Talk:Ayn Rand

Introduction

If there are objections to the introduction please discuss them. As introductions summarize article contents, they are not normally cited. But if there is something questionable, please add a citation needed tag. If you're going to remove the word philosopher you need to provide evidence that the prepoderance of sources make the claim she is not a philosopher. Good luck with that. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

You are introducing radical new text, so the onus is on you to discuss it. This paragraph is a major issue. After growing up in Saint Petersburg during the Russian Revolution, Rand emigrated to the United States. She embraced the values and political system of her adopted homeland, and strongly objected to communism and socialism. Her work celebrates the individual and promotes the idea of hero innovators contrasted with anti-union, anti-mob, and anti-egalitarian feelings. She is championed by many on the political right and abhorred by those on the left. Several Ayn inspired groups work to promote her ideas and legacy. It represents OR at best and is a political statement by you not citable material appropriate for an encyclopaedia. I suggest you remove it and try and make a case here. The most clearly OR statement is in bold --Snowded TALK 18:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not clear on which part you think is OR. The text is a summary of some the most notable sections of the article. Please be specific about which part you have a problem with? ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I imagine Snowded objects to the sentence that he put in bold: "She is championed by many on the political right and abhorred by those on the left." That statement is blatantly incorrect as a gigantic chunk of this article's criticism section comes from those on the political right. Idag (talk) 19:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

As far as the remaining text that you want to add, most of that information is already contained in the introduction. Idag (talk) 19:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with rewording that sentence. It was a first try, so some tweaking is to be expected. If there is a consensus that the sentence is wholly unsalvageable, then please remove it. As to the rest of the paragraph, the intro says she was born in Russia, but doesn't explain her growing up and going to University there or its significance in her views. Adding some political context is important and is extensively discussed in the article. As to Peter Damian's comments, all I can say is that it's unfortunate he is unable or unwilling to improve the Quizmaster Quinn's article. That would be a lot more helpful to the encyclopedia than trying to exert his bias and POV on this article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I reverted CofM's edits, more on the grounds that they are incompetent and inept. This person is making any sort of progress impossible. The introduction is now a mess. Why 'popular, influential and controversial'. These adjectives do not go well together without any sort of explanation. Note that it is against policy to use the term 'controversial' to imply a person was controversial within a particular discipline, as though the controverial views were part of the peer-reviewed literature. Rand wasn't any of that. She simply wasn't accepted as a philosopher, period. Her 'philosophy' was and is a joke and a laughing stock. This may be a view held in the academic 'ivory tower', and possibly that is result of a conspiracy against her. None of that would matter, even if it were true. Wikipedia has to represent 'academic consensus', that is policy, and that is that. Peter Damian (talk) 19:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Looking over the text, the only new information is that she grew up in St. Petersburg. I moved that to another part of the intro. As for the rest, information about her philosophy was already contained in the lede and the statement that some folks on the right and left are opposed to her adds nothing. Therefore, I deleted a chunk and support Snowded's deletion of the remainder. Idag (talk) 20:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Where in the intro does it discuss her opposition to communism and socialism or address her substantial role in politics? Also, I'm still waiting for sources supporting the exclusiong of the word "philosopher" to describe her. Numerous sources calling her a philosopher have been provided. If nothing is provided soon I will restore that wording and treat reversions as vandalism. We can't edit articles based on personal animosities, we use sources. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

With regard to Communism and Socialism:

"She advocated individualism, laissez-faire capitalism, and the pursuit of rational self-interest, categorically rejecting socialism, altruism, and religion."

As far as substantial role in politics: (1) her role, if it existed, was not substantial; and (2) your edits did not discuss her involvement in politics but merely stated that some folks on the right and left opposed her. That statement added nothing to this article. Finally, with regard to her being labelled a philosopher, that label was replaced by Ghmyrtle's compromise which stated that Rand developed Objectivism. This is a compromise that you agreed to. Idag (talk) 23:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

As written the paragraph CofM proposed is far too hagiographical. TallNapoleon (talk) 00:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I changed my mind. And several editors agreed that it was ridiculous NOT to call her a philosopher. If it didn't make the sentence too long it might have been a better compromise, but there's no need to compromise because lots of good sources refer to her as a philosopher and no one has yet provided a source indicating it would be inappropriate to refer to her as such. As far as the introduction, I'm sure we're all aware that it's meant to summarize the article. If you go through the article you'll see that my summary was based on a weighting of the sections, many of which are not represented in the introduction. Finally, notable information that is well sourced doesn't need to be "summarized" thank you very much, why not expand some of the big-time philosophers I keep hearing so much about????? Their articles stink, and I hope the lack of interest shown by Damian and others isn't an indication that they are non-notable and not worth the time. If so I suggest we combine them into a list or AfD them. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

To say that she is championed by the political right is just objectively wrong. She has a fringe following on the right, but has been roundly rejected by most of the mainstream; the evangelicals and other Christians in particular. Republican icons such as Buckley have denounced her on numerous occasions. CABlankenship (talk) 01:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

First of all, it was revised to "some" on the political right. Fringe is your POV, she has a substantial following as this article makes clear. Adding a bit summarizing some of her views is exactly the kind of thing the intro needs. I don't know that she fought much with the religious right, so going by the sections in the article I think other sections are more notable. But I'm quite flexible and happy to collaborate and compromise. Clarifying her differences with the right would be a welcome tweak to my addition! Unfortunately it's been taken out completely now which doesn't make the article better. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be useful for your education (ChildofMidnight) for you to attempt to combine or AfD the articles you think stink. An encyclopedia is designed to given an overview in its articles, not to provide too much (referenced or otherwise) which forms a poor half way house between an autobiography/criticial work and a good summary. --Snowded TALK 07:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

There are many I would nominate on the basis of stinking, but that's not a criteria for deletion. Do you have any ideas on how to get fans of these marginally notable philosophers to fix those articles instead of trying to tear down the well developed, though imperfect, articles of more popular and successful persons? I would like to write articles and add content instead of having to fight efforts to "summarize" notable content about the achievements of people that aren't liked by some "academics" who apparently haven't bothered to read her work. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

You are the one making statements such as "marginally notable" and "stinking". You were given some examples of competent articles about people at least as notable as Rand. My suggestion was that you might learn something from those articles, or for engaging with editors involved that might help you here. --Snowded TALK 08:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

What's your point? We have a fairly complete article here that could use some tidying, and it's under attack by people who don't like or respect her work. The "experts" they refer to in order to attack her have articles that aren't even in paragraph form, have little content, and are poorly written. So if those are the philosophers they respect and think are accomplished, why not spend time fixing their articles? It seems very simple to me. What would I learn from putting crappy article up for AfD? How would that be useful? ChildofMidnight (talk) 09:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I think on reflection you are right. You would not learn anything from the suggested process. --Snowded TALK 09:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The articles we're comparing this one to are featured articles, that is to say, the best articles on wiki. We're asserting that this article should be more like those that are highly rated. You seem to think this article is good, and we're trying to make it worse. That's not the case. The article has been found to be sub-par by outside judges, and we're trying to discuss how to make it more readable and in-line with superior articles. That means that we need to remove all of the redundant information, superfluous sub-sections, and enhance the areas that actually talk about her work with reliably sourced summaries. The point is not that Issac Newton and Darwin don't have long legacy sections because they aren't "popular" or "successful"—those are featured articles. The point is that there is too much pointless information that makes the article boring and unreadable to the average user. Articles on wiki are not for dumping every piece of fringe information about an individual for their superfans, it's to create factual summaries for the average user. CABlankenship (talk) 09:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

It's very difficult to make any improvements to the article when unsourced reversions and wholesale deletions are repeatedly attempted. I've tried very hard to collaborate and to compromise, and when those efforts are returned in kind I'm sure we can make good progress improving this article. If you think there is an example of fringe information please present it here. The disucssion of her views on homosexuality and the well established organizations carrying on her legacy are not fringe. ChildofMidnight (talk) 09:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see anyone trying to add in unsourced material. Many people here feel that the article is too long and contains too much redundant and superfluous information. You are resisting and reverting any effort on this regard. Let's see how you handle this latest addition, just for kicks. CABlankenship (talk) 09:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

And yet you just added an entire section on one person's characterization of her following as a cult. So is it too long and needs trimming, is there too much about her success and accomplishments, or do you want to make the article more about her critics? As this article is about Ayn Rand, a section or two for her critics seems more than generous. Also, I wouldn't object to moving some her notable views on homosexuality and gender to the article on her philosophy. But deleting notable and well sourced content doesn't make the encyclopedia better. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Within academia, her philosophical work has earned either no attention or has been criticized for its allegedly derivative nature This is poorly phrased. How about: Within the academy, what little attention her work has earned has been critical on the grounds of its allegedly derivative nature. --R.scipio (talk) 19:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

"Well-sourced"

I've said this before, but I think I need to say it again: "That section is well-sourced" is NOT a reason to keep it. Many of these "well-sourced" sections are overlong, and violate WP:UNDUE among other guidelines. Rand's views on homosexuality are of minimal importance; a full subsection describing them is unnecessary. Similarly, FOUR subsections discussing the various schismatic groups is unnecessary. Two paragraphs discussing her beliefs about gender... unnecessary. This article needs to be trimmed. Wikipedia articles are NOT intended to give a subject deep coverage, but to summarize the important information in a balanced manner--in other words, to provide an introduction. People who are more interested are perfectly capable of reading her books themselves, or following any of the sources we cite or links we provide. I am deleting the homosexuality section again, because currently only one person objects. TallNapoleon (talk) 10:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

This makes sense. The article should fairly represent its subject. In an article about a subject (in this case, Ayn Rand), certain things are distinctive about them and fundamental to their importance. That Ayn Rand was a popular novelist is in this category, as is an accurate description of the unusual content of her novels. That Ayn Rand had a distinctive philosophy is in this category, as is a summary of the basic and distinctive elements of that philosophy. That, e.g., Rand was born in Russia and emigrated to America is valuable but less distinctive or consequential. But her views on homosexuality, on gender realtionships, and many other matters are derivative of her basic ideas, less-consequential, or less distinctive, and should receive proportionally less space, if any. Gyrae (talk) 23:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and accusing anyone who removes material of vandalism is not helping your case, either. TallNapoleon (talk) 10:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I suggest we use the featured article James Joyce as a template and model for this article. CABlankenship (talk) 10:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I further suggest merging the 'criticisms' and 'legacy' sections into a few summary paragraphs under the title "Legacy", similar to the Joyce article. Contentions claims should be removed (such as polls where the validity is in question). CABlankenship (talk) 10:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments on RFC

If you have further comments after your vote please add them here to prevent clutter. Kjaer (talk) 04:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Essentially three major changes were made, which I'm going to explain.

Influence list -- the old list simply chucked 8 lines of names at the reader with no explanation. The list is now less-cluttered and has more exposition about the names that are on it. Instead of being a simple list of names, the current version actually conveys a message and makes Rand's influence clearer.

Criticism qualifications -- essentially we have to draw a line somewhere. If we start including criticism of criticism, do we also need to include the criticism of criticism of criticism? Also, to be balanced, would we then need to qualify all the statements that praise Rand in other parts of the article? Excluding the criticism of criticism is just a good place to draw that line. In addition, giant chunks of the criticism of criticism violated either WP:OR or WP:Synth.

Removing philosopher adjective -- some sources call her a philosopher and some sources don't. The current edits don't take a side, they simply state the other adjectives that Rand is called and point out that she developed the philosophical system of Objectivism. Its a far better compromise than choosing between "philosopher", "amateur philosopher", and "pseudo-philosopher" (all of which have been proposed in the past with sources to back them up). Idag (talk) 08:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Her work certainly falls squarely within the Wikipedia definition of Philosophy if one considers Wikipedia reliable. The Wikipedia article on Objectivism refers to it as a philosophy developed by Ayn Rand as do many others. It's an exercise in absurdity to propose that the person who develops a philosophy isn't a philosopher.TheJazzFan (talk) 21:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• Agree with Idaq's comments. Peter Damian (talk) 17:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so we have seven experienced editors (nine total, two newbies) saying that the supposed consensus to radically change and delete the article did not exist, while we have three experienced editors explicitly sayinv that a consensus for the deletions did exist, and presumably two more who would count as support votes.

Seven to Five That there was No Consensus. The article goes back to the Dec 31 Consensus verison, and we edit from there - with a consensus first before any deletions are made. Kjaer (talk) 00:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record I did not take part in the above as I think the question is improperly framed, If I had it would support which would make any decision so close as not to count. Bring in mediation and stop edit warring in the meantime. --Snowded TALK 03:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Steve, I can't believe you have reverted on this. Firstly the RfC process was not agreed to by all editors, secondly even if it had been then it is too close to call. Wikipedia does not work on the basis of majority voting. There have been multiple changes since the article was frozen, not one single change and there have been discussions here on most of the individual points a majority of 1 does not validate your reversion. An independent admin has been asked to get involved and the sooner the better. --Snowded TALK 12:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• If there are several views on whether she was a philosopher or not, give due weight to them all. In the lead, where they won't all fit, the simplest way to do that is to leave them all out. (As a point of detail, saying that X had a philosophy and that they were a philosopher are not the same thing. I've seen George McClellan credited with a philosophy.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
• I don't think this RFC was put in a very helpful way - RFCs should be about content, not taking sides. In addition the changes are too broad between the two versions (diff) to easily see what's going on. The only thing I can really say is that the more detailed intro seems better. As for moving forward: I think abandon this RFC and find a way to break the problem down in a way that facilitates discussion, eg by section. If necessary have RFCs on different parts of the issue. Best of luck... Rd232 ^talk 17:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Philosopher

Most sources refer to Ayn Rand as a philosopher including her obituary in the New York Times. Everyone agrees she developed a philosophical system, so that would seem to be a good indication that she was a philosopher. If you support referring to her as a philosopher, please indicate by saying Support, and if you oppose please indicate that by saying Oppose and provide your reasoning including sources (numerous have been supplied that use philosopher and can be viewed above).

Support This comes down to the same damn thing time after time. Why the resistance to identifying her as a philosopher? What are we supposed to do when a "real" philosopher, like Quine, rhymes with Ayn about Identity? Should we re-evaluate Quine's status as a philosopher because he agrees with Aristotle too? Who is this Aristotle fellow anyway, was he a "real" philosopher? You see where such pathetic pedantry leads. Yeah, this is probably AGF violation and whatever, but the most idiotic people in the world are those who hate hate hate hate Ayn Rand.User:Philosopher

ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose: The last time we had this debate, JReadings and I spent a great deal of time looking at sources to see how Rand was described. Roughly half the sources call her a philosopher while the other half omit that adjective (I'm not hunting down those sources again, the relevant discussion is in the archives). The current compromise is the best way to balance this use of adjectives as it omits the word philosopher while at the same time acknowledging that she developed a philosophical system. Idag (talk) 04:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

There is no need to even bring this up again. She IS a philosopher and there are a very, very long string of citations that can, and have been put forth - including encyclopedias, academic journals, and published statements by other notable philosophers. These sources take it beyond anything subject to honest questioning. There is no consensus to the contrary - only Orig. Research and bald opinion. One doesn't compromise a cited fact to suit a personal opinion of an editor - and remember, Idag, some of these editors have been very outspoken in their angry statements of dislike for Rand. --Steve (talk) 04:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Steve supports. I'll ignore the rest as an AGF violation. Idag (talk) 04:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I agree that she can credibly be called a "philosopher". Even L.Ron Hubbard is often referred to as such. She started her own cult which was based upon philosophical concepts. CABlankenship (talk) 05:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Idag, there is no AGF violation. I did nothing but point out that some editors have made extrememly strong anti-Rand opinions known, put forth origonal research and their personal opinions and have deleted statements about Rand being a philosopher despite their very solid cites. --Steve (talk) 05:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

And that just happens to violate WP:AGF. Attack the argument, not the editors. Idag (talk) 06:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

CABlankenship, the problem is that a number of sources don't call her a philosopher, but, rather, a novelist. Many authors use philosophical concepts in their work and have a devoted following, that doesn't necessarily make them philosophers. My point is that we can acknowledge that she made a philosophical work without making a value judgment that she's a philosopher (currently the article does not say that she either is or is not a philosopher). Idag (talk) 06:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose calling her a philosopher; support saying she developed a philosophical system. We had a similar issue at Lyndon LaRouche, who sees himself as an economist because he writes about economics. But we should only identify people as members of a profession when that profession actively admits them by employing them, promoting and referencing their work, or awarding them academic or professional qualifications. None of this is the case with Ayn Rand. That situation could change, of course, and according to some sources it is changing, but we're not there yet. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow, SlimVirgin, maybe you aren't aware, but her income from sales of philosophy books and her fees for public speaking on philosophical issues was extremely high. If you are talking about making a living, being paid, for philosophical work, (which, incidently, is not a good way to rank philosophers), but if you did - she would rank extrememly high. If you are talking about her work being referenced, then again, for someone whose philosophy is disliked by many academics, and is herself, disliked by many in academia, she is referenced quite a bit - as a philosopher. There are many books written about her as a philosopher. Let me ask you, are you personally familiar with this issue? Have you seen the citations? --Steve (talk) 05:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I have seen some of the citations, but there aren't many, not from professional philosophers, though if you have a list anywhere, I'd be glad to look through it. The point is that the profession does not, by and large, regard her as a member of it. Anyone who has studied philosophy (Western analytic philosophy, anyway) would not, in my view, read Rand's work and regard it as philosophy. A case could be made for it, of course, and people have tried to make it. If you can recommend any reading that would show I'm wrong, I'd be happy to read it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

On background reading I recommend this which has huge chunks of her work. She has thoughts about number which clearly supersede anything which Frege or Cantor could have said. And here are some profound thoughts about thinking itself. "Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification. " Indeed. Or on the Analytic-synthetic distinction. Good luck.

• Oppose per Slim. Peter Damian (talk) 08:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: There are enough academic references to Ayn Rand as a "philosopher" to warrant describing her as such in the article. Adding to sources already mentioned previously by others, Rand is included in A History of Women Philosophers - Volume IV: Contemporary Women Philosophers (see excerpts of chapter), edited by Mary Ellen Waithe, a philosophy professor whose work is amply quoted and respected. More important than applying the label "philosopher", however, is to make sure the article reflects why Rand, and women in general are marginalized in academic philosophical circles. Camille Paglia includes Rand in her list of ten great female philosophers, though she feels "female philosopher" doesn't really make sense. She explains that philosophy is a male genre because women thinkers tend toward more applied approaches that provoke cultural change, whereas traditional philosophy is occupied with rhetorical manipulation of terms and concepts that is removed from everyday concerns. Rand believed that the true test of the value in philosophy is its ability to affect the lives of the common man. In essence, Rand's *very philosophy* challenges the values and approach of traditional philosophy; hence, the ensuing conflict between Rand and academic traditionalists. --MPerel 08:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, I'm taking you at your word that you wanted some reading that would be relevant. This is on the rough side, it is decidedly incomplete, and it is a mix of lay material and work of academic philosophers:

---

Ayn Rand’s Normative Ethics: the Virtuous Egoist (2006, New York: Cambridge University Press.)

Atheism, Ayn Rand, and Other Heresies (1991, Buffalo, NY: Prometheus.)

by Chris Mathew Sciabarra, PhD

• Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical (1995, University Park, PA: The University of Pennsylvania Press.)
• “Ayn Rand’s Critique of Ideology,” Reason Papers 14 (Spring, 1989): 34-47.
• “The Rand Transcript,” Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, (Fall 1999.)
• “Investigative Report: In Search of the Rand Transcript,” Liberty (October, 1999.)
• Ayn Rand, Homosexuality, and Human Liberation (2003, Cape Town, South Africa: Leap Publishing.)

by David Kelly, PhD.

• The Contested Legacy of Ayn Rand: Truth and Toleration in Objectivism (2000, New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.)

by Douglas Den Uyl, PhD, and Douglas Rasmussen, PhD

• [editors] The Philosophic Thought of Ayn Rand (1984, Urbana and Chicago, ILL: University of Illinois Press.)
• “Nozick on the Randian Argument,” The Personalist, April, 1978, 186-187, reprinted in Reading Nozick, J. Paul, editor, (1981, Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Littlefield.)

by Tibor Machan, PhD, Prof. Emer.

• Ayn Rand (2000, New York: Peter Lang.)

by John Hospers, PhD, Prof. Emer.

• “Conversations with Ayn Rand,” Liberty, July, 1990, 23-36, and September, 1990, 42-52.)

by Louis Torres and Michelle M. Kamhi

• What Art Is: Ayn Rand’s Philosophy of Art in Critical Perspective (1996, Chicago, Ill.: Open Court.)

by Mimi Gladstein, PhD

• The Ayn Rand Companion (1984, Westport, CN: Greenwood.)
• [and Chris Mathew Sciabarra, editors] Feminist Interpretations of Ayn Rand (1999, University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.)

Philosophical Books, Volume 44 Issue 1, Pages 42 - 52, "Recent Work On Truth: Ayn Rand" Discusses an explosion of academic interest in Ayn Rand

The Journal of Ayn Rand Sudies - a nonpartisan, semiannual interdisciplinary, double-bind peer-reviewed scholarly periodical.

Necessary Factual Truth, by Gregory M. Brown, University Press of America - a notable publication discussing Rand's epistemology

Concise Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Routledge; 2000. ISBN 0-415-22364-4 - lists her as a philosopher Encyclopedia of Ethics by Lawrence C. Becker (Routledge 2001), p. 1440. (lists Ayn Rand as philosopher) Philosophy of Education: An Encyclopedia, edited by J. J. Chambliss (Garland 1996), p. 302. (lists Ayn Rand as philosopher) Gale's American Philosophers, 1950-2000 (lists Ayn Rand as philosopher) History of American Thought (lists Ayn Rand as philosopher) The Wadsworth Philosophy Series (lists Ayn Rand as philosopher) Ayn Rand, Objectivists, and the History of Philosophy by Fred Seddon The Logical Structure of Objectivism by Thomas and Kelly

Wallace Matson: Professor Emeritus, Univ of Calif Berkley - https://itunes.berkeley.edu/people/detail/27 author of A New History of Philosophy, Volume I: From Thales to Ockham He produced a journal article reviewing Rand's position on universals. He disagreed with some of what she wrote, but stated that her work in Epistemology merited more study.

Here are three books that mention Rand as a philosopher and include Rand's response to Relativism, Rand on free will, and Rand on selfishness. Two are texts that are collections of primary texts and include excerpts from Rand's "The Virtue of Selfishness."

• Invitation to Philosophy: Issues and Options 2006, 10e 4 authors
• Twenty Questions: An Introduction to Philosophy, 2007, 6e 3 editors
• Voices of Wisdom: A Multicultural Philosophy reader 2007, 6e Gary Kessler - Kessler's brief bio of her before her excerpt says "Rand was a novelist and a philosopher who began a movement called Objectivism."

(...and she crops up as a philosopher in a wide variety of other recent philosophy textsbooks)

A Rand Primer by philosopher Allan Gotthelf

Reason and Value: Aristotle vs Rand

Professors (mostly professors of philosophy) who consider Ayn Rand a philosopher:

• Aeon Skoble Bridgewater State College
• Allan Gotthelf, (University of Pittsburgh), (who is also Secretary of the Ayn Rand Society, an official 'group' of the Eastern Division of the American Philosophical Association).
• Andrew Bernstein Pace University (or Duke - not sure which is the up to date position)
• Darryl Wright Harvey Mudd College
• David Schmidtz University of Arizona
• Douglas Den Uyl (Bellarmine University, Louisville, Kentucky)
• Douglas Rasmussen (St. John's University, New York)
• Eric Mack (Tulane University)
• Fred Miller, Jr. Bowling Green State University
• Fred Seddon (University of Pittsburgh or Duquesne University? (I'm not sure of this affiliation)
• Gary Hull, (Duke University)
• George Reisman Pepperdine University
• George Waslh Salisbury State University
• Harold Bloom Yale University
• Harry Binswanger CUNY–Hunter
• Irfan Khawaja University of Notre Dame
• Jaegwon Kim Brown University
• Jan Narveson University of Waterloo
• John Cooper Princeton University
• John Lewis Ashland University
• John Ridpath York University
• Jonathan Jacobs (University of Pennsylvania or Colgate University - not sure which is most current)
• Julia Driver Dartmouth College
• Leonard Peikoff New York University
• Lester Hunt (University of Wisconsin, Madison)
• Lisa Dolling (head of the honors program in theology at St. John's University in New York)
• Madison James Lennox University of Pittsburgh
• Michael Berliner Cal-State University, Northridge
• Michael Huemer (University of Colorado, Boulder)
• Neera Kapur Badwhar University of Oklahoma
• Paul Griffiths University of Pittsburgh
• Randall Dipert (C.S. Peirce Professor of American Philosophy, SUNY Buffalo)
• Richard Janko University of London
• Richard Kamber Trenton State College
• Robert Hessen Stanford University
• Robert Mayhew Seton Hall University
• Robert Nozick Harvard University
• Robert Pasnau University of Colorado
• Roderick Long (Auburn University)
• Shoshana Milgram-Knapp Virginia Polytechnic Institute
• Slavoj Zizek (The European Graduate School)
• Stephen Hicks Rockford College
• Stephen Parrish (Concordia University, Ann Arbor, Michigan)
• Stephen R. C. Hicks (Rockford College, Illinois)
• Susan Haack University of Miami
• Tara Smith (University of Texas at Austin)
• Tibor Machan, (professor emeritus in the department of philosophy at Auburn University)
• Wayne Davis (Chair of the Philosophy Department, Georgetown University)
• Willaim Bechtel Georgia State University

--Steve (talk) 08:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Philosopher[footnote] was the consensus for as long as I have edited this article. It is interesting that NOW after the RFC to confirm your supposed "consensus" you ask for a vote. There was never any consensus to chanve the attribute, and I stick by the status quo ante. It is a bit late to start looking for consensus in a panic to support edits which are about to be reverted to the status quo ante. I suggest we drop this charade, and move onto something actually helpful, like dicussing why we need a fleshed out Objectivist Movement section as well as sections on ARI and TAS when these have there own articles? Kjaer (talk) 09:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I tried to. It was reverted. TallNapoleon (talk) 09:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Steve, thank you for that list; it's very much appreciated. One thing that would be helpful is to compile a list only of professional philosophers who have referenced her. Also, the list you provided includes people who themselves have written about how philosophy departments don't take her seriously. Douglas Den Uyl, for example, who wrote a book about her, says, "There’s a kind of "catch 22" here that is hard to overcome: more serious scholarship on Rand is needed, but is not a ticket to promotion in most departments. Yet because Rand is still not acceptable, it is likely that only those who are promoted will be able to work on her" (my bold). [1]

People can have a personal philosophy, and can even produce philosophical works, without being philosophers, except in a very loose sense. But to read her writing on Kant, for example, is to realize that she almost certainly didn't read him herself. I know that one of her close associates makes that claim too, but even without that, it's pretty clear. So here we have a woman who makes exceptionally strong statements about Kant (he is evil etc), and yet who either hasn't read him, or clearly hasn't understood him. It's the very opposite of the way a philosopher would behave. One of the things you come away with, if you read Kant (especially the Critique of Pure Reason) is respect for him, even if you disagree with it all. In addition to which, she had no qualifications in the subject, was never employed as a philosopher, is nowadays not regarded as one by most philosophy departments, isn't read by philosophy undergraduates, isn't even heard of outside the U.S. And so on.

Given that she's a woman, philosophy departments would normally seize on her, because there's a dearth of woman philosophers. But it would be extremely difficult to teach Ayn Rand — I mean teach her qua philosopher in any kind of rigorous way — because so much of what she wrote is just ... odd. Her writing reminds me of Charlie Chaplin playing Hitler in The Great Dictator, when he's speaking what sounds like German, but what is in fact just noise. What she writes looks like philosophy, and sounds like philosophy, but when you try to work out what she's saying, you realize that it just doesn't go anywhere, and most of all, you realize that she hasn't read any other philosophers, or hasn't read them carefully. You have to be a student of philosophy before you can be a philosopher. It's not just a question of sitting down and thinking. You have to understand the history, the context, who has said what before you, and what was wrong with it, what was right about it. It's difficult. You can't do it in a vacuum. You can't say, "I despise professional philosophers, so I'm just going to ignore them, and write my own thing." You can say that after having spent 40 years reading them, but not before.

Having said that, I'm open to persuasion that her work has value. I'm currently reading it, and I intend to read more, so I'm not dismissing it as unimportant or uninteresting. I'm just saying it's not philosophy. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 09:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

This list is not to be ignored. Jaegwon Kim, Susan Haack, Nozick are names to be reckoned with. I know Robert Pasnau (medievalist and latinist and expert on late scholastic philosophy). I think I will email him. I find it hard to reconcile those people with what I have read of Rand. Peter Damian (talk) 12:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Peter, the Anthem Foundation for Objectivist scholarship is an organization that funds research and scholarship on Ayn Rand. Peter Railton, Geoffry-Sayre McCord, and Nicholas Rescher, are among the many mainstream, well known philosophers who have participated in Anthem conferences. I think it is fair to say that if they are presenting their work to a conference sponsored by an Objectivist advocacy organization they take Rand to have some legitimacy as a philosopher, even though they don't agree with her. Here is a link to info on a recent Anthem conference: http://www.pitt.edu/~hpsdept/news/news/ConceptsObjConf2006.pdf Here is a link to a more recent conference on the philosophy of law: http://www.utexas.edu/cola/depts/philosophy/content/news/COIL.pdf Notice Michael Moore presented a paper. Leading philosophers certainly don't agree with Objectivism. But they consider it philosophy. Endlessmike 888 15:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Support: In addition to the sources Steve cited, the Dictionary of Modern American Philosophers published by Thoemmes Continuum lists Rand as a philosopher. Also, Ayn Rand: A Companion to Her Works and Thought will be published in 2009 by Blackwell (a leading philosophy press). Endlessmike 888 15:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Endlessmike 888 (talk • contribs)

Oppose: I remember spending days reading through literally hundreds of newspaper, magazine, journal, encyclopedia and book references of Ayn Rand produced by LexisNexis, Factiva, JSTOR and Worldcat. The search results can be found in Archive 14 here, including an interesting discussion surrounding how the Encyclopedia Britannica handled the Ayn Rand label. For every citation Steve, for example, can find labeling Rand as a philosopher, Idag and I can honestly produce 2 others that omit the imprimatur. Where does that leave us? Some might call it original research by way of synthesis, but that would only be true if we sought to cite some form of synthesis as a footnote. An equally important policy, overlooked in this discussion, is Undue Weight (WP:UNDUE)). As we all know, it was designed to avoid excessively promoting a fringe interpretation of any subject (especially when the interpretation is prominently displayed in the lead section). SlimVirgin and Idag indirectly mentioned this already above. I agree with them. Given the preponderance of verifiable sources, we cannot simply label Ayn Rand as a "philosopher". A compromise will be needed given the preponderance of sources. J Readings (talk) 16:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The lack of the description "philosopher" in some articles is meaningless. Do a JSTOR search for any random philosopher. What percentage says "as the philosopher Bertrand Russell argued" vs "as Russell argued"? You say Steve is using Undue Weight to prop up fringe interpretations. Jaegwon Kim and Peter Railton are not fringe sources for what is and is not philosophy. If there is reason to think that two of the most influential philosophers of the last 30 years consider Rand a philosopher, that should outwiegh the fact that some people simply write "Ayn Rand" instead of "Ayn Rand the philosopher." Endlessmike 888 20:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Endlessmike 888 (talk • contribs)

Not "some","many." Many label Rand simply as a novelist or writer. I'm simply conveying to the talk page what the sources say in a readable fashion. Academics and students (among others) who have access to these database resources can verify the work Idag and I have already done. As for Jaegwon Kim and Peter Railton, I doubt anyone here would base a lead section label on a handful of opinions, regardless of whether or not someone personally opines that they are "two of the most influential philosophers of the last 30 years." It has the potential to become a double-edged sword for all involved. J Readings (talk) 12:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

But do you see my problem with your method? You are taking lack of discussion of the issue as evidence an author picks a side on the issue. That doesn't make sense. The evidence we should consider are those who consider Rand a philosopher, and those who reject her as a pseudo or amateur. Sources that remain silent on the issue should be discarded. As for Jaegwon Kim and Peter Railton, I suggest you ask someone in the profession about their reputations; I'm not just opining. --Endlessmike 888 14:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. If something were never an issue for independent third-parties, there would never have been a need to discuss or label it, would there? To take an extreme example, suppose a small handful of religious followers were to consider someone to be a saint -- yet, the majority of sources neither discuss the person's sainthood nor suggested the person was considered by a few to be a saint. Should the lead still insist that the person was a saint? Of course not. That method would constitute undue weight. Indeed, you seem to be asking me to prove a negative -- that Ayn Rand is NOT considered a "philosopher." No one can prove a negative and, in fact, proving negatives are not a terribly useful way to resolve disputes. For the purpose of this encyclopedia entry, what counts are (1) verifiable sources, (2) the preponderance therein, and (3) the context in which those sources were being used as stipulated in undue weight (see WP:UNDUE)). If you were to carefully re-read the linked Archive 14 I mentioned above, you'll notice that several keyword searches looked for several labels of Ayn Rand. Articles in which Rand was only identified as a "novelist" or "writer" excluded the label "philosopher." Surely, we need to look at the preponderance of sources that simply identify her occupation as a useful method. To cherry pick a very small sample of sources to confirm one occupation or another would be terribly dishonest and misleading -- something I don't want to promote. What I do want to encourage is hopefully something that looks at as many sources as possible (not only a few) in order to confirm that no one here is trying to promote a single agenda either for or against the subject. That, to me, is honesty without an agenda. J Readings (talk) 17:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

You premise your last post on a disanalogy. It is not a small group of marginal people who consider Rand a philosopher. On the pro-philosopher side, we have cited mainstream leading philosophy encyclopedias, recent books published by leading philosophy presses, and several leading philosophers, all of which consider her a philosopher. This is prima facie reason to consider her a philosopher; no one on my side of the debate is cherry picking. When leading sources from within the profession itself refer to her as a philosopher, this should outweigh some newspaper or magazine articles that simply calls her a novelist and omits the philosopher label. --Endlessmike 888 20:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Endlessmike 888 (talk • contribs)

Not when we already have verifiable sources which also acknowledge that Ayn Rand is not taught in most philosophy departments in the United States and that her work was (and probably still is) largely ignored in academia. Those citations, in conjunction with the preponderance of other citations I already mentioned collated from LexisNexis, Factiva and JSTOR (not to mention the Encyclopedia Britannica among others), call into question your good-faith assumptions about who is misunderstanding whom in this discussion about undue weight. J Readings (talk) 22:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you point me to the source that states Rand is not taught in most philosophy departments? --Endlessmike 888 01:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Endlessmike 888 (talk • contribs)

Endlessmike 888, I have to apologize for not responding right away. A close family member passed away unexpectedly and, as you can imagine, I haven't really been paying attention to these discussions over the past few weeks. I just noticed your question right now.

The comment above was not mine, but those found in various reliable sources authorized in the reliable source guidelines. What I can do is paste a sample of some of the relevant passages here. Here are a couple, for example:

(Quote begins) The "Objectivism" class [at Stanford University] is led by junior [student] Jason Rheins, who also came up with the idea.

"I want to become a professor of philosophy," Rheins said. "I wanted to experience teaching."

