has observed the movement at first-hand (heck, he was even responsible for a lot of the problems) and has provided a reasoned criticism instead of a simplistic label. — DAGwyn (talk) 00:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Rothbard's spiel is filled with easily recognizable anti-Rand-bias vocabulary and puts forth so many outright untruths about the Objectivist movement that it doesn't deserve citing. Like so much supposedly intellectual discourse of modern times, his preconceptions have badly distorted his perception and logic. Shermer's article, by comparison, deserves to be cited as a reference, although since he based his conclusions primarily on what he thought Branden wrote in "Judgment Day" he is not the right person to be quoted. — DAGwyn (talk) 00:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I know very little about the subject - I'm just responding on style issues. It seems to me that if we can't fully cover a particular criticism on a topic it is extremely POV to cover the rebuttal to the criticism. And if we can't find a reliable source to quote then the whole section should be removed. —BradV 00:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I just went back and re-read the cult-criticism section of the article. It does cite the Rothbard and Shermer articles, along with another critical article. The interested reader can easily access their lengthy argumentation. The amount of coverage given to the criticism seems balanced in the context of the whole article; expanding it would be to give it undue weight. What the Sures quotation does is illuminate Ayn Rand's actual views, as opposed to the incidental behavior of any of her followers or the opinions of third-hand observers, and that is appropriate since this article is biographic. (There is a separate article about the Objectivist movement, which is really where the cult discussion belongs.) Despite what has been maintained by the anti-Randists, this isn't a matter of "POVs" and "sides", it's about reporting the truth, which has multiple facets. The current section does that quite well.

Dagwyn, not everyone who disagrees with you is an "anti-Randist". If you do not like a certain criticism, then you have no right to water it down and spin it just to comply with your point of view. For example, if you look at the Fourteenth Amendment article, the article goes into great detail about the controversy over the Amendment's ratification. Do most of us think that this "controversy" is baloney? Sure, we do. But this "controversy" was advanced by several notable members of society, so we fully summarized their views. At this point you have two neutral editors telling you that views that you disagree with need to be set forth in this article. I've expanded Rothbard's view (feel free to add in a caveat about his personal bias) and we can add in the other criticisms that you referred to previously. This will allow us to keep the block quote and make the section NPOV. Idag (talk) 05:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Why the change?

"Her influential and often controversial ideas have attracted both enthusiastic admirers and scathing denunciation."

The word "admirers" used to say "admiration". Why was it changed to a noun? I don't see what advantage the change confers upon the sentence; in fact, it seems to not read as smoothly.

Good point. I've made the requisite change. Idag (talk) 15:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Legacy

So I find that a lot of that list appears to be apocryphal. I checked every entry in that list who I was not sure about, and if their article did not mention Ayn Rand, I removed them from the list. Michael Paxton does not have a Wikipedia Article, ergo I don't think he's terribly notable. I also removed the soap opera star--that's really just not terribly interesting or important. A lot of the Objectivist thinkers mentioned in the original article, such as Cline, the Brandens, etc. are simply not that well known--having them in a list with celebrities and politicians strikes me as dubious, which is why I moved them out to a philosopher's list--although I suppose technically not all of them are philosophers, which is why I renamed it to "philosophers and thinkers". TallNapoleon (talk) 19:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

So far as I am aware, there was nobody on the original list who didn't qualify as having publicly stated (usually in some published interview) that their lives were significantly influenced by Rand's ideas. WP is not the only available source of information, but even so too many names had been removed for whom their WP articles state definitely that they were significantly influenced by Rand. It might be fair to ask for further references if the person isn't supported by the original reference or their WP article.) I don't think the division into "philosophers/thinkers" and "others" is either fair (who says the others aren't thinkers?) or sufficiently well-defined. The Infobox already singles out under "Influenced" just the people who seem to fall into the philosopher/thinker category. (Attempts to add others there have led to complaints from WP-philosophy-category editors.) So I suggest that anybody already in the Infobox list can and should be left out of the popular-influence list, which should consist of a single list. As to Michael Paxton, I suppose we can leave him out until somebody creates his WP article. The "soap opera star" is more "interesting and important" than some of the others, to some people; you shouldn't filter based merely on your own personal interests. — DAGwyn (talk) 23:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Flame Wars

There have been enough flame wars on this talk page and it needs to stop. I will delete *any* further attempts to restart them or replies thereto myself. TallNapoleon (talk) 01:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Under Early Works, I added her first book "we the living" . . . question about my addition

Added the following quote and description of the book from Aynrand.org, do this mentioned of Soviet tyranny violate wiki NPOV policy?: "The most autobiographical of her novels, it was based on her years under Soviet tyranny." It is me i think (talk) 04:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

nevermind It is me i think (talk) 04:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Philosopher

I deleted the section added on being a philosopher. Firstly it's been argued before. Secondly you talk about many professional philosophers, then you site one at length from nearly 50 years ago befor ethe majority of her work, then you conclude with "many" It doesn't fly Ethan a dawe (talk) 12:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Edward Nilges' reply:

(Sigh).