Rheins said he discovered objectivism at about the same time he entered Stanford as a freshman and has been president of the Stanford Objectivists club since the beginning of his sophomore year.

"Objectivism is all about reason and happiness and freedom," Rheins said.

The class meets weekly and alternates between lectures from guests, who are mainly from the Ayn Rand institute (emphasis added), and a discussion section led by Rheins. According to Rheins, about 10 students have enrolled for credit in addition to a number of auditors.

The class is not sponsored by the philosophy department because, he explained, "all modern philosophy and objectivism are diametrically opposed." (emphasis added)

Jennifer Nuckols, "Five student-initiated classes satisfy niches at Stanford," University Wire, January 24, 2002.

I cited a couple other examples below. There are others, of course. J Readings (talk) 12:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Support calling Rand a philospoher. We had this debate before (more than once), and when I checked the dictionary definitions, Rand definitely qualified under several of the definitions. Quite often, she has been described by neutral third parties as "novelist/philosopher" which makes sense since she is famous in both capacities. So far as I have seen, opponents to calling her "philosopher" are also opposed to her philosophy, to the extent that they understand it. (Some have admitted that they don't.) I have no problem with the general idea of the introduction saying more or less that Rand was a fiction writer who developed a philosophical system etc. (And it is a genuine philosophical system, addressing all the traditional areas with an integrated approach. Whether you can find flaws in it is secondary.) Her philosophy has had substantial impact on the culture, and pretending that it is insignificant is counterfactual. — DAGwyn (talk) 18:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with that sentiment, which is why the current compromise does not mess with adjectives and simply states that she developed the philosophical system of Objectivism. Do you agree with that compromise? Idag (talk) 18:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Support for reasons previously mentioned. Retract my previous support of the compromise sentence in the lead, as it seems that was taken as support of removing the description "philospher" entirely. What exactly do you call one who creates a philosophy? Jomasecu ^talk _contribs 21:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - whether she is to be called a philosopher is an issue about which there is no consensus here, nor in academia, nor even in the general public. It is an issue that should be dealt with within the article (perhaps as its own section). It is not up to wikipedia to make a declaration one way or the other. --JimWae (talk) 01:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

attempting to create a compromise again

The old text said that she was a philosopher, but then qualified that with a reference to cited material that her status as philosopher was disputed. There is no question that (i) she was a successful novelist and screen writer and (ii) that she created a philosophical movement which she called objectivism (although that term is also used in a very different way elsewhere in Philosophy). We now have a long list of names but no links to citable material and its unclear if the reference is to dismiss her status or to accept it. At least one notable libertarian philosopher accepted her political ideas but dismissed her as a philosopher. So overall its not clear. I was not wild about the compromise but it did seem to serve all parties. It made her primary occupation clear and acknowledged that her work created a philosophical school of thought. That makes the article comparable with that of other novelists. I make no literary or intellectual comparison here but if we look at the page for Dostoyevsky he is not listed as a philosopher. His work however is used on philosophy courses (101 ethics when I read Philosophy was all based around Crime and Punishment). He like many other novelists uses literature to express a clear Weltanschauung. Rand does the same with the model of a hero etc. from which an approach to philosophy was generated. The compromise proposal recognises this, and avoids clumsy references to disputed terms. Maybe we can look at that wording and improve it so that those for whom her status as a philosopher seems of paramount importance can be happy. For example we might state that she was employed as a screen writer, was a successful novelist who articulated an approach to life and politics which became objectivism. I know thats not perfect, but how about trying to find a way to do this? --Snowded TALK 13:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

"We might state that she was employed as a screen writer, was a successful novelist who articulated an approach to life and politics which became objectivism." You strike me as a very reasonable chap, Snowded, and your suggested compromise is something I'm personally okay with. Whether others will accept your compromise is a separate matter. Incidentally, if you were to read the Ayn Rand entry in the Encyclopedia Britannica, the Rand author takes a similar tact. J Readings (talk) 00:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Idag (talk) 00:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

An "amateur" philosopher - while an indistinct & biased qualifier - is still a philosopher. Find a primary definition of "philosopher" or "philosophy" that her work doesn't fit. Such as the Wikipedia article on Philosophy. Do the definitions indicate one must be employed in the Philosophy Dept. of a college or university or hold a degree in Philosophy? Is the debate going to be decided on a numerical tally of academicians who do or don't call her a philosopher?

Years ago I was attending a university and decided to stop by the Philosophy dept. I mentioned Atlas Shrugged. This prompted one of the professors to make a comment to the effect of "oh, yeah that Ayn Rand crap..." Further inquiry revealed that she'd never actually read the book - or any others of Rand, but was simply reflecting word-of-mouth bias and had concluded it wasn't worth her effort to investigate any further. Yet her contempt was absolute. This was a paid "professional" in Philosophy.TheJazzFan (talk) 03:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Someone earlier brought up a comparison to Dostoyevsky, who happens to be one of my favorite authors. I will put aside my extreme distaste for comparing the 'sophomoric' work of Rand with the profound genius of Dostoyevsky in order to make a point. Dostoyevsky was a novelist whose work touched extensively on philosophy. His novels were constructed in such a way as to explore philosophical and psychological concepts: The Idiot was a mocking commentary of what would happen were one to live a near christ-like life, Crime and Punishment is essentially the hero's attempt to disprove the existence of absolute morality, and The Brothers Karamazov deals heavily with Christian philosophy. Rand attempted a similar style, and although I find her characters uninteresting and her fiction strained (I literally burst out laughing at several points reading Atlas Shrugged because of the inanity of the social situations she creates), she nevertheless structures her novels in a way that deals with stating her philosophical views. While Dostoyevsky was an explorer who ultimately drew few conclusions, Rand was a dictator who presented her work as what N.Branden called her "immutable truths"—she believed that her work was absolutely true and necessary by demand of reason and rationality. Dostoyevsky was not so vulgar, but this is beside the point. I type all of this to make a simple point: we cannot view Russian philosophy by our western standards. Rand's style, more than anything else about her, was entirely Russian. Although I dislike Rand, I believe that she, like Dostoyevsky, was a philosopher in the "Russian style", and while it's true that she's not much of a philosopher in the European sense (Branden states that she only ever produced two works of actual technical philosophy), her work still touched on enough philosophy to deserve the title of philosopher in my opinion. I should also point out that Dostoyevsky, like Rand, was a monster. One of his closest friends called him "The most evil Christian I have ever known." He used to beat his slaves mercilessly. Dostoyevsky was an evil genius, who nevertheless wrote sublime works on morality, philosophy, psychology, and religion. Perhaps Rand was just evil. But she attempted to write on the same subjects, and is a philosopher for similar reasons. CABlankenship (talk) 08:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, at least you recognize she was a philosopher. However many "technical" works of philosophy she wrote, she expressed and outlined her philosophy in her novels as well. Don't know whether she was a "monster", from what I gather she was something of a control freak, probably a good thing she never had children.

"she believed that her work was absolutely true and necessary by demand of reason and rationality" And the argument against her usually goes something like yours - "it's not true...because it makes me uncomfortable, flies in the face of what we all 'know' and it just isn't correct...well, because it just isn't."

"I type all of this to make a simple point: we cannot view Russian philosophy by our western standards." What do you perceive as the difference between Western Standards and Russian standards? To say we can't view it by a certain standard is also saying "We can't view various barbaric acts within societies steeped in mysticism and superstition by our standards." So we can't view the Holocaust as "wrong" because it stems from a philosophy as it most certainly did. The execution of raped girls in Islamic countries, ethnic slaughter, etc. According to you one can make no value judgement, reach no conclusion. We must simply say "this is what happened because it did". And when someone here decides we should start throwing political dissenters into gulags, or turn America into a Christian theocracy, or reinstitute slavery we can make no judgement.

Seriously, I'm curious what you perceive as the essential difference between Russian and Western standards.TheJazzFan (talk) 12:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I do not believe CAB is advocating moral relativism, nor do I believe that it is relevant or constructive to discuss that on this talk page. TallNapoleon (talk) 19:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe you to be incorrect on both points.TheJazzFan (talk) 02:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Jazz, I'm really unsure how you came to the conclusion that the phrase "we cannot judge Russian philosophy by western standards" would lead to holocaust relativism. In fact, that conclusion is rather bonkers. CABlankenship (talk) 20:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Since you're unsure I'll clarify it for you. Mankind-orchestrated events like that happen for a reason. There's some motivation, some framework of thought behind them. The Holocaust happened because of the particular philosophy held by the perpetrators. As did the Crusades, The Inquisition, etc. Do you feel the Holocaust was wrong? Or do you just see it as something that "just happened", divorced from any causality? Was it evil? Why? What makes it evil? You can't say it was wrong without condemning the underlying philosophy. One results from the other.

Yet you say we can't judge Russian philosophy by Western standards. Why not? To even state this presupposes that you believe there to be differing standards and have an idea what those differences are. You still haven't clarified what you believe to be the distinction.TheJazzFan (talk) 02:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Excellent point Jazz. It's not "bonkers" when you look to the roots of man-made events. Ethan a dawe (talk) 03:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The distinction is that Rand was a novelist who incorporated philosophy into her stories, similar to Dostoyevsky, as apart from what we typically consider a 'philosopher' (Kant, Hume). My point was that we often discount novelists as not being 'true philosophers', and I was arguing that this might be a mistake. As for your holocaust argument...well, it's no less bonkers after your clarification I'm afraid. Somehow you decided my argument — that novelists are classifiable as philosophers — was equivalent to condoning the holocaust, rape, and sharia law. Quite odd. CABlankenship (talk) 03:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

CAB - You already previously asked "Jazz, I'm really unsure how you came to the conclusion that the phrase "we cannot judge Russian philosophy by western standards" would lead to holocaust relativism." which mentions the point but evaded the question regarding it that I posed to you and now you appear to be evading the point altogether (what you declared as your central point) and attempting to substitute something else. The question wasn't how are Ayn Rand and Dostoyevsky similar and how they differ from what "we" supposedly consider to be a philosopher. Your statement that I addressed was "we cannot view Russian philosophy by our western standards". And, once again, my question is - what do you see as the distinction between Russian and Western philosophy? While you're at it, do you believe the Holocaust was wrong and why?TheJazzFan (talk) 04:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

This entire conversation is irrelevant to the topic at hand--namely, the improvement of this article. Jazz and Ethan, I understand that Objectivism has a tendency to obliterate one's capabilities for understanding nuance, but allow me to explain this to you: saying that Wikipedia should not necessarily judge who is and is not a philosopher based on Western standards is not moral relativism. This is a flagrant violation of WP:CIVIL and for that matter of Godwin's Law. And although this probably qualifies as violating WP:DNFT, I'm going to go ahead anyway. When Blankenship writes that "we cannot view Russian philosophy by our western standards," I assume he means that to analyze and understand Russian philosophy, to get anything useful out of it, we cannot look at it from a western point of view. To really understand it, we have to look at it from a Russian point of view. That does not mean that, after having studied it and understood it, that we cannot criticize Russian philosophies from a Western point of view, or judge it using a Western moral code, whether relativist or absolutist. This should be a simple distinction, one that even an Objectivist should be able to grasp, despite the well-documented ill effects that philosophy has on the human mind's capability to comprehend nuance.

Finally, this issue has nothing to do with the Holocaust, and frankly as someone who lost family to the Nazis--yemach shemam--it is extraordinarily rude and offensive for you to claim that it does. You have no business attempting to usurp their memory for your own ends--especially not in some petty attempt to prove a point. Your attempt to do so is unacceptable and insulting, and you owe everyone here, especially CABlankenship, an apology. TallNapoleon (talk) 07:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

TallNap - "this entire conversation is irrelevant to the topic at hand" First off, you're wrong and second, it's hypocrisy to make such a proclamation and then proceed to make a long-winded addition to the very conversation you've declared improper.

"saying that Wikipedia should not necessarily judge who is and is not a philosopher based on Western standards is not moral relativism." Whether it is or isn't, that's not the point in question. Go back to "I type all of this to make a simple point:" and rediscover what he said his central, simple point was and which I picked up on to discuss further, but which he's thus far avoided doing.

Additionally, while I'm sorry that members of your family as well as millions of others were victims, in this context you're simply attempting to use heritage as a blanket claim to declare indignance when no such indignance is justified. The assertion that mentioning the Holocaust and its root causes is somehow offensive is non-intellectual nonsense. I haven't denied that it occurred nor that it was an atrocity. My "own ends" are to illustrate the results of bad philosophy. I also mentioned the Inquisition and the Crusades. I imagine many had ancestors involved in those too. I'm sorry that you don't grasp why it's crucial to understand why philosophy matters in relation to the Holocaust or any human tragedy. The fact that you blatantly state it has nothing to do with the Holocaust is a stark admission that you don't grasp the connection. It's not enough to simply see newsreels of piles of bodies and starved prisoners and hear account after account of victims. Yes it was horrific, but WHY did it happen? How it relates directly to this article is that Ayn Rand dissected these kinds of things explicitly to their root. How dare I discuss it? How dare you NOT seek to understand it? Your knee-jerk, un-analytical reaction isn't my fault or problem and I don't grant it any validity.TheJazzFan (talk) 09:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

JazzFan, questions of moral relativism, social constructivism etc. really are complex issues that can not be reduced to your either/or type approach above. You suggestion that human events (tragic or otherwise) happen as a direct result of certain types of philosophy makes assumptions about causality in human systems which are increasingly under challenge from biology, complexity adaptive systems theory and the cognitive sciences. All of this is a part of the richness of the discipline that is philosophy. The statement that Ayn Rand "dissected these kind of things explicitly to their root" illustrates one of the reasons why she is not taken seriously within the bulk of that discipline (aside from Rand-institute funded fellowships and the odd exception. Now while this might become an interesting discussion its drifting off the point. What we have here is a literary figure who also engaged in philosophical speculation and the movement she established is needs recognition. That does not make her profession/occupation a philosopher. One of the reasons for bringing up a series of other literary figures is to try and find a featured article that can act as a role model for this one. --Snowded TALK 10:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Snowded "...complex issues that can not be reduced to your either/or type approach above..." "...assumptions about causality in human systems which are increasingly under challenge..." Do tell. And what conclusion do you envision these challenges reaching that ultimately vindicates the perpetrators of the Holocaust, not to mention the various international slaughter committed by Nazi Germany via their military and ultimate totalitarian goals? Either/or not valid? Was the Holocaust wrong? Yes or no? What 3rd option do you suppose there to be that doesn't involve evasion and equivocation? How 'bout the shenanigans within Stalin's regime?

Perhaps an individual who's profoundly effected by a specific disorder like schizophrenia or the like might be held to be not responsible for his actions. (And it's considered a disorder because there's some frame of reference to measure it against) But you apparently don't see the absurdity of what you're suggesting - that something that required long-term planning, technological skill and systematic implementation on a national level as well as the political installation of the regime that oversaw it was rooted in something other than a conceptual framework. Whether all involved wholeheartedly supported it or not or even understood exactly what they were participating in, it was still rooted in a conceptual framework. Or landing a man on the moon, or the development of the period table. What you're calling "the richness of the discipline that is philosophy" is an attempt to say "nothing is really anything", that there's no such thing as human responsibility for actions or that we can ever assert value judgements regarding human actions. You're evading the point that there can be bad philosophy. Rand not taken seriously? And krakens rule the seas on the flat Earth, the concept of microbes is absurd, bleeding is an effective way to remove evil humours, magnetism is witchcraft, heavier than air flying machines are impossible. Others here have documented those who do take her seriously. If you've ever read anything by Ayn Rand you didn't grasp what she said. It's also no wonder that you don't understand that she was a philosopher. No, she wasn't employed by a university philosophy dept. vying for tenure and on their dental plan, but she was nonetheless a philosopher.TheJazzFan (talk) 15:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I suppose I should take offence at this rant, but to be honest my feelings are more of sympathy. --Snowded TALK 16:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

"I suppose I should take offence at this rant" since you're not sure I'll clarify that you have no valid reason to feel offended. Disputed, definitely. I've outlined that I disagree with you and why in specific terms. You've failed to do the same. "but to be honest" Not hardly. If you were honest you'd say you're adopting a dismissive facade in lieu any reasoned response to offer. You, like CAB, can't even declare whether you believe the Holocaust to have been unequivocally wrong.TheJazzFan (talk) 18:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Please stop, you are bringing out the anthropologist in me --Snowded TALK 18:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Right. Jazz, your last post was outrageously offensive. I won't be responding to you again. Snowded, it's worth noting N.Branden says that Rand was an evolution doubter. Branden says that Rand was extremely ignorant of modern science and psychology. Napoleon: you are quite right in what I meant (I thought it was obvious, but Jazz still seems confused), perhaps it would be more clear if I had said "We shouldn't judge Russian philosophy by Western standards." I don't have any strong feelings on this opinion, and I think the arguments against classifying her as a philosopher are still quite strong. I simply wanted to suggest that it's possible that we are ignoring her culture of birth, and the style of Russian novelists in combining philosophy with fiction. CABlankenship (talk) 13:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

You won't respond because clearly you can't provide a coherent answer to the question I posed. No "confusion" on my part. You're engaging in obfuscation and backpeddling and now joining this absurd indignation conga line that someone else started and that you see as a convenient out. Your words are quite clear. You specifically identified a statement as your central point. Whether it's "can't" or "shouldn't" judge Russian philosophy by Western standards still presupposes some grasp of the distinction but probing that point reveals you're unable to articulate anything of substance about it let alone a reasoned explanation why we can't make any value judgements. You in fact categorize reaching conclusions as "vulgar", so no wonder you're also unwilling to commit to a declaration as to whether the Holocaust was wrong. And you say *I'm* being offensive?

"I'm not sold on the argument I put forth." Me either. "I was simply offering up a different perspective for consideration." Why? To what end? What's the point when there's to be no outcome of such consideration, no conclusion to be reached, that to actually to do so is "vulgar"?

"A convincing argument could be made that she is more of a self-help guru than a philosopher." Really? The validity of the particular proposition aside, convincing means reaching one of those vulgar conclusions you find so distasteful. Why not present an argument that Ayn Rand was a codfish or could turn seawater into basketballs that sing Broadway tunes. What the heck since it's all just so much random conceptual flotsam that we don't dare put to any actual use.

What many here seem to be simply bypassing is the obvious step of examining the definition of philosophy and of a philosopher. There are such definitions to be found. Wikipedia has an article on Philosophy. Whatever Rand's culture was or wasn't has no bearing on whether she was a philosopher. I haven't seen a definition that requires that one meet some standard of infallibility or particular venue of employment to be considered a philosopher. The most common motivation for naysaying seems to be simply they don't like her, of course not necessarily tied to a demonstration of any understanding of her ideas.TheJazzFan (talk) 16:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Jazz, you're going off on irrational tangents and creating absurd straw men. You're attacking arguments that nobody has put forth. I'm unsure whether this is because you somehow failed to understand where I was coming from, even after repeated explanations from myself and others as to your error, or whether this might simply be some sort of silly debate ploy. Perhaps you feel this is a debate, and you're trying to 'win' the argument in some fashion, hence your repeated distortions and mischaracterizations. You're all over the place with your reasoning: triumphantly challenging me to state my position on the holocaust(?), demanding that I answer your absurd straw men, and mocking me for my refusal to do so with the laughably self-congratulatory conclusion that your logic is simply overwhelming us. Needless to say, I find this sort of thing highly distasteful and silly. CABlankenship (talk) 19:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I've challenged you to substantiate and demonstrate you have an understanding of what you say. Artificial haughtiness doesn't hide the cowardice you've displayed in failing to even attempt to address a specific point. Since you used certain terms as part of some alleged point, what's the difference between Russian and Western philosophy? -silence- Why do you feel it's proper to avoid reaching a conclusion, "vulgar" to do so? -silence- Do you feel the Holocaust was wrong? -silence- Do you even understand that there IS a connection between an event like that and philosophy? -silence- How ironic and absurd for you to hurl accusations of erecting straw men. You've been erecting air men. I note that you couldn't even hold to your own original commitment to not respond to me again, albeit only to engage in more non-specific mewling. Debate? Hardly. I wish your responses were that substantial. They don't even amount to the most meager attempt, being in essence repeating "you're wrong...um, cuz you are." over and over.TheJazzFan (talk) 20:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I will suffer a brief review of your "substantial" claims. You assert that I have not answered you regarding the difference between Russian and Western writing styles. I can only assume that you either ignored my clarification on this issue (that Russians have historically used the novel to express philosophy, where Western philosophy rarely makes use of fiction), or that you somehow failed to realize that this was addressing your claim. You accuse me of ducking your question on whether or not the holocaust was wrong. I believe every sane individual would say that it was one of the most horrible events in all of history. I found your invocation of the holocaust to be distasteful, hence my refusal to comment, as it's beyond banal to have to say that I strongly disapprove of genocide. You interpreted this as a triumph on your part — a testament to your logic perhaps. Such conclusions are easier than facing reality, and more pleasing to oneself. Your final accusation is that I fail to understand that there is a connection between "philosophy" and the Nazis. Indeed, I do not 'even understand' your point on this, as I find comparing the holocaust with philology to be disturbing and 'bonkers' as I said before. This exhausts your "challenges". CABlankenship (talk) 05:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

"(the difference is that) Russians have historically used the novel to express philosophy, where Western philosophy rarely makes use of fiction" This doesn't address the difference in the substance of the philosophy, only the medium of delivery. You said "we shouldn't judge Russian Philosophy by our Western standards", you still haven't addressed what you believe to be those standards. I.e. "Western philosophy says that...while Russian philosophy says that..."

"You accuse me of ducking your question on whether or not the holocaust was wrong." No response = ducking. Not declarations of triumph, expressions of aggravation at your non-participation. Okay you feel the Holocaust was wrong. Based on what? You stated by inference that it was "vulgar" for Rand to reach any conclusions - such as that people are entitled to live free from the unprovoked initiation of force by others. You have to - as Rand did - reach certain conclusions to say the Holocaust was wrong. There has to be a conceptual standard by which you make such a judgement. Hitler obviously felt no qualms about his actions. Whose philosophy is correct? The philosophy that says mass-murder based on ethnicity/religious heritage etc. is justified or the philosophy that says that it isn't? Hitler felt that men should live their lives to devotedly serve the state and the will of the Fuehrer - including gleefully exterminating those he deemed not fit to live at all not because of any criminal act but because of their heritage or other characteristics decided on his whim. Individual rights are a non-issue to be subordinated to this end. Ayn Rand said people should live for their own lives, to achieve their own happiness, that the state exists to protect the rights of citizens. Who's right? You claim to hold contempt for Rand - implying that you actually have a grasp of what she said, but it's not clear that you do.

Elsewhere I notice you stated it was banal for Ayn Rand to state that there is a perceivable reality and that man perceives this reality with his senses. Maybe you'e not aware that there are those that claim otherwise and that this isn't a minor point. Or are you in the camp that insists that man's mind is impotent to perceive reality and that reality is just an illusion to begin with?TheJazzFan (talk) 09:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Thing is, there's plenty of Americans who use similar styles who are not considered philosophers. For example, would we classify the Wachowski brothers as philosophers because they made "The Matrix"? That movie certainly explores and develops lots of philosophical concepts. There's also Terry Goodkind, who uses and develops Objectivist concepts heavily in his novels. There's probably other writers that I can't think off of the top of my head, but many choose to use philosophical concepts in their works of fiction, that doesn't necessarily make them philosophers. Idag (talk) 14:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

CAB, Jazz isn't the one evading and setting up straw men. Nice try at a dodge though. Still, this just illustrates what's wrong with this whole discussion here. Ethan a dawe (talk) 19:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah..what he said. ;-) TheJazzFan (talk) 21:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Ooops, that delete was my bad! Thanks for the fix Napolean. Ethan a dawe (talk) 20:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

True. Like I said, I'm not sold on the argument I put forth. I was simply offering up a different perspective for consideration. In truth, Rand is far more similar to a religious guru than a philosopher. This point has been made by Branden, Rothbard, and many others. What she basically offered was a self-help system: a model for how to live. In this she is similar to basically any religion, including Scientology, Christianity, and so forth. A convincing argument could be made that she is more of a self-help guru than a philosopher. CABlankenship (talk) 14:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

This is also perhaps why her followers are so fervent. Anytime someone bases their lives around living in the style preached by a guru, they are going to be defensive about that philosophy. Most people are defensive about their religious beliefs, and in a sense, Objectivism is simply another self-help religion. CABlankenship (talk) 14:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) The entire discussion above is largely irrelevant. It doesn't matter if everyone here thinks she's a philosopher or if everyone thinks that she isn't a philosopher. All that matters is what do the sources call her. Some call her a philosopher and some simply call her a novelist. We have to find a way to reconcile those. The debate on philosophical relativism is interesting, but irrelevant to making actual improvements on this article. Idag (talk) 20:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• That is a comparison I had been considering myself - but, while D is often considered a proto-existentialist, even read in a few philosophy classes (usually introductory), his categorization as a philosopher is also questioned by many. I know of a philosophy class that regularly had Jonathan Livingston Seagull as the first reading assignment--JimWae (talk) 08:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Support: Rand is clearly a philosopher and has a recognized philosophy, objectivism, to prove it. She (or it) may not be liked or respected, but that cannot change that basic fact. That some of her followers display cult-like attitudes changes this in no way, as there are other recognized philosophers who have (had) similar devotees: Socrates, Marx, and Shaw spring immediately to mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by R.scipio (talk • contribs) 19:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Those examples are unfair. Socrates, Marx, and Shaw didn't teach their pupils that they were infallible in matters of philosophy. It is true that figures such as Marx and Aristotle have been held in divine reverence by their followers, but neither demanded such reverence from their followers during their own time. In this, Rand is more similar to an L.Ron Hubbard or Elijah Muhammad. In the words of N.Branden, she started a "dogmatic religion", and her teachings are more similar to a religion in the sense that they are preaching a certain life style and a way-of-living to follow. CABlankenship (talk) 21:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Merged threads by moving recent material to the contemporaneous thread at the (current) end of Talk.Gyrae (talk) 17:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Changes to introduction

There have been considerable changes since I rewrote the introduction, not all of them for the better. this is the current version of 11 January, [this is my version of 10 January. Instead, I would like us discuss the changes point by point, please.

1. First para
   1. I wrote that Rand was a writer of fiction and popular works on politics and philosophy. Rationale: she did mostly write fiction, and if you link to the site that gives sources for her philosophical theories, they are mostly from her fiction. The phrase 'popular works on politics and philosophy' bit was an attempt to tread carefully the line between callling her a philosopher and saying nothing at all. The new version reads '[she] developed the philosophical system known as Objectivism'. I still recoil at calling her work a 'philosophical system'.
      1. She wrote many books on philosophy, many books and journal articles on her philosophy have been written, many encyclopedia's call her a philosopher, many professors of philosophy call her a philosopher - these are all valid, citable sources - your personal reaction ("I still recoil...") is personal opinion and, nothing personal, but it doesn't stack up against the preceding sources. --Steve (talk) 17:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
2. Second para. The main change here is to cut down the length of the biographical material. This may not be important, but I think it is crucial in all biographical articles to give a flavour of the main points of someone's life in the intro. Most internet people don't read more than the introduction anyway.
3. Third par.
   1. I wrote "Her political philosophy, reflected in both her fiction and in her theoretical work, is in the classical liberal tradition", the new version reads "Her political philosophy lies within the general framework of the classical liberal tradition" The rationale for my wording was to emphasise that she was a philosophical novelist.
   2. I wrote "Her fundamental principle is that self-interest is the true standard of morality" to ". Her most fundamental principle". I was emailed by Jimmy Wales about this. He claims that both versions are wrong, because rational egoism is not a fundamental principle, but is supposedly derived from her 'epistemology and metaphysics'. We ought to discuss this - certainly rational egoism seems to loom large in everything that people say about Rand, was it a 'fundamental principle' of hers or not.
   3. There is an addition "As such, she controversially promoted the concept of the hero standing against the mob, amid derisive depictions of trade unions, socialism, and egalitarianism." This strikes me as poorly written. Why begin with 'as such'? What does 'as such' refer forward to? Appparently to Ayn Rand, but how can she be 'as such'? It is incoherent. The phrase 'hero standing against the mob' seems unnecessarily lurid and unencyclopedic.
4. Fourth para:
   1. I wrote "She has attracted an almost fanatical popular following in parts of America" which is change to "She has attracted a following, mainly in America". Why the removal of 'fanatical'. There is much evidence that she attracts fanatics (this page is enough). The introduction to any biography should spell out what makes a person notable, important, interesting, and distinguish that person from others of the same sort. Thus, Aristotle attracted a following, but not fanatical. Wittgenstein did attract a fanatical following. Also Nietszche. But not Bertrand Russell, and so on. That fact seems crucially important to me, why omit it? Happy with a compromise like 'devoted following' or similar.
      1. There has been some acrimonious comment on the talk page below, can we have some reasoned arguments about whether to put 'fanatical' or 'devoted' or 'loyal' or 'intensely loyal'. Dont' get fixated on one word, please! Peter Damian (talk) 19:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
   2. I mentioned Alan Greenspan, this is now omitted. I checked on public figures who were influenced by Rand in the sense of Rand being a crucial influence. Greenspan was the only one who fitted.
   3. I wrote "Her philosophical work, however, has had little recognition among established philosophers, who have been scathing about her lack of rigour, the derivative nature of her thinking[3], and her apparently limited understanding of philosophical subject-matter[4]. " This changes to "Within academia, her philosophical work has earned either no attention or has been criticized for its allegedly derivative nature,[4] a lack of rigor, and a limited understanding of the issues she wrote about ..." Most of the content remains, but I prefer my version for flow - the new version is very lumpy and awkward, and is precisely what you get in Wikipedia when various factions argue about the insertion of a word or phrase, without thinking about style and the 'whole paragraph'.
   4. I wrote "Even as a writer of fiction, she has enjoyed almost no critical recognition outside the United States" which has been removed completely. Why? This was well-sourced. I went to a number of English reference works on literature and biography (not philosophy). Rand is mentioned in none of them. A few other English people on this page have also been asking the question "who is Ayn Rand". We have an important duty to prevent nationalistic bias in this encyclopedia. American editors are presenting a person as though universally recognised across the English-speaking world. That is not true. The introduction needs to specify whether the person is internationally important - writers like Dorothy Parker and Kerouac clearly count - or whether their influence is restricted to the U.S.
      1. The only person to respond to this is Dagwyn, who argues that Ayn Rand was 'marginalised' by the academic establishment. Peter Damian (talk) 19:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
   5. Finally, there is the addition of the fellowship established by the university of Texas. This looks rather like the inevitable thing tagged on at the end to appease the supporters. I dislike it on stylistic grounds because it is a symptom of the way all contentious articles in Wikipedia look exactly like they were the result of a grand battle, ending up as a list of extreme pros and extreme cons. Our aim should be an article that looks like the work of a single expert who was striving for neutrality (and who succeeded). Can we not address by using a phrase like 'with notable exceptions' and then a footnote after 'exceptions' to say what they are, followed by 'her work has achieved little or no recognition' or something like that.

I will do nothing for now, but I would like us to discuss these changes, please. The new introduction was not the work of a few moments, but the result of careful thought about phrasing, balance and fairness. If no one discusses, however, I will revert. Peter Damian (talk) 12:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

You mention that your introduction was not the work of a few moment... Please keep in mind that the introduction that was shredded a few days ago, with this avalance of edits, none of which arose from consensus, replaced an introduction that was achieved through many, many months of effort where most of the words and all of the sentences had been subjected to scrutiny. --Steve (talk) 17:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course she has a 'fanatical following'. This is well-documented. Objectivists often believe (and were required to believe) that Rand was the greatest human being in history. Rand convinced her husband and Barbara Branden that she had to have an affair with Nathan Brandan because they were the two most brilliant people alive, and that it was just logical and rational. She told them that if they used their reason, they would understand why this was so. They agreed. It's almost comical, really. Yes, she has fanatical followers, this should not be controversial, it's obvious. CABlankenship (talk) 14:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

CABlankenship adds only attacks, ridicule, sarcasm - he should not be posting on this article or this talk page since his 'contributions' can only serve to disrupt. He clearly cares nothing for WP Good Faith editing. --Steve (talk) 17:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

While that seems to be largely true, experience shows that it is usually more effective to simply ignore uninformed rants and instead present your own, reasoned argumentation. — DAGwyn (talk) 17:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm simply discussing facts. It's a perfectly respectable and widely-held opinion that Objectivism is very cultish and based on dogma. Even some of her closest disciples have said this. You object to this simple fact, and yes it is unflattering, but truth is not determined by what facts you find pleasing and what facts you dislike. I'm defending a respectable stance: that Rand was a cultist, and that Objectivism is a dogmatic cult. I have many strong sources on my side for this stance. There simply isn't a diplomatic way of discussing this stance with Rand admirers without creating some offense. Nevertheless, some offense cannot be avoided if we are to come to a realistic portrait of this woman, whom for so many is a larger-than-life idol. CABlankenship (talk) 18:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

This article needs a complete overhaul. We probably need a neutral editor with a lot of experience in crafting featured articles to take charge. We can then give that person advice and links to sources, but let them have the final say. CABlankenship (talk) 18:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

If it helps, I find that in this situation it is best to sit down on the talk page, and agree on all the points that should go in the introduction, i.e. all the points about the subject (in this case, Rand) you would like the reader to take away on the assumption that they will only read the introduction. Peter Damian (talk) 19:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Leads should be written as stand-alone summaries. I think we should add that she's sold 30 million books, at several thousand a year currently. We need to make clear that she's regarded as a libertarian or anarcho-capitalist, regardless of how she saw herself. We also need to make sure that anything positive we say about her isn't mealy-mouthed or fawning, but just factual. And I would say we should unpack what's meant by self-interest, though every time I do that it's reverted. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Mediation

Since it doesn't appear that a consensus will result from the above RfC, I propose that we submit this to mediation. For those who oppose the recent changes, could you briefly describe which specific changes you oppose? (So that we don't submit uncontroversial edits with the controversial ones) Idag (talk) 19:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

This seems the logical choice. I have itemised the changes point by point above, I will add a further set of indentations so that people can comment. Peter Damian (talk) 19:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, the RFC shows quite clearly that your repeated edits and deletions were NOT made with a consnsus. The article will be reverted to the Dec 31 version, and we can work from there. You cannot present us with your non-consensus fait accompli and then say that no further changes can be made without mediation. Try again! Kjaer (talk) 00:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Try WP:Civil. As far as the original consensus, most of the editors who support your view did not participate in the discussion (or express any opinions) when we first discussed the changes. Therefore, the original consensus was valid. As far as what you're seeking, which is to mass-revert this article, there is a clear split among the editors, and, therefore, you don't have a consensus to do that. Idag (talk) 00:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

It needs to go to mediation and may need Arbcom the way things are going. For the moment the consensus is clearly not to return to the version Kjaer/Steve are happy with. Consensus does not require all editors to agree and I agree with Idag that there are multipe breeches of WP:Civil here that could warrant short term intervention --Snowded TALK 03:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Revert to Consensus Version

Well, the most generous vote to assert that there was a consensus for the recent edit orgy fails, seven to five. Indeed, the explicit vote is nine to three that the supposed consensus did not exist, but let's exclude the newbies and add in votes of those who chose to stay silent.

Since there was no consensus for the deletions and edits, the article reverts to the long standing verison at which it was frozen Dec 31.