It's been discussed before, and Rand cult members have vandalized the contributions of people trying to make this article NPOV.

Furthermore, the review was published in 1961, at the time of publication of Rand's major work of either philosophy or opinion. Please get your facts straight, especially before you vandalize.

Subsection "standing as a philosopher" added: may be vandalized

[OK, moved to the bottom as you requested. I play by the rules, even if convenience store clerks do not. Fat lot of good it does me. I shouldn't be such an altruist.]

I have added this section citing Sidney Hook rather extensively since absent it, the article is NNPOV and reads like a Rand advertisement. However, the whole article needs rework; objections to her claims need to be raised at every step insofar as those claims are said to be philosophical.

Edward G. Nilges

POV vandals seem to be removing this edit. Strictly as a matter of wikipedia's own standards as regards POV, the article is unacceptable since it isn't the common opinion of educated people that Rand was a philosopher, and, professional philosophers (including conservative philosophers including Robert Nozick and Sydney Hook) have questioned the quality of her work.

I'm not going to play the infantile undo game. Here is the section I have added about the issue of her standing. The article needs far more work because of Rand's intellectual dishonesty. I will also post the section in the Libertarianism section of usenet. Please do not vandalize these efforts, whether by myself or by others, to make wikipedia conform to its own stated norms.

[Added: I withdraw any implication that the person with whom I am dealing at this moment is removing my Talk page material since I see it. This person is deleting the new section on Sydney Hook's comments although the article is an important Rand document and worthy of mention and discussion. To do so is vandalism. However, I won't undo him since I have better things to do than act as Jimbo Wales' unpaid slave, trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.]

[I do ask that this Talk page keep the proposed new section and that it be a basis for discussion. The Rand article is POV nonsense and this needs to be changed.]

Edward, you should add comments to the bottom of the page. There you will see my reasons for reverting your addition. You have not addressed those yet. Secondly, please stop insulting people. I am not a "slave" to Jimbo Wales, nor a valdal, nor a shop clerk. You have filled this talk page up with insults for awhile now. Please stop! All the insults in the world are no replacement for a rational arguement. You section made a bold calim and did not back it up, nor did you site the source in a way that someone could find it.Ethan a dawe (talk) 13:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments moved per your request. I follow the rules and I don't vandalize.

As to my "tone". It is in direct proportion to what's happening here. Slobs and creeps are doing Wales' dirty work of creating a for-profit wikipedia by harassing and driving out the good contributors with ignorant "edits".

Hook didn't write "fifty years before Rand"! "Cite" isn't spelled "site"! GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT before you edit. USE A DICTIONARY before you edit. Otherwise, you are a vandal.

They are fifty years before now. With fifty years of more work with her ideas.Ethan a dawe (talk) 16:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

All the insults in the world are no replacement for a rational argument, but they sure as hell make it vivid to people so brutalized that they vandalize a contribution of a major document by Sydney Hook which represents the view of the philosophical community, which is otherwise almost unheard in this goddamn article: that Rand failed to make her case. You fail to notice the clear separation in my texts wherein I make the case and where I give the capsule summary, nor that I have made quite "rational" conclusions as to the intelligence and good faith of an increasing number of clowns with modems.

I'm again putting you on notice for being rude and insulting. Please refrain or you could risk being banned.Ethan a dawe (talk) 16:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I put "rational" in scare quotes because you, and people like you, have brutalized the world, in a second order sense in the same way Stalinism brutalized "humanity". You mean by "rationality" staying within a narrow band of affect even when you are in a virtual nightmare, in which convenience store clerks are masquerading as scholars amidst dancing trolls and burning tyres. Your "rationality" sickens me, since in every case it means someone's going to get harassed for calling a spade, a spade.