It is time to make small, incremental improvements wityh consensus to avoid another POV edit war. Let's hear it here first, and have a consensus first before any controversial changes. Kjaer (talk) 00:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

See comment above. You do not have a consensus to do a mass revert. Idag (talk) 00:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

There is no consensus to revert. Please use the current version as the basis for further improvement. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

No consensus for such a drastic revert exists, especially since many of those who "voted" in it did not take part in the discussions concerning the changes that were made. Furthermore Wikipedia does not work by voting but by consensus, and saying "7 to 5 I win we revert" is NOT consensus. Mass-reverting changes that have been extensively discussed is not the way to improve this article. At this point I think we need mediation. TallNapoleon (talk) 01:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Escalation up the ladder of mediation facilities is the minimum that needs to happen now, and with some urgency, I think, for all concerned.  DDStretch  (talk) 01:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In situations like this, it is better to ask an uninvolved administrator (obviously not me) to do the closing, as otherwise, to use Kjaer's own principles, the change back would be clearly biased. However, I am sad to see that Kjaer has already reverted it. Not good, and a report to an appropriate place may result in him being censured for so doing. I urgently advise him to revert it back and ask someone else to do the closing and assessment.  DDStretch  (talk) 01:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure there's anything to close. If we want to have a straw poll, we'd have to set one up; an RfC isn't a straw poll. And editing isn't done by straw poll anyway. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

So, the RfC was a used as a means to assess consensus: thoroughly botched by the wording used and the type of responses demanded - if so (and I think it was), it is even more the case that Kjaer should have not reverted but should have discussed more.  DDStretch  (talk) 01:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The point of an RfC is to attract fresh views on the issues, and to move forward; not to ask editors already involved to judge whether an old consensus existed, and to move back. :-)

I think we should file for mediation, and in the meantime we should all be studying Rand so that we're in a position to produce a really good article. Hopefully, that aim will end up uniting us. We could even try for FAC. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The reversion was necessary. Changes were being made without proper concensus. This was never going to stand with a controversial subject. Mediation is a good idea. The other good idea is to accept that the article is where it was when it was unfrozen, and to find a reasonable way to move forward - with consensus. --Steve (talk) 02:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

This is just stunning. I again say that we need similar steps to whatever was done in the case of the L.Ron Hubbard article. This is getting bizarre. CABlankenship (talk) 07:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:COI and WP:OWN

It appears to me that many of our Objectivist editors have serious issues with COI and ownership. The unwillingness to compromise, the insistence on maintaining even the mostmarginal material, the apparent determination to inflate Rand's reputation by any means possible, the attempts to water-down or remove any and all criticism of her, and consistent refusals to assume good faith have gotten tiresome. Objectivist editors here need to stop pushing their POV, and start working to make this article better, especially by modeling it after one of the FAs. TallNapoleon (talk) 01:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

TallNapoleon, you should not engage in that kind of WP:AGF violation. The constant stream of edits made in an abusive way that totally ignored any consensus were all anti-Rand in nature. It isn't any supporter of Rand who is pushing POV. I'll work with you, if you really want to make the article better. The first step is to examine the article as it was when frozen, then seek consensus on what to change, before engaging in a wholesale avalance of edits without any consensus. --Steve (talk) 02:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Take Your Own advice

I am sorry, but those putting comments on my talk page that 7 to 5 does not a consensus make fail to realize that by the exact smae logic 5 to 7 (or 3 to 9) does not a consensus make. DD Strectch should take his own advice now deleted from, but still in the history of CABLankenship's talk page.Kjaer (talk) 01:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Each of those deletions was made by consensus with those discussing here. If people did not take part in those discussions then they are welcome to reopen them. However, a mass revision of the article requires consensus IN FAVOR. If no consensus is reached, then it doesn't happen. Period. TallNapoleon (talk) 01:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

In this context, I have not made any comments on your talk page about this latest tiresome edit war you are involved in, Kjaer, though I advise you to stop, your block history may make for a longer block next time, and I think you should try to work more within the guidelines and policies of wikipedia.  DDStretch  (talk) 01:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Kjaer's previous block was questionable - I'm not so sure it was a proper action. But if we are stepping back and looking at this, the only proper move is to put this page back where it was when you froze it for a week and freeze it again till mediation lifts. TallNapoleon says that the edits were made with concensus of those here - he doesn't realize that we were in the middle of trying to get consensus from the freeze. I appreciate that, as an admin, you don't push your own personal dislike of Rand, and along those lines, I ask that you step back and see that Kjaer is NOT the one doing the avalanche of editing that disrespects the very idea of consensus. --Steve (talk) 03:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Steve, that comment is a joke. While nobody can blame you for resisting the input of people who don't care for one of your heroes, you have consistently proven impervious to logic and reason. You and your crowd have been unwilling to compromise on anything at all.

You wave away strong sources that paint unflattering pictures of Rand as examples of editor bias. For example, my sourced quotation from one of her closest followers (the psychologist Blumenthal) that Rand had "several personality disorders" was ignored and discarded, and you asserted that presenting such sources was merely an example of my own bias. While this is surely true, as I advocate a dispassionate view of Rand, her life, and her work, you have not put forth even the semblance of an argument as to why such sources should be marginalized or left out. CABlankenship (talk) 07:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

SteveWolfer writes: "Kjaer's previous block was questionabl" You are correct in so far as it was capable of being questioned, as are all actions, even yours. My action was questioned, and I even asked for comemnts about it on WP:AN, here. The response from a totally uninvolved administrator was that, whilst the block on Idag was probably too long (which I quickly remedied), the one on Kjaer was entirely right and proper. responses on WP:AN DDStretch  (talk) 10:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

A report to WP:AN/I

Given the actions of the past hour or so, a report has been posted to WP:AN/I#Urgent action by uninvolved admin required at Ayn Rand and its talk page for an uninvolved admin to give assistence. Comments welcomed.  DDStretch  (talk) 02:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I fully agree. Although this has been an interesting study in personalities, it's clear that progress simply cannot be made between the various individuals here. I think we need to all agree on a neutral authority to have the last say in content, and abide by the rulings of this judge. CABlankenship (talk) 07:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Request for mediation

I've filed an RfM at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Ayn Rand. I've included as parties those whose names appear in recent article history, except for vandalism reverts or to add a dab page. If anyone wants to add or remove their name, please feel free, and if I missed anyone, or included someone who'd prefer not to be involved, my apologies. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I edited substantive content on the article, but I am happy to go along with the mediation request.  DDStretch  (talk) 02:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I cannot agree to a request for mediation which includes CABlankenship (see his disqualifying comments in propoganda pave above) or DDSTretch who expressed his lack of neutrality on CABLankenship's talk page (The comment has been erasde, but is in the history) nor can I accept am RfM that excludes DAgwyn or Jmaurone who have expressed an opinion. Frankly, the recent edits have been made with an assertion, always challenged by me, that there was a consensus for this spate of meritless deletions and openly hostile comments on Rand. Now that we have objective proof that these edits were not made on the basis of consensus, and that the page should revert to the prior actual consensus, now, you ask for mediation? Sorry, you should have done that in the first place, not now only that you fear your agenda is about to topple. Kjaer (talk) 02:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

1. Why single out myself and another editor for this demand for exclusion, when plenty of others (including yourself) have not been neutral at all! This strikes me as unsustainable as a reason.

2. The reason mediation has not been asked for before is that certain things have to have been shown to be tried before mediation is applied for. WP:MEDIATION contains the relevant information.

3. I think the following is the message on the relevant talk page that has caused so much outrage on the part of Kjaer. I wonder how well it matches up with other comments made on other talk pages by certain others?

Having read some of her stuff, and also studied philosophy during the course of my degrees, I agree with your assessment of her material. As for the state of the article: my opinion is that the least said the better. I am trying to remain neutral, and would be extremely happy if someone else took over the protecting, etc role here, so I could now walk away from it. I may still just walk away, as I have better things to do with my time on wikiepdia.

(The full reference is here: here. I think it is mild compared with some comments about this article I have read on other people's talk pages, quite frankly.)  DDStretch  (talk) 02:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Clarificatory quote from WP:RFM about timing of requests:

Before requesting formal mediation, parties should attempt informal resolution prior to filing; disputes that have not attempted informal resolution may be rejected by a member of the Mediation Committee with the direction to attempt informal resolution. Requests for mediation is the penultimate dispute resolution process, and as such prior dispute resolution must have been attempted.

In other words, there is no evidence to suggest anything in the motivations of editors here who Kjaer is making allegations about other than that they were aware of, and were complying with, the guideliens for mediation.  DDStretch  (talk) 15:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Kjaer, you really need to realise that you cannot exclude other editors who act in good faith. Your own support of Rand is very clear and others are entitled to criticise. Engaging with that would make fr a better article . This article really needs people who are philosophically aware but have not studied Rand in depth (the motivation to which would not be philosophical but political in my opinion). That is how we get to a NPOV. I have three times now edited some of your summaries to conform with the actual material in the citation. That is part of the editorial process. I think your polemic against too respected editors above deserves a ANI reference, but the in spirit of the mediation request lets see what happens and hold off in the mean time. --Snowded TALK 03:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Kjaer is quite correct to ask that CABlankenship exclude himself from the mediation, as he said he was going to do with editing. He has stated that his bias towards Rand is too strong to be objective. A real mediation needs to be between the parties that are the primary editors whose differing views have resulted in a deadlock. I don't know why DAgwyn and Jmaurone were excluded - they need to be put back in. The other thing that is needed for an honest attempt at conciliation is to freeze the article at the point it was when last frozen. Then, out of mediation, we can, hopefully, resolve the issues that clearly were not taken care of back then. There has yet to be an honest admission that the recent spate of post-freeze edits was without consensus, and it must be understood that the RfC was a valid justification for reverting to that version. Calling people vandals is out of line, violates WP and is certainly not helpful. Accusing people of POV when it isn't evident is wrong, and it is especially inappropriate coming from any of the various editors here who have made it clear that they dislike, even dispise, Rand. And it is unconciounable that TallNapoleon, knowingly violated the 3RR rule just to have it his way! That kind of attitude will never help achieve any progress. --Steve (talk) 04:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't. I reverted thrice, and shan't do so again per the rule. And that RFC was not and is not a valid justification for anything. TallNapoleon (talk) 04:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

TallNapoleon is right that he was not in violation of the 3RR rule - my mistake, feel free to erase my comment from your talk page. But you are totally and significantly wrong in your approach to the RfC - that is our best hope for true consensus - lasting consensus. Going back to where it was frozen, then mediation or any other form of reaching an agreement BEFORE unleasing an avalance of one-sided edits is the only way to get a stable, quality article. I would hope that you will give that some thought. --Steve (talk) 05:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

DDStretch: Kjaer has had a vendetta against me for awhile now. It's bizarre. He came to a completely unrelated article that I had been working on and started making a fuss about one word. He hadn't the foggiest clue what he was talking about, yet he created a huge edit war over it. He then filed a false sockpuppet charge against me for no reason at all. He has absolutely no qualms with the sort of low tactics we are seeing here. CABlankenship (talk) 07:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Kjaer, just as CABlankenship is arguably biased, as an Objectivist you have a COI issue yourself. The point of mediation is to resolve competing views through a neutral party. A person is not barred from mediation simply because they hold a view, the entire point of mediation is to reconcile that view with the article content. As far as the editors that were omitted, as Slim Virgin pointed out, he tried to include everyone, but if they would like to participate, they are free to add themselves to the mediation. I would urge you to join us in utilizing the dispute resolution process so that we can improve this article instead of participating in an endless edit war. Idag (talk) 14:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Kjaer does need to come onboard as well for the simple reason contained in this passage found at the beginning of WP:RFM:

The Mediation Committee considers requests to open new cases only where all parties to the dispute indicate willingness to take part in mediation; parties are given seven days from the time of the initial request to indicate their acceptance.

Unless Kjaer agrees to join in with the RFM, the matter may have to be escalated further if any kind of resolution is desired on the part of a significant number of editors.  DDStretch  (talk) 15:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted to point out, per Kjaer's concern, that Dagwyn and Jmaurone both invites to the mediation. [2][3] Idag (talk) 18:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand why I would be disqualified from having input into the article simply because I hold a mainstream stance. I'm not suggesting that the whole article should be geared towards discussing the fact that many observers and former disciples of Rand believe that she started a dogmatic cult. However, her prize disciple and lover says that Rand "encouraged dogmatism" and that Rand's world view was: "Everything I have to say in the field of philosophy is true, absolutely true, and therefore any departure necessarily leads you into error. Don’t try to mix your irrational fantasies with my immutable truths. This insistence turned Ayn Rand’s philosophy, for all practical purposes, into dogmatic religion, and many of her followers chose that path." This is information that deserves a thorough treatment. I suggest the following layout:

1 Life

1.1 Youth - discuss her early years and education

1.2 Immigrant - discuss her immigration to the U.S. up to her breakthrough with ::fountainhead

1.3 Collective - discuss the time period during the establishment of her collective and ::her meteoric rise of success and wealth

1.4 Break with Branden - discuss the fracture of her collective and the break with the ::Brandens

1.5 Later years and death

1.6 Personality and style

2 Novels, philosophy, views

2.1 Novels

2.2 Objectivism

2.3 Politics

2.4 Screenplays

3 Legacy 4 Bibliography 5 Notes 6 Further reading 7 External Links CABlankenship (talk) 19:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I think mediation is premature. Radical changes have been pushed in various directions and as there has been a flurry of editing, it's not surprising that there have been numerous reversions. Here are my comments on the mediation which I see I'm not allowed to post there: Several editors have objected to wholesale changes, many of which were made without any consensus or discussion. The introduction has been worked on with some collaboration, although there are still some issues that need to be resolved, and I think good progress is being made there. So I think that area of the article would be good to move forward on, and then other areas can be addressed. I don't think all efforts to reach compromises over the issues have been exhausted, and I'm reluctant to support a bureaucratic procedure seeking to address such a broad range of issues, many of which haven't been properly discussed yet on the talk page. Strong POVs and agendas have been stated, and it's no surprise that this has created some dispute. Major changes have been attempted by various parties (myself included) and have been reverted, but eventually appropriate compromises seem to be getting worked out. I think there is a middleground and some patience is required from all involved. There are certainly ample areas for improvement in the article, but removing large tracts without discussion and adding new sections that have limited sourcing is too radical an approach for many of the good faith editors involved, as is indicated by the push for a general roll back. I suggest a focus on the introduction (the most important part of any article) and to proceed from there. More general suggestions for broad changes to the article don't seem me to be workable as they have been disputed, so let's try a more measured approach. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

"Several editors have objected to wholesale changes, many of which were made without any consensus or discussion."

There was discussion and consensus on each change that was made. For example, for the Nature of Criticism section, TallNapoleon made a section on the talk page proposing the removal of that section. Four or five of us responded in the affirmative with no one opposing the removal. If you'll look through the talk page, you'll see that each major edit was discussed.

"The introduction has been worked on with some collaboration, although there are still some issues that need to be resolved, and I think good progress is being made there."

That introduction has had more reverts in a short time than I have ever seen on a Wikipedia article.

"I'm reluctant to support a bureaucratic procedure seeking to address such a broad range of issues, many of which haven't been properly discussed yet on the talk page. Strong POVs and agendas have been stated, and it's no surprise that this has created some dispute. I think there is a middleground and some patience is required from all involved."

First, as discussed above, the changes WERE discussed on the talk page. Second, the strong POV's are what make mediation necessary and mediation will help achieve that middle ground.

"There are certainly ample areas for improvement in the article, but removing large tracts without discussion and adding new sections that have limited sourcing is too radical an approach for many of the good faith editors involved."

Have you seen the stuff that was removed?! Giant chunks of it violated WP:OR and WP:Synth. Also, I'm not aware of any new sections that have been added (unless you count the stuff in the intro but the revert war on that is so heavy that you can't expect stable content there right now). Idag (talk) 21:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I also forgot to point out that most of the issues that need to be addressed are recurring. They have been raised repeatedly in the past and will continue to be raised in the future if we don't address them definitively. The disinterested admin below also seems to have recommended mediation. Idag (talk) 21:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I would respectfully urge CofM and Kjaer to accept mediation, because otherwise this is almost certainly going to ArbCom. It is clear that we are failing to reach consensus here, and that a lasting, permanent solution is needed. TallNapoleon (talk) 23:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Introduction: "no attention" and communism

I added a bit about her writing being based on her personal experiences and growing up in Russia as it relates to her becoming a fierce opponent to communism. It probably could be phrased and integrated better if someone wants to have a go. It's discussed extensively in the article and is important to understanding her perspective and providing historical context for her views. Also, the introduction says she has received "no attention in academia". This is sourced to an attack piece and clearly isn't true (it's contradicted by the very next sentence). I tried a few times to include a more reasonable and accurate assessment that "Her philosophical work is not part of most academic curricula, and she has received strong criticism from some in academia." If someone wants to tweak that or reach a compromise I'm fine with that. But saying she has received no attention ignores the fact that her work is included in some business school classes and philosophy courses and has been controversial in academia. There was recently a controversy at West Carolina University, for example, about whether to include her work. If the article is reverted to an older version I think this information would be good to add. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Protection

I am appalled to see the level of edit warring on this article in the last 24 hours. I have protected the page for two weeks. I have commented once on this page (to urge a BLP policy based direction for editing), but do not consider myself involved. I urge all participants to engage in mediation. Contrary to various posts above about who should and who shouldn't participate in editing this page and in the mediation, all editors, whether they might be considered pro or anti Rand, are needed to help write a balanced NPOV article, and all editors are expected to edit from a NPOV perspective, to be civil and to avoid edit warring. --Slp1 (talk) 12:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

What is the purpose of this protection? I see a violation of 3RR by TallNapoleon during the "appalling" 24 hour period. I am sure the warning he has received should be sufficient sanction. I see no other edit warring, unless the admin wants to characterize the refusal of a faction to abide by the results of the RfC as edit warring.

I am quite sure that we can work from the last consensus version of Dec 31 and shorthen such sections as Objectivist movement which already have their own article, rather than deleting unique and accurate material such as Rand's notable personal (and certainly not flattering) stance on homosexuality, or her personal influence, which does not currently have its own article. I see the request for this protection, as well as requests for arbitration and mediation as attempts by a certain faction to avoid the obvious conclusion of the RfC. I invite the admin to remove the protection. I invite the editors who have expressed there personal dislike of the "godless" "fourth-rate" Rand to deal with the fact that this article will indeed contain such horribly prejudicing material as a claim, (shamelessly backed up by dozens of references in sources as notable or moreso than the NY Times) that Rand is considered, among other things, a philosopher. Kjaer (talk) 05:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The language in your post Kjaer is probably the best indication of why protection was necessary. --Snowded TALK 10:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Kjaer, you're just making stuff up now. The only person to say anything like "godless" on this page is yourself, in the post above. Nobody has mentioned anything of the sort. I did, however, call Rand a fourth-rate philosopher. CABlankenship (talk) 13:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Kjaer that RfC was grossly deficient: (1) you (and not a neutral admin) closed it after only one day; (2) the wording on how to vote made no sense (how can a new editor vote to determine if there was a consensus before he arrived here?); and (3) the vote was split 7-5, which does not a consensus make. Frankly, this wasn't even an RfC, it was a straw poll and a 7-5 split on a straw poll doesn't yield any "clear" results either. Idag (talk) 14:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Archiving Again

This talk page is still very long, which makes working here difficult. I would propose archiving ALL discussions that are no longer active, so that we can make a fresh start, as it were. TallNapoleon (talk) 21:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that is an excellent idea...all things considered...gotta start somewhere..Modernist (talk) 05:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I just archived all conversations up to Jan. 10 in Archive 17. Unfortunately, this talk page is STILL 160+ kb, which is still long. Oh well. TallNapoleon (talk) 08:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

start over

this is my first post ever to wikipedia. i'm sure i'm gonna get yelled at for violating all sorts of rules. i promise to read more about editing sites and such, i just created my account. I don't know how i ended up on the ayn rand page, i tend to roam around clicking on various links that look interesting. i know i started out trying to look up "syzygium paniculatum"( which my wife just purchased). i never found a protected fom editing page before, and i was intrigued. i started reading the discussion page and i think there are alot of pro and con zealots here. i went to the abortion and iraq war pages and there was less debate. i have read atlas shrugged and the fountainhead and enjoyed them, but i would not describe my self as a devotee. again i'll research editing rules, but at what point does wikipedia or the adminstrator just say enough is enough? intellectial freedom and the nature of wikipedia is fine, but there is clearly a fight between "rand is a hack" and "rand is the greatest philosopher ever" camps. whoever had the authority to "protect" this page, why dont you rewrite it as you see fit? with verifable sources, no original research, opinions, etc. whatever the guidelines for a "good wikipedia article " are. i understand the democratic nature of wikipedia and the importance of reaching a consensus, but if the abortion and iraq war pages can do that but the ayn rand page can't...something is wrong.Brushcherry (talk) 07:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)brushcherry

You should include the "simply want neutral biographical accuracy" camp. Let the reading audience make up their own mind. I notice even at the ARI website, I don't find effusively worded PR regarding Rand.TheJazzFan (talk) 12:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

If this goes to ArbCom, my understanding is that that is basically what will happen. Naturally, this would be a last resort. TallNapoleon (talk) 07:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Three issues before we move to content

On reflection I think we have three basic issues.

• Firstly all editors have to cease ascribing motivations to other editors. There are people here who do not like Rand (declared and undeclared) and people who advocate her views (declared and undeclared). In Wikipedia all have equal rights to take part if they follow wikipedia rules. I strongly suggest that a monitoring admin uses judicious short term blocks to enforce this or we are not going to move forward.
• We have to address the issue of citations, OR and weight. At the moment we have a very small number of sources being used for multiple purposes. For example a grant in 2001 to the University of Texas generates a Guardian article. The grant came from a Rand reserach institute (which means it cannot support a statement that the UofT established a fellowship in her honour). Its also in 2001 and there are no subsequent ones. The Guardian article reports this and suggests that this may lead to an increase in interest. Neither 2001 reference can really support a 2009 status. Two notable philosophers attend a seminar on a subject linked to objectivism, sponsored by a Rand institute. True, but it does not mean that the implication can be drawn that those philosophers endorse the position that Rand is a Philosopher. She may or may not be, but that type of citation does not support it.
• As an extension of the above; the bulk of the citations come from Rand institutions of various types. There are few if any third party ones, or international ones. This gives rise to multiple problems of proving a negative. So Rand is not mentioned in several directories of Philosophy, but she is in one US one, other encyclopedia's avoid any precise statement. I would strongly suggest that mediation (or a monitoring admin) forms a neutral third party to assess questions of citation and source as they are presented on the talk page.

I am pleased to see that the RFA appears to have opened up the possibility of mediation again. Hopefully all will now sign up. --Snowded TALK 11:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Strongly agree with you on all of this, and especially the need for a third party to assess questions of citation and source as they are presented on the talk page. Peter Damian (talk) 20:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Moral

I said I wouldn't comment further on this article, but at the risk of stating the bleeding obvious, I can't help drawing the moral that it's a perfect illustration of Wikipedia's biggest flaw. To quote someone above:

Our aim should be an article that looks like the work of a single expert who was striving for neutrality (and who succeeded).

And I agree. The trouble is, this article is written by dozens of people, of whom only maybe one or two (quite possibly none) have a genuinely expert knowledge & understanding of the whole subject-matter (I do not pretend to be one of these); many have a rather incomplete knowledge & understanding, but are trying their best; and some are idiots who think they are experts, or who just have strong opinions and want to get their way.

And as they all get an equal say, the idiots outweight the experts - oh no, wait a minute, the ones who get the biggest say are those who are prepared to stay up late at night making the most edits and reversions. In an ideal world these would be the experts, but the statistics entail they're more likely to be the non-experts, or even more likely still the idiots who think they're experts or who want to get their way. (Particularly idiots for whom Wikipedia may be the main outlet for their ideas & pet theories; experts are more likely to spend their writing efforts on books or published articles which idiots won't be able to jump in & mess up.)

So what do you think is more likely to be the end result - an article which looks like the work of a single, neutral expert on the subject, or one which... (I will refrain from mentioning monkeys & typewriters at this point ;) ).

And much as I like & use Wikipedia, this is why for the foreseeable future so much of it will remain strong on quantity, weak on quality. Ben Finn (talk) 18:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I see someone deleted the whole of the above as 'irrelevant and uncivil'. It seems entirely to the point. Does anyone really doubt that there are idiots on Wikipedia? (I didn't say there were large numbers of them, nor mention anyone; it wasn't directed at anyone in particular.) And that this article is plagued with the problems I outlined? Or is everything just wonderful?

It seems somewhat totalitarian to delete criticism. Ben Finn (talk) 19:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Idag, you have no right to play censor with talk page material. There are many, many people who have said offensive things. If their remarks become sufficiently abusive they can be blocked by an admin. I agree with what Bfinn said, in general, but I have no clue as to whether he has cast me or you as a monkey - that is, I don't know who's 'side' he is on, but his observation of this article not looking like it was written by single, neutral expert is true.. DO NOT DELETE PEOPLES COMMENTS ON A TALK PAGE. --Steve (talk) 19:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

FWIW I'm not on anyone's side, other than the side of the quality & accuracy of articles. I know nothing about Ayn Rand (other than from this article!), and have made no edits to it at all. I do know a fair amount about philosophy, and suspect she should not be classed as a philosopher (lacking the necessary credentials), but that's a relatively minor point; she is perhaps a borderline case. As for the monkeys, they are the idiots in the above metaphor (if that wasn't clear), and I'm not calling anyone in particular an idiot; though I'm certain very few of us are experts (say, PhD or beyond) on Ayn Rand, political philosophy, and/or American literature, and that fact (as well as the idiots) is the main reason for the major disagreements on this article. (Experts may also disagree with each other, of course, but at least rarely in an idiotic way.) [Edited, and below, as I see Objectivism is wider than just political.] Ben Finn (talk) 20:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

There will always be problems on articles that deal with revered cult leaders. There are few people who are neutral on Rand. Presenting sources that depict her in something other than a saintly light will meet with attempts to marginalize this data or turn it into a vague blurb. Huge portions of Rand's life where she behaved rather oddly are barely discussed. Rand was a very interesting character, but many people find her so interesting because it seems she was quite mad. Others want to downplay the sources where her close followers describe her as being irrational and emotional. And of course, to the Randian, it's always a sore spot when you bring up the fact that her prized disciple called Rand's philosophy a "dogmatic religion". I haven't been engaging in any edit wars to put in this information. I've been trying to discuss it on the talk page, as I know if I were to enter it (even heavily sourced), one of these guys would delete it within minutes. This creates an unacceptable atmosphere, where certain people are way too hardcore about keeping unflattering facts out of this article, even though these facts are extremely entertaining and fascinating. It's "juicy" stuff, as one editor said, and it's something the average article browser would like to read. This article is not a propaganda page for Ayn Rand, it's supposed to be a fact-based discussion of her life and work. CABlankenship (talk) 19:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Gosh, why is nobody running to delete the above and other CAB comments that so fly in the face of AGF? Oh, I get it! Ethan a dawe (talk) 20:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I've already tried to delete this whole section once only to have it reverted. Nothing in this section has anything to do with improving this article, and it is a violation of WP:Talk, WP:Soap, and WP:Civil. In response to Steve, I don't care if the insults are directed at me or someone "on my side", this entire section violates a host of Wikipedia talk page policies, and, therefore should be deleted. In the future please read the actual policies before starting rants about censorship. Idag (talk) 20:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The way to improve the article would be to try to deal with the problems I outlined, if they're accurate. So, as a positive suggestion, is there anyone on here who does have relevant expertise (ideally, say, PhD level) in Ayn Rand, or else in (say) philosophy or American literature? If so, perhaps we should hear their suggestions for improvements to the article. They will know what they're talking about far more than the rest of us.

(I own up to having insufficient expertise, so have not made and will not make any edits myself; I think the extent of my expertise would only be to sub-edit for grammar and style - as I have worked as a professional proof-reader. Does anyone else own up to not having sufficient expertise?) Ben Finn (talk) 20:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll own up to not being an expert in the sense that my PhD isn't in philosophy (though that was my second major in undergrad). Consulting with experts won't resolve our dispute because the dispute concerns presentation, not substantive knowledge. Also, Bfinn, would you mind deleting everything above your last post as it is not constructive and violates numerous discussion policies. Idag (talk) 20:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Is it untrue, though? (I am trying to be helpful, albeit in a provocative manner.) Re experts, even if there's nothing factual under dispute (which is not completely clear to me), experts in a domain are probably better at presenting material within their domain in a more careful, objective, and neutral way. I would give far more credence, for example, to a proposed intro drafted by someone who'd done a PhD on Ayn Rand. Ben Finn (talk) 21:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Idag why on earth did you delete Ben's comments? He strikes me as a person of great good sense. As you are one of the other people who have made positive contributions to this discussion, and who seems to have their heart in the right place, I am doubly surprised. Let the comments stand. On my own credentials, I have a PhD in philosophy, I taught the subject for some years, and have a number of publications in linguistic philosophy. I wrote the articles Medieval philosophy, History of logic Metaphysics (Aristotle) and quite a few more. I only became familiar with Ayn Rand last week (after Snowded mentioned this page). I have since read the stuff she wrote on Metaphysics and it strikes me as unadulterated rubbish. The rest I don't know about. Her prose style strikes me as florid and overblown, but I know very little about literature. Peter Damian (talk) 20:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Ben also made one of the best and most perceptive comments on this page [4]. Peter Damian (talk)

Ben, I think that experts may ultimately help break this deadlock (though I still think its a non-substantive issue of presentation), and, Peter, thank you for the compliment. My problem with the original post was not the idea it expressed, but, rather, the overall wording (e.g. calling some of the editors here "idiots"). I personally don't care about it, but I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts that someone is going to take offense at it, and, given the amount of rancor on this talk page, getting a consensus is already going to be difficult without having to deal with more bruised egos. Idag (talk) 21:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I apologise - there are no idiots on Wikipedia. (Hey, I didn't say who was an idiot! Why should their egos be bruised?!) Ben Finn (talk) 21:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Experts may help as long as they stick to good sources and avoid OR. We've had too much OR and "consensus" replacing sources. Ethan a dawe (talk) 21:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Experts are welcome on the Flat earth theory page as long as they stick to good sources and avoid OR. We've had too much OR and "consensus" replacing sources. Peter Damian (talk) 21:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you serious? The earth is flat, who would say otherwise? Ethan a dawe (talk) 21:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Only fringe religious fanatics. Omnians, probably. TallNapoleon (talk) 21:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) The Flat Earth Society seems to be active and notable enough to have a wikipedia article about it. There are webpages for it, and so on, if one searches Google as well. I recall a few years ago, there was a BBC piece on the radio about a UK Flat Earth Society as well. Just because it has references, ad all that...  DDStretch  (talk) 21:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey if this guy says so it must be flat [5] he writes for the NY Times...it must be so..:) Modernist (talk) 23:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Dudes, look at yourselves. too many of you are too concercned with ayn rand. or rather you are too concerned about winning an argument about ayn rand. quit being pus**** and write an encyclopedic entry for the damn womanBrushcherry (talk) 10:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)brushcherry

Homosexuality/Gender and Sex

So this was one of the contentious changes I've made. It is my opinion that the section on Homosexuality was too long, as Rand's views on the matter were an extremely minor part of her philosophy and definitely not what she is primarily remembered for. To have an entire subsection on it, equal in length to the subsection about her politics, which she IS well remembered for her politics and her economics. Similarly, Rand's views on gender are likely of very little interest to the average reader. They are not primarily what she is remembered for, although they have garnered some attention from feminists. As such I propose that this section be trimmed. TallNapoleon (talk) 06:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

does the george washington page comment on his homosexuality views? mel blanc? the muppets? isaac newton? u2? kurt vonnegut? emperor hirohito? steve jobs? yassar arafat? jesus? once again.....if the jesus wikipedia can avoid comments on homosexuality views why cant the ayn rand page. Brushcherry (talk) 09:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)brushcherry

Incidentally Jesus never expressed an opinion on homosexuality, so far as Scripture records. Rand's philosophy did involve sex, so mentioning it may be appropriate. This much, however, is not. TallNapoleon (talk) 10:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Surprisingly enough, Ayn Rand is not Jesus Christ. This would explain why Ayn Rand, whose work had clear - perhaps minor, but not so minor as to be completely disregarded - elements of sexuality (whoever could forget the touching rape scene in Atlas Shrugged The Fountainhead - just to name the most obvious example) intertwined with the rest of her views, has a section in her Wikipedia article regarding her views on homosexuality, while Jesus Christ, whose scope - regardless of whether he was the true son of God or was just an interesting chap - dwarves this particular issue, does not. Additionally, you might find that Mr. Christ has an entire section (and multiple sub-articles) devoted to just how "real" (in a secular, flesh-and-blood, existential sense) he was, while there are no such sections or sub-articles for Ms. Rand. Badger Drink (talk) 17:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The homosexuality section is not especially long. Personal opinion on how significant this information is seems irrelevant to me. It's been substantially covered and is notable, so it should be included. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Right now the section on gender longer than the ones on economics and politics combined, which flagrantly violates WP:UNDUE if you accept, as I do, that Rand's most important impact was political. Inclusionists on this page keep throwing the word "notable" around. Unfortunately, if we were to include everything that were notable about Rand we wouldn't have an article, we would have a book. We have to pick and choose, which requires that we rely on "personal opinion". I would also note that, unlike many of the other sections, this one might be a good candidate for a separate article, because of the relatively significant amount of work examining Ayn Rand from a feminist perspective. TallNapoleon (talk) 10:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration

Given that there appears that mediation is not going to be accepted by the vast bulk of the editors taking a pro-Rand position, should we re-open the arbitration request to agree process? --Snowded TALK 11:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's wait until the mediation is actually rejected (according to the rules its 7 days after filing if there's no universal agreement). People may change their minds before then. Idag (talk) 13:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Good point and hopefully they will. If not I suggest a collaborative effort on stating the problem. --Snowded TALK 13:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I appeal to Endlessmike 888, Kjaer, ChildofMidnight, and SteveWolfer to sign up for the mediation before the deadline. [6] The only alternatives are continual disputes and protection, or an ArbCom case, which may bring sanctions, and which really shouldn't be necessary. An uninvolved mediator (assuming a mediator accepts the case, which is another hurdle) will help us sort through the issues, and will make sure the article ends up neutral and accurate; respectful of Rand, without unnecessary criticism or adulation. If we all enter the process in good faith, I'm certain we'll find it beneficial. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed RFC

Kjaer's recent RFC was very problematical, and its results have not been accepted for a number of reasons. However I feel he raised a valid question. I would therefore like to pose an RFC, worded as follows:

"Should Ayn Rand be reverted to its state on Dec. 31 before it was protected?"