Edward G. Nilges

Your insults sicken me and do nothing to anvance the position you are taking. PLEASE refrain from your insults. They are a violation of wikipedia policy. If you continue to war using various IP addresses and insult people here you risj being banned. you should create an account so your work can be properly credited and tracked as wellEthan a dawe (talk) 16:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Standing as a philosopher

Numerous professional philosophers have questioned whether Ayn Rand was, as she claimed and as her followers claim, a philosopher owing to what the former considered her failings to adhere to philosophical method, including fairly stating the views of her opponents, not engaging in the informal fallacy of ad hominem (which by imputing the character or the motives of an opponent, renders a philosophical debate pointless), and not engaging in verbal transformations without actual effect.

Sidney Hook, although a "socialist" in Rand's eyes, was a professional philosopher who became an anti-Communist activist owing to the Moscow show trials and the Nazi-Soviet pact of the 1930s, and more than sharing her convictions about the evils of totalitarianism and the value of capitalist arrangements in the main, was also more active than her in disseminating information about the evils of totalitarianism. Although Hook remained a democratic socialist in his ideals until the end of his life, he realized by the 1960s that capitalism was the best system for the era he found himself in, and Hook received an award from President Reagan for his lifetime journey.

In a 1961 review of "For the New Intellectual" ("Each Man for Himself", review of "For the New Intellectual: the Philosophy of Ayn Rand". New York Times, April 9 1961), Rand's 1961 book in which she most clearly stated the three main theses of Objectivism (Aristotle's logic, the virtue of rational selfishness, and the value of capitalism), Hook stated those views clearly and addressed them in a way characteristic of professional philosophers, not questioning her motives or those of her backers and followers and acknowledging truth where he perceived it.

Hook summarized Rand's views at the beginning of the article:

"Pruned of its repetitions, her philosophy reduces itself to three main contentions. The first is that 'all the disasters that have wrecked the world' can be traced to a disregard for the Aristotelean laws of logic especially the law of identity, A is A. This law [per Rand] is not only the cornerstone of reason but the rule of all knowledge. The second thesis locates the poisoned premise of all modern ethical theory and practice in the principle of altruism, in the belief that 'man is a sacrificial animal that exists for the pleasure of others.' The third is that capitalism and the free market are the highest expression of human reason and justice; any limitation on them opens the floodgates of irrationalism, mysticism and force." This repeats the three Rand theses found on the modern Web site of the Ayn Rand institute. Hook addresses each in turn.

Hook first addresses Rand's implicit contention that a law of logic can have philosophical importance.

"The extraordinary virtues Miss Rand finds in the law that A is A suggests that she is unaware that logical principles by themselves can test only consistency. They cannot establish truth. Inconsistency is a sign of falsity, but as the existence of consistent liars and paranoiacs indicate, non-consistency is never a sufficient condition for truth." Hook then addresses Rand's views on selfishness or altruism.

"Just as paradoxical is Miss Rand's second contention that the world suffers from excessive altruism or unselfishness. I must confess to not having observed this myself, but this is only one man's evidence. Readers will be startled by Miss Rand's emphasis on egoism or selfishness as the categorical imperative of moral life. But despite the harsh accents with which the view is expressed, it is not as horrendous as she makes it sound. It testifies to confusion rather than wickedness, and to an extensive unfamiliarity with a whole library of literature on the subject." Hook avoids the trap of calling Miss Rand merely wicked since he's acquainted with the history of misreadings of emergent philosophies from the outside in which, confused by terms of art, the lay judgers of philosophers execute the philosopher, forcing him to commit suicide in the case of Socrates, accuse him of Godless mischief in the case of Spinoza, or harass his public lectures in the post-Hook case of Singer. He realizes the importance of Rand's implicit operator word "rational" as applied to her "selfishness".

Unfortunately, he finds that once "rational" is applied to "selfishness", it turns out to label the same sets of conventional behavior as "rational unselfishness", concluding that Rand's sound and fury signify no real change. Hook even refrains from asking whether the relabeling operation, being null, might mislead or corrupt the young, extending Rand a post-Socratic charity that she did not extend to her opponents.

Finally, Hook addresses Rand's very real and very non-verbal support for capitalism.

"Ayn Rand's third proposition about the high morality of capitalism is defended by a very old gambit: like Christianity, capitalism has never been tried! 'All the evils popularly ascribed to capitalism were caused, necessitated and made possible ONLY by government controls imposed on the economy'...one is appalled by the reckless disregard of historic fact. For example, the horrible forms of child labor which sprang up with the industrial revolution were certainly not caused by government controls. On the contrary, they were eliminated by government controls." Although Hook by 1961 and as a democratic socialist supported capitalism pragmatically, he was as a philosopher unconvinced that "government regulation" could explain all the evils of capitalism. In the absence of government controls on the length of the working day, British workers worked 16 hours per day: in the absence of government controls on the age of coal miners, children were used, especially in spaces too small for adults. This is generally understood to be the case by ordinary well-educated people, therefore Hook is puzzled by the generalization from unintended consequences of certain government programs to their universal injustice, and found insufficient documentation of this in Rand's book.