Simple, clear, to the point, and it should allow us to settle the issue once and for all. I would also seek to have a neutral admin close the RFC after an appropriate length of time. Since I'm not really sure how one goes about setting up an RFC, I would like to gage people's interest. Also, does anyone have any recommendations for a neutral admin to run it? TallNapoleon (talk) 03:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I would recommend a separate RfC for each section that was effected. This way if someone likes one section but hates another, they wouldn't do a blanket denial (its also easier to read when looking at the diffs). Idag (talk) 04:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The only thing problematic, apparently, is that your faction, which asserted repeatedly that there was a "new consensus," lost. You had no consensus to make the over 100 unilateral radical POV motivated alterations that you did, and yours is the faction that engaged in 3RR and every aspect of an edit war in response. Now that you know you will be reversed once the freeze is removed, now you want to vote, vote, vote again? Let us simply go back to the Dec 31st version, retain all referenced comments, and if you truly think the article is too long, lets split it up into sub articles in accord with wikipedia policy. Wikipedia does not call for losing factions to request repeated RfC's until it's side wins. Until the terms of that RfC are honored any other RfC would be a sham. Kjaer (talk) 05:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Kjaer, for a number of reasons which have been explained repeatedly, many of us have serious issues with the way that RFC was handled. In particular, it was poorly worded, you should not have closed it, it was not a straw poll, we were not voting, and the conclusions you've drawn from it are baseless. I've had it. Frankly, at this point this should go to ArbCom. Only once the issues of behavior on this page are sorted out do we have any hope of making any progress. I will urge everyone, one last time, to sign up for mediation. But if this mediation request dies then Arbcom will need to step in. TallNapoleon (talk) 05:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The refusal to accept mediation other than under "conditions" is indicative of the issues here. A separate and properly administered RfC is one option but I think we are past that and it needs to go to ArbCom --Snowded TALK 09:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately my understanding is that Arbcom is in something of a state of chaos right now... mediation may well be our best bet to reaching a resolution. I would therefore again urge Steve and Kjaer to accept mediation. TallNapoleon (talk) 10:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Given that Snowded's very valid points are about interpretation of policy, and given that mediation committee does not have the remit to deal with technical issues like these, I think Arbitration the best. I may be wrong. Peter Damian (talk) 11:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Science

In Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, Rand says of modern science that "in the field of scientific theory, unable to integrate or interpret their own data, scientists are abetting the resurgence of a primitive mysticism." This is particularly remarkable, as these comments came during the greatest period of scientific revolution in the history of mankind. The 20th century was the undisputed golden age of science, and so Rand's comments (she strangely seems to feel that pre-19th century science was superior) are exceedingly odd. Branden remarks that Rand in general was skeptical of any science since the time of Newton. It appears that Rand was profoundly ignorant of science. The fact that Rand was an evolution doubter should also be mentioned. N.Branden discusses this fact in "The Benefits and Hazards of the Philosophy of Ayn Rand". CABlankenship (talk) 07:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

rand is not a scientist, this is a irrelevant rambling. she is a philosophist, what is notable about her is her views on philosophy and the economy, all else is "trivia". --66.158.232.98 (talk) 07:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

You might be surprised to know that one's views on science are generally held to be a part of any philosophy one propounds, even for novelists. --Snowded TALK 08:39, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

When someone makes such remarkable claims about their own wisdom and knowledge as Rand, we must call into question her beliefs and statements on a wide range of subjects. Rand and her disciples claimed that she was one of the most brilliant people to ever live, and that she and N.Branden were the two greatest geniuses of their age. She started a "dogmatic religion" based around her own teachings and infallible wisdom. Therefore, her tremendous errors deserve special attention. CABlankenship (talk) 10:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia cannot claim the earth is not flat

I have made a stab at a whole article - 10 commonly encountered arguments to support the inclusion of marginal or pseudoscientific views. I have described the arguments, and given examples, and in certain cases given recommendations about how to reply to the arguments. I would welcome help on this article. Note I extensively plagiarised material from User:ScienceApologist and User:Filll - I am sure they will understand.

Note some of the arguments discussed there appear on this very page. Peter Damian (talk) 10:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Rand and the Native Americans

I seem to recall reading, at some point, a quote from Rand where she basically said the Native Americans had it coming. I'll look it up when I can, but that might be relevant. TallNapoleon (talk) 07:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

That would be consistent with her Anglophilia. CABlankenship (talk) 11:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Nothing like unsubstantiated innuendo to move an intellectual discussion along, eh? Don't worry, just back it up when you get around to it...maybe. Of course, no doubt we'll see the same (lack of) accuracy I've come to expect regarding these so-called "quotes" you reference.TheJazzFan (talk) 22:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

"They didn’t have any rights to the land, and there was no reason for anyone to grant them rights which they had not conceived and were not using . . . . What was it that they were fighting for, when they opposed white men on this continent? For their wish to continue a primitive existence, their ‘right’ to keep part of the earth untouched, unused and not even as property, but just keep everybody out so that you will live practically like an animal, or a few caves above it. Any white person who brings the element of civilization has the right to take over this continent." --http://lefarkins.blogspot.com/2007/09/fifty-years-of-moral-illiteracy.html

I'll find a better source when I'm not about to get on the road. TallNapoleon (talk) 22:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I think its in the question/answer session after the West Point lecture. Its pretty damning. --Snowded TALK 22:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

One of the myriad inconsistencies of Wikipedia is what's considered a reliable source. I've seen blogs declared as unreliable sources. Was it electronically or at least reliably stenographically recorded or just someone's general recollection of what she said? I'll bet TallNap couldn't have said when he tossed out this "quote" as fact. I bet he still can't. It's not specified on the blog.

Another quote I see by this same blogger -

"My first direct experience with Ayn Rand's prose came when a fellow English major offered me his copy of Atlas Shrugged with John Galt's unreadable, 70-page radio address helpfully marked with a paperclip and what I continue to hope were mere coffee stains. I lasted about five pages before deciding that John Galt was the libertarian equivalent of Jonathan Livingston Seagull..."

So, he read part of a section, with perhaps no concept of the story it was set within, and dismissed it without really examining it intellectually. Since it's one of the all-time best sellers, I guess his ADD was just more pronounced than millions who found it perfectly readable? But, this is exactly the mindset of many bashers, who just as I've seen here, dismiss something they can't even clearly explain. This blogger is apparently unaware that Rand didn't support Libertarianism.

But let's say it's an accurate quote, it deserves examining. *Did* the NA's have specific property boundaries? If one asked them to show *exactly* what their property boundaries are, could they have done so? Or was it more on the lines of they kind of occupied area sort of in some general vicinity unless of course they had a conflict with another tribe over who got to use a particular valley or the like? Did they understand the dimensions of the continents they lived on? If they don't have clear delineation of boundaries, why not claim the entire planet as their potential hunting grounds? That's assuming they grasped the concept that they lived on a planet.

So, you come across territory that's being disputed by warring tribes. They're killing each other over it. Okay, whose is it? None of this is to say that the way it played out shouldn't have been handled differently, but there are conceptual points of this alleged quote that aren't so easily dismissed.TheJazzFan (talk) 11:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I wonder how many so-called "Native" Americans (maybe more accurately called Asian-Americans in honor of their even earlier roots?) would be all for living *exactly* as their ancestors did and likely still would be if not for European influence. Chasing buffalo, warring with other tribes, crapping in the woods, no modern health care, contact lenses, toothpaste or satellite TV. Critical problem during childbirth? Serious infection, colon cancer, etc? Tough, you die in agony. Just like I notice there doesn't seem to be a mass exodus of indignant black folks clamoring to live in Africa.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 09:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Europeans at the time of the settlement of America had similar issues as I remember it, in fact prior to smallpox and other epidemics there is evidence of better health etc. in native american populations. Europeans crapped in the woods, had no anaesthetics and as as far as I recollect had no satellite TV. Your last sentence ignores the context of history and is borderline racist. --Snowded TALK 09:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

What is "borderline racist"? It either is or it isn't. At any rate it's simply speculation on your part that you present as if fact, and doesn't address the question.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 12:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't see a question, just an ill informed set of assertions. I'll stick with "borderline" as an act of generosity. --Snowded TALK 12:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't need your generosity, I'd be happy with less slant on your part. I pondered a specific point - would NA's today rather have a life birth to death exactly as their ancestors lived or be enjoying the benefits of Western thought? Note, I didn't say mass slaughter was a good idea, I didn't say there wasn't inhumane treatment, neither of which were new concepts to the NA tribes. Ever heard variations on the phrase "gonna kill 'ya Indian style?" No, Europeans didn't start laying fiberoptic cable as soon as they set foot on the soil, but they were certainly more technologically advanced than the NA's. They were on an intellectual path that the NA's weren't, as evidenced by their very presence.

It's also a fact that there isn't a massive movement by American blacks to move to Africa. Presumably because life here is more appealing than the third world, no matter how their ancestors got here. Speaking of historic context - sure, Africans were brought here as slaves. The context *you're* ignoring is what their lives would have been back across the pond. They would have been slaves, that is if they weren't killed outright in tribal warring. They were sold by fellow Africans. They'd been killing and enslaving each other long before white man showed up. So they were slaves in an advancing nation where their descendants would have opportunities unimaginable to those back in Africa living little removed from the stone age, where slaughter and strife is a fact of life to this day. Absolutely not a justification of slavery, but fact nonetheless. And you may have heard, not everyone in the US approved of slavery. In fact, they had a bit of a spat over it. TheDarkOneLives (talk) 04:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Millions of Native Americans were killed by whites up through the end of the nineteenth century, and millions more perished due to European diseases. See Population history of American indigenous peoples#Genocide debate. In addition, the whites brought with them the scourge of alcoholism, and engaged in what can only be termed ethnic cleansing, herding Native Americans into "reservations" often with little to no consideration of the human cost. And you think Native Americans should be grateful to the whites for bringing them "civilization" when it killed 9/10 of their ancestors? Give me a break. TallNapoleon (talk) 10:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

They may have brought alcohol, but you don't "bring alcholism". Anyway, your rant doesn't address the question that was posed.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 12:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

So when the British smuggled opium into China they had no responsibility for drug abuse? --Snowded TALK 13:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The vast majority of people around the world consider the genocide of the Native Americans to be horrifying. Fringe ethics and apologetics are meaningless on wiki. CABlankenship (talk) 13:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

No question was posed, that I can see. I simply believe that Rand's statement is notable. Surely, if you feel that she is right, you should have no problem with it appearing in the article. TallNapoleon (talk) 17:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

What you don't seem to care about is whether the quote is accurate, or complete enough to give the full context. As user Steve demonstrated in the section below, it isn't. JazzFan was proven right in their prediction that your "documentation" would turn out to be baloney...once again. You've decided you want to paint Rand as a racist and you'll throw any crap on the wall you think might stick. I don't have a problem with Rand being examined honestly but you don't care about facts, you care about pushing a preconceived agenda - while not demonstrating even a baseline comprehension of her ideas. Any high school kid versed in Objectivism would eat you alive in a debate, that is if they could stop laughing long enough. At some point the moderator would probably be moved to say "Um, Mr. Gelotopoios, I'm sorry, perhaps it wasn't made clear to you that the debate today would be on Objectivism?TheDarkOneLives (talk) 04:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

It appears that this quote might be found in "Ayn Rand Answers", edited by Robert Mayhew. Unfortunately there is no Google Books preview to confirm. According to Amazon it would be around page 103 or 104, though. Are there any editors here who own the book and could confirm it?

For a different source, try Jensen, Derrick (2005). Endgame: The Problem of Civilization. Seven Stories Press. p. 220. ISBN 158322730X. The included URL is to the page in Google Books. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 18:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

With all this indignation over how evil white American settlers were, show of hands of how many of you have signed over your property to a NA tribe? I mean, it's rightfully theirs, right?TheDarkOneLives (talk) 11:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• Well, as Senator S. I. Hayakawa put it, "We stole it, fair and square." -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 18:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

In any case, I consider myself and Objectivist, but don't agree with how the native americans were treated. So much for my religious dedication to Rand. What about every war and land grab in history? I chock most of her comment up to the ignoirnce of that piece if history especially in that time. Real religions have been guilty of doing (rather than just commenting on) most of what people are so indignant about here. You folks want to fill up Rnad's artcile with every comment that yo think will make people hate her? Have at it. I see you and see your hypocrisy. You are exemplars of your philosophies. Ethan a dawe (talk) 18:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Found it on | Wikiquote... apparently someone there transcribed it from Ayn Rand Answers, edited by Robert Mayhew. If anyone has access to the book and would like to confirm it, I would greatly appreciate it. Here is the quote, in its entirety, without those oh-so-offensive ellipses:

Now, I don't care to discuss the alleged complaints American Indians have against this country. I believe, with good reason, the most unsympathetic Hollywood portrayal of Indians and what they did to the white man. They had no right to a country merely because they were born here and then acted like savages. The white man did not conquerthis country. And you're a racist if you object, because it means you believe that certain men are entitled to something because of their race. You believe that if someone is born in a magnificent country and doesn't know what to do with it, he still has a property right to it. He does not. Since the Indians did not have the concept of property or property rights--they didn't have a settled society, they had predominantly nomadic tribal "cultures"--they didn't have rights to the land, and there was no reason for anyone to grant them rights that they had not conceived of and were not using. It's wrong to attack a country that respects (or even tries to respect) individual rights. If you do, you're an aggressor and are morally wrong. But if a "country" does not protect rights--if a group of tribesmen are the slaves of their tribal chief--why should you respect the "rights" that they don't have or respect? The same is true for a dictatorship. The citizens in it have individual rights, but the country has no rights and so anyone has the right to invade it, because rights are not recognized in that country; and no individual or country can have its cake and eat it too--that is, you can't claim one should respect the "rights" of Indians, when they had no concept of rights and no respect for rights. But let's suppose they were all beautifully innocent savages--which they certainly were not. What were they fighting for, in opposing the white man on this continent? For their wish to continue a primitive existnece; for their "right" to keep part of the earth untouched--to keep everybody out so they could live like animals or cavemen. Any European who brought with him an element of civilization had the right to take over this continent, and it's great that some of them did. The racist Indians today--those who condemn America--do not respect individual rights.

Frankly I don't think this paints her in any better light. However it's a bit long to post to the article. I would appreciate any ideas or suggestions--as opposed to personal attacks. TallNapoleon (talk) 04:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

While suggestions to improve the content of this article are welcomed, please refrain from posting your personal opinions on Ayn Rand or Objectivism. This is not a forum for general discussion about t

Hmmmm....Ayn Rand hates Native Americans??? Her fiction and non-fiction must be irrelevant then. Let's just delete her from wikipedia lest the weak minded stumble across her. Ad hominem argument is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem as abusive, sexist, racist, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or attacking the person who proposed the argument (personal attack) in an attempt to discredit the argument. It is also used when an opponent is unable to find fault with an argument, yet for various reasons, the opponent disagrees with it.

68.125.217.117 (talk) 09:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)brushcherry

An article about a person on the Wikipedia, regardless of his or her qualities, will naturally include material about that person's views, especially when they espouse political views. In addition the Native American issues casts an interesting light on her views on property and its protection by the State. So if someone says one thing in one context, but contradicts it in another then that is worthy of note and is not an ad hominem. Now if this was an article on the philosophy derived from Rand (called Objectivism) then pointing out contradictions in Rand's personal approach as an objection to objectivism would be ad hominem argument. In a biographical page about the author it isn't. I think you are somewhat confused as to the context here in your argument above. Hopefully this helps. --Snowded TALK 09:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It appears that Snowded, TallNapoleon, and CABlankenship were using inuendo to paint Rand as a racist. Which is consistent with their remarks being uniformly negative about Rand. Then, and I'm referring to the Native American section above, Snowded goes so far as to call another editor a "borderline racist." When one reads the exchange they can see that there is no justification for that kind of character assasination. Again, I hope that ArbCom can look into this kind of editing. --Steve (talk) 06:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I simply provided a direct quote that I considered to be notable. Frankly it's not racism that bothers me about it, and I actually believe Rand when she says she is not a racist. What bothers me is the attempt to justify democide and ethnic cleansing, and I imagine that many readers would be interested to see that quote. TallNapoleon (talk) 06:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

What is wrong with direct quotes? OK they may or may not reflect well on the individual but they are a part of that person and much is made of the West Point speech. What we have here (yet again) is the question of balance and the tendency of a view editors to react with POV accusations when ever anyone takes a view that does not praise the subject. I think the interesting thing about the quote is the light it sheds on her views on property. The other's editor's comments speak for themselves and I am surprised that Steve wants to associate himself with them. --Snowded TALK 10:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

TallNapoleon did NOT provide a direct quote. He provided a hacked up, inaccurate, out of context paraphase of an answer she gave during the question period at a lecture in 1974 and managed to butcher the heart of what she said. Her statement, which is too long for me to type, gives a different picture. She was asked, "When you consider the cultural genocide of Native Americans, the enslavement of blacks, and the relocation of Japanese Americans during WW2, how can you have such a positive view of America?" She said, in part, "America is the country of individual rights. Should America have tolerated slavery? Certainly not." And she went on to describe the early compromises that failed to implement individual rights eventually led to the civil war, and she stated that as long as Americans held the concept of individual rights it was going to lead to the overthrow of slavery. Everything she was saying was addressing individual rights.

She said that she believed that most portrayals of the savage treatment of settlers by indians was not just Hollywood but fact. She stated that one should not believe that some people are entitled to something just because of their race. Most of her statement flowed from describing a country that believed in individual rights, whose settlers were being attacked by aggressors, who belonged to tribes that did not respect individual rights - and that rights are lost by aggression. She made a distinction that all individuals have rights, but a nation does not have rights, particularly if it does not respect any of its member's rights. I've condensed and paraphrased this to about 1/20th of its size. She was opposed to the relocation of the Japanese Americans and pointed out that this was FDR's call who she opposed as an enemy of free enterprise. All of this was from a speech given at West Point in 1974. The heart of what she was saying is that those who do not respect individual rights can not expect to have theirs respected. And out of that hacked up misquote, he painted her as a racist and an advocate of violating peoples rights, and the anti-Rand crew leaped aboard! --Steve (talk) 10:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

And in all of that you show the many contradictions of the woman which should be reflected in the article. What is evident is that there has to be some oversight here of what does or does not constitute evidence. Your rejection of mediation has made that difficult and the failure to assume any good faith in your post here is why this article needs some type of intervention. --Snowded TALK 10:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

What I 'showed' was an inaccurate, harshly prejudicial, POV reference to Rand. What I showed was that some editors here are ready to declare Rand guilty of genocide and racism or to go along with those absurd claims. I haven't rejected the concept of mediation, as I've made clear. What I rejected was THAT mediation request - but you know that. Which is why your accusation of my lacking good faith is so wrong. When accusations are made that are wrong - there IS a failure of good faith, but it isn't mine. I look forward to intervention by a neutral party. --Steve (talk) 10:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

You do understand that among those you're debating is at least one who's outright declared reason to be an improper "idol"?TheJazzFan (talk) 11:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and I'm still not quite grasping that concept. I was hoping that TallNapoleon would post his paper and I was sorry that he deleted it from your user talk page. I understand that in the paper he discusses his take on Rand, and that seems like it would be appropriate for us all to read - given our extensive debates here about her article. --Steve (talk) 12:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Steve - if you've seen the back & forth on my talk page you've seen the heart of what he has to say, such as it is. It's just more of the same. If you find the portions I quoted and what he has to say there (or elsewhere) to be illogical, fallacious, full of undefined terms, floating abstractions, factually wrong, demonstrative of fundamental non-comprehension of what he purports to be addressing, I doubt you'd feel any different seeing the entire text, just more tired. Ayn Rand held reason to be of primary importance. He says that's making an "idol" of reason, which he says is wrong. The only alternative is to state it *isn't* of primary importance, that there's something that trumps reason. Following reason per se - along with pursuing personal happiness (which he's decided subsumes murder and theft) and admiration of heroes (he calls it "idolizing" and makes no distinction between admiration based on values and blind obeisance to an insane, murderous dictator) - leads *inevitably* to slaughter. Noting that these three concepts are what he's decided defines Objectivism. Yup, that's what 'da man said. He believes what makes reasonable men happy is wanton bloodshed. How he "knows" this is anyone's guess - certainly not through reason whether viewed from his own code or observation of his methods. The only thing that's proper to "idolize" is God, though he states emphatically that religion has nothing whatever to do with his position. You'll notice that below he's carping about the "careless treatment" his (alleged) work received, ignoring that an effort was made to show it exactly as presented, to eliminate any question of context or content.TheJazzFan (talk) 17:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Steve, you're the one providing a paraphrase. If you have a full copy of the original quote, PLEASE, post it here. I should very much like to see it. Oh, and I may wind up posting the article on a blog or something, in which case I will link to it. However I would need to make changes to the format first, and I have no intention of releasing it under the GFDL. Considering the careless treatment it has thus far received and your demands that it be restored despite my objection as the author--demands which frankly smelled of harassment and personal vendetta--I have no intention of forwarding it to you whatsoever. And btw, my argument is not that reason is an idol but that Rand idolized it. TallNapoleon (talk) 12:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure Rand idolized reason per se. She claimed to idolize reason, but what she really idolized was the Ancient Greeks. In reading over her metaphysics, she does little more than spout 2400 year out-of-date Greek science as dogma. It's almost hilarious to see her repeat their mantras, blissfully unaware of the revolution in physics going on around her. Philosophy without science is usually flawed, and Rand was very inept at science. Indeed, she seemed to flat out mistrust science. Compounding the irony is that a man like Aristotle, were he alive to see the evidence, would have instantly dropped his erroneous way of thinking in favor of the triumphs presented to him by modern science. Rand lacked either the wit or the erudition to understand modern science. Oh no, I'm posting comments about Rand. Sorry. CABlankenship (talk) 14:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

TallNapoleon, I was just curious about what you wrote in your paper. You were arguing it so vehemetly, but now you've gotten all shy about showing your beliefs about Rand and about your theories. My paraphrase is true to the context - yours wasn't. I have the book and the section in question, which is an answer given at the microphone after a speech, and it's too long to type in, and it is probably too long to meet the fair use exceptions to the copyright law. That is why someone who understands Rand's context at this WestPoint speech and can follow the thread through to that answer could do a proper summary or paraphrase. The place you took it from is a web site of a rabid, self-annouced Rand hater. Weren't you even the slightest bit suspicious that he might have hacked it up till it was a lie? Get a copy at a library and you will have most of the context (her speech isn't in there, you have to get that elsewhere). --Steve (talk) 05:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I actually saw the exact same version of that quote reproduced all over the internet; I was in a rush so I didn't particularly check the exact source. The fountainhead, as it were, appears to be the book that Arglebargle posted. You have my apologies that I was unable to find an exact quote earlier. However, all appearances to the contrary, I do actually have a life, you know. TallNapoleon (talk) 05:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

george washington owned slaves, j edgar hoover was a transvestite, bill clinton ejaculated on an intern, hitler liked puppies, aristotle beat his wife (ok i'm guessing there). is the george washington page all about his rabid "damning" racism? is the j edgar hoover page all about his "damning" homosexuality? is bill clinton's page all about his "damning" hatred of woman? is hitler's page all about his love of animals? is aristotle, and all greek philosophy, "damned" because they mistreated woman?.............and you pro ayn rand people...she is a popular author with a small following in political/philosophical circles, she is not the greatest phillosopher of all times. get over it. both pro and con .68.125.217.117 (talk) 08:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)bruahcherry68.125.217.117 (talk) 08:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)brushcherry

and for you anti ayn rand people, she is a popular author with a small following in political/ philosophical circles. get over it.68.125.217.117 (talk) 08:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)brushcherry

One would expect the articles on Washington, Hoover (a transvestite? really? kind of makes sense) and Clinton to include those foibles, to provide a fair image. But in terms of damning... well there's a difference between owning slaves in an era when this was common, or having slightly unusual sexual proclivities, and standing up and in 1974 that the Native Americans had it coming. That's an important detail about her, in my opinion. Unfortunately it may also be an overly long detail about her, and I'll be the first to say that the article can't include everything. TallNapoleon (talk) 15:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration

Steve has rejected mediation, and every indication is that Kjaer would as well. That is most unfortunate. I now see no recourse other than ArbCom. TallNapoleon (talk) 03:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Simply following wikipedia policy would be a viable option. There was no consensus for the changes since Dec 31, the edits shoulkd be reverted. Referenced materials should be retained. The article should be made smaller by splitting it into sub artciles, rather than deleting material objected to by one faction. Very simple, orthodox, and easy, if there is no POV motive to radically rewrite the article. Kjaer (talk) 03:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed that it needs to go to ArbCom. Kjaer, you are simply saying that there would be no problem if people agreed with you and that the rest of us have a POV motivation. Its that sort of statement which means it has to go to Arbcom given a refusal to accept mediation (which I just don't understand). FYI I have already raised an ANI hereon a related issue relating to Schools of Philosophy linked to the Steve and Kjaer and the same issues. It maybe that this was premature and ArbCom need to deal with all the Rand page issues. Ideally an admin or neutral party should draft the request. --Snowded TALK 03:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I have agreed all along that ArbCom was needed. Snowded you continually accuse Kjaer and me of a POV motivation for our edits - when it is you that have stated your dislike for Rand. There have been many, many others here who have opposed your consistent efforts to delete sourced material, to go against consensus, to make trouble with your accusations, and to abandon attempts to create a NPOV article. You run about trying to get people blocked for things you do, you run around trying to get admins to enforce your wishes. You are a smooth writer but you aren't directing your energies to making a better article, instead you appear to me to be trying to game the WP system. --Steve (talk) 03:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Steve, you live on another planet if you really believe all of that. At least you agree it should go to ArbCom. --Snowded TALK 04:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Snowded, perhaps a more honest planet? After all I just listed some simple and verifiable facts. --Steve (talk) 04:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

New ArbCom request

I have made a new ArbCom request. I will serve the effected parties shortly, but, just in case, I'm also posting the link here. [7] Idag (talk) 19:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

It would be nice for a neutral admin to help with this. TallNapoleon (talk) 20:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The proper place for expounding on Objectivism and criticisms

There might actually be too much about the details of Objectivism in this article as it is, when there are entire articles devoted specifically to Objectivism. It should certainly be made clear in this article that there IS an article on Objectivism.

If you believe there are errors in Ayn Rand's thoughts and you feel you're qualified to make definitive statements about them, the place to expound on them at length would be a blog, article, discussion forum, your own book etc., not in a biographical summary.

An article on Ayn Rand should factually touch on her life and works, an article on Objectivism should be a neutral, factual summation of the points of Objectivism as they're stated - she believed this, she proposed that, an institution devoted to her ideas exists etc. all of which is factual and verifiable. Even a controversy like the Kelley/ARI split is a verifiable event. Fine, include it.

I'm not convinced that it's proper to go into criticism - NOT - as some of you will no doubt jump up and down shrieking - because of some blind devotion but because of the difficulty of doing so in a balanced way and the utter enormity of the topic. An Encyclopedia entry isn't the place to promote an agenda in any direction. Stating certain facts about Ayn Rand's life and the facts of the content and history of Objectivism is relatively straightforward, demonstrating whose disagreement is worthy of including isn't. If someone doesn't know anything about Objectivism to begin with, how are they supposed to make heads or tails of criticisms of it? If someone IS versed in Objectivism, they're likely going to be aware it has its detractors. Debate with dissenters is just part of the milieu of Objectivism. Such debates are available for sale.

However, a problem with Wikipedia is this populist, liberal-leaning tendency that's woven into the fabric of its structure. It's said that "consensus" should be reached, even if some of those included in the process are FOS. Whatever handful of like-minded editors and an aligned administrator or two who happen to have the time to devote to their cause makes "consensus". How does including the viewpoint of someone who doesn't know what they're talking about due to some notion of "fairness" improve an article? If professionals who've devoted a large part of their lives to studying and supporting Ayn Rand and Objectivism can't reach a uniform consensus, I find it incredulous to suppose some motley assemblage of random users with wildly differing levels of knowledge, comprehension perhaps even sanity are going to do better. You think you're going to settle the issues here on Wikipedia, that it's going to be somehow regarded as definitive? Hardly.

To say "Ayn Rand said so-and-so" isn't taking a position on its validity. She did in fact say so-and-so. But to expound on criticisms of what she said is by default introducing the element of point of view. The argument might be made that certain criticism that's integral to the history of Objectivism has to be included - again such as the reasons for the Kelley/ARI split. It would be ridiculous to say there was a schism but not give some summary of why. But there are verifiable statements by both sides that explain why it happened.

It will likely forever engender acrimony from parties both qualified and unqualified to even comment on the subject, even among those supposedly on one particular "side". As mentioned, even among Objectivists there are disagreements. How do you propose to wade through all the factionalism when the warring parties are the ones making the edits? You might as well task PLO members and Israelis to come to a consensus on an article on the claim to the territory of Israel. Without even looking I can be sure there's endless debate in the discussion of Wikipedia articles on those topics as well.

I see there's actually an entire article devoted to criticism of Objectivism - yet oddly it doesn't seem to have the same raging debate that this one does.

My take is that the Rand bashers are incensed by the notion that anyone will take her works seriously and feel they have to get their licks in and see this particular article as a primary port of entry. They want it made clear that there are dissenters and see Wikipedia as a relatively accessible place to form their protest line, hoping to prevent anyone from actually going over to "the dark side". They don't want people to make up their own minds. No doubt what they REALLY want is to have every word she ever said deleted from existence and human memory. But a Wikipedia article isn't - or at least from what I understand isn't *supposed* to be a platform for an agenda.TheJazzFan (talk) 14:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't recognise the motivations that you attribute to those of us who want some balance in this article. I do agree with you that the discussion of objectivism per se should take place elsewhere and in practice it would make sense to merge the Ciriticisms article with the main one. However here on this article we need a balanced approach to a summary of a person, who in the US at least has been influential. That means it must not read like a fan site; at one point in this debate any criticism of Rand was subject to edits to "explain" the reasons for their criticism (too liberal, a catholic etc). In the majority of cases on Wikipedia consensus does work and citation and evidence have a common understanding. What has happened here is that there is no agreement on what constitutes evidence or weight and that needs third party intervention. Too much effort goes into attributing motives to people and not enough to the arguments and eliminating OR. Part of the problem (and this is a major one) is that very few people devote any time to studying Rand other than those who are supporters or advocates of her position. This produces a problem with citation and getting to a NPOV. From the perspective of a large part of the world she is a minor literary figure with a US political following. For others she is one of the leading thinkers of her age. When you get that polarisation you end up in ArbCom, just as in the articles on the Troubles in Ireland and elsewhere. My recommendation to you (as a fairly new editor with a clear political position) is to engage in that process. --Snowded TALK 14:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

How new I might or might not be isn't particularly cogent to either my opinion of Ayn Rand or Wikipedia.

"I don't recognise the motivations that you attribute to those of us" Okay.

"very few people devote any time to studying Rand other than those who are supporters or advocates of her position." So you think that those who are ignorant of her works should be granted equal status in voicing an opinion on them to those who aren't?

You want "balance". What's unbalanced about factually stating what she's said or recounting events in her life? There's no "point of view" to it. It isn't synonymous with agreement or endorsement. The only valid disagreement in that case is if there's some question whether it's verifiable that she said it or what the source of a biographical anecdote is.

"From the perspective of a large part of the world she is a minor literary figure with a US political following. For others she is one of the leading thinkers of her age" None of which, nor what her influence is or isn't, has any bearing on whether she said what she said.

There's nothing TO balance. She said it or she didn't. She was married or she wasn't. By "balance" you mean exactly what I stated - you want to use it as a forum to voice opposition to her thoughts. You think she sucks, I agree with much of what she said. Neither has any bearing on whether she said it. Stick to verifiable facts and you eliminate all point of view. Debate the merits of her philosophy elsewhere.TheJazzFan (talk) 15:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Sticking to verifiable facts is what most of us have been trying to do. Please STOP attributing motivations. If you want to know I consider Rand as a very minor figure who does not really need active opposition. I do monitor several sites (and this is one) which are in danger of becoming fan sites. --Snowded TALK 15:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

"Please STOP attributing motivations" You mean like insisting I'm an "...editor with a clear political position..."? I'm not even going to get into the accuracy of your use of "political", but you're being hypocritical.

I have a misunderstanding of your motivation? Okay, why are you even here? To voice your boundless enthusiastic agreement with her philosophy? No, you like others are here because you want to voice opposition to her philosophy. You'd like to cloak it with the spongy term "balance", but what it really means is opposition. The question is, is this the proper forum to do so? Nope.

"Sticking to verifiable facts is what most of us have been trying to do" That someone says they disagree may be a fact, but the problem with citing criticisms is who's to say which - if any - are even valid? It's easy to find critiques of her that reflect little or no real comprehension. I guarantee if you put "Ayn Rand" into a search engine you'll find an endless ocean of bashers. But then you get into a whole sub-debate on that. They're right, no they're not. It's all dependent on making a value judgement regarding her philosophy and this isn't the place for it. TheJazzFan (talk) 16:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a whole set of procedures to handle issues of balance etc. It's also not uncommon for advocates of a person or an idea to insist that they are the experts and others should stay out of things. Its not how WIkipedia works. If you make a claim then anyone can check the citation, see if it supports the statement or if that statement is OR. There is a body of this stuff that you can find on the help area if you want to see how its done. This page is as you say not a place to make a value judgement about her "philosophy" but it is a place to provide a balanced report on what third party sources say about that "philosophy" including relevant facts, with due weight as to if she is considered a philosopher or not, based on third party sources. Any opinion by you or me or anyone else is OR and should not be there. I do suggest (as you are new to WIkipedia) that you spend some time in the various help pages. There is a lot of useful material there. --Snowded TALK 16:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

No matter how you parse and dance you can't get around that the very act of choosing a criticism to cite involves making a value judgement regarding the subject. Factually citing what the subject of the article has said does not. You're still not being forthcoming about your motivations.TheJazzFan (talk) 17:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Not parsing or dancing, just trying to be helpful. The advise stands on reading up on WIkipedia stands but that ball is in your court. --Snowded TALK 17:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I applaud TheJazzFan for what I believe to be a very accurate and well stated exposition of the current situation and its roots. (Snowded's snide comment about him being a 'new' editor carries no weight, since it is the quality of his edits, his comments, and his intent to create a good article that matters - and from what I've seen, I hope TheJazzFan stays around.) I hope that the ArbCom underway at this time, examines TheJazzFan's comments in this section as a part of the review. Again and again I see people talking about 'balance' but meaning an agenda based criticism. I see people loudly proclaiming this or that Wikipedia policy when what they are doing is hiding an intent to edit from a personal agenda. More than anything I'd love to see a truely neutral admin block all zealot-editors (both those who edit like Rand cultists, and those who edit as Rand-haters) from ever editing on Objectivist related articles. There is no problem with having people who disagree with most of Rand's positions, or people who agree with most of her positions, working as editors - when they don't have an agenda to distort facts and to game the Wikipedia policies to do so. Wikipedia is here to be an encyclopedia, not something to be manipulated into a propaganda organ for or against some ideology. --Steve (talk) 17:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

You know the really scary thing about this? I think you are being genuine in what you say. --Snowded TALK 18:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Canvassing alert

An objectivist group is canvassing its members to edit Ayn Rand related articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Turnsmoney (talk • contribs) 18:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

And? So what? I believe it's referred to as the "Encyclopedia anyone can edit" (whether they know wth they're talking about or not). Do you feel that should only mean those who stumble in randomly? Apparently you have a problem with people who actually know something about Objectivism offering input? The title of the section should be - Rand-Bashers to your battle stations!! The evil minions of the wicked, terrible, awful, nasty she-novelist are going to attempt to participate and we who feel righteous indignation regarding her must do all in our power to repel them!! Yeah, no agenda there. Jeezus.TheJazzFan (talk) 19:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Its why I politely suggested on another page that as a new editor you should spend some time on understanding the way WIkipedia works. That would have brought you to WP:CANVAS. --Snowded TALK 19:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't care what WP:CRAPTASTICNONSENSE says. You think it's proper or even possible to try and police how people communicate outside of Wikipedia regarding Wikipedia? How would you even know who saw what on what blog, website, Google group, e-mailing, magazine article, TV show, lecture, etc.? Why don't you propose that to participate on Wikipedia one must have a real-time feed of all their internet activity going to a Big-Brother-WikiBrain which will decide whether they chose to participate in an article because of "unacceptable" motivation? And again, all this paranoia would be a moot point if the article were limited to factual statements unrelated to any critique of the topic of the article. TheJazzFan (talk) 20:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a pretty blantant attempt at WP:Meatpuppetry. Jomasecu ^talk _contribs 19:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

And low and behold we have a clear link between the canvassing and one of the more aggressive editors on this page. Kjaer is Ted Keer and here we see see multiple examples of Ted Kerr canvassing for people to come in on his side. --Snowded TALK 19:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay guy, you sit right there and keep track of the invaders. Nighty night. (pat you on the head)TheJazzFan (talk) 20:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

You join a community you follow the rules, simple really and Kjaer/Keer's actions are in breech of WP:Meatpuppet. Lay of the Secret Police accusations by the way; I'll follow WP:Bite in the hope that you will follow WP:Civil --Snowded TALK 20:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

You never did answer JF's question whether you think it's possible to enforce or right-minded to begin with. In fact, I've noticed you dodge a lot of good questions that are posed to you. What do you think would happen if the same kind of thinking were applied to political elections, trying to tell Asians in some state they can't vote because they were urged to by campaign workers? I realize a presidential election isn't nearly as important as some pissing contest on Wikipedia but hey. TheDarkOneLives (talk) 17:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I have ever failed to answer a coherent question and in the main I avoid rhetorical ones. Now this is not the place to discuss it but there is a case for compulsory voting and banning opinion polls and canvassing in national elections. However that really is not the point. A community has its rules and if you don't like them you either (i) seek to change them (ii) leave (iii) rebel and take the consequences. If you do the later you should at least have the honesty to tell people which Kjaer did not. This community has decided that meat and sock puppets are a bad idea. It also opposes polls in favour of consensus and generally takes an emergent approach to meaning and agreement. I am happy with those rules and abide by them. If there was a movement for change I might consider my position. --Snowded TALK 18:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy. TallNapoleon (talk) 17:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

This is pretty flagrant meatpuppetry, and absolutely calls into questions the results of the RFC. TallNapoleon (talk) 20:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Disruption

If you're comments are unrelated to the contents of this article, please take them elsewhere. This is not an Admin noticeboard. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know about such things (noticeboards). I just wanted to do the right thing when I spotted the canvassing. --Turnsmoney (talk) 20:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Although it should also be posted at WP:ANI I would say that it was probably appropriate to post it here as well. TallNapoleon (talk) 20:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I placed it on ANI, but Turnsmoney is entitled to post it on the talk pages so other editors are aware. Given that it turns out Kjaer is the person doing the canvassing it is relevant. --Snowded TALK 20:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The Result

So with all these self-important committees, arbitration this, policy that, concerns over (so-called) "balance" and consensus - (yeah just how much unsubstantiated b.s should be mixed in just to be "fair" and inclusive?), trying to police the entire web to make sure people aren't talking to each other about an article - this whole glorious process has resulted in - a locked-up article that no one can edit until "disputes have been resolved".