Generally speaking, despite Rand's self-labeling as a philosopher, and despite publications and meetings long after Hook's review in which her ideas were discussed by professional philosophers (as he, as a philosopher, discusses her ideas in the 1961 review), professional philosophers have in general had grave doubts as to whether Rand was a philosopher, although they were prepared to admit that her ideas, like so many concepts, things and ideas in the world, were grist for a philosophical mill. Hook did not so much say that Rand was not a philosopher as present an example of philosophical method as a response: avoidance of individual ad hominem or its mass-production in the form of conspiracy theorizing, argument by counter-example, fair precis of the views addressed, and charity hopefully distinct from altruism.

To many, this presents Rand with the problem of "Caesar's wife" who famously should be above suspicion. Philosophy is a very big tent, as is literature. In terms of political conviction, philosophy includes not only Karl Marx but libertarians whose views are very close to Rand like Robert Nozick, mentally disturbed individuals like Nietzche, and one guy (Louis Althusser) who went after his old lady with an ax, but who read Marx backwards and forwards and sideways: who was, in fact, engaged with philosophy as opposed to having opinions and who gets into the Big Philosophy Tent, albeit after we frisk him. But, while not doing well at all on its assigned task of telling the rest of us about the Meaning of Life, doing in fact a less good job than Monty Python, philosophy has developed a lot of recognizably philosophical tools and avoids other non-philosophical tools. In Hook's article he used the counter-example of child labor to refute the universal quantification assertion that all cases of oppression under capitalism can be explained by government control.

He also uses a linguistic analysis to show that "rational" as applied to "selfishness" makes Rand's anti-altruism a relabeling operation which leaves the concepts underlying the words alone, whereas an actual philosophical analysis tends to change ordinary usage; for example, Aristotle's demonstration of the necessary instantiation of Platonic ideas in reality meant that after Aristotle the radical separation of an independent world of "forms" was unmaintainable.

These doubts were raised in 1961 and they remain.

Why don't you put this into a page on Hook? Hook is certainly not in any way, shape or form important enough to an understanding of Rand on a page on her *biography* that he should be included! This is about Rand's life - not a debate on Objectivism. Go fight your battles on the appropriate pages. Grazen (talk) 16:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The dean of American philosophy fairly evaluates Rand's final statement of her philosophy. IT'S ABOUT RAND.

Edward Nilges' Critique of this Article

Sadly, I'm going to request semi protection of this page so that anonymous editors are blocked. This will prevent current issue we have here with Edward Nilges and his insulting comments, and revert warring. He can make an account and edit when the article is protected, but that way his comments will be tied to one account rather than several IP addresses. If he then limits his comments to polite and contructive ones, there will be no issue. If he continues to be rude, he can be blocked. Edward PLEASE keep your comments polite and on topic.Ethan a dawe (talk) 17:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Truth is that not everyone who doesn't have an account is your Edward, so this is just a trick to censor all criticism of Ayn Rand, even though this article desperately needs balance. Way to go, cheat.

Unfortunately, I disagree Ethan, let this "Edward" spout his venom, as long as it is kept to the discussion page it merely advances the theories on the main section on Rand. I believe that it has the opposite effect of what "Edward" intends, his comments reflect badly on him and on his capacity for rational thought (or lack thereof) and serves to strengthen Rand's philosophical comments by identifying just what she must have been up against during her life. Grazen (talk) 18:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

This page should definitely be semi-protected. This could be Alienus coming back, using Tor. LaszloWalrus (talk) 19:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Protect the page. I'm no fan of Rand, and I would be glad to provide thoughtful, polite criticism, but Edward's rants are a nuisance. Would anyone besides Edward object if I removed the latest? TallNapoleon (talk) 20:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

This type of vandalism pops up every several months or so. Protect the page. Endlessmike 888 00:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I have filed the request to semi protect the page. Hopefuly we can get back to working this article into better shape without the histrionics of late. I also agree that Alienus came to my mind.Ethan a dawe (talk) 00:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

See, I'd complain if you censored Edward, but then you'd just claim I was him or Alienus or some other imagined enemy, even though you know that it's not true and all the evidence refutes you. All that matters is that I'd be tarred with the same brush, which is how censorship works on Wikipedia. That's why so many people refuse to play the game by getting accounts; the future of unbiased Wikipedia editing is with us "anonymous" users. Long live the future!