Uh huh.

You know when the controversy over Ayn Rand is going to end? Never. It didn't happen within her lifetime, the broad's been dead 27 years and the battle rages on. Not gonna happen within the lifetime of anyone reading this. The Klan will dedicate themselves to preserving the legacy of MLK first. If mankind finds another place to live and a way to get there before the Sun goes red giant and fries the planet, I guarantee Earth's refugees will be debating at least two things on their voyage - Digital -vs- LP's & Objectivism.

As long as this forum is available it's going to keep going through these paroxysms over essentially the same issues - with endless time wasted on meaningless arbitrations that aren't going to resolve anything when virtually all of it could be bypassed by following suggestions already made.

Or keep doing it the way it's being done.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 23:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I understand that you're frustrated, but please try to keep your posts constructive and relevant to edits that need to be made on this article. See WP:Soap and WP:Talk. If you would like to discuss behavior issues, there's room to comment on the ArbCom case, there's no need to do it here. Idag (talk) 00:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Apparently you don't grasp that my comments are precisely about editing the article. I understand, I've gone outside the parameters of your programming.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 04:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, The Dark One's right, and what's unfortunate is that no one seems to be content with an article that really seems quite fine (upon skimming, at least). Perhaps it's the bickering on this talk page that is the problem. I suggest keeping to the basic principle of this project: that acclaims and criticisms of Rand cannot be chosen at whim; both need to be well developed throughout the surveys of Rand and her work. And there are many well-developed themes. (For example, does her quote about Native Americans, discussed above, meet that standard? No.) Build theses from the literature and spend less time debating whether so-and-so's scathing critique or glowing appraisal of Rand is worth mentioning. Neither Rand (by direct quote) nor the editors here inform what is proper to include in the article; the secondary sources do. –Outriggr § 02:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

That might be helpful advice, Outriggr, but the problem is that no one is making any glowing appraisal of Rand. Unless you thinbk to call her what hundreds of reliable sources call her, a novelist and philosopher, is glowing praise. The dispute we have here is not between a faction that wants to praise Rand, and one that wants to damn her, but between one that has decided, since she's evil, her article needs to be censored, bawdlerized and rewritten, and a faction of experts who want the article to be helpful, factual, and inclusive. Look at the last month of incredibly unuseful talk. Look at the section in archive 16 or 17 entitled "propoganda pa[g]e." You will see hundreds of remarks about how Rand is not so good, and how this article needs to be cut down to size (avainst wp policy of splitting larve articles) and how we have to let people know how evil Rand really was. Look at the notable section on Rand's very notable opinion on homosexualty (the subject of books, chapters of books and academic papers) - not flattering - that was removed by editors who simply don't like anything Rand, and who then engaged in an OR POV orgy about a fictional quote of Rand on that most notable of subjects, her opinion of the nature of political rights and the more primitive of Indian societies.

What we have here is not a dispute between those who want to glorify Rand and those who want to damn her, but between those who want to tell as much as is helpful, and those who want to tell only what reflects their own personal negative POV.

That POV groups is in the minority. There has been no consensus in their favor. And you are right in the end. We do not need arbitration, we simply need adherance to wp policy. Kjaer (talk) 02:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Ignoring the above comment, Outriggr, the problem with secondary sources for some of the topics in this article is that there aren't any. For better or worse, Rand has never caught on to mainstream academia, which means there aren't a lot of papers/books written about some parts of her life and some of her views. This has resulted in big parts of this article relying on questionable sources. Its a thorny issue and hopefully the arbitration will allow us to make some headway on it (or at least develop a process to make some headway on it). Idag (talk) 02:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally the quote posted was NOT fictional. Furthermore I *repeatedly* asked anyone who might have access to the full quote in context to post it, until I finally found a transcription on WikiQuote, whose accuracy I would still like to see confirmed. Personally, though, I believe that the abridged version of the quote is true to the spirit of her arguments. TallNapoleon (talk) 04:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I said before, I'll say it again. I have the book. The statement is too long to post. And you don't have to believe me, but that misquote does NOT represent the spirit of her statement. You can go ahead and believe otherwise - without any proof whatsoever. If you want, you can believe a burning bush told you it is true. That is all up to you. However, most people would NOT declare that it is accurate until they had checked for themselves (do you live in area without any libraries? They can order books they don't have.) You mention that you "*repeatedly* asked anyone" for verification - I responded, no one else did - and that is your idea of validation? Most people wouldn't be making outrageous comments about things as serious as genocide on the basis of unvalidated, dubious information. But that is me. I guess you have different standards. --Steve (talk) 04:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Where it might belong is in a debate or discussion in a different forum where you could properly examine the larger picture of her thoughts on property rights, it doesn't belong in a biographical article period any more than large quotes from her radio programs or a transcript of her Mike Wallace interview. What might belong in the Objectivism article is a summary of her thoughts on property rights. In the context of this article this particular quote would serve only as bloat clumsily shoehorned in for the sole purpose of serving an agenda. TheJazzFan (talk) 05:42, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I was referring to | this, Steve, when I was asking for validation. Evidently you missed it. You have the book. That appears to be the full quote, with adequate context. Is it accurate? TallNapoleon (talk) 05:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Not a philosopher?

I'm just finding this page for the first time, and noticed the revert war over calling her a "philosopher". I'm curious what motivated this. I've read some of her non-fiction, and find it quite similar (in subject-matter and analysis) to the writings of Aristotle, Locke, Price, Paine, Reid, etc. Are these people philosophers? I understand that that is OR on my part to make that connection, but it would also seem that these books and these journal articles have got it all wrong...? She likewise takes up a large chunk of the book Philosophers of Capitalism: Menger, Mises, Rand, and Beyond, for example. There are also her television appearances over the decades, Mike Wallace, Donahue, Tom Snyder, etc (that's just what I could find on YouTube), where she is popularly considered a "philosopher". Until these can be discounted as unreliable, I don't see any evidence that is not simply original research. — BRIAN0918 • 2009-01-22 13:56Z

What started it? Ironically, some folks who unlike her believe reason isn't an absolute have reasoned that she absolutely isn't a philosopher in defiance of facts and find it unreasonable to call her one.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 11:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Phil Donahue introduced her as a philosopher. Debate over. TheJazzFan (talk) 05:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Um, no? TallNapoleon (talk) 06:07, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Although I don't personally consider her a philosopher (I think she is more of a life-style guru), she did make humorous attempts to take on Kant and Hume; she is called a philosopher by many sources; she attempts to make use of philosophy as the grounding basis for her life-style doctrines and dogmas. Furthermore, one definition of philosopher is: "a person who establishes the central ideas of some movement, cult, etc."<Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.> For these reasons, I remain of the opinion that she can fairly be called a "philosopher". As could L.Ron Hubbard, for that matter. Or Farrakhan, for example. CABlankenship (talk) 15:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for your opinion. While you certainly are entitled to your own opinions of Rand, the measure of whether a statement should be included in Wikipedia is whether it is used in reliable sources. So those sources that I linked to are either reliable or we need to show that they're not. — BRIAN0918 • 2009-01-22 16:23Z

Amused at the conceptual disconnect between CAB's not considering her a philosopher but then declaring she can be fairly called a philosopher. He demonstrates that his denial is strictly about acrimony not intellectual evaluation. Oh wait, I already knew that.TheJazzFan (talk) 22:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The word "philosopher" has many definitions, and means many different things to people all over the world. Another example would be that I don't personally consider Rand a "liberal", even though she could fairly be called by such a term. There is no contradiction, merely a realization that my opinion is not an objective truth, and that there is room for fair disagreement. In other words, I don't think you're necessarily wrong to consider her a philosopher. It just so happens that I wouldn't personally use that term to describe her. CABlankenship (talk) 02:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, of course the world's just a big bag of floating abstractions, ain't it. What Ayn Rand said and wrote is fixed, it doesn't change. What you and other are trying to do is claim she's not a philosopher not by anything as courageous as asserting a definition, but by a sniveling act of avoidance - apparently insisting that "a philosopher is whatever Ayn Rand isn't". As "substantiation" you can only offer another non-assertions - a tallying of those who haven't said she's a philosopher, still avoiding taking any responsibility for being held to a standard.TheJazzFan (talk) 21:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the debate its also about her prime identity. In a sense all novelists are philosophers in some sense of the word. We have made reference to several taught on philosophy courses around the world whose pages do not use the term. The compromise suggestion was to give her a primary designation as author and screen writer and state that she founded a philosophical movement known as objectivism. That avoided the prior position of footnote qualifications. --Snowded TALK 15:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The debate is NOT about her "prime" identity - that, I believe is just Snowded's insertion. Here is the essence of the debate: Some people here do not accept any of the many, many valid sources that can (and have been) cited that show her to be a philosopher as well as a novelist and screenwriter. --Steve (talk) 17:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• Some sources call her a philosopher and some sources don't. Idag (talk) 15:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Absence is not evidence, though. If reliable sources go into detail about why they think she is not a philosopher, then that should be discussed in the article, but if she is popularly considered a philosopher, as my original post shows, then she should be considered a philosopher in the article. — BRIAN0918 • 2009-01-22 16:23Z
    • Actually, her exclusion from notable comprehensive reference works of philosophers is evidence. Obviously they're not going to put in a detailed analysis for why they excluded the people that they excluded and to ask for one would be to request proof of a negative, which is impossible. If the majority of sources called her a philosopher, I would have no problem calling her as such on this article, but that is not the case. Idag (talk) 16:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
      • If they have not stated the reasons for excluding her from their directories, we cannot presume to know what those reasons were. Books, for example, may exclude due to space limitations. Websites may exclude due to lack of a writer knowledgeable on Rand on their staff. Or maybe they just haven't come across her. Absence of content is not an argument, as I said. And again, if there is a reliable source that argues that she is not a philosopher, they should be included, but if popular media calls her a philosopher, she should be considered such in the article. It is original research to make the connection that you have made, namely, "she is not a philosopher because sources X, Y, Z don't list her as a philosopher". If a reliable source makes that claim, however, we can include it in the article. It would read something like this: "Writer John Smith contends in his book History of Philosophy that Ayn Rand is not a philosopher, because she doesn't appear in the directories of philosophy X, Y, Z." — BRIAN0918 • 2009-01-22 17:01Z

And the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy does not mention her at all. Proving a negative is difficult although there is cited material that at least one notable libertarian philosopher while agreeing with her politics dismissed her "philosophy". Within a US context she has more prominence. I haven't had an opportunity to check the Stamford lists an entry for Rand, but none for Objectivism. I haven't manage to get access to that yet to check what it says but it may constitute evidence and needs to be checked. The fact they don't list objectivism itself is significant. If she was a philosopher of any note, then you would expect all major international dictionaries to list her. There is no question that she is an author (although again outside the US she does not appear in directories even of American Literature) and that is the primary claim. Also you need third parties, papers from "inside the movement" can result in undue weight. I still think the compromise of her creating a philosophical movement is supportable and does not require qualification. listed her as a philosopher when large parts of the world do not recognise as such would . --Snowded TALK 17:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Dismissing her philosophy is an acknowledgment that it is a philosophy, no? (Unless he dismissed it as not being a philosophy.) — BRIAN0918 • 2009-01-22 18:01Z

(1) he didn't call it a philosophy when he dismissed it (it was more akin to a dismissal of an argument); and (2) he was one of, at best, a handful of major philosophers to acknowledge that Rand even exists. Idag (talk) 18:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Alright, so then it's not even relevant to this discussion. — BRIAN0918 • 2009-01-22 18:14Z

I understand your position, and yes it makes sense. Maybe we'll see compromise here, but I doubt it. I don't think it's a big deal. Far more important, in my opinion, is elaborating on her ideas, life, and what she said. For instance, she claimed that Kant was "the most evil man in mankind's history." She blamed him for Hitler, Stalin, and all of the crimes of the 20th century. She claimed that without Kant, the philosophical climate would not have permitted such acts. This is crackers, as I'm sure we all believe, but it's this type of interesting fact that I think deserves attention. It's fascinating stuff that the casual reader would find interesting. CABlankenship (talk) 15:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• I don't believe she blamed Kant for Hitler, Stalin. Those guys did their own things and are to blame for their own actions. Kant, according to her, simply opened them up to that line of reasoning. You'll need to provide some quotes for what you call "crackers" - I haven't seen it suggested that "without Kant", things would be peachy. What you may be doing is taking her words out of context, and setting up a straw man that, while being convenient to attack, is ultimately counterproductive to our discussion. It's one thing to say that parallels can be drawn between Kant's philosophy and the opinions of Marx, Hitler, Stalin, but quite a different thing to say that Kant directly caused them (which assumes those individuals have no free will of their own), and that "therefore" without Kant we would not have had them. I need to see quotes in context to back up your statements. — BRIAN0918 • 2009-01-22 16:23Z

Leonard Peikoff agrees with my analysis. http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=objectivism_fv I can find other sources also. Peikoff says that:

In the final issue of The Objectivist, Ayn Rand described Kant as “the most evil man in mankind’s history.” [...] She held that Kant was morally much worse than any killer, including Lenin and Stalin (under whom her own family died), because it was Kant who unleashed not only Lenin and Stalin, but also Hitler and Mao and all the other disasters of our disastrous age. Without the philosophic climate Kant and his intellectual followers created, none of these disasters could have occurred; given that climate, none could have been averted.

Isn't Peikoff the "intellectual heir" and "foremost authority" on Rand? I do not believe that I'm using Rand "out of context" or that I am introducing straw men. I believe this is accurate. CABlankenship (talk) 16:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• Here is the difference: you first stated that Kant caused Hitler. Now in your quote from Piekoff, it is apparent what was meant is that Hitler's opinions were so readily absorbed by the public because of an intellectual climate that can be traced to Kant. Do you see the difference between these two things? Also, given that this is the article on Rand, not the article on Piekoff, I would prefer actual quotes from Rand, and not simply from her "intellectual heir", who has his own opinions. — BRIAN0918 • 2009-01-22 17:08Z

"Do you see the difference between these two things?" Does he comprehend? I'll take that one - no.TheJazzFan (talk) 03:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

See WP:CIVIL. TallNapoleon (talk) 04:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Just stating a fact.TheJazzFan (talk) 11:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

(why are you using * by the way not :? its confusing). We are meant to use third party sources rather than summarise her which means Pelkoff's views are relevant. --Snowded TALK 17:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

After years of experience, I've come to favor bullets for replies. For example, the quote above could be confused for a reply. I did not say Piekoff wasn't relevant, just that direct quotes from her are preferable. Please reread my post. — BRIAN0918 • 2009-01-22 17:24Z

Ah (on the * I see but I still find it confusing). I agree that direct quotes are appropriate (and I had read that). My point was that we are really meant to source from third parties and here we have a generic problem on the whole article in that independent ones are notable by their absence. --Snowded TALK 17:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I have shown you a source (well-respected by Objectivists) that makes exactly the same claim that I made, which you denied. As you say, original research is not allowed, so we should defer to the published expert on Rand, not our own interpretations. So from that, we can say that Peikoff believes that a proper interpretation of Rand is that she believed without Kant's philosophy, there would not have been a holocaust, mass murders by Stalin and Mao (how did Kant influence Mao and China?), and so forth. I think this is crackers, as I said. But that doesn't matter. The point is to reference and source expert interpretations, is it not? We can obfuscate. We can set up straw men, as you did when you attempted to draw me into a semantics debate on the word "caused". Note that nowhere in my original post did I mention the word "caused" as you claimed. We can say that "what she really meant was..." and so forth, but she still had some fantastical notion that Kant's philosophy was in some large way responsible for the horrors of the 20th century. This is an eye-brow raising and interesting fact. CABlankenship (talk) 17:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

You make two claims, but only cite a source for one of them. You claim she said Kant is to blame for Hitler and Hitler's actions. You claim she said Kant caused an intellectual climate that was acceptable to Hitler. I've seen no evidence to support your first claim, and the ambiguity of your quoted source does not help - ie, what is meant by "unleashed"? — BRIAN0918 • 2009-01-22 17:54Z

I consider this to be unreasonable semantics, but I acquiesce from the word "blamed". It's not important. Just out of curiosity, do you think she was wrong on this score? CABlankenship (talk) 18:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The issue is not nit-picking on my part, but the ambiguity of the word "unleashed". That word could be used to justify any variety of opinions on what she meant, so the quote should be avoided as a reference. As for my opinion - I don't know enough about Kant or the history of world culture to say for certain if I can trace a connection between the two. Hitler is responsible for his own actions, as are anyone else who was involved with his campaign. It is certainly true that, for example, the selflessness/charity preached by Jesus and his followers has had a huge effect on the acceptability of certain philosophies to the public, so I think it is certainly possible that Kant could have had a similar effect on society. Everyone is still accountable for their own actions, though. — BRIAN0918 • 2009-01-22 18:11Z

So you think it's possible that she was correct in calling Kant the most evil person in history, worse than Stalin and Hitler? CABlankenship (talk) 18:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Where did I say that? Were we even talking about that??? — BRIAN0918 • 2009-01-22 18:14Z

(In response to comment before change by Brian) What do you think she meant? Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Kant...to Rand, Kant is easily the most "evil". I think she meant that Kant was "worse than any killer" because he "denied reality", thus — in the deranged opinion of Rand — somehow made "possible and necessary all the atrocities of our age." I'm frankly astonished that you even hold this out as a possibility. CABlankenship (talk) 18:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you're getting this from... It's certainly true that Jesus' teachings paved the way for the Crusades. All that says is that ideas influence people. It's likewise possible that Kant's ideas influenced people to the point that Hitler's opinions were more acceptable to them. Regarding what is most "evil", if violation of individual rights is the standard, then Hitler is definitely the more evil. I don't know what Rand meant by "evil", and there are at least 10 definitions for the word in the dictionary. Again, you're wallowing in ambiguity. Unless you can determine exactly what was meant by words like "unleashed" and "evil", this is all an exercise in futility. — BRIAN0918 • 2009-01-22 18:37Z

Agreed. Still, the part on Rand vs Kant should elaborate on her extreme position. CABlankenship (talk) 19:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree provided that it is more specific than we have been so far. We should avoid ambiguity at all costs in an article. If her opinion is only extreme when taken out of context, or it is not clear what the context of her opinion is, then it only degrades the article to include it at all. We should instead stick to explaining why exactly she disagreed with Kant, and how she believes Kant's views spread and influenced society. — BRIAN0918 • 2009-01-22 19:15Z

By the way, I wasn't agreeing in any way to the idea that it's plausible that Kant's philosophy had anything to do with the holocaust or other 20th century atrocities. I think it's quite a mad idea, actually. I was agreeing with you that we should avoid ambiguity. I think that it's relevant that she said crazy things about Kant. For instance, Ben Stein recently made a film suggesting that Darwin paved the way for Hitler. Rand's accusation seems similar as regards Kant. Unless you just don't take Rand seriously at all, or think that she was being a joker, I think her astonishingly extreme language in attacking Kant should be discussed. Very rarely do we see such a thing between academics or philosophers. CABlankenship (talk) 19:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

In that respect, it is best if we defer to a third party analysis of the veracity of her claims. Continuing to call her opinions "crackers" on the article talk page distracts from the discussion. — BRIAN0918 • 2009-01-22 19:27Z

Yes, my quandary is in how to introduce such a matter. In this sense, I am introducing something into consideration for inclusion on the grounds that it seems crackers. So I think in this case, it was relevant for me to include why I thought it noteworthy. I did specifically ask for your opinion on the matter, and should have done that on your talk page. But you see, her mental condition is one of the factors we're discussing. For instance, one of her closest followers, the psychotherapist Allan Blumenthal, says that she suffered from "several personality disorders". Similar things are heard from other sources, including Rothbard, Branden, and so forth. Maybe there is a more gentle way to introduce this for discussion, and in such a way as to not offend her fans, but this can be difficult. Regardless, just as with a figure like Nietzsche, their relative sanity and mental conditions are relevant to a page about them. CABlankenship (talk) 20:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Such content would be relevant under a "Personal life" section, but certainly not under a "writings", "philosophy", or "Objectivism" section. The soundness of her arguments is not dependent upon her personality. — BRIAN0918 • 2009-01-22 21:35Z

Well a broader section on her philosophical views would make sense but we really need third party plus some quotes and we are then back to the problem of the limited number of sources and nearly all the philosophy ones coming from Rand related institutions or Rand type instituted funded seminars or research fellowships. Outside of the US you see nothing really, well maybe a funded seminar at Warwick University but that is nothing. No one denies she created a philosophical position which some people have taken up almost exclusively in the US. But that is not the point. --Snowded TALK 16:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I despise the works of Rand but to argue she is not a philosopher is arrogance. That she may be considered laughable by the academic community is irrelevant. What is accepted in the academic community is NOT the standard. I will prove this. I can state that Kenny G is not a musician. I dare anyone to find an academic that takes him seriously as one. Ergo, he is not a musician on WP? That Ayn Rand is known POPULARLY as a philosopher is enough. Almost anyone with any awareness of Ayn Rand knows that she is considered to be a novelist and philosopher, however untalented and misguided. If a million hacks consider someone a philosopher then that is what they deserve to be called in an encyclopedia. Let the academic world take care of its own. Stevewunder (talk) 04:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with you Steve(wunder). However I would be happy with a compromise saying she created a philosophical system. That's what Britannica does, and it gets us around the controversy. TallNapoleon (talk) 04:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

There is no real controversy. There are some people who hate Rand and want to diminsh her. Anyone who accepts valid sources for material doesn't even question that she is a philosopher. She has journal articles written about her philosophical works. She is called a philosopher by some encyclopedias (and only one is enough). As to the Britannica... If someone is the creator of a philosophy, they are a philosopher. If that philosophy spawns a movement that results in the sales of hundreds of thousands of books, and they are mentioned in philosophy text books as a philosopher... they are a philosopher. When professors of philosophy write scholarly books on her philosophy, she is a philosopher. When the professor emeritus of the department of philosophy, in a major school like Univ. of Calif. Berkley says in an article on Epistemology, that, though he disagrees with some of her position on universals, he considers her work worthy of study, she is a philosopher. Those who keep arguing against this position, after seeing these sources, prove they only want to edit from a negative POV. --Steve (talk) 04:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The Criticism section should mention that many academics do not consider Rand a philosopher. That way we cover different external POVs and remain N here. But to not call her a philosopher in the beginning and mention later that many consider her a philosopher would be awkward. It is not relevant that she is not an IMPORTANT philosopher. She is not an important novelist either. Stevewunder (talk) 05:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

But if we must compromise here is my olive branch: if she isn't called a philosopher, she shouldn't be called a novelist either, because she does not write proper novels, but novelistic propaganda. Stevewunder (talk) 05:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Eh, I've seen her referred to as "novelist-philosopher" or "writer-philosopher" in a few places. TallNapoleon (talk) 09:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia Stevewunder, and its a brave wo/man who enters a controversial page on only their second day as an editor! We had a position which qualified all mention of her being a philosopher with a note to the effect that she was not so considered by the bulk of academic philosophy and it was OK but clumsy. Remember we are talking about two entries here, the info box and the lede. The compromise solution as t recognise that she was an author and script writer who founded and/or was the inspiration for a philosophical movement. This followed another encyclopaedia which means we are using a third party source. I don't think you can say she is not an important novelist by the way, but the quality of any philosophy that she produced was dismissed even by fellow libertarians (recognised as philosophers). SteveWolfer (we cant just say Steve any more or even SteveW!) has previously produced a long list of philosophers who he says endorse his point of view, without telling us exactly how. I checked a couple and they has simply turned up at a seminar sponsored by a Rand institution of some type. --Snowded TALK 09:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. I just don't see how, by the same standard, she can be considered a novelist. I don't think you will find many in the academic community who take any of her novels seriously. And I don't think an encyclopedia makes a good source for another encyclopedia, otherwise what is the point here? If Rand considers herself a philosopher and novelist and her millions of fans do the same, then she deserves to be called that -- then we can sling all the mud we want at her in the Criticism section. I think that is a NPOV, even if it is only my second day as an editor! Stevewunder (talk) 11:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

You might want to check out WP:CITE to get a sense of what is involved here. Our opinion of her as a novelist does not really matter. Slinging mud would be entirely inappropriate. Personally I rate her less than Dan Brown but that is irrelevant and a quick check around a cocktail party in Connecticut last night revealed that most people had read Atlas (and in many cases enjoyed it) as adolescents but could not imagine an adult taking her seriously. None of those statements would be appropriate for the article unless they were made by a notable critic and published (even then they would be questionable.

That she is a novelist can be established by citation and book sales. The question of her being a Philosopher however is more problematic, especially given the way that word is used. She is simply not mentioned in the vast bulk of the literature. If you then eliminate Rand Institute funded positions and seminars (which I think you have to) there is precious little left. Its also difficult to know how many fans of her as a novelist are even aware that there are people who consider her a philosopher (a minority group even within US Libertarians). Other Encyclopaedias can provide guidence, as can other articles in the WIkipedia. So given her primacy as a novelist, we need to look to other novelists with a philosophical bent to see how they are treated and I haven't found one yet who is designated as a philosopher. Hence the compromise to say that her ideas founded a philosophical position called Objectivism by its adherents. I can also imagine by the way (In response to the other Steve) even a Professor of Philosophy suggesting that her novels be read in connection with understanding political extremism of various types. When I read Philosophy back in the 70's we were encouraged in Ethics and Political Philosophy to read all manner of material which did not originate from Philosophers. In fact that reflection is part of the philosophical process. --Snowded TALK 12:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi ya'll. Why is it so important to have 'philosopher' in the Infobox? Isn't mostly everybody, philosophical? GoodDay (talk) 17:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

You are using the word "novel" in the loosest sense, considering a novel as simply a work of fiction. In a narrower sense her didactic fictions are outside the tradition of the Western novel, just as her philosophical non-fiction may be outside the tradition of Western philosophy. She is not listed as a novelist in the vast chunk of literature having to do with literature. Try to find a citation of Atlas Shrugged by a respected literature professor! I don't see why the title Philosopher here has to have a capital P, while the title novelist gets thrown in the shit bucket. If book sales of her fictions have meaning, then book sales of her philosophical non-fiction should have meaning as well. My argument is that it is obvious that she is popularly considered to be a Novelist and Philosopher -- there are many citations of both (however lowbrow)-- and that not referring to her by what she is popularly considered to be is not a NPOV. What the academic field thinks doesn't matter on these labels, otherwise we shouldn't call her a novelist either. A hundred years ago we could have been having this argument over whether Nietzsche should be considered a Philosopher.

Other persons on Wikipedia called Philosophers include: Karl Marx, Alan Watts, Robert Anton Wilson, and Kahlil Gibran. Stevewunder (talk) 22:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Although I do agree it should be OK to simply say "writer" in the info box, as it currently does. Stevewunder (talk) 23:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

An aside: Rand has a huge following among many Wall Street execs who fancy themselves heroes out of Rand's novels. These people take her seriously to a degree that is scary. They name their children after Rand characters, etc. They will quote her constantly in their own rhetoric. If you make the mistake of suggesting to one of these (highly educated) people that Rand is not a philosopher, the response is like that of a Muslim who has seen a cartoon of Allah. I realize that this alone does not qualify her as a philosopher, I merely point it out as an example of how many people take seriously the notion she is a Philosopher, albeit outside the academic world. It is representative of popular culture. I think thus her status as philosopher is analogous to Kahlil Gibran or Alan Watts, neither of whom are philosophers in the Western tradition. Stevewunder (talk) 23:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

And what about all those Rush lyrics? Don't they mean something? Stevewunder (talk) 00:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Sources show Rand as philosopher

In an earlier post, Snowded said, "Proving a negative is difficult," rather than impossible - that is an interesting philosophical position. In his quest to prove a negative, he has to first throw out all valid cites that get in the way, since they would constitute positives that show the contrary - that she is in fact a philosopher. But he has original research to explain to us why this or that publication did not write whatever they did not write. And he keeps pointed out reasons why those who did write that she was a philosopher must be ignored. Then, he expands his proof of a negative argument to tell us about Rand's popularity that doesn't exist outside of the US (I await the argument that she isn't popular outside of this galaxy). After that he launches into his original research on otherwise notable sources not being notable because they are "inside the movement" - as he puts it. As if someone who dedicated a significant portion of his or her professional life to a study of Aristotle is not a valid source - because of that dedication. And if that scholar accepted a grant given by an institute funded to study Aristotle, then that scholar would be doubly disqualified. Here is just a tiny bit of evidence that she is of influence around the world:

• Rand's nonfiction, technical work on epistemology, "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology," has been translated into the following languages: German, French, Italian, Spanish, Danish, Hindi, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Welsh. In the UK this book ranks 260,108th in the UK in sales by Amazon.uk (that doesn't sound like much, but it puts it ahead of the other million or so titles available).
• Also in the UK, Rand's "The Virtue of Selfishness' was ranked #39 in the sale of philosophy Books in their automated, hourly update - that beat out "On Certainty" by Wittgenstein, E. O, Wilson's "Consilience, "The Contruction of Social Reality," by Searle, and Kant's "Critique of Judgement (Oxford World Classics)."
• At the moment I checked, Amazon.com's hourly update of most popular books shows this 52 year old novel that puts forth a philosophy outselling all but 77 of the millions of books available. [8].
• In most popular items in classics in the united states (updated hourly) it rated number 1.[9].
• In most popular items in Classics (all countries, updated hourly) it rated number 1. [10]
• In most popular items in all of literature and fiction (all countries, updated hourly) it rated #17.
• In most popular items in 20th century, UK, updated hourly, it is #63.[11]

Snowded is wrong about Rand not being that well known out of America. Atlas Shrugged sells in great numbers around the world. It has been translated into 14 languages.[12] Sales figures only show the following: Those people buying books by those we all acknowledge to be philosophers (e.g., Kant or Wittgenstein) are also buying Rand's books. They are buying her non-fiction, including the work on epistemology, and they are doing so in countries other than America.--Steve (talk) 18:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

You're getting too carried away over the retail sales of one particular chain (in this instance, amazon). The top sellers on Amazon's philosophy list (outselling Rand) include Ron Paul, a book called Change Your Life: Living the Wisdom of the Tao, and so forth. Her sales on Amazon are barely notable. You are putting too much stock into this sort of thing. The biologist Richard Dawkins has several books listed in their philosophy section, far out-selling Rand. You don't see his readers running to his page to brag about this new evidence of people buying his books. It's not interesting information, or something the average reader is going to care about. This is extreme fan-page type information, and I'm not sure what it brings to a wiki article. At some point, it just seems like an attempt to construct and over-hype a legacy for Rand which doesn't really exist. She's a successful and influential novelist. But I think that it's a bit disingenuous to try to invent influence for her in philosophy which simply doesn't exist. CABlankenship (talk) 18:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Please read my post more carefully. I said that sales figures only show a popularity - no more. I was, as I said, countering Snowded's claim, that Rand is not popular outside of the US. Please don't imply "fan-like" behavior to me. I was quite specific in pointing out what arguments I was countering. Snowded has claimed that she is not a philosopher and gives a number of arguments - I have been countering those arguments. Her work is popular outside of the US. Please don't be so sloppy in your language as to say that I was attempting to invent influence for her in philosophy which doesn't exist. In my post above, I never claimed more than her work has popularity outside of the US and that Snowded's arguments are flawed. --Steve (talk) 18:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe that amazon book sales back up your claim that her philosophy is popular around the world. CABlankenship (talk) 19:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Ultimately, this issue is not about how popular she is, its whether she is deemed a philosopher. If we determine ourselves whether she is a philosopher, regardless of which criteria we utilize for this determination, it would be original research. Thus, the relevant inquiry is whether secondary sources call her a philosopher. Some of those sources do just that. Many others do not. If we call her a philosopher without any type of qualification, we would be ignoring the sources that deny her that label, and that is something we cannot do. What we should be focusing on is how to word the lede so that it does justice to both sets of sources. Idag (talk) 19:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Idag. Steve I think you want something to be the case too much and you are filtering the data through that. You keep giving long lists of things (like your list of philosophers) that do not actually back up the assertions you are making. If we are looking at her recognition as an author (lets forget philosopher for a minute) she doesn't even appear in some European directors of American Literature. Sales, well I bought a copy of Atlas and read it as an adolescent. I also (ironically) read one book by Terry Goodkind but no more. What matters here is the third party sources, not inference and OR --Snowded TALK 20:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I think Steve makes a good point about considering sources "inside the movement" as invalid creates a catch-22 where virtually every source gets automatically tossed. Is the New York Times now considered "inside the movement"? I think this argument boils down to: high-brow academic sources vs. lower brow sources including pop culture. The lower brow sources should be considered valid, particularly if there are a lot of them, which there appear to be. Also, I think my point about her philosopher status being analogous to Kahlil Gibran, Alan Watts or Robert Anton Wilson, all called philosophers on WP, is valid. I doubt any of those three are held to be Philosophers by much of academia, but there are nevertheless enough lower brow sources to earn them that label. If they are called philosophers, so should Rand, by the argument that following other WP precedents is a good way to go. Stevewunder (talk) 01:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

No one says to toss the New York Times, I explicitly acknowledged, in my above post, that there are sources that name Rand a philosopher. However, there are many other sources that do not give her that designation. Simply calling her a philosopher would ignore the multitude of sources that do not call her as such. As far as the articles that you are citing for precedent, none of them are featured articles. When we look at other Wikipedia articles, we only look at the ones that have reached Featured Article status. These are articles that meet certain criteria of excellence. We can look at other articles for ideas, but they are by no means precedential, as they lack one or more of the criteria that make for an excellent article. Idag (talk) 02:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The multitude of sources that don't call her a philosopher mean nothing. I can find a multitude of sources that don't call Goethe a poet. Does that mean he was not one? What you need is a multitude of sources saying "Ayn Rand is not a philosopher", if you want to counter the multitude of sources that say she is one. Stevewunder (talk) 08:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I very much doubt that you will find any major book or reference tome about the field of poetry that does not mention Goethe, whereas the comparative books on Philosophy are very light on mentions of Rand. The issue is one of WP:Weight.