Hasta la victoria siempre! I fully agree.

Hi, this is Edward Nilges.

Although I am flattered by all the attention, the issue isn't me. The problem remains the global bias in the article which takes Rand's claim to to be a philosopher at face value. Unfortunately, like physics, would-be "philosophers" are from the NPOV not so-called unless they are accepted as such by their peers. Hook's article shows that this has not been the case because while he treats Rand kindly, he in effect rejects her application to the "philosophy tent" because it was clear to him that she hadn't done the homework...that would be required even of an undergraduate philosophy major.

An undergraduate philosophy major would have completed Logic 101. In that class she would learn that logic, as Hook points out, and as the author of the leading text in the field (Copi) stated, cannot be used to derive new insight, only to check arguments for validity. She would also learn from the logic of Lewis Carroll that an infinite number of fantasy worlds can be constructed logically.

An undergraduate philosophy major would also take a class in Ethics. In that, she'd perhaps air her view that "it's good to be selfish" perhaps based on her own personal exploitation. Dialectically pushed into a corner by the teacher using counter examples, she'd be forced as Rand was forced to modify "selfish" by "rationally", and her selfishness would then coincide with rational altruism in a simple Venn diagram.

She might even read Kant, or Kant Selections for Kids. In that she would learn that no act can be fully explained as done for a reward and find that many jobs for pay are attractive because the teacher or nurse or flight attendant "likes" to serve others, and would learn how to "assay" acts into the only part we can call ethical.

Just like physics, philosophy requires the learning of methods and tools (along with the avoidance of informal fallacies, either *ad hominem* or its mass variant, conspiracy theory) which Rand never mastered.

As to "insult". As the gang leaders of your own selves (an image of Adorno's), you certainly seem each ready to take offense but I would suggest this results from a very clear difference in my texts and yours. I don't make silly and absurdly consistent spelling errors as regards "cite", a spelling error revelatory of a deeper ignorance, nor do I claim that a review written upon the publication of For the New Intellectual was written fifty years before Rand. You harm people's real standing inside and outside wikipedia by flagging them as vandals when you are the vandals and then claim you're "insulted" as if you were 18th century gentleman who may not be "insulted", while doing nothing to earn my respect.

The Rand article is junk. It reads like an article on Marx in The Great Soviet Encyclopedia. Fix it.

If you read my point above you will see that what I wrote was "fifty years ago" not "fifty years before Rand." My point, which I explained to you before and you must have missed is that the article you cite was after the publication of "For the New Intellectual" Rand's non-fiction works on philosophy were all published after that. That, and you are also ignoring the point I made about you saying "many regard her as not a philospher" and then only citing one old article as example, then conclude "many" again. Your point is not supported. Sorry. As for the rest of your petty insults, they are a violation of wikipedia policy. Yes, I often make typos as I type fast and rarey use spell checkers. People who have no foot to stand on in arguements with me often point it out, it's a logical fallacy in their arguements and yours. You have nothing but insults to support your ideas. You were banned for being rude and are now in violation of Wikipedia policy by operating around that ban. What does that say about you?Ethan a dawe (talk) 11:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Still wrong after your "clarification". "For the New Intellectual" was published in 1961, it was the clearest statement of Rand's views, and the three theses of "For the New Intellectual" form the content of "Ayn Rand's Philosophy" at the Web site of the Ayn Rand Institute (no arguments are presented at the ARI Web site, which shows that they are not a "philosophy", merely a small set of opinions). Hook responded right after publication.

Hook was not just some guy. He was in fact the dean of American philosophers, and recognized widely as an arbiter of philosophy independent of political orientation, as John Dewey had been a generation before; the NYT here asked Hook to review Rand's book because she proclaimed that she was, more than a writer with opinions, a "philosopher".

A philosopher does not need an academic appointment: for example, Ludwig Wittgenstein had none for most of his career. We can thus dismiss a canard that tenured academics were "conspiring against" Rand owing to her conservatism, especially since the libertarian conservative Robert Nozick and the neo-conservative Hook dismissed her views. Furthermore, conspiracy theory as a step in philosophical argumentation is inadmissable as broad-brush ad hominem: for the same reason ad hominem is an invalid argument (since it questions the argument contract by means of which two people argue philosophically) conspiracy theorising is invalid as an argument. The claims of the conspiracy theorist, which form part of the Randroid arsenal, may be true but in a philosophy argument, their advancement ends the philosophy argument and replaces it by the legal argument, in which the ad-hominem arguer or conspiracy theorist needs to seek legal redress as a victim of academic fraud.