--Snowded TALK 08:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

But your focus on a "major book or reference tome" is the problem! Ayn Rand is not likely to be mentioned in such because she is no great or significant philosopher. But her lack of greatness or significance does not mean she is not one. Every field needs mediocrity! Ayn Rand is indeed a philosopher, just a bad one. Stevewunder (talk) 09:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Lots of mediocre philosophers are mentioned in those books. For her to be called a philosopher in the article requires due attention to weight. The argument is not about her quality as a philosopher or an author (you keep raising issues of your opinion of the quality of her work and its not relevant) but about the citation support, and its not enough to have one citation we have to give balance to the overall weight. This argument anyway is going no where. There was an obvious solution proposed some time ago, which is to acknowledge that she was the inspiration of Objectivism (Ayn Rand). --Snowded TALK 09:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed the argument is going no where. But if she isn't a philosopher -- which is her main legacy -- I don't think she is worth an article here at all. Cut the baby in half!!!! Stevewunder (talk) 09:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

It definitely does NOT follow that someone who is not a philosopher is not notable. I would argue her main legacy is her cult of devoted followers, including one recently retired chairman of the Federal Reserve, in addition to the energizing effect she had on the libertarian movement. TallNapoleon (talk) 09:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying that someone is not notable if they are not a philosopher, but Ayn Rand would not be notable if not for her philosophy. She is currently described in the article as: "novelist, playwright and screenwriter". I find that odd since she published more non-fiction books than fiction, and her "cult of devoted followers" are more likely to be caught reading her works on philosophy than watching the plays or movies she wrote. Stevewunder (talk) 10:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

⬅ We don't judge the nature of her notability by the orientation of her "cult of devoted followers". In the wider (considerably wider) world she is know as a novelist. --Snowded TALK 10:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Several major sources have been put forth to establish she is a philosopher. The only argument proposed to counter this argument is that she isn't mentioned or included in some anthologies and listings of major philosophers. This isn't good enough. Unless major sources can be provided that state she is not a philosopher and why, there are clearly ample sources and a body of work discussed as philosophy that is more than enough to establish the use of this descriptive term. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Every major encyclopedia I have checked (Columbia, Britannica, &c.) refer to her as a "writer". I've yet to find one that calls her a philosopher. Snowded and Idag have a strong case, and they seem to be quite correct in saying that Rand is primarily known as a writer and novelist. The "philosopher" adjective is not cut-and-dry with Rand. CABlankenship (talk) 17:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Many major newspapers never ran an obituary for Rand. Should we remove the fact that she died from the article? ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Is "Dr.Dino" Kent Hovind a doctor and a scientist? He's authored books on science. Where do we draw the line on these adjectives? CABlankenship (talk) 17:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Well as you know there are specific credentials involved in being a doctor that do not exist for philosophers. But when sources such as the New York Times identify someone as a philosopher, when they've published successful works of philosophy, when they are discussed and criticized by other philosophers for their philosophies, that would seem to do the trick. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

If those newspapers purported to be comprehensive lists of everyone who died, then that might work. Here, you have comprehensive lists of philosophers that omit Rand. Its a bit strange to expect these sources to have a separate list stating that "these are the people who are not philosophers." Idag (talk) 18:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

But that's just the point, the sources you describe aren't comprehensive lists. Are you arguing that only those included in those sources is a philosopher? Anyone not included doesn't qualify? That's ridiculous. It's like saying someone is only a poet if Norton Anthology includes them, oh and even if the New York Times writes them up as a poet and the New Yorker includes them, that's still not good enough. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, there's the problem. For instance, the NYT obituary didn't exactly refer to her as a philosopher, it called her a "philosopher of objectivism". In the same sense that L.Ron Hubbard is a "philosopher of Scientology". While Rand can be fairly called a philosopher in my opinion, I'm not sold on the idea that this should be prominently displayed as one of her primary adjectives without qualification. Idag and Snowded are reasonable when they ask for compromise, such as "espoused a philosophical system known as Objectivism". CABlankenship (talk) 18:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

It is possible that she is primarily known as a novelist. But she is known as a philosopher more than she is known as a playwright or screenwriter. So get rid of those adjectives. Oh - that's right. I forgot the term Philosopher is Holy to some of you -- and that all Philosophers must be anointed with the academic secret sauce, while the terms novelist, playwright and screenwriter properly belong in the general shit bucket. Stevewunder (talk) 06:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry. They are nouns. And Idag and Snowded -- if that is their real names -- are not being reasonable.Stevewunder (talk) 06:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Being a philosopher doesn't automatically make someone a saintly person. Martin Heidegger colluded with the Nazis during WWII, but no one would seriously challenge the fact that he was not only a philosopher, but an extremely influential philosopher. One can dislike Ayn Rand, but stating she's not a philosopher doesn't hold any water. Wandering Courier (talk) 06:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

⬅ and now we have a really silly statement from Stevewunder about people's real names and an even more silly statement about holiness. To our wanderer, Heidegger will be found in every philosophical directory and encyclopaedia around the world. This is not an issue of like or dislike, its a question of notability. --Snowded TALK 07:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC) Here's why I would say Rand is a philosopher. Regardless of what academic philosophers think, millions of people believe that she is a philosopher. In addition she quite clearly developed a philosophy. That is reason enough to call her a philosopher, in my opinion. Certainly, calling her a philosopher doesn't imply any judgment as to the quality of her philosophy. TallNapoleon (talk) 08:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, no more silly statements. Starting now! Wait: one more! As long as we are assuming other encyclopedias have the final word, why not just have the article read: See Encyclopedia Britannica.? But on a very, very, mortally serious note: more egregious than not calling her a philosopher in the intro is the insta-criticism that appears in the intro: "Within academia, her philosophical work has earned either no attention or has been criticized for its allegedly derivative nature, a lack of rigor, and a limited understanding of the issues she wrote about". In the INTRO! This clearly belongs under Criticism. Setting the tone this negative is obviously meant to defame her. And it is silly. Stevewunder (talk) 02:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Who is John Galt?

How about placing this picture

Who is John Galt?

in the section 'Atlas Shrugged'.

The contrast of the text on the wall is really pretty poor, so I'm not sure. TallNapoleon (talk) 06:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

 Not done The page is not protected. Ruslik (talk) 17:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Bad citation

Note 2 ("A survey jointly conducted by the Library of Congress and the Book of the Month Club...") should be replaced with a proper citation that actually gives the name, date, etc. of the article referenced. --Nog lorp (talk) 04:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Atlas Shrugged

The following passage was recently added to the end of the Atlas Shrugged section:

In the novel, the author achieved a consistency of vision and depth of execution unparalleled in the freedom movement for individual's rights. Theme and plot consonance, the agreement of character and action create a symmetry of structure, a unity of purpose and its achievement that has rarely ever been accomplished

I think this passage should be moved into the Literary Criticism section, as that is where we currently have the reviews of Rand's books (both positive and negative). I think we also need to cut this passage down to one short sentence, as the majority of the reviews are negative, so giving so much space to a single positive review would be undue weight. Idag (talk) 22:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the article should really be left alone until after ARbcom have ruled. But overall I agree the edit you reference above is excessive and some the other additions although cited don't really seem to make sense, although ironically the editors other main interest seems to be Scientology! --Snowded TALK 22:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Please Protect Article

I agree that the article should remain unchanged pending the arbitration. Can someone contact an admin?Kjaer (talk) 23:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

We are agreed on this at least - I will reverse recent edits with that suggestion. --Snowded TALK 23:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. TallNapoleon (talk) 23:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree as well. Idag (talk) 23:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I reversed the last two and added a note on the editors page - you guys might want to reinforce this. --Snowded TALK 23:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I put in a request for protection from the admins and it was declined. Hopefully Arbcomm will protect it. TallNapoleon (talk) 08:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks like all sides in the dispute are agreed on this so we can act collectively! --Snowded TALK 08:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Power to the people! Overthrow the evil capitalist bourgeois running-lackey admins! Or something. TallNapoleon (talk) 09:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Rand Was Probably a Psychopath

My perfectly factual and reasonably NPOV edit was reverted solely on the basis that it might "violate consensus." Whatever happened to "edit boldly"? Anyway, the claim was referenced, that Rand was a psychopath (and that Objectivism is a religion for psychopaths) is hardly contentious anywhere except among Objectivists themselves (who seem to be camping this article), and Albert Ellis is a widely-recognized expert in the field, heralded as one of the founders of cognitive psychology. SmashTheState (talk) 11:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

If its cited and hasn't been mentioned elsewhere, I'd have no problem adding it to the criticism section. Though I agree with TallNapoleon, that this statement should not be added to the lede per WP:Undue. If I remember right, I think Branden also made a psychological criticism against Objectivism at one point. Idag (talk) 13:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, what do convenience store clerks have to do with Ayn Rand, this article, or anything being discussed here?evildeathmath 17:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Nilges has been blocked from editing. He likes to come back using anon accounts, so its best to just ignore him and delete his posts. Idag (talk) 19:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

His comment happened to be largely correct, however. The notion that Objectivism is a religion for psychopaths is hardly a "fringe" theory. It may, in fact, represent the majority view. Furthermore, it's been propounded by people with actual, uncontroversially recognized psychiatric expertise, like Albert Ellis. Given that the person with the keys to Wikipedia's server room is a notorious Randroid, it's highly unlikely this view will end up in the Ayn Rand article, but I just thought I'd point out that Rand being the psychopathic leader of a religion for psychopaths isn't some bizarre out-in-the-wilderness conspiracy theory or something; it's probably the most commonly-held belief. And in an ideal world, the article would reflect that. SmashTheState (talk) 01:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I hear tell she liked to kick puppies too

Yeah, sure looks lots better now. This article is a testament to what's wrong with Wikipedia.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 18:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Content removal

This edit [13] removed several sourced pieces of information that seem entirely appropriate to include. Is there any reason this content shouldn't be added back? ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

They were fairly major changes posted without any discussion. Apart from that, everyone seems to be in agreement that we should hold off on all major changes until the ArbCom thing finishes. Idag (talk) 22:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Compromise

I suggest a compromise: omit the title "philosopher" in the lede, just leave writer/screenwriter/novelist/whatever there, but use the standard philosophy box, because the philosophy box is so much better aesthetially than the standard writer box. This can emphasize Rand's influence in popular philosophy, while insists that her main achievement is in the profession of novel-writing. How does that sound? As a sidenote, just because she didn't have a philosophy degree or it isn't her main profession, doesn't mean it automatially rules out the possibility that she is a philosopher. Karl Jaspers, one of my favorite thinker, was trained as a psychiatrist but is still regarded as a philosopher. Wandering Courier (talk) 22:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd have no problem with that. Especially if we mention the fact that she developed the philosophical system of Objectivism. Idag (talk) 00:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate Wandering Courier's intent to find middle ground, and he is correct in his observation that the philosophy box is better aesthetically (and it also provides more info), and he is right that neither a degree nor a faculty position are required to be a philosopher. But clearly, she clearly was a philosopher and many, many solid sources have been cited to prove that.

• Rand spoke on her philosophy at several top universities and conducted seminars for philosophy professors.
• Many philosophy text books list her as a philosopher.
• There are encyclopedias that list her as a philosopher.
• She wrote books on philosophy.
• Her ideas have been discussed by recognized, academic philosophers.
• There is an academic, peer reviewed journal devoted to her ideas in philosophy.
• There are scholarly books written on her philosophy.

Currently there is a Request for Arbitration where evidence is being gathered to determine, if in fact, there are individuals who are editing out of a bias on the Ayn Rand article (said editing would include things like deleting "philosopher" along with valid refererences). It would not be right to ignore evidence of OR, POV, disruptive editing, and the deletion of valid, sourced material to continue. --Steve (talk) 00:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

she clearly was a philosopher Yup, of course she was. You know that, I know that, a lot of other people know it. What some pseudo-intellectual clowns in Jimbo Wales' Circus Of Dysfunctionality whose influence will never be a fraction of a fraction of Ayn Rand's, whose entire argument amounts to a petulant "nuh uh" have to say about it won't change that. TheJazzFan (talk) 04:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales created out of an idea, an idea that others would have laughed at back then, something that will make all of the seven wonders of world pale into insignificance. Next to the air we breathe, the water we drink and the food to sustain us, nothing could be as important as knowledge, and never before has there been so much knowledge, so widely available, so easily accessed, at so little a cost. History will look back and point to this as the key to much of what follows. Eventually, good admins will begin to reign in those clowns that make the controversial pages look like circuses of dysfunctionality. In the mean time it helps to remember that they are but a few and for the most part only infect the controversial pages. The best thing we can do is to point our fingers and say, in a very civil fashion, "there is one of them" and resist their attempt to game Wikipedia policy to suit their twisted agendas. --Steve (talk) 06:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

"Clowns," "twisted agendas," "gam[ing] Wikipedia," "dysfunctionality (sic)," "circuses," "Jimbo Wales' Circus of Dysfunctionality (sic)." Sigh. J Readings (talk) 13:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

So apparently calling a spade a spade bothers you? We have folks on here making no secret that they harbor some deep-seated resentment toward Rand's ideas though displaying no genuine grasp of the concepts she wrote about, even explicitly rejecting the concept of reason - there's no "accepting it a little" you either do or you don't hold reason as a primary value. The terms you "sigh" over sound apt to me.TheJazzFan (talk) 16:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I really do think that the insults and the name-calling of other editors on Wikipedia needs to end, TheJazzFan. Obviously you disagree. Otherwise, you wouldn't try to defend the name-calling. A helpful policy to read is WP:CIVIL, especially the section entitled "engaging in incivility." Regards, J Readings (talk) 17:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Well it becomes sort of like citing Bible verse, you can find something to support anything. I notice there's also something about "ignore all rules". And from what I've seen the so-called "rules" are routinely shaped to serve the agenda of a particular clique. But when someone jumps around making a ridiculous noise and spectacle about something they seem to have little actual understanding of - "clown" is certainly apt. "Jester" doesn't fit because a Jester is supposed to be witty. Presenting a reasoned, informed argument is one thing, the kind of evasive, anti-intellectual cowardice I've seen on the part of many of the Anti-Randers is pathetic. I reserve civility for those who deserve it. For any who the big floppy shoe fits, wear it with my compliments. TheJazzFan (talk) 21:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I should add flat-out dishonest to the list of attributes I've observed, such as one of the aforementioned clowns making changes to my comments claiming an unsubstantiated, b.s. rationale.TheJazzFan (talk) 04:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I have to say, Karl Jaspers is an odd example. I am not saying you need a degree / faculty position to be a philosopher, but that's what he was: a professor of philosophy (along with psychology). --Nog lorp (talk) 11:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, his philosophical accomplishment is acknowledged later in his life, but for his earlier career he studied psychiatry and was a practicing psychiatrist. You wouldn't imagine today a psychiatrist in a mental institution would have a philosophical proclivity. Wandering Courier (talk) 04:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Narcissistic personality disorder

1. has a grandiose sense of self-importance
2. is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love
3. believes that he or she is "special" and unique
4. requires excessive admiration
5. has a sense of entitlement
6. is interpersonally exploitative
7. lacks empathy
8. is often envious of others or believes others are envious of him or her
9. shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes

Just FYI. -- SmashTheState (talk) 06:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

yes ayn rand is a narcissist...and she hates native americans...therefore we must protect the poor uneducated from her work. delete her from wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brushcherry (talk • contribs) 08:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Please try to be constructive and follow WP:CIVIL. No one is advocating deleting Ms. Rand from Wikipedia. TallNapoleon (talk) 09:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Pretty sure they're following WP:FACETIOUS.TheJazzFan (talk) 12:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

you are correct. No one is advocating deleting Ms. Rand from Wikipedia. half of you, want to demonize her, half want to bestow on her genius. it's the same thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brushcherry (talk • contribs) 09:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

It would be fine to simply have a neutral, factual article with no evaluation in either direction and not bogged down with technical detail about Objectivism as I've advocated. That concept clearly scares the anti-Randers.TheJazzFan (talk) 12:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Godwin's Law

How about any "pro-Rand" poster who violated Godwin's Law gets ostracized. Same for the "anti-Rand" people. as i am new here, and the "discussion page" is extremely long, i am sure the regular posters know who has violated Godwin's Law. maybe it won't solve all the edit wars, but will take out some of the zealots.

have you ever accused someone of being hitler?.....you shouldn't be editing wikipedia pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brushcherry (talk • contribs) 09:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Laff! I'd never heard of Godwin's Law but have observed similar. Well, I've already seen one of the Anti-Randers insist Ayn Rand's methodology - you know all that silly focus on reason - is what led to the Holocaust. TheJazzFan (talk) 03:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Even more useful would be a ban hammer on any editor who comments on editors rather than content. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Excellent idea --Snowded TALK 17:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh really? To quote you "You know the really scary thing about this? I think you are being genuine in what you say."TheJazzFan (talk) 03:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

It was I think an expression of concern for you, providing an opportunity for you to withdraw from what appeared an extremist position. However I will do you a deal. I will go back and delete that if you will delete all comments you have made about the motivations of other editors. I think that will take me about 5 minutes most of which will be hunting it down, you on other other hand may need to devote a morning to the task. --Snowded TALK 10:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Your comment I quoted wasn't directed at me. And I stand behind everything I've said. There's no question about your motivation. You want to use this article as a forum to take shots at Rand. The essence of what you want it to say is - "well, yeah but no no no DON'T take her seriously - see all these people who don't like her? See? See? (And we'll just ignore all those silly, clearly misguided people who concur with her..)" You have a clear agenda. Admit it - what you and others of your ilk *don't* want is a merely neutral synopsis. You can't offer a scholarly rebuttal, you don't even have a coherent understanding of what she said but you just sort of "feel" she's wrong on all counts, in all possible ways...um, just kinda 'cuz.TheJazzFan (talk) 12:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Philosopher Discussion

(I started a new section because the preceding one was getting cluttered)

Rand is acknowledged as a philosopher by some sources, as pointed out above, and not acknowledged by others (e.g. Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy)

As a compromise, why don't we describe her in a way that's similar to the way that Encyclopedia Britannica does it (we can't plagiarize them, but we can do something similar): "Russian-born American writer who, in commercially successful novels, presented her philosophy of objectivism, essentially reversing the traditional Judeo-Christian ethic."[14] (this was JReadings' idea a while back, but we got sidetracked by Nilges before we could implement it) Idag (talk) 06:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Her not being included in some sources doesn't exclude her being a philosopher. Please provide a source that says she's not a philosopher. Many good sources (New York Times, encyclopedias, bookys by other major philosophers, articles, papers) have been provided referring to her as a philosopher. She's also known for developing a controversial but popular philosophy. If you can't source your argument, you have to drop it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

It isn't really a compromise, is it? What are those who don't believe she should not be called a philosopher compromising? I don't think anyone was arguing her philosophy of objectivism shouldn't be mentioned. Or am I wrong here?

As I've read and re-read above comments I think there is a major issue of disagreement that hasn't been openly debated. Several have referred to her "cult of devoted followers", but I think we have different views of what this "cult" is. The relevance being that if this cult is "fringe" it deserves to be ignored. That seems to be the stance several here have taken.

So who is this cult?

1. The original members of her social group in New York, the Collective?

2. Current members of Ayn Rand associated institutes?

3. The millions of fans who think she is really, really great, but aren't actively involved in an Ayn Rand network?

Of course, 3 is in no shape or form a true cult, but they seem to be marginalized as a fringe group as if they were members of 1 or 2. Someone above said "We don't judge the nature of her notability by the orientation of her "cult of devoted followers". In the wider (considerably wider) world she is know as a novelist."

I do not believe this to be true (that the wider world does not consider her a philosopher), although it is impossible for either of us to get citations from millions of fans to determine how many consider her a philosopher. But it is TRUE that what she is known as in the wider world is what is most relevant, not whether she is frequently included in collections with other philosophers.

Whether or not she is a philosopher is not a matter of fact. It is a profession without a clear job description. So the question is not what she was, but what she was believed to be. Note that this test doesn't apply to her as a screenwriter, because it is a matter of fact she was a screenwriter and it doesn't change that fact if few people believed her to be one.

I think for us to ever reach anything close to a consensus on this issue, we must first agree what the BEST TEST should be to determine what she is believed to have been (by the wider world of her readers). There is currently no agreement over this test. I suggest we commence debating the BEST TEST and leave aside for a moment the likely outcome of this test. Stevewunder (talk) 08:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I also propose we reference Peter Damian's article posted above, "Why Wikipedia cannot claim the earth is not flat" -- as a helpful guide for whether sources referenced here should be considered fringe or not. Stevewunder (talk) 08:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Original Research, referring to those who disagree with you as cultist and advocating your POV do not justify the deletion of valid sources... And there are lots and lots of valid sources that show Rand is a philosopher. We are waiting for the end of the ArbCom - not for determinations from the flat earth society. I can't tell you how foolish it looks to keep pretending that any argument that Rand is not a philosopher is more than a teetering pile of loosely stacked nonsense. Talk about people screaming that the earth is flat even after the evidence is in. You said above that whether or not she is a philosopher is not a matter of fact - well, for Wikipedia it is a matter of valid sources. Not Original Research theories about cults and BEST TESTS and the ugly attacks on people as "fringe" and "cult" --Steve (talk) 09:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Steve, you might want to review the tone and language of some of your own comments over the last month before you use the phrase "ugly attacks". That aside there have been two positions todate. (i) she is a philosopher but qualified to state that notable sources say she is not and (ii) that she is an author who created a philosophical movement. I remain surprised that you were unhappy with the second as it removed the qualification. However by the time that proposal came up the article was clearly divided so I probably should not be greatly surprised that either side would simply react against a compromise.

At the same time there are sources that say she is a philosopher (although your long lists of claims for individuals generally lack citations), there are sources that say she is not and there are notable sources that list philosophers which do not mention her. So this is not a black or white issue. Its a question of weight and also the orientation of the article. What is needed is for Arbcom to determine a process for determining evidence. OK the dispute over Philosopher is there but to be honest its a very minor issue which illustrates the wider questions on the article as a whole, namely how is evidence to be used, how to achieve balance. The sooner Arbcom make some ruling about process and behaviour the better. --Snowded TALK 09:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The notion that Objectivism displays cult-like behavior is not original research; several respectable academic sources have been offered for this position. Not sure where you're coming from on this one. How is it original research to say that there is cult-like behavior in Objectivism when Rothbard, Branden, Shermer, and others have been cited for this view? CABlankenship (talk) 10:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

- if i can build a house, compliant with local zoning laws, structurally sound, etc. but dont have a contractors license, am i a contractor? or am i a contractor without a license? or am i not a contractor at all but can build you a house that is perfectly and soundly built? if i can perform open heart surgery, succesfully, but never went to medical school, am i a doctor? No, i would go to jail. if i was a novelist, that expanded on the philosophical themes in my fiction with non-fiction books on philosophy, am i a philosopher? yes i would be. because there is no philosopher test, no philosopher association of earth that makes you pass a test, no city inspection bureau to approve my work. - if i shove a whip in a guys ass and photograph it can I call it "art". am i an artist? if u hang it on a wall is it art? or do i have to wait for a PHD in art to say "yes, a photograph of a whip in man's anus is art". how many PHDs in art do i have to get? - - i don't give the philosophy PHDs any more credit than, roger ebert's view on "Porky's 3". "well" you say, "how can we decide who is a philosopher?" YOU CAN'T...........but all us PHD's in philosophy agree she is not a philosopher, therefore she is not one. if i crap on a canvass and call it art, then its art. if i write a philosophic tome and call it philosophy then its philosophy. until the philosopher association of earth decides who is and who isn't a philiosopher, and that will be a sad day, shut up.

- oh, and you are all nazi'sBrushcherry (talk) 10:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)brushcherry

sorry, i deleted someones post who was editing at the same time. didnt mean to. still getting the hang of this.Brushcherry (talk) 10:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)brushcherry

I agree with Brushcherry. Stevewunder (talk) 11:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I have made appropriate changes to the Lead which reflects all sides. Stevewunder (talk) 12:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy, and the latest deletion was in clear violation of WP:SOAPBOX. Stevewunder/Brushcherry, you're teetering on the edge of behavior that gets people banned. That is, if you haven't already gone over the edge. arimareiji (talk) 12:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

That being said, the last paragraph of the lead is very weak. Those sources need to be improved or removed - come on, a blog? Also, the derisive language needs to be toned down. arimareiji (talk) 12:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

As far as the philosopher thing, I got the idea from TheJazzFan's suggestion to stick to the facts. Obviously, folks can disagree whether she's a philosopher, so why not just put down the behavior that you believe makes her a philosopher. The argument that she is a philosopher goes like this:

1. She developed Objectivism.

2. Objectivism is a philosophical system.

3. Developing a philosophical system makes one a philosopher.

4. Therefore, Rand is a philosopher.

So why not just say that she developed the philosophical system of Objectivism and let the reader decide whether that makes her a philosopher? Idag (talk) 16:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

(material moved from earlier thread, same subject, overlapping time): Gyrae (talk) 17:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I've now read the bulk of the argument re whether Rand should or should not be termed a "philosopher." I note three senses of the word "philosopher" that are being used, and I offer this in the hope that it will streamline the argument: (1) a person who actively worked in, that is, created original material in one or more subject areas of philosophy; (2) a person who earned a living in whole or part through work in philosophy; (3) a person who is part of or "recognized by" the mainstream of the philosophy profession. Gyrae (talk) 17:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

(1) Rand authored books with original material in epistemology (Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology), political philosophy (Capitalism the Unknown Ideal), ethics (The Virtue of Selfishness), and aesthetics (The Romantic Manifesto), and others, which have sold widely, in multiple languages, in many different parts of the world.

(2) Rand made enough from the sale of the above mentioned books to constitute 'a living' much grander than the average professor - she also was a paid speaker on philosophic topics at universities like Harvard, Yale and West Point.

(3) Her work has been examined and cited by respected academic philosophers:

• Robert Nozick of Harvard University
• Charles King - Ph.D. from Harvard - studied with John Rawls - Taught at Rice University
• Lisa Dolling (Associate Professor and head of the honors program at St. John's University in New York)
• Tibor Machan, (professor emeritus in the department of philosophy at Auburn University)
• Douglas Den Uyl (Bellarmine University, Louisville, Kentucky)
• Douglas Rasmussen (widely published - Professor of Philosophy at St. John's University, New York)
• Eric Mack (Professor of Philosophy at Tulane University)
• Aeon Skoble (Associate Professor, Department of Philosophy, Bridgewater State College, Bridgewater MA)
• Tara Smith (Professor of Philosophy, University of Texas at Austin)
• Lester Hunt (Teaches philosophy at University of Wisconsin, Madison)
• Randall Dipert (C.S. Peirce Professor of American Philosophy, Department of Philosopy, SUNY Buffalo
• Roderick Long (associate professor of philosophy at Auburn University, author of "Reason and Value: Aristotle Versus Rand")
• Michael Huemer (Associate Professor of Philosophy - University of Colorado, Boulder)
• Jonathan Jacobs (Professor of Philosophy; Director of the Center for Arts & Humanities at Colgate University, has taught at University of Edinburgh; University of Pennsylvania; Georgetown University; Cornell University; SUNY Plattsburgh)
• Wayne Davis (Professor of Philosophy and Chair of the Philosophy Department, Georgetown University, Ph.D. from Princeton)
• Stephen R. C. Hicks (professor of philosophy and chair of the philosophy department at Rockford College, Illinois
• Gary Jason (professor of philosophy at Cal State University Fullerton
• Fred Seddon (University of Pittsburgh)
• Allan Gotthelf, (University of Pittsburgh)

(4) Authoritative sources:

• Encarta - "Ayn Rand (1905-1982), American novelist and philosopher..." [15]
• The Biography Base "Ayn Rand ... was a controversial American philosopher and novelist, most famous for her philosophy of Objectivism."[16]
• Encyclopedia of Ethics by Lawrence C. Becker (Routledge 2001), p. 1440.
• Concise Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Routledge, 1999).
• Cambridge University Press has published a volume on her ethical theories.
• Great Philosophers series
• Wadsworth Philosophers Series
• Oxford Companion to Philosophy
• Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy
• Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
• Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy
• Philosopher's Index

A Wikipedia editor who teaches philosophy, and does not like Rand's theories, found three different texts that had been used in university philosophy classes that mentioned Rand.

• Invitation to Philosophy: Issues and Options 2006, 10e 4 authors;
• Twenty Questions: An Introduction to Philosophy, 2007, 6e 3 editors;
• Voices of Wisdom: A Multicultural Philosophy reader 2007, 6e Gary Kessler

These books mention Rand as a philosopher and discussions include Objectivism's response to Relativism, Rand on free will, and Rand on selfishness. Each are collections of primary texts include excerpts from Rand's "The Virtue of Selfishness." None of them includes her in discussions of political philosophy, but Kessler's Voices of Wisdom, explicitly ties her take on selfishness and altruism to economic and political considerations and briefly discusses her influence on political Libertarianism. (Kessler's brief bio of her before her excerpt says "Rand was a novelist and a philosopher who began a movement called Objectivism.")

Rand recieves considerable attention from feminist oriented discussions of philosophers.

• Tuana, Nancy (ed.), 1984 and after, Re-Reading the Canon (Series of Volumes of Feminist Interpretations of Individual Philosophers), University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press. Tuana's series covers major figures in the Western tradition from Plato through twentieth-century pragmatist, continental, and analytic philosophers. Feminists writing in the volumes come from various methodological backgrounds. Although the canonical figures are mostly men, the series includes volumes on several women: Mary Wollestonecraft, Simone de Beauvoir, Hannah Arendt, Ayn Rand, and Mary Daly.
• Feminist Interpretations of Ayn Rand, Eds. Mimi Reisel Gladstein and Chris Matthew Sciabarra (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press) - multiple articles.
• Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy lists Rand in their "Bibliography of Feminist Philosophers" [17]

I would respectfully suggest that anyone who asks for more or better sources than this has failed a credibility test. --Steve (talk) 00:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I have checked the indexes for the Oxford Companion to Philosophy and Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, and there were no entries for Rand. I would hesitate to say that you have "failed a credibility test" if you had not been so eager to throw that accusation at others. CABlankenship (talk) 01:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The Cambridge Dictionary of American Biography, 1995, edited by John s. Bowman, describes Rand on p. 596 as "writer, philosopher". Gyrae (talk) 06:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia in one sense is a digital representation of text and doesn't "know" anything. We editors arrange the text, purportedly to represent facts. The rules say that we don't use our own opinions to do this, but rather we bring to Wikipedia what we find at a reputable source. Wikipedia doesn't know Rand from a turnip. When we say she is a philosopher and a novelist and a screenwriter we cite the source for that. If someone disagrees with something, they can't make a change based upon their opinion, they need to find a problem with the source, or a source of greater weight that contradicts the first. This has to be about the simple fact of putting up cited sourced facts. Some editors are working extremely hard to remove the title philosopher but they don't have any kind of source that would even begin to counter the long and solid sources that have been provided. All of the talk about "what is a philosopher?" and "what does academia think of Rand?" and "Is she known outside of America?" and "what do people think of her philosophy?" are forays into original research and don't change the simple rule of valid, cited sources determine what is put into Wikipedia. Only one reputable, encyclopedia source needs to be cited - that's all. Criticisms of Rand and of her thoughts and of her work are also valid (they to have citable sources) but they belong in the criticism section. There is nothing wrong with strongly defending Wikipedia rules. There is nothing wrong with opposing those who keep deleting sourced material. As to motivations... Just ask yourself, why so much effort to overthrow a valid source? --Steve (talk) 17:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Please stop questioning the motivations of other editors and address the merits of the proposed edits. The Oxford Dictionary to Philosophy, the Oxford Companion to Philosophy, the Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, and the Encyclopedia Britannica do not call Rand a philosopher (this list isn't exhaustive, as I don't have access to LexisNexis at this computer, so I can't run a more complete search). I will readily acknowledge that there are other sources that call her a philosopher, but stating that she is a philosopher in the lede implies universal agreement that she is a philosopher, and this is not the case. Asking for sources affirmatively stating that Rand is not a philosopher is an impossible request, as that would be proving a negative. For example, Rand was not a nuclear physicist, but you won't find any sources stating that "Rand was not a nuclear physicist." (Though there does appear to be an Objectivist website stating that "Ayn Rand readily admitted that she was not a philosopher. It was not her intention to be a philosopher. She was a novelist and knew what she wanted to write about was true heroes with true virtue, about good as the positive, and evil as a negative, and about life that was worth living."[18]) So instead of bickering over adjectives, why don't we simply list the behavior that you believe makes her a philosopher: that she developed a philosophical system. There is no disagreement among the sources for this point, and this way the reader can decide for themselves if that makes her a philosopher. Idag (talk) 17:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

SteveWolfer: Only one reputable, encyclopedia source needs to be cited. According to whom, Steve? And also, who determines what is and is not a "reputable" source? I actually think that what you meant to write here is the word "reliable" (not reputable) in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines (which is not a policy) and, to be fair, my long experience on Wikipedia (and academia in general) teaches that to rely on a small sample of (sometimes contradictory reliable sources) does not necessarily indicate that the sample itself is representative of the population of reliable sources, overall. Hence, we come back to my good faith review of countless newspaper, magazine, book chapters, and journal articles (also considered reliable sources). Many sources do not consider her a philosopher. She is identified as a "novelist" or a "writer" or a "novelist-philosopher", etc. Research results do not constitute "original research" in this particular instance because all one needs to do is list the sources in the footnote to support the imprimatur. True, WP:RS guides us in the direction of what is "reliable" -- namely, sources with good editorial oversight. However, as precedent, I would cite Wikipedia's thorny issue on whether to label David Irving a "historian" or simply a "writer" -- something that required a great deal of thought and research. It does not tell us what to do when ascribing weight in the lead and the rest of the article. That is covered under WP:UNDUE (a WP policy, not a guideline) and WP:LEAD (a guideline). Here, undue tells us that we have to look at the sources overall--which includes newspapers, magazines, journal articles, book chapters, books, etc. In short, everything we are aware of at the time of editing. It's honest. It's straightforward. And most important of all, it's devoid of agenda-pushing. See the archives for extended discussions and tabulations of the known reliable sources. J Readings (talk) 17:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

and thence to one of the main problems with this article. For several editors if there is a source then material can be included regardless of weight or balance. In addition many of the sources are Randian web sites or dubious (Well known Philosopher X attended a seminar sponsored by Institute Y therefore he must think that Rand is a philosopher, to take one famous one). There is a breakdown on the whole page and related arguments about what does or does not constitute evidence --Snowded TALK 18:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Dictionaries that have an entry for Rand also don't define her as a philosopher. [19][20] Idag (talk) 18:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I can find many entries for any famous person that do NOT list all of the things that they in fact were. Does every source that discusses Thomas Jefferson mention his presidency? No, but it clearly is not proof that he wan't a president. When a large number of reliable sources say Rand is a philosopher what would be needed would be a weight of sources that say she was NOT a philosopher. Without that, it does not even rise to the level of controversial (except in the minds of some editors). Finding sources that do not say 'yes' or say 'no' is NOT the same thing. Smears of the credentials of some scholars because they are associated with this or that institution is OR. Claims that only "Randian web sites or "dubious" sources support Rand as a philosopher is blatantly false, as well as being OR. --Steve (talk) 19:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Steve, that argument doesn't make sense. I challenge you to find an "Encyclopedia of American Presidents" that does not mention Jefferson. It is of course telling that Rand is left out of major and authoritative philosophy Encyclopedias. CABlankenship (talk) 19:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Here's the same dictionary designating Plato and Kant as philosophers.[21][22], but omitting that designation for Rand[23] Re: Steve- that source also designates Thomas Jefferson as a president.[24] There's also the Objectivist website I cited above that affirmatively states that she wasn't a philosopher.[25] If you look at a similar discussion in the archives, JReadings also found hundreds of sources that omit the philosopher designation. I'd have no problem with calling her a philosopher if it was only one or two sources that omitted this designation, but that's not the case. Idag (talk) 19:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Responding to some comments from below, if this was an omission by only a few sources, then yes, that would be a mistake of omission. However, as this is more than just a handful of sources, it is unlikely that this omission was by mistake. Idag (talk) 22:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Previous Research

(I don't have access to Lexis right now, but JReadings has already done the search, I'm reposting it for comment here) Idag (talk) 22:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The news coverage offered by LexisNexis Global Business and News Service has approximately 12,000 publications from national & local newspapers, press releases, transcripts of tv broadcasts, newswires, statistical bulletins, magazines and trade journals.

A keyword searches looked at (and excluded) certain words from the articles by journalists to get a sense (not the last word, of course) for what the journalists tend to use in their identification of Rand’s occupation. Just typing in the keyword “Ayn Rand” produces thousands of articles. Major mentions – articles solely about Ayn Rand – reduces the number of articles down to roughly 2500. That said, if we were just curious on how the journalists sometimes identify Ayn Rand by occupation, these results might be useful.

From descending order of descriptions in the media, according to this database:

Keyword search: “novelist Ayn Rand” AND NOT “philosopher” All available dates All industries, all subjects

All Results: 203 articles.

Newspapers (142) Newswires & Press Releases (25) Aggregate News Sources (13) Web-based Publications (11) Magazines & Journals (10) Industry Trade Press (8) Newsletters (3) Current Awareness (1) People Directories & Profiles (1) Unclassified Documents (1) Keyword search: “philosopher Ayn Rand” AND NOT “novelist”

All Results: 164 articles

Newspapers (132) Newswires & Press Releases (10) Magazines & Journals (8) Aggregate News Sources (7) Web-based Publications (4) Blogs (3) News Transcripts (1) Newsletters (1) Keyword search: “writer Ayn Rand” AND NOT “philosopher”

All Results: 157 articles

Newspapers (123) Aggregate News Sources (16) Magazines & Journals (9) Newswires & Press Releases (7) News Transcripts (2) Keyword search: “novelist-philosopher Ayn Rand” or “novelist and philosopher Ayn Rand”

All Results: 121 articles.

Newspapers (94) Newswires & Press Releases (12) Aggregate News Sources (6) Web-based Publications (6) Magazines & Journals (3) Industry Trade Press (2) Keyword search: “philosopher-novelist Ayn Rand” or “philosopher and novelist Ayn Rand”

All Results: 55 articles

Newspapers (37) Aggregate News Sources (7) Newswires & Press Releases (6) Web-based Publications (3) Industry Trade Press (2) Magazines & Journals (2) Based on these preliminary search results, it appears that many (most?) journalists tend to identify Ayn Rand as either a “novelist” or a “writer” (if we decide they are synonyms), rather than just a philosopher, more than anything else. 360 articles identify her as either a novelist or a writer, but not as a philosopher. Another 164 articles identify her as just a philosopher, with an additional 176 articles saying that she is both a philosopher and a novelist.

I’m surprised, actually. I was expecting the majority of articles to identify her as a “novelist-philosopher” or as a “philosopher-novelist”, which include by the way “novelist and philosopher” and “philosopher and novelist” in the keyword searches. Instead, we get 360 for either novelist or writer versus 340 for either philosopher or some combination of the two (e.g., novelist-philosopher).

Incidentally, according to these results, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Boston Globe – some of the major nationwide US dailies — tend to identify Ayn Rand as a novelist only.

Boy, this sure is a lot of fun. But unfortunately, you have no notable source to support your desired Original Synthesis, that Rand is not a philosopher. (For those hwo don't see the analogy, it is as if people who disliked the fact that greenland is a country said that they found 360 articles that refered to it only as an island, and 340 articles that refered to it as a country and an island. The problem is, there are no articles that say it is not a country.) I suggest you continue your Original Synthesis elsewhere, and once you get your theory that Rand was not a philosopher published in a notable source, we can quote that as what it would be, one point of view. Until then, verifiable notable sources call her a philosopher, and the DEC 31 text http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ayn_Rand&oldid=261153197#cite_note-philosopher-0 reflects this quite properly. Kjaer (talk) 22:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, WP:Undue requires us to examine and weigh ALL the sources to see what the prevailing views are. Each of the sources in the Lexis search is a reliable source that either omits or grants Rand the designation of philosopher. The view that Rand is a philosopher is a minority view, but it is a vocal minority. Hence, that minority has published works stating that Rand is a philosopher. Just because the minority has published a number of these works does not make this the prevailing view. Idag (talk) 23:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Kjaer: But unfortunately, you have no notable source to support your desired Original Synthesis, that Rand is not a philosopher. Kjaer: I beg to differ. None of the above was original synthesis. Original synthesis has a specific meaning. It was designed to avoid editors from taking article A and combining it with article B to reach conclusion C -- something that neither article stated. On the contrary, what is being discussed here is the stated occupation of the subject in the preponderance of sources -- something very specific. All of it is not only consistent with policy, it has been used -- as I mentioned earlier -- by admins, bureaucrats, and regular editors to deal with the David Irving issue. Should you object to Wikipedia's approach to undue weight and sourcing (and I sense that you do for the very narrow purpose of this article), that's certainly something you can raise elsewhere. I'm not sure what will happen. One thing is for certain: I would be very interested to see someone going up against some of the most established and respected editors on Wikipedia in order to attempt changing the above method with regard to the David Irving page. J Readings (talk) 23:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

How about this: we replace the adjective with a sentence that Rand considered herself a philosopher (which is true) and that she developed the philosophical system of Objectivism. Then we drop a footnote at the end of that sentence stating that some sources call her a philosopher and some sources don't. Idag (talk) 23:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

How about this: we replace mention of Rand's marriage with the statement that Rand considered herself married (which is true), then we drop a note saying that soem sources refered to her as married to Frank O'Connor, and some don't? Sound absurd? Note that the only people here arguing that the fact that some articles do not refer to Rand as a philosopher implies that they meant to say she was NOT a philosopher (still no sources, I see, J Readings!) are those who personally oppose her - what? Yes, her philosophy. here are two posts from May. Note that this challenge to provide one single notable source that says Rand was not a philosopher remains unmet. The claim is Original Synthesis, and those editors who are engaged in it need to stop editting their POVs, and get them published instead, so we can quote them here. Kjaer (talk) 01:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

More importantly, are there reliable sources which confirm that most academic philosophers claim Rand is not a philosopher? If so, I will immediately drop my resistance to removing "philosopher" from the lede. Sincerely, Skomorokh 21:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

If reliable sources can be produced that confirm that most academic philosophers claim Rand is not a philosopher I will immediately drop my resistance to removing "philosopher" as well. Ethan a dawe (talk) 21:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The undue weight theory doesn't hold water. The weighting of her reputation probably breaks down something like this:

60% novelist

30% philosopher

6% screenwriter

4% playwright

30% is notable enough due weight for mention.

But I do like the point someone keeps ramming about her not being as recognized outside the U.S, since that is so obviously relevant to weight. After all the US is just a small backwater. In the golden age of Greece, the whole known world who recognized Plato and Aristotle was smaller than the US is now.

Why am I arguing on behalf of Ayn Rand being called a philosopher? I am no fan. But despite my complete lack of tact, I have no agenda and am being objective, unlike almost everyone else here -- so I don't know why I'm wasting my time -- but i have a disease which causes me to care a tiny bit about the truth. I agree wholeheartedly with Cherrybrush's "whip in man's anus" point about art and its analog with philosophy. It is not the same as being a lawyer. Rand did more than take a picture of a whip in a man's anus, she wrote a few books she considered philosophy and got them published. A lot of Americans read them. Good enough. The academic world is not the world.

Someone will come back and say:"It doesn't matter what you think. What matter is reputable sources." Then someone else will say there are reputable sources that have been ignored. Then someone else will say there aren't enough and it comes down to undue weight. Which brings me back to my point above, which is that 30% is weight enough. Stevewunder (talk) 00:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The argument about Rand not being popular or well known outside of the US is false:

• Rand's nonfiction, technical work on epistemology, "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology," has been translated into the following languages: German, French, Italian, Spanish, Danish, Hindi, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Welsh. In the UK this book ranks 260,108th in the UK in sales by Amazon.uk (that doesn't sound like much, but it puts it ahead of the other million or so titles available).
• Also in the UK, Rand's "The Virtue of Selfishness' was ranked #39 in the sale of philosophy Books in their automated, hourly update - that beat out "On Certainty" by Wittgenstein, E. O, Wilson's "Consilience, "The Contruction of Social Reality," by Searle, and Kant's "Critique of Judgement (Oxford World Classics)."
• At the moment I checked (a few days ago), Amazon.com's hourly update of most popular books shows this 52 year old novel that puts forth a philosophy outselling all but 77 of the millions of books available. [26].
• In most popular items in classics in the united states (updated hourly) it rated number 1.[27].
• In most popular items in Classics (all countries, updated hourly) it rated number 1. [28]
• In most popular items in all of literature and fiction (all countries, updated hourly) it rated #17.
• In most popular items in 20th century, UK, updated hourly, it is #63.[29]

People are wrong about Rand not being that well known out of America. Atlas Shrugged sells in great numbers around the world. It has been translated into 14 languages.[30] A snapshot of sales figures or ratings from a given instant of time, from a single vendor, are NOT evidence of Rand being a philosopher. But they do show the following: 1) Those people buying books by those we all acknowledge to be philosophers (e.g., Kant or Wittgenstein) are also buying Rand's books. 2) They are buying her non-fiction, including the work on epistemology, and they are doing so in countries other than America. --Steve (talk) 01:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The way I see it, we have two options. We can either, one, beat the same sources over and over again (and I'll bet my car that no one here will change their mind), or, two, we can work out some type of compromise language. So how about my suggestion above. We replace the adjective with the simple statement that "Rand called herself a philosopher" (this is just preliminary wording). Then we drop a footnote stating that some sources call her a philosopher and some sources do not call her a philosopher and link to some representative sources. This suggestion is just to get compromise talks started, so if you don't like it, please be constructive and try to either improve it or think of a better compromise. Idag (talk) 01:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Interesting how what almost everyone here has in common is our interest in philosophy. Not novels. Stevewunder (talk) 01:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Idag, I think the problem with compromise is we are arguing over the use of a single word. Stevewunder (talk) 01:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Hence the need to find a way to replace that one word with something that's acceptable to everyone. Otherwise we're going to argue until we're all blue in the face. So what about replacing that word by stating that she considered herself a philosopher? Idag (talk) 02:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Bob Dylan's page is of "featured" quality and it calls him, among other things, a painter. If Bob Dylan was a painter then Ayn Rand was a philosopher.

I doubt Bob Dylan is called a painter in any major reference book, but Wikipedia, because of its peculiar nature, is going to yield different results than a paper book. Remember: "WP is not a paper book"! WP is not a democracy either, but because of its collaborative nature it is has to operate at least a bit more like a democracy than Paper Book editors would. Otherwise no progress gets made. We will clearly never have a consensus on this issue. I will posit that WP must, to be effective, err on the side of being too inclusive, err on the side of giving too much weight to fringe elements, err on the side of populism, err on the side of saying yes. The guidelines might say otherwise, but in practice we have to resolve controversial issues somehow. Otherwise, the stubborn strict and narrow interpreters of truth will merely clog the system, despite their good intentions. No, the earth is not flat -- not completely -- but it's got to rest on top of all those tortoises somehow! Stevewunder (talk) 01:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Stevewunder (talk) 02:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

As you've pointed out,the guidelines say otherwise and we are required to follow them. You can of course suggest changes to the guidelines, but this isn't really the place to do it. Does anyone have ideas for how to word the philosopher thing to satisfy both groups of sources? Idag (talk) 04:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, here is my proposed compromise. We call her an "intellectual, who wrote novels, philosophical works, screenplays and plays." I think giving her one composite title of intellectual is best. If we call her a novelist, playwright.. it reeks of omission that she isn't called a philosopher. Also, "intellectual" gives a whiff that she had influence as a personality and not merely a writer, which is in fact the case. Stevewunder (talk) 04:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The nub of this argument appears to be an issue of what counts as evidence in the Wikipedia context. In the (long) threads on this, there have been several, alternative principles proposed:

• Factual, primary evidence (e.g. that Rand created a philosophic system, that Rand termed herself a philosopher, etc.)
• What is generally accepted practice in journalism (e.g. New York Times, various books, etc.)
• What experts or established figures in the field say

On these, the arguments appear to be

• Pro: Rand addressed core philosophic issues and created wholly new approaches and ideas in them. Con: Most academic philosophers do not cite Rand as a philosopher.
• Pro: Many popular and professional sources cite Rand as a philosopher. Con: Many important academic sources do not.
• Pro: Many experts who have specialized in Rand's work cite Rand as a philosopher. Con: Most academic philosophers do not cite Rand as a philosopher.

If this is true, then the obvious conclusion is both that Rand *is* a philosopher and also that Rand approached philosophic issues outside the framework that predominates in academia. Gyrae (talk) 04:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Gyrae: *Pro: Many popular and professional sources cite Rand as a philosopher. Con: Many important academic sources do not. Actually, on this particular point, I would reword your formulation differently. Many popular and professional sources identify Rand's occupation as a philosopher. Many other popular and professional sources only identify her occupation as a novelist. One other niggle: Pro: Rand addressed core philosophic issues and created wholly new approaches and ideas in them. "Wholly new approaches and ideas in them"...according to which source(s)? J Readings (talk) 04:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Re the content of Rand's ideas, a good, web-accessible site is http://www.aynrandsociety.org/, the web page of the Ayn Rand Society, affiliate of the American Philosophical Association. For a more detailed, systematic presentation, consider Peikoff's Objectivism: the Philosophy of Ayn Rand. For a popular account, consider Gotthelf's On Ayn Rand. For a recent, academic treatment of Rand's approach to meta-ethics, consider Smith's Viable Values and Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics. Gyrae (talk) 05:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Which of these sources would you consider to be independent third parties not affiliated with Ayn Rand or Objectivism? It's not a trick question; I'm just interested in your opinion. J Readings (talk) 05:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

These are sources relevant to answering the first possible criterian, namely answering questions about the actual content of Rand's ideas. It is important here to bear in mind that Rand's philosophy, in approach as well as content, differs substantially from that of current, academic philosophy. This is not an evaluation of Rand's philosophy or of current academic practice, just a reminder that they have very different histories. Given that, we should not be particularly surprised to find that the people who have written the most thorough expositions of Rand's philosophy are people who have spent a great deal of time studying it, and that implies motivation to study it, and that implies at least a conviction that her philosophy is important. So we should expect to find a high correlation between people who have written extensively on Rand and those who are "affiliated" in your terminology. Conversely, people whose philosophic thinking lies within the framework of academic philosophy will not find in Rand any similarity of approach, will not observe Rand doing many of the things that constitute their approach to philosophy, will tend to not find Rand's work relevant or important to their philosophic issues, will thus not be motivated to study it, and therefore will not write extensively and knowledgeably on it. So, again, we should expect to find a high correlation between people who do not believe that Rand's philosophy is important and those who do not write extensively and knowledgeably about it. To the extent that our purpose is to understand and evaluate Rand's aproach to philosophy and the content of Rand's philosophy, we should anticipate finding that we will find the proponderance of the testimony among those who have made their business to study it, that is, predominantly among those who are "affiliated." This is hardly a disqualifier.

That said, your question does make it clear that we cannot make further progress on deciding whether Rand should be termed a philosopher by Wikipedia without getting very clear on what the criteria are for that decision. Broadly, there are these possibilities for the criteria:

• Content of the philosophy. Method: Examine Rand's writings and compare against the definition of philosophy.
• Generally accepted but non-specialized practice. Method: Cite instances of popular usage, e.g. NYT.
• Practice among specialists. Method: Cite instances of specialist use. Here there is a problem, though, in that the following don't overlap a lot:
  • Those who have devoted subtantial time to studying Rand
  • Those who constitute the bulk of academic philosophy

Can we focus on reaching agreement on what the criteria are? Gyrae (talk) 17:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Philosopher Thing

Idag posted the below to my talk page, but since it involves an issue all should be aware of, and not my own personal behavior, I am posting his comment and my response below.Kjaer (talk) 04:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Didn't want to put this on the talk page, but I wanted to discuss with you a part of the pro-philosopher argument. Here's my thinking about the sources and feel free to point out where I'm going wrong:

There are three ways a source can discuss whether Rand is a philosopher:

1. Affirmatively stating that Rand is a philosopher

2. Stating nothing.

3. Affirmatively stating that Rand is not a philosopher.

There are no notable sources for number 3. However, no one is suggesting that the article take the number 3 approach. We can all agree that there is a split between number 1 and number 2. The dispute seems to be how to interpret this split. In my mind (again, feel free to point out possible errors) there is a contradiction in the pro-philosopher argument. On the one hand, people are saying that if the article leaves out the word "philosopher", then the article is implying that Rand is not a philosopher. However, when secondary sources are shown omitting that very word, then those secondary sources are ignored because they do not belong in category number 3. To me that just doesn't make sense. If people were arguing that the article should say that "Rand was not a philosopher" then I would agree with you that we need sources affirmatively stating this. But I think omitting something that secondary sources also omit is acceptable. Again, I don't have strong feelings about this, the pro-philosopher argument, it just doesn't make sense to me, so please feel free to point out where I'm going wrong. Idag (talk) 04:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I prefer that this be on the talk page so that all can benefit. Kjaer (talk) 04:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Rand is described as a novelist, philosopher, screenwriter and playwright. Any argument to omit reference to her as a philosopher because only 340 articles out of 700 refer to her as such applies much more so to her as a playwright or screenwriter. So we call her simply a novelist. But this is ridiculous when we compare her to Sartre, etc. They get an epansive list, and she is limited to just one title. Why? Why does a special criterion apply to her? A hint might be found when we look at the comments of those who question whether she should be listed as a philosopher:

"Secondly a increasing pathetic set of encounters with a Randanista editor on the Wikipedia whose extreme right wing views are typified by this scary article. Said editor is now vandalising the Knowledge Management article in an attempt to get me to stop preventing his attempt to define objectivism by the ideology (I refuse to call it a philosophy) of Ayn Rand. Now I engaged with the Knowledge Management article about two years ago at the request of others and got it into some sort of order and have protected it since. However I am not sure I have the energy for dealing with this as very few other people seem interested in the article. So if no one else gets involved I am going to abandon it to the vandals." Dave Snowden, http://www.cognitive-edge.com/blogs/dave/2008/11/red_eye_randanistas_recovery_p.php#comments

I don't care if someone disagrees with Rand. But refusing to call Rand a philosopher because you don't like her philosophy is simply childish gainsaying. I am sorry if I refuse to allow an article to be mutilated on that basis.

The only issue of any validity here is should Rand's status as a philosopher be qualified. And it is and always has been. The footnote from the DEC 31 consensus version</ref>makes it clear and the text makes it clear. There is a criticism section. It is made quite clear that Rand is not an academic professor of philosophy. No one who has been accused of being a Rand glorifier among the registered editors wants to claim, for instance, that her honorary degrees make her a PhD. But we do have people who insert the word 'amateur' because it is prejudicial and there is one academic who has published his own personal theory of popular philosophy. That epithet is a theory of one person, and might have a place under criticism, if indeed it is a criticism. But placing it in the lead of the article as if it is anything other than his opinion is simply POV partisanship. Just as is saying "I refuse to call it a philosophy."

There was, of course, never any consensus to remove the cited apellation of philosopher. We held an RfC to see if there was such a consensus, and since the view that there was a consensus was supporrted by only 3 of 7 established editors, it seems that there was not. Hence, it is only out of good faith for the arb com process that the majority of editors are acting with restraint, while a minority engages in a rather ridiculous bit of Original Research by comittee, attempting to find proof that Rand was a perhaps a sociopath or an advocate of genocide. Unfortunately, that is pre-established conclusion-driven synthesis, not verifiable notable fact. It is now over a month that this charade has continued. And it has been a waste of time for all. Kjaer (talk) 04:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The final paragraph is unclear to me. Who *specifically* are "the majority of editors who are acting with restraint" and who specifically are the "minority engaging in a rather ridiculous bit of Original Research by committee, attempting to find proof that Rand was a perhaps a sociopath or an advocate of genocide"? Can we please have all of the names here for clarity? Thanks, J Readings (talk) 04:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I am with Idag at this point in seeking a compromise so that we may move forward with the rest of the article. Is anyone else? Stevewunder (talk) 09:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

My proposal: We call her an "intellectual, who wrote novels, philosophical works, screenplays and plays." I think giving her one composite title of intellectual is best. If we call her a novelist, playwright.. it reeks of omission that she isn't called a philosopher. Also, "intellectual" gives a whiff that she had influence as a personality and not merely a writer, which is in fact the case. Idag, what do you think? Stevewunder (talk) 09:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I actually would strongly object to calling her an intellectual, because that's an even more poorly defined word than philosopher and one I doubt we'd find many sources supporting. As I have said before, I am inclined to support calling her a philosopher, but I also like "created the philosophy of Objectivism". No one can object to calling Objectivism a philosophical system. No one can object to the claim that Rand created it. Someone who believes Rand is a philosopher will probably read that into the statement, someone who doesn't probably won't. It's an elegant solution to the problem and one that I would be willing to accept. TallNapoleon (talk) 09:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

It remains the least controversial possibility and I would support it. It involves some compromise in that "objectivism" is unqualified but it context it is fairly evident that it means the Randian version thereof. There is a possible addition that might make it more acceptable to some. Namely insert the language (I don't have it hand) of her being the greatest Philosopher post Aristotle or something similar. --Snowded TALK 10:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, how bout a "Writer, who authored novels, philosophical works, screenplays, and plays."? I just have a problem with calling her a Novelist, screenwriter, etc. .. because it gives undue weight to her being a screenwriter and not being a philosopher. I tend to believe few of you are serious about making progress and are merely having fun believing you are standing against the mob. By the way, both factions are engaging in group think. Stevewunder (talk) 15:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

How about we omit all adjectives and simply state what she actually did? Something along the lines of "Ayn Rand wrote a number of bestselling fiction books in which she developed the philosophy of Objectivism. She also wrote the following screenplays:..." However, I would also support using "intellectual" as a compromise. Idag (talk) 17:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be unusual on a bio page not to give the person a main descriptor. If you noticed, the featured page yesterday was Samuel Johnson, who wrote many various works, and he is called an author. How about we call Rand an author, who..."? Stevewunder (talk) 18:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think the best opening sentence is simply "Ayn Rand was a Russian-American author." That follows the Samuel Johnson model. If we all agree on that, then we can discuss the second sentence. Stevewunder (talk) 18:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Every recognized philosopher except Socrates was an author, so I don't believe the word gives any implication that she wasn't one. Stevewunder (talk) 18:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Opposition to Plato

Ayn Rand claimed to be adhering a more or less Aristotelian philosophy and vigorously opposed Plato [31][32]. But the article did not even have a mention of Plato. Wandering Courier (talk) 19:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Possibly because Rand's views of Plato/Aristotle/Kant are not taken seriously even by philosophers who take some account of her politics. --Snowded TALK 19:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

As Rand's opposition to Plato is not controversial (i.e. no one disputes that she opposed Plato), I have no problem with it being added in. Though you'll need a better secondary source. Idag (talk) 19:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe a small section with quotations from Rand about Philosophers (and her status in that respect)? It would be relevant and might resolve the debate in the above section. --Snowded TALK 19:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and while you are at it, can we have a mention of someone outside the USA (for some reason Plato is on the courses of all Universities who teach the subject) --Snowded TALK 19:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Snowded, I can give you cited sources for well respected, published, credentialed, tenured, academic philosophers, e.g., Aristole scholars, who do take Rand seriously in areas like epistemology. But you haven't show any respect for sources that differ from your opinions so far, which is the heart of the Arbcom currently underway.

Steve, you keep giving long lists of philosophers, but no citations. Where I have been able to check the connection its turned out to be spurious. The one notable philosopher with a citation turns out to have accepted her politics, but rejects her as a philosopher. I can only deal with the evidence you present. --Snowded TALK 19:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

On a not quite related topic, maybe we should find some material somewhere that discusses Plato, but does NOT specifically state that he was a philosopher. Then we could delete any reference of his being a philosopher from Wikipedia... or if the Plato cultists get upset we could compromise by saying that he was a teacher who had some thoughts that were treated as philosophical in nature. (p.s., The Plato part of this comment is intended as satire. I'm making that explicit for those who are humor impaired.) --Steve (talk) 19:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

But Plato is universally present in any philosophy Encyclopedia. CABlankenship (talk) 19:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that only those listed in all major encyclopedias are philosophers? Is this true for other professions? ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

This is a discussion about whether we should include Rand's view of Plato. Please keep the philosopher discussion in the relevant sections. Are there any objections to including Rand's view of Plato? Idag (talk) 21:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

(tongue-in-cheek) Of course; I thought everyone knew that unless you're listed in the Britannica Encyclopedia of Car Salesmen, you're not really a car salesman. The same way that Plato isn't really a philosopher, because I found XYZ Dictionary that doesn't include him. (/tongue-in-cheek) arimareiji (talk) 21:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Idag, OK, I moved mine to the right section.Stevewunder (talk) 02:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Since the philosopher discussion here is irrelevant to this section, would anyone mind if I deleted it? This way people will be able to discuss Plato's inclusion in Rand's views without having to first untangle this section. Idag (talk) 02:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Archiving

This talk page has yet again gotten ridiculously long. Would anyone oppose an archiving? TallNapoleon (talk) 19:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Could you wait until ArbCom is over? People have included links to the Talk page that could get messed up by archiving. Idag (talk) 21:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

K, will do. TallNapoleon (talk) 22:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

During Arbitration

CoM, I support the substance of the edit, but we should wait for arbitration to end. Kjaer (talk) 19:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

As it stands, there are plenty of other edits I would contest, including the following which I believe you added to the lead:

"She based some of her writings on her personal experiences and was a fierce opponent of communism." The problem with this is that she based only We The Living on direct personal experience, so "some" is inaccurate and undue weight. Also, she was an advcoate of reason, hence, egoism, hence capitalism, and an opponent of statism, not just communism. Indeeed, Hitler was a critic of communism.

In essence, I support returning to the DEC 31 lead which was much more accurate, direct and balanced. But in the meantime, no matter how much I support the correct identification of Rand as a philosopher, I suggest we show some restraint and await the results of the arbitration.Kjaer (talk) 19:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Here is a link to the DEC 31 version, with the proper citation for philosopher, for you to read if you like: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ayn_Rand&oldid=261153197

Iceland is Not an Island

A google search on "(Iceland & country) but not (island)" returns 21,400,000 hits, while a search on "(Iceland & island) but not (country)" returns 840,000 hits. So, at a ration of 2,140 to 84 (more than 25 to 1!) our sources consider Iceland a country, but not an Island. This methodology, discovered here by Idag is wonderful! I'm going to start deleting right now! Kjaer (talk) 02:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

1. It was a Lexis search,and Lexis gives far greater control over the search than Google. 2. The search was limited to articles in which Rand was a significant subject. As for the rest of the sarcastic comment, I'm not dignifying that with a response. Idag (talk) 02:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Repeat the test then at lexis and let me know the results for iceland there instead of at google - the results will be as absurd. The fact that an article does not refer to iceland as an island is just as irrelevant as the fact that an article does not refer to Rand as a philosopher. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and I am sure all of us understand that principle. Kjaer (talk) 04:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone checked the encyclopedias of film and theater to see if she's listed as a screenwriter? Kjaer gives an excellent example. We have NUMEROUS quality sources including major encyclopedias that discuss her as a philosopher. We have no reputable sources that argue she isn't a philosopher or explain why she shouldn't be considered one. She wrote philosophy, she was successful at it as a profession and developed a sizable following and legacy. This is confirmed by several major encyclopedias and discussed in the numerous reliable sources discusser her as a philosopher. That some sources have chosen not to include her is irrelevant. There is no policy that says a person's profession is dependent on being listed as such in every source and every encyclopedia and every source. That argument is preposterous and silly. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

If there were encyclopedias of islands in the world and Iceland was not included in the majority of them then there would be an analogy. Guys we keep going round the houses here. There is little dispute on the facts (she is called a philosopher in some places, she is not called a philosopher in others). The question of evidence is why this has gone to Arbcom in part because it doesn't just concern this page it affects others and it may require an elaboration of WP:Weight. If they determine that any mention justifies the inclusion then I'll accept it, but then that will justify the inclusion of other material. It may be that notable omissions are also worthy of note, its an important issue of policy for Wikipedia. For the moment the analogies are getting more farcical every day. --Snowded TALK 07:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Behold I found an encyclopedia entry listing islands [33]. And what to make of islands not on the list? What should we call them? ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Go and edit it CoM, its a Wikipedia article not a third party source, although I notice that it includes Iceland. --Snowded TALK 08:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

In the example given, you're the one trying to argue Iceland isn't an island, not me. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and yet it's articles on islands don't include all of them. This counters your argument that non-inclusion in a particular encyclopedia is proof that a particular qualification isn't met. It's an absurd argument to be sure, and each of your arguments has been refuted. We go by verifiable sources, and there aren't any that support your position. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you are getting a little lost in a sea of analogies CoM. This is (as I thought I said above) an issue of policy in respect of WP:Weight. Not to be mentioned in the Oxford and Cambridge directories is a serious issue for any claim to the status of a philosopher. My view is that the Wikipedia is international and that "absence" is evidence however Arbcom may determine that inclusion in one directory permits the use of the term. I'll live with the outcome of that decision but I don't see any new arguments or refutations above. Its a more complex issue as well, listing her as an author is uncontested, but her non-inclusion in the Oxford American literary reference would (I think) preclude her being described as having international recognition. What we have here is a matter of policy, the facts are now fairly clear and we await a decision. --Snowded TALK 09:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

how many continents are there? europe, asia, eurasia. n america, s america latin america, africa, oceania, australia, antartica. is pluto a planet? is it the sea of japan or the east sea? there are international bodies who determine these things (or pussyfoot around it like the sea of japan). and even these topics are debated on wikipedia. this book says she is a philosopher, this one doesn't. blah blah blah. ayn rand status as a philosopher IS NOT A MATTER OF FACT. it is the opinion of the various editors of various books on philosophy. pro-rand people think their editors are correct. anti-rand editors think their editors are correct. pro-rand people think anti-rand editors don't count, anti-rand people think pro-rand editors don't count. neither of you are ever going to "prove" anything. for all the pontificating about weighting, pov, original research, consensus, both sides engage in in it, accuse the other side of it, claim to be free of it. i am interested in seeing what arbcom comes up with (plus i have no idea what arbcom is). i am continually amazed at the level of bickering on this talk page compared to the abortion page. re: ur all nazi's comment...joke that fell flat that referenced my previous godwins law post. if someone who agreed with me made some bad edits please don't hold that against me. i personally have never edited anything.Brushcherry (talk) 09:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)brushcherry

My grandfather had a farm on Knotts Island in North Carolina. Here is a Wikipedia article on Knotts Island[34], but here is the Wikipedia List of Islands of America[35] and there is no Knotts Island - does it's absence mean it is NOT an island? Should we take the absence of its name from a list as proof of it not being an island?

Here is a list of Islands in the Atlantic[36], look under the Canary Islands and you will notice that it does not include the El Hierro which I've seen with my own eyes, or Fuerteventura where I rode a camel - those island are visible on this map[37]. Maybe we should demand that they be edited from the Wikipedia map and from the Wikipedia article on the Canary Island because they are NOT in the list. --Steve (talk) 09:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that the word "island" is clearly defined. The word "philosopher" is not. TallNapoleon (talk) 09:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, TallNapoleon, but island is NOT clearly defined. You tell me whether Australia is an island.

In any case, the analogy is based upon the fact that while many sources call Iceland a country, but not an island, and a few sources call Iceland an island, but not a country, no sources call Iceland NOT an island. Since we would not be justified in removing the word island from the Iceland article because at a rate of 25 to 1 most articles on the net call it a country but not an island, we are not justified in removing the word philospher from this article because there are "only" "340" articles that call her a philosopher but not a novelist while there are an "incredible" 360 articles that call her a novelist but not a philosopher.