You consistently misspelled "cite" wrong which would for me disqualify you as an arbiter here.

Sydney Hook was a democratic socialist for most of his life. However, democratic socialism includes a committment to parliamentary procedure (including not lying) lexically prior to winning arguments in the sense that all parliamentary rules (including not lying or distorting opposing views, which Hook doesn't do in the review) must be satisfied before the democratic socialist can say "the game is done, I've won, I've won". This is clear from the review which I quoted and which you can get for peanuts from the New York Times: Hook bent over backwards to fairly summarize Rand's views, a courtesy Rand never extended to her opponents. Hook had left the hard American left because in fact they acted like paleo-Randroids: just as Rand accused her opponents of bad faith and trickery, Stalinists on the left had dismayed Hook (and Ronald Reagan as a union member) with their willingness to short-circuit arguments with ad-hominem and conspiracy theory

The wikipedia policy as regards "insults" (where "insult" is a term that offends me since it implies social difference where none exists, or if one exists, it is the reverse of what you fantasize it is) has been used consistently in my experience to harass contributors and thereby exclude them. I believe this is being done so that wikipedia insiders may then publish the work of former, excluded contributors for profit. One of the reasons I believe this is because Jimbo Wales is a follower of Rand and while (as Hook showed), "rational selfishness" may converge with "rational altruism", Jimbo Wales in untrained in such philosophical analysis of language and may have read, in Rand, a license for this theft. He may have started wikipedia to carry out this massive theft given that prior to the birth of wikipedia, he was paying people to produce perhaps porn and then an encyclopedia, but could not manage them. He may have formed a plan to form an anyone-can-contribute wikipedia, and then have a subset of the contributors award each other cheapjack little "barnstars" for harassing literate people who'd contributed, driving them away and stealing their production.

The above is indeed a conspiracy theory: but it plays no argument in my central thesis, which is that to be NPOV, the Ayn Rand article has to identify Rand, consistently and throughout, as a "self-proclaimed" or "self-identified" philosopher. It merely addresses your claim that I am violating the "rules" in a parliamentary trick made because you lost the argument. I say that whatever the rules, you may be "insulted" but I am being harmed: you're wasting my time, and my recognition as a contributor has long been stolen from me.

Rand is a self-proclaimed philosopher because (as the authoritative Hook article carefully shows) she gave no indication of having read philosophy beyond the level of an ordinary educated person. She found in Aristotle reasons to support laissez-faire although Aristotle's ideal city would control economic activity. She found synthetic (informative) conclusions in the analytic apriori of logic. Unaware of G. E. Moore's work in Principia Ethica, she relabeled something we know already to be bad, selfishness, as good, and then, when she tagged it as "rational", it turned back into something we know already to be good, altruism, a rational altruism that like Dickens' "circles of love and duty" in Bleak House, would take care of others with an eye to its own needs for existence and flourishing.

The article claims that Rand was "influenced" by Aristotle and Locke, yet as her misunderstanding of Aristotle's temporal relationship to laissez-faire (which took more than 1500 years to appear after Aristotle) shows, she may not have read more than a precis or Cliff's notes on either philosopher: had wikipedia existed in 1961, we may well imagine her source would be this moronic inferno. And the factoid "Rand didn't read Kant" is confirmed in the existing article, rather, as a something her confederate Nathaniel Branden said.

This means that she appeared sui generis. She could have been a new Kong-Fu-Zi Confucius or a new Heraclitus, single-handedly creating a new tradition independent of Western, Asian, African, or Latin American philosophy. But no, she claimed to be a part of a tradition...which she knew, as Hook saw, very little, and certainly not enough to qualify her as a philosopher.

More than this, she was not only sui generis original, she also, outside her followers, had no measurable influence on subsequent philosophy. She is simply not cited, nor is she sited, on a site where real philosophers cite her as an authority on anything at all, because she produced no useful arguments: only opinions. And, as I've said, as they say in the Army, opinions are like assholes. Everyone's got one.

Wikipedia, to be NPOV as its adepts say it must, often savagely hounding perceived violators of this neutrality especially when those violators air liberal views, needs to, like a dictionary, reflect ordinary educated understanding. Rand is ordinarily understood to be a rather trashy writer who made it big by educated people who aren't cult members.

I will continue this until the article reflects wikipedia's own professed standards as regards neutrality. If censored, I will go to the Village Pump and reopen the discussion. If censored there, I will bring your misuse of the word "philosopher" to the attention of the American Philosophical Association and the educated media. This will further lower the already low repute wikipedia has amongst teachers. I think this low regard is mostly undeserved, and I think students should be able to use wikipedia.

However, they should not be informed by silence on the known health hazards of tobacco that it's ok to use Copenhagen, and they should not be told that Ayn Rand was anything more than a self-proclaimed philosopher.

I do not hold her sex nor her beauty against her, any more than I hold Ann Coulter's killer legs or sex against her. Unfortunately, Rand, like Ann, confused having an asshole (opinion) with arguing for that opinion following the rules and siting the argument within the tradition by citing authorities. Indeed, as a contributor to wikipedia, Rand would be unacceptable, and if I were a superstitious person, I'd imagine her squeaking and gibbering at the internet cafe in hell, altering this article to call herself a "philosopher" and harassing good people.

Would you allow a person to maintain her own biography, and to call herself a physicist if she did kitchen experiments in cold fusion? Essentially, that's what you're doing here for as cult members (perhaps *malgre lui*) you allow this harridan to screech through you as her spirit medium, allowing her to call herself a philospher.

Rand is the spiritual granny of people like Coulter who owing to her assault on the language made in 1961 and answered by Hook, people today believe they are a "political analyst" as long as someone pays them to screech opinions like Coulter or destroy reputations like Matt Drudge. To be a credible source, wikipedia has to apply NPOV to ALL of its articles, including this one.

With all due respect "Edward", identifying Ayn Rand as a "self-proclaimed" philosopher is not neutral, it is your POV or perhaps Hook's POV. Thankfully, we do not yet live in a society in which we require the approval of people like you to force definitions of words upon us, such as the word "philosopher". If I was to write a paper on the word "cat", implying that a "cat" was really a "dog", in great detail, and if it were to be published in "Nature" - that would not immediately imply that all articles on wikipedia that refer to felines would need to be immediately redefined as canines. I would suggest that you calm down and focus, take a break from wikipedia, and come back in a few weeks or months. Things may not appear as dire by then.Grazen (talk) 12:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Nobody forces definitions of words upon you. However, to use "philosopher" so loosely in the article is POV, since like a dictionary, to be NPOV, wikipedia has to follow general educated usage.

General educated usage reserves the word "writer" for a published writer. We must refer to an unpublished author, or an author who used a vanity press, as an "unpublished writer" in a consistent way. If we don't, the article proclaiming status as an author would be seen as promotional and POV. It would be perfectly OK to publish this, but not in wikipedia, which claims to be NPOV.

The test, then, for being a "writer", is "being published by a non-vanity press". By this NPOV test we can agree that Rand was a writer. Her sales numbers mean that she was a best-selling writer.

Now, what about "philosopher"?

Let us assume A: that if you say you are a philosopher and you have opinions about issues commonly recognized as philosophical, then you are a philosopher. But this means that lay readers of philosophy books, and even nonreaders who ponder about, and have opinions concerning, the largest questions in human existence are "philosophers".

This usage does not correspond to ordinary educated usage nor dictionary definitions (which try to reflect ordinary usage).

However, Rand not only fulfilled the above condition (A). She filled a stronger condition: other people call her a "philosopher". Doesn't this make her a "philosopher"?

The problem here is calling Rand a philosopher indicates that one has a favorable opinion of her work. Most educated people don't have a favorable opinion of Rand's work. If an ordinary educated person says, "boy, dat Ayn Rand was a philotsofer", this means, in most cases, that he believes her theses.

The situation in ordinary philosophy as ordinarily understood is very, very different. Logical positivists hated Hegel but among other things they called him, besides a gasbag and a bum, was a "philosopher". It is true that the logical positivist Carnap called metaphysical philosophers "musicians without talent" and that he felt that their work was useless, and insofar as readings, or misreadings, of Hegel influenced the Nazis (this influence being exagerrated).

However, in the passages wherein Carnap and others renarrated metaphysicians like Hegel and Schopenhauer as "musicians without talent", the overall syntax was of the form "these philosophers are musicians without talent": a metaphor. The underlying meaning of "philosopher" was "member of the big tent of recognized and peer accepted philosopher". The metaphor was their POV. It would be inappropriate to call Hegel a "musician without talent" in his wikipedia article unless you were quoting Carnap's POV. By the same logic, because Rand's being a "philosopher" expresses approval in the same overall way Carnap expressed disapproval, both are metaphors and both express a POV.