It might have shown that this "debate" were a matter of good faith if, for example, the same editors who think they are justified in removing a cited reference to Rand as a philosopher had first challanged the uncited reference to her as a screenwriter. But, of course, some people just [refuse to call it a philosophy]. They are entitled to their own personal opinions on their own web pages. But at wikipedia, notable sources matter, and no amount of Original Synthesis entitles such pushers to decide to call someone an intellectual or a writer as opposed to a philosopher because that makes them more comfortable. Sometimes the truth hurts. But that's something we all learn as we grow up. Kjaer (talk) 17:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

From said article "This is a partial list of islands of the United States," please note the word partial. Brushcheery sort of has it right though and its the same point as TallNapoleon makes, this is a matter of Wikipedia policy. Once that policy is settled then the issue is resolved (or should be). --Snowded TALK 09:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Any meta-analyses of how many books list Rand as a philosopher versus how many don't, or versus how many list her as an author, or how many search engines can dance on the head of a pin, miss one key point: We're not supposed to be doing original research to come up with conclusions that we then insert into WP. arimareiji (talk) 16:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Hence the substantial question of policy (which is not just this article) as to what constitutes evidence and how to prove a network. Its an issue on pseudo-science and cult pages as well and is coming up as wikipedia matures. Its going to be interesting to see how Arbcom handle it --Snowded TALK 16:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather that they tackle the question of echo chambers and tag-teaming (both being well-exemplified in the CAMERA affair and associated sourcing), but that's just me being perverse. ^_^ arimareiji (talk) 16:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree with the first, more important than this storm in a teacup and fixing tag teaming would help many pages including this one. --Snowded TALK 16:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Thing is, ArbCom is unlikely to address this content dispute, so sooner or later, we'll have to craft a compromise ourselves. My personal view is that we should try to eliminate all adjectives from that sentence, as most adjectives are, ultimately value judgments. I actually agree with JazzFan on this, if we simply list the facts of what she did instead of those adjectives, then no one can dispute those. Idag (talk) 17:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

As Snowed notes above, this is primarily an issue of what constitutes evidence. As Idag notes, we will need to create the solution ourselves. However, I doubt that any crafty wording will resolve the issue (except perhaps temporarily). For example, suppose we did agree on some wording that skirts the issue: what then about Rand's occupation? what classification? what is to stop the whole issue from being re-raised repeatedly in various new forms? Instead, I suggest that we should tackle the problem head-on: first reach agreement on what the criteria are that should classify someone as a philosopher, then apply those criteria consistently. In doing so, we should take seriously the point that Arimareiji makes above about not doing original research. Thoughts? Gyrae (talk) 17:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The thing is, analyzing how many books call her a philosopher is required under WP:Undue. That policy requires us to determine whether a view is a prevailing or a minority view and to give it the appropriate weight. How are we supposed to make that determination if we don't first examine how many secondary sources take that view seriously? Idag (talk) 18:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

No, that's WP:OR. If it's in dispute, say that XYZ most reliable source on side A says yes, and ABC most-reliable source on side B says no. Wikipedia describes disputes, we don't engage in them. No one ever wins a POV war. arimareiji (talk) 18:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Three things no one ever wins: 1) a war 2) a divorce 3) a car accident. Any other resemblance between the three is purely coincidental. Maybe. arimareiji (talk) 18:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, this is a pseudo-issue. There is no call for editors to define anything. That is called Original Research. Editors report what notable verifiable sources say. Neither is this a matter of weight. There are no notable sources which assert that Rand is not a philosopher for us to weigh. If we were to take this supposed criterion seriously, we would require that all sources say absolutely everything possible about a subject, or find that absolutely nothing could be said. Indeed, by thois criterion we are not entitled to call Iceland an island.

I note that Idag has not bothered to tell us the results of his experiment with the keywords Iceland island and country at lexis nexis. I await the results impatiently.

This entire issue is a red herring simply asserted over and over by a certain faction who have stated a priori their hostility to Rand. They should get their opinions published so that rather than being original research conducted on this talk page they will be a notable minority view worth citing in the criticism section. As it stands we have a few contrary editors simply repeating the same nonsense over and over. I will occasionally stop to point that out. Have fun filling up the talk page in the meantime. Kjaer (talk) 18:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

If there genuinely is no WP:RS which asserts Rand is not a philosopher (which is completely different from "doesn't assert she is"), that's different. But if there is one, and it represents more than a tiny portion of WP:RS statements on the matter, it can be cited. arimareiji (talk) 18:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As I've stated previously, I don't have access to Lexis at this computer, these results were from a search that JReadings ran. I'll happily run one for you on Tuesday. I also agree that editors defining standards is OR. But editors seeing how many sources adopt a particular view is not OR, its a determination of whether that view is the prevalent view. Otherwise, the L. Ron Hubbard article would say that he is the greatest human being of all time because Scientology sources advocate that view and no one else takes it seriously enough to dispute it. The problem with these types of views is that many of the sources who discuss it, are the ones who favor adopting it. That doesn't mean that those sources are the prevailing view, all that means is that those sources are vocal. Idag (talk) 18:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Four points:

• 1) The claim that 'such and such' is the prevalent view is OR, because it is based on an assumption of why 'philosopher' isn't present on this source or that - we can't read the minds of those writers or editors.
• 2) Counting sources that did not list 'philosopher' without being able to show why they did so is just a variation of that OR.
• 3) The fact that many of the sources who discuss Rand as philosopher are those in favor adopting it (i.e., treat Rand as a philosopher) is irrelevant. Sources aren't given a qualitative judgment that is based upon their 'side' - they have to be judged on their reliability and merit. For example, some pro-Rand sources have solid academic credentials, just as some pro-Plato sources have solid academic credentials. Credentials and pro-versus-anti are two different things.
• 4) Academic sources carry weight, but they aren't the entire world of sources - particularly with a philosopher who chose to introduce her work to the culture at large rather than to the academy, and especially since a documented animosity exists between Rand and academics. --Steve (talk) 19:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

There are no reliable sources that assert Rand is not a philosopher. None. Maybe someone will find one some day and we can discuss it against the numerous reliable sources including encyclopedias and the New York Times that note she was a philosopher, but until that happens we need to move forward and follow policy. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

That would be correct if the proposal was for the article to state that "Ayn Rand is not a philosopher." However, the proposal is to omit the word "philosopher" from the description of Rand. Then the relevant analysis is to see which secondary sources omit that word from their description of Rand. Idag (talk) 19:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The question, Idag, is what is your basis for removing the word "philosopher" when it cites valid sources? That is where you do not coming up with anything valid - that is where you finding yourself engaging in OR. That is where you find yourself in violation of WP. You can not get around the fact that 'omitting a word from a source' is not demonstrative for purpose of deleting material that is properly cited. --Steve (talk) 19:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Steve, citation is only one of the policies for inclusion. If that were the only policy, we would have articles listing as facts things like the lunar landing conspiracy and that the government monitors you if you don't wear a foil hat. There's plenty of verifiable sources for each of these, but they are not listed as universal facts because that is not the prevalent view, which is what another policy WP:Undue requires us to consider. While there are sources stating that Rand is a philosopher, that is not the universal view and we would be misrepresenting the sources if we stated that. Though, as I've stated earlier, I'm open to compromise as far as using philosopher with a qualification or replacing all adjectives with a summary of what Rand is famous for and letting the reader decide. Idag (talk) 19:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the WP goal is to represent the prevailing view (and fairly represent significant, differing views). The difficulty in this particular case lies in applying the idea of a prevailing view without engaging in OR. Specifically, we need to identify which target population (aka "secondary sources") the view should be prevalent among. If the population is mostly people other than specialists in philosophy, we have a fairly straightforward way to proceed: look at common journalistic practice (e.g. NYT). However, if we decide that the relevant population is not the broad population of people who have written on Rand but instead specialists, then we need to decide 'which specialists'. Narrowing our lens to people who specialize in philosophy, but including all such people whether then are experts on Rand or not, we find that most do not describe Rand as a philosopher (if they describe her at all). But applying the principle of representing specialist view still further, and narrowing our lense to people who have specifically studied Rand's philosophy, we find that they (including those such as Heyl, 1995, who presumably disagree with the content of Rand's philosophy) do describe Rand as a philosopher. So selection of the relevant population, if it is a specialist population, is an expression of OR. (I believe that this difficulty lies behind many of the arguments over which authorities count as verifications.) From this I conclude that the way to avoid OR is to have WP reflect current journalistic practice. Thoughts? Gyrae (talk) 19:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

You bring up a good point. Though if we do that, I suggest moving this discussion to one of the policy or Wikiproject pages as wider community input would be necessary. Idag (talk) 19:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what aspect of the NYT policy you find to be attractive or compelling, but we cannot adopt any outside standard that might conflict with Wikipedia policy. We can use any outside policy as a way to clarify or discuss the application of WP. The intial thoughts I had about NYT policy is that given recent events it is more a work of fiction :-) A better approach might be to take what you see in the NYT policy, bring it here to the talk page, and ask if that is not an approach that is acceptable under WP. --Steve (talk) 19:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The logical fallacy that not saying "XYZ is true" is the same as saying "XYZ is not true" has already been shot to pieces, and its sad little zombie corpse is looking pretty ragged. If there's a WP:RS which says Ayn Rand is not a philosopher, please bring it out. If there isn't, there's no rational basis for discussion. arimareiji (talk) 19:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Arimareiji is correct. I am astounded that people still think that beating this long dead horse will get them anywhere. --Steve (talk) 19:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Its not denying the antecedent, its denying the consequent.

1. If a source considers Rand a philosopher, then it will use the adjective philosopher.

2. The source does not use the adjective philosopher. Idag (talk) 19:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue specifically which form of logical fallacy it is; it was an offhand comment and I could certainly be wrong. But I believe philosopher is actually a noun. arimareiji (talk) 19:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Denying the consequent isn't a logical fallacy, as evidenced by a similar method successfully being used to determine what adjectives to use to describe David Irving. Idag (talk) 20:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Just for reference, dictionary.com disagrees. arimareiji (talk) 20:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, no it doesn't.

You might want to re-read this thread of conversation before continuing, Idag. I promise, I'm not making it up - philosopher really isn't an adjective. arimareiji (talk) 20:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Lol, my mistake. Yes, you are correct, philosopher is not an adjective. Idag (talk) 20:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Everyone slips, myself certainly included - it happens. And everyone, myself certainly included, sometimes compounds it by continuing to argue against what they've mentally characterized the other's position to be. ^_^ arimareiji (talk) 20:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Idag said, "If a source considers Rand a philosopher, then it will use the adjective philosopher." WRONG - that is mind reading and clearly OR. --Steve (talk) 20:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

This statement is not OR: "The following sources discuss Ayn Rand in a significant way and call her a novelist or a writer, but do not call her a philosopher." (I can give you 360 verifiable sources for this proposition) Idag (talk) 20:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I wish you success, Idag, in creating your article, List of sources which discuss Ayn Rand in a significant way and call her a novelist or a writer, but do not call her a philosopher. Until then, please stop beating the [zombie baby]. Kjaer (talk) 20:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I've got no problem with that. ArbCom will decide who's beating what. Idag (talk) 20:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Idag, if those 360 sources also don't call her a woman, do we edit out any mention of her gender? If they don't mention that she was married, do we edit out her marriage? If they don't mention that she wrote screenplays, do we edit that out? Should we be happy that also don't declare her to be from outer space, since that would awkward. This new method you have for determining all the things that a person is not... How can you not see how badly flawed it is, and purely OR! --Steve (talk) 20:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

This really is getting very silly. It is true that it is a logical fallacy to go from "not saying that X is true" to "X is untrue. Its a nice little diversion although the self-congratulatory side posts between allies on their talk pages is hardly an edifying sight. It is equally a logical fallacy to say "X, Y & Z say that C is an D means that C is a D, especially when nearly all the other Ds do not acknowledge C. Weight, balance and policy. We need to know what the convention is here. It is pretty obvious that Blackburn and his fellow editors at Oxford did not (and do not, I checked) consider Rand a Philosopher. It is equally true that some US sources are happy for the noun to be so used. What Wikipedia has to decide is the basis on which it accepts evidence. The status of Women and islands can be physically verified, that is not the case with the role of Philosopher. Now if Arbcom do determine that a single authoritative citation can permit the use of a name, then the precedent can be used elsewhere in the article (including the criticism sections). We are getting a lot of new editors by the way, interesting --Snowded TALK 20:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

That happens when you get an RfC. arimareiji (talk) 21:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

(Just for reference, the above is only wrt your last sentence.) arimareiji (talk) 21:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

True , although there are some interesting connections when you look through the edit histories --Snowded TALK 21:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to make them. I'm no fan of sockpuppetry no matter whose "side" they're on, and I have nothing to hide. But be careful not to bite off more than you can chew; making a case for SPI is a lot of work. arimareiji (talk) 21:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom won't resolve the underlying content dispute though. Is there somewhere we can go to get a definitive interpretation of content policies? Idag (talk) 21:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The proving the negative issue is coming up on multiple articles. If it is not resolved here then it will come up again elsewhere. --Snowded TALK 21:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Snowded, you might find these citations to be of interest. In addition to Oxford, I came across this article in The Jerusalem Post discussing Ayn Rand's obscurity in Israeli philosophy departments:

“Rand remains an obscure figure in Israeli academia even though many Israelis read her novels in their teens and 20s including Prof. Elhanan Yakira head of the philosophy department at the Hebrew University. ‘I don't know anyone with us that really teaches her philosophy he said. There could be people that deal with her but I don't really know. Sometimes people mention her name but not a lot.’ He can't comment on whether her lack of representation stems from any antipathy to her ideas.” -- Orit Arfa, “The nexus,” The Jerusalem Post, FEATURES, July 13, 2007, pg. 26.

I hope that helps in the editing of the article a bit. Also, I came across this article discussing Rand's obscurity in American philosophy departments:

“Ayn Rand generally held little regard for academic philosophers, and philosophers have tended to return the favor.”

…and from the same article…

"It used to be the kiss of death to your career to say that you liked Ayn Rand," says Jurgis Brakas, an associate professor of philosophy at Marist College, whose work is not supported by any Rand-affiliated foundation. He suggests that a much broader revival of interest in Aristotle -- whose realist and rationalist theories of cognition harmonize with Rand's -- is partly responsible for the recent uptick in scholarly interest in objectivism. --David Glenn, “Advocates of Objectivism Make New Inroads,” The Chronicle of Higher Education, July 13, 2007, RESEARCH; Pg. 7 Vol. 53 No. 45

I've also read similar articles discussing Rand and her ideas as being obscure topics seen without having any value in the philosophy department of, for example, Stanford University.

None of these are my opinions of Rand, by the way. I am simply reporting what the sources said. To be honest, I don't want to be the focus of ad hominem attacks by a couple of editors here or have to read sarcastic comments that citing this material is somehow unwelcome. Those types of responses are really off-putting. I just want to contribute to the article. J Readings (talk) 21:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I think those all represent the dilemma here (although I find it incredible that anyone who had studied Aristotle could say his views harmonised with those of Rand). The vast bulk of academic philosophy (and a lot of literature) simply ignores her. A lot of the US presence is funded by Rand Institutes (see the Texas material). It is however undoubtedly the case that some reputable sources call her a philosopher. Hence the issue of policy. You won't avoid ad hominems and abuse if you are dealing with a cult. --Snowded TALK 21:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I find it incredible that anyone who had studied Aristotle would fail to see the harmony. Most of the interest in Rand has nothing to do with Rand institute funding, and it is really very questionable to impugn the integrity of scholars who accept grants without some kind of evidence, however flimsy - after all this kind of accusation isn't being made about any other academician who specializes in the study of some other philosopher. I personally find that the Objectivism is not a cult, even though some members act like cultists. Just as the Roman Catholic Church is not a cult (although it certainly comes much closer to being one), even though some of its members behave like cultists. And it is clear that there is some cultist-like behaviors to be found among some of the anti-Rand folk. I find that I am subjected to ad hominems and abuse despite being unfailingly civil in my posts. Go figure. --Steve (talk) 21:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Steve you obviously have found some new meaning of the words "unfailingly civil" that I am unfamiliar with. Its not ad hominem to point out that a significant amount of the evidence you have produced and which is cited in the article arises from funding from Rand Institutes. The Texas grant (and the consequent Guardian article) being examples. If you are using these positions (and the seminars) as evidence of academic interest in Rand it is reasonably to point out that the source of the funding is relevant. The position that Randism is a cult is not uncommon and is as I recall cited. Her own demands of her followers would be evidence enough for most people. As to Aristotle, well you are entitled to your opinion --Snowded TALK 22:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Where am I uncivil? Why would you accuse me of being uncivil? Who said that it was adhomineum to discuss that evidence - perhaps you are confused? As I said, there is a great deal of academic evidence unrelated to the Texas grant and the Rand institute. The source of the funding is relevant if the scholarship is questionable - and that isn't what has been put forth. The position that Objectivism is from two non-academic sources of very disgruntled individuals. Her demands of her followers was that they exercise independent reasoning. And as to Aristotle, I have not only my opinion but the opinion of the professor emeritus, dept. of philosophy, Univ. of California at Berkley. --Steve (talk) 23:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Shifting ground always confuses Steve and I am afraid my original comments on your multiple lists of supporting professors without citation to specific papers stands. Which member of the Emeritus faculty are you talking about? Happy to check it out --Snowded TALK 23:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, is the question in front of us the quality of objectivist scholarship, the motivations of objectivist scholarship, or the existence or lack thereof of verifiable, reputable sources that term Rand a philosopher? (I think the latter.) If it is the latter, then we should work on establishing whether or not there are such sources. Steve has prepared a long list, but it lacks some specificity. How about we work on checking Steve's list, and, if it turns out to be accurate, accept that there is verifiable, reputable evidence that Rand is referred to as a philosopher? Gyrae (talk) 02:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I did some checking on Steve's list although it is difficult as it is just, that a list. The first mentioned Nozick accepts her political views but dismisses her Philosophy. A reference to Warwick University (where I have a fellowship) relates (and it is a minor engagement) to its inter disciplinary centre for Philosophy and Literature. Others attended seminars sponsored by various Rand Institutes but that is about the limit of what I can find. That said I have no difficulty in agreeing that there is verifiable reputable evidence that Rand is a philosopher, the issue is (as has been said several times) one of policy in respect of weight and evaluation of evidence. She simply does not appear in the majority of reputable encyclopedias or dictionaries of Philosophy and if you eliminate fellowships sponsored by institutions set up to promote her ideas, and members of those institutions with other academic associations then even in the US the evidence is sparse. One compromise (to say that she is an author who created a philosophical movement) seemed promising to me but has been rejected. Another compromise might be to leave the information box as "author/screen writer" but in the lede acknowledge that in the US she is considered a philosopher in some circles. All of that aside, this is really an issue for Arbcom and affects lots of articles which have nothing to do with Rand. That issue is simple - does not reliable citation validate a statement? and the linked "If there are no citations in authoritative sources are one or two citations enough. That is the real issue and all the emotion being displayed here adds little to it. If the decision is that one or two citations are sufficient then I will happily accept a move back to an earlier version where she was called a philosopher, but with a reference to the controversy over that. I personally think that we need some ruling from Arbcom on this for the WIkipedia as a whole. The Ayn Rand article when push comes to shove is a minor one, the issue of Wikipedia's authority is on the other hand major. --Snowded TALK 07:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Snowded, your post is misleading. The list you mention was intended to show that there would be no problem finding solid sources supporting the category of philosopher for Rand. Editors are deleting valid, reliable sources in this article. I put the list up more for others, since I suspected that you would not be happy with any source. Nozick disagrees with Rand's argument, he does not state or indicate that she is not, or should not be considered as a philosopher - he responded to her ideas as those of a philosopher (one he disagreed with). You keep mentioning seminars sponsored by Rand institutes. This is some form of original research on your part, and a mis-statement of the contents of the list. The list was simply to show that there are encyclopedias, philosophy text books, journal articles, scholarly works printed by university presses, and many professors of philosophy who consider her to be a philosopher. It is disengenous of you to keep painting this false picture of only a limited circle of Rand supporters, and only in the United States, who see her as a philosopher. The dislike for her in a significant part of the academic world is real, but it does not extend to saying that she is not a philosopher. She does not receive as much attention in the academic world as some other philosophers, but that also is not the same as saying she is not a philosopher. I've pointed out before that the sales of her non-fiction philosophical works have been reprinted in many languages, and show heavy sales in both in the United States and overseas. This includes her work on epistemology which makes it peculiar to say that she is only a novelist. I have not seen any source supporting your position that being popular, and not courting academic credentials, disqualifies one from being a philosopher. You keep mentioning emotion, but that has nothing to do with the issue of valid, verifiable, reliable sources having their cites deleted. I've pointed out before that declaring Rand is not a philosopher because some sources discuss her, but don't categorize her as such is not valid evidence - nothing in those sources say she isn't a philosopher. I have pointed out before the degree of original research being used to attempt to justify deletion of references to her as a philosopher. Your statement, "If there are no citations in authoritative sources are one or two citations enough," is shameful in how badly it mis-states the case. Editors keep finding one citation after another - verifiable and reliable and editors delete them. Does that list look like "one or two citations"? Then you say that an absence of the declaration of her as a philosopher in a source that you find is the same as saying she is not a philosopher, all the while denying the sources that do call her a philosopher. You ignore the sources where she is taught in philosophy text books. You ignore the philosophers that have no affiliation with a Rand institute. You impugn the integrity of respectable professors of philosophy because they associate with the Rand institute. I do hope that Wikipedia authority is asserted. --Steve (talk) 10:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Steve, you give me a massive list with no specific citations, I check a few and report my findings. Nothing wrong with that. I've asked you to give me the name of the California professor and more citations on your long lists. So I am demonstrating a willingness to check sources and report the results. As to the rest of your arguments, sorry I think you are failing to address the policy issue and focusing too much on the one specific issue of Rand. You are also (as is normal) making various suggestions to the effect that any challenge or question involves "impugning the integrity" which is arrant nonsense. --Snowded TALK 10:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit break

At the risk of heresy, why are both not possible? It's pretty evident that she's referred to as a philosopher, whether those who are opposed to her like it or not. Find an RS who says she isn't, or leave it alone. Likewise, we have at least two RS's saying that specific academic philosophy departments held her in low regard, whether those for her like it or not. Include the assertion she was held in low regard by some academic philosophy departments.
But the two aren't connected, and no amount of stretching and pulling will make the latter transpose over the former. arimareiji (talk) 04:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I am in favor of a compromise for a variety of practical reasons, but I agree that ArbCom needs to make a ruling about policy in general. Either one can extrapolate from one reliable source or one cannot. For example, in the citations above and elsewhere, specific philosophy departments are not mentioned in the wording. General statements were (and can be) cited about academia in general. Either we accept the general cited statements or we do not. If it's the latter, it makes little sense to me (and I suspect others) to accept wording that states that only "some philosophy departments hold her in low regard" while, at the same time, extrapolating from other reliable sources to state that "everyone" considered Ayn Rand to be a philosopher in the form of a general statement. As I said before, I am neither for nor against Ayn Rand and I always thought it was irresponsible to start dragging our personal preferences into this discussion. That said, what matters is policy, how one interprets it, and its consistent implementation therein across Wikipedia. I would be surprised if anyone here disagreed. J Readings (talk) 13:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Arimareiji I think the "both possible" was behind the idea to say that she was an author who created a philosophical movement. Otherwise it is nothing to do with whether you like Rand or not, its an issue of how to interpret WP:WEIGHT, so does any authoritative source validate it? Most schools of Philosophy simply don't even have her on their radar (its not a matter of saying held in low regard), most Directories do not include her. All of this is aside from the need to examine sources such as Steve's lists to validate them. Its an issue on other articles not just this one. --Snowded TALK 15:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm content with the dictionary.com definition as authoritative on the matter - she pretty clearly fits into defs 1 and 3, and whether she fits the rest is (pardon the pun) academic. arimareiji (talk) 15:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

But isn't what you are suggesting also Original Research, Arimareiji? Where is Ayn Rand mentioned in that dictionary definition? J Readings (talk) 15:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

"A" dictionary definition. Another says a person engaged or learned in philosophy, esp. as an academic discipline. The OED says 1. a. A lover of wisdom; an expert in or student of philosophy (in various senses); a person skilled or engaged in philosophical inquiry. Formerly also: a learned person, a scholar (obs.). Originally denoting an expert in or student of any branch of knowledge, including the physical and natural sciences, alchemy, prophecy, the occult, etc., but in later use applied chiefly to those versed in the metaphysical and moral sciences. In the 20th cent. the term was generally restricted to those studying the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, esp. as an academic discipline. My bold. You can't just call someone a philosopher because they have an opinion on ethical or other matters.

However I really think you are missing the point here. How do we balance some authoritative citations with an absence of mention in multiple sources where, if the condition was true, you could expect to find it. Summarised as the "prove a negative" question it affects many articles, especially ones like intelligent design and pseudo-science sites. My interest is in resolving that, the Ayn Rand status is a minor incidental. --Snowded TALK 15:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• J Readings - Perhaps it is OR. But if it's OR to look in a dictionary and see that one of the listed definitions of philosopher is something that even her fierce critics concede is true of her... then what is a meta-analysis of how many search engines and dictionaries mention Ayn Rand and don't use the word philosopher?

By that line of reasoning, Barack Obama's not the President of the United States because The Seattle Times, Reuters, and the LA Times all mention him by name (in stories posted within the last hour), but never use the word President. At the very least we can assume that these extremely reliable sources are asserting he's not the President, aye? arimareiji (talk) 16:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• Snowded - dictionary entries are inclusive, not exclusive. Otherwise, I could say that you're not an editor because you're not "a device for editing film or magnetic tape." arimareiji (talk) 16:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

⬅ Oh please, the definition of the President of United States is capable of verification by the electoral college etc. Ditto Island and other the other false analogies. Let me put this really simply for you: If there are say 5 authoritative dictionaries/enccyclopedias of Philosophy which list individual philosophers and only one includes someone and the others don't then are they a philosopher? That is the question and its a question of policy for the wikipedia. If the policy is one source then I will accept the label. If weight means looking at the balance of sources then we need either a qualified statement or a compromise such as "her writing inspired a philosophical movement known as" or similar. As to your "editor" comment, I really don't think I am going to dignify that with a comment --Snowded TALK 17:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Your words were "'A' dictionary definition," followed by a different one which you prefer. This indicates you think that if someone doesn't fit all possible definitions of XYZ, they aren't XYZ. By that line of reasoning, you aren't an editor - because one of the definitions of editor is "a device for editing film or magnetic tape." QED. arimareiji (talk) 17:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't indicate any such thing, you said "the" I pointed out you should have said "a". Simple really but I see from elsewhere that you enjoy this style of game playing so I think I will let my comments stand and not indulge you further. --Snowded TALK 17:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

If by "game" you mean "Wikipedia" and by "playing" you mean "engaging in logic-based debate," then I have to plead guilty. And I think it's amusing that you enjoy wikistalking so much, given this and other comments you keep making about looking through other people's edit histories. Stalk away, it's not my time you're wasting - all you'll find is that I'm a stubborn old man who edits a variety of topics. arimareiji (talk) 18:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Arimareiji I really do think you are missing the point here. Which is, the question of how to balance some authoritative citations with an absence of mention in multiple sources where, if the condition was true, you could expect to find it. Summarised as the "prove a negative" question it affects many articles, especially ones like intelligent design and pseudo-science sites. We should be striving to resolve that. By the way, The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, does not mention Rand at all, except in the article 'amateur philosophy'. Peter Damian (talk) 18:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I've had enough experience of sock and meat puppets on controversial pages to check out recent edits on any new editor. Its part of the transparency of WIkipedia and helps give you a quick view of the editors style of engagement and how one should respond. Call it stalking if you want but you are not using that word in the Wikipedia sense of the word. As to your guilty plea, sorry I did not mean "Wikipedia" or "logic based debate". (now I've broken my resolution and indulged you, damn) --Snowded TALK 18:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

What is the test that Rand would need to satisfy to be termed "philosopher" in this article? Conversely, what is the test that would disqualify Rand? Gyrae (talk) 19:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

For the anti-Randers the primary criteria she would need to meet is that she not be Ayn Rand. Trying to pin these folks down to any objective standard is an exercise in pointlessness. They don't want her to be called a philosopher despite that she was philosopher.TheJazzFan (talk) 05:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I know of only one professional philosopher; he works as a "philosophy consultant". The rest are all teachers. Rklawton (talk) 04:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

On the definition of philosophy

The subject of defining philosophy has come up on the Philosophy talk pages more than once. We still have theTalk:Philosophy/Quotations page containing a long series of definitions. We reached a consensus that while the genus of philosophy is deep and fundamental questions (which mystics, spiritualists, objectivists and philosophers all address), the differentia is an approach by rational and logical methods, often using formal predicate logic (in modern analytic philosophy). Ayn Rand tries to address the fundamental questions certainly, and is a 'philosopher' in the broader bar-room, cocktail-party sense. She really doesn't have a clue about the other bit, though.

This has caused quite a stir in the philosophical community. William Vallicella has a series of posts on the Wikipedia debate, as follows: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

The last one is quite funny, because Harry Binswanger, who is the closest thing to a bona fide philosopher, turned up, and even he got irritated by the Rand camp-followers and their incoherent ranting ('Randing') and interminable non-sequiturs. Peter Damian (talk) 18:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

ok, so you are saying she is a philosopher in the broad sense, but not the academia sense????? is that the problem here? we've all been debating two different things. does the philosophy department of "insert your school here" of which you are a member, think she is a philospher, or do thousands of randist, and millions of normal people who enjoyed her fiction think she is a philosopher? i don't think scientology is a religion and its all a big scam. same for christianity, hinduism, islam, shinto, etc. but somehow the religious "authorities" deem some belief systems religions or cults. just because a billion people beleive in a giant white haired man lives in the clouds controls the universe or a 8 armed elephant does, does not make their religion any more valid than animist or scientolgists. (not a scientolgist, just using them as an example as a wack job religion, i know they have issues with wikipedia) how many political parties are there in the united states? 2 of course....replubican and democrats...ask anyone. pundits say it, polls say it, media says it, the usa is a two party system. of course the various other parties barely get any votes, BUT THEY DO EXIST. rand hardly shows up on the philosopher radar, but SHE DOES EXIST.

and why is this page part of the wikipedia philosophy project? Brushcherry (talk) 07:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)brushcherry

It indeed seems like a blogger's got a bug up his ass. But why anyone who cares so little for Rand, and is not involved here, would care so much is difficult to fathom. I truly am quite to surprised to see such animus on the internet.

But to stay on topic, I am sorry, I couldn't find where Harry Binswanger comments about this talk page and the non sequiturs here. Could you provide a quote or direct link? Kjaer (talk) 05:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The Irving Comparison

People have brought up the issue of David Irving, and whether he should be considered an historian. Unfortunately I don't feel it's a valid comparison, because unlike Rand there is a preponderance of sources stating that he should not be considered an historian. The issue with Rand, where some sources call her a philosopher and others simply don't, seems to be a very serious issue that ArbCom should issue some guidance on. TallNapoleon (talk) 05:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

like trying to define philosopher, historian can be problematic. to 99.99% of us the holocaust is an an historic fact, universally condemned. what about the genocide of native americans? how many pre-1960s historians have been denied "historian" status because they glossed over, or ignored, or denied, or justified the genocide of native americans. david irving is clearly an idiot for his holocaust denial. he is not the first or last idiot "historian". is yasser arafat a freedom fighter or a terrorist? why for the love of a god, that i don't believe in, do you people keep trying to "prove" that she is or is not a philosopher?Brushcherry (talk) 08:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)brushcherry

Because we have to decide whether to call her one or not, and frankly there doesn't appear to be a guiding policy. TallNapoleon (talk) 08:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

what is Bifurcation?Brushcherry (talk) 08:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)brushcherry

See Bifurcation? TallNapoleon (talk) 08:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

i did, do you? she is either a philospher ala aristotle or she is not one ala "the crazy guy on the highway off-ramp. there are many other options in between.Brushcherry (talk) 08:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)brushcherry

At the moment all I see is a user who is not making much sense and frankly not being very constructive. Those of us who take these issues seriously would greatly appreciate it if other editors did as well. TallNapoleon (talk) 09:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

at the moment all i see is a user who has made the same arguments over and over. yet the ayn rand page is still a mess. Constructive?? this page is a perpetual edit war with all you serious editors taking it seriously. go to the abortion page and ask those editors how they reached a consensus on anything.Brushcherry (talk) 09:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)brushcherry

Speculation: On the abortion page, people are arguing about what are essentially religious beliefs (i.e. ensoulment). Contentious, for sure. But here, people are arguing on the basis of their ego. Much worse. Although far too many people are killed in the name of religion, I would say several times as many get killed in the name of ego. Ask any policeman which he thinks is more dangerous. arimareiji (talk) 14:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Criteria for Answering the Question

(Split from "The Irving Question") Gyrae (talk) 23:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I propose that a constructive way forward would be to establish the criteria for answering the question. Namely: What is the test that Rand would need to satisfy to be termed "philosopher" in this article? Conversely, what is the test that would disqualify Rand? If we can agree on the tests, then we can proceed to apply them. If we cannot agree on the tests, then we can seek guidance on what tests should apply. OK? Gyrae (talk) 15:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Damn you and your Vulcan logic, Spock! That would require us to use standards that can be objectively cross-applied to show the invalidity of our arguments! (Such as by Obama =/= president.) arimareiji (talk) 15:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

How about published in peer reviewed philosophy journals AND cited by others in articles published in peer reviewed philosophy journals? Rklawton (talk) 15:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I happily concede that such references exist. No one is disputing that. The argument is about balance, and policy in respect of balance. --Snowded TALK 17:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Step 1: propose a list of journals. Create a weighting factor for each if necessary.

Step 2: propose the citation threshold (I suspect # published isn't as significant as # cited)

Step 3: debate/discuss/finalize. Rklawton (talk) 17:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

We have some proposals on the table. Before we proceed, let's see if we agree on them.

* I believe that the proposals are not aimed at answering whether Rand is a philosopher, but rather whether Rand is 'referred to' as a philosopher within 'a certain population'. Is that correct?

* The citations may be either direct references to Rand as a "philosopher" or references to Rand in a context where the topic is clearly philosophy. Is that correct?

* The suggested population is authors of articles and citiations within peer-reviewed journals. Is that correct?

* There is (implicitly) some number of articles and citations needed to establish Rand as a philosopher. Assuming agreement on all the forgoing (which has yet to be confirmed), we would need to agree on this number. Is that correct?

Gyrae (talk) 17:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry you are not addressing the key question, how do we handle the failure to reference her? In addition "peer reviewed journals" is a very ambiguous phrase it can mean anything. --Snowded TALK 18:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

the problem is, pro-rand people wont accept as legitimate, balanced, neutral, etc any references that say she is not philosopher, anti-rand people wont accept as legitimate, balanced, neutral, etc any references that says she is. anti-rand references generally are from the academia, reflecting rands lack of standing with the phd/philosophy community, pro-rand references tend to be more populist, reflecting the view that if people think she is a philosopher then she is a philosopher. both sides have multitudes of references, but neither side accepts the others references. this talk page is one long "is not! is too!"Brushcherry (talk) 19:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)brushcherry

If it meets WP:RS, then it's a reliable source. If someone spouts off on their blog that they think Rand is the Antichrist, that's not usable. But if they say it in a peer-reviewed journal (best case) or at least a major periodical, then of course it's usable.

I'm relatively new to this, but the closest I've seen to someone bringing up a reliable source for saying Rand isn't one was "Hey did you hear someone who says he's a famous philosopher wrote some nasty forum posts about Rand?" What I have seen a lot of is "Rand isn't a philosopher because XYZ didn't say she is," which in my mind is completely-backwards logic. "Didn't say she is" =/= "said she isn't."

If you'll note, Brushcherry, my provided references below are from scholarly sources of high reliability. I knew they'd be subject to close scrutiny, so I tried to make them airtight. arimareiji (talk) 19:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

If you believe that the proposed tests are wrong, please propose tests that you think are right and let's discuss them. Gyrae (talk) 19:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I request that this section be used for discussing the tests that should be applied to determine whether Rand is to be termed "philosoper" in the article. Please use other sections to discuss actual evidence