Carnap started with my recursive definition: a philosopher is he or she who enters into a dialogue with philosophers and who is accepted as a peer, and neither a student or as an irritant like Socrates' foil (in The Republic) Thrasymachus, or Rand, who for the most part have not been thought of as philosophers, only possessors of opinions, which are like assholes, of philosophical import, opinions which need to be refuted, or seen to be empty of content (like Rand's "discovery" that A is A).

Philosophy is today an academic discipline and has for most of its history has been associated with schools, commencing with Plato's academy. This isn't a necessary connection, of course, but generally speaking, philosophers cannot sell their results, which as information want to be free. Instead, they vend educational services and books.

This means that "being a philosopher", entering what I have called the Big Philosophy Tent, is a matter of peer review in (interestingly) other than a totalitarian society in which the Fearless Leader says who is a philosopher.

Rand failed this peer review, as indicated by Sydney Hook's 1961 review. Now, a haze, a scum of ignorance here causes people to clamor for recognition of their ignorance which in this discussion seems to include ignorance of Hook, his position in recent American philosophy, and why he won an award from President Reagan for lifetime achievement in his chosen field of philosophy.

I am aware that wikipedia's founders were anti-certification and as a quondam college professor who taught without a postgraduate degree, I share this view. I think that certification should be replaced by knowledge as evinced by ability to write (of which sadly correct orthography is a marker which we may most assuredly cite at this site.)

However, your clamor seems to be for something different, something in fact which Rand herself hated.

Essentially, and to you, Sydney Hook was just some guy, some John Galt, and you probably just read about him in wikipedia. Your demand that the opinion of the then-dean of American philosophy in a paper of record be treated on a level playing field is a demand, caricatured in Rand as a liberal demand, for equality-in-ignorance.

One problem remains. Prior to the Internet, general educated usage evolved, or devolved, slowly. But owing to articles like this one, wikipedia can in fact devolve general educated usage, and this was the programme, I believe, of the creators of the article. They wished to use the power of the Internet to create the illusion that a person who neither read nor influenced real philosophers (already recognized philosophers) was a philosopher even in educated people so that empirically, a few years from now, Ayn Rand will be recognized, by the certified-educated but increasingly aliterate, as a philosopher gal.

However, you cannot, even using the Internet, create a self-fulfilling prophecy. This is because real philosophers will continue to read hard texts with which they don't agree, such as the Critique of Pure Reason, to assess their own ideas and as needed to refute. They will remain in philosophical dialogues, as did Socrates with Thrasymachus, with professional courtesy, never engaging in ad hominem or conspiracy theorizing. Once they realize that their opponent is a thug, as Socrates seemed to realize of Thrasymachus, or a bore, as Spinoza with Blyenburgh, they will discontinue the philosophical dialog and, if their opponent gets rowdy, offering to end the possibility of philosophy as reasoned (and necessarily collegial, perhaps even altruistic) discourse, they will call the cops on the thugs, as did Adorno. But not as philosophers, merely as people protecting civil society and the possibility of philosophy.

If you insist like a bunch of fucking babies that "Ayn Rand was a philosopher" and continue harassing dissenters, you will destroy philosophy.

You clowns (and you know who you are) tried to destroy the career of a best-selling computer author (who can be called such with NPOV because the numbers decide who's a best-seller), Herbert Schildt with this deliberate creation of POV wikipedia articles, and harassment of dissenters. I got that article fixed, and I'm going to get this one fixed.

If censored here and at the Village Pump, I will register a complaint with the American Philosophical Association. I will, as a published writer, write articles to shame you. As a member of a panel at Princeton University Press on the issue of creation of biased Web content, I will notify the panel lead, Lawrence Lessig, of your conduct, types of which he has noted and deplored in Web sites which create a fantasy reality.

You may call Rand a best-selling author. You can call her a hot babe. You may NOT call her a philosopher and adhere to canons which you have used to drive out good people or force them to be anonymous.

In the terms of Generation W, "Whatever". "Philosopher" is not a descriptor such as "Doctor" (which requires certain medical qualifications or a Ph.D) or "lawyer" (that requires certain educational and society requirements), or "CA" (ditto), or P.eng (ditto) or a variety of others. What is and what isn't a philosophy is a subject of debate - and inherintely a POV. Please take your rude comments and attacks elsewhere and review the Wikipedia Talk Page guidelines that are available at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines. The irony of your posts is that your diatribes serve to enhance Rand's standing among people who might review this page.Grazen (talk) 17:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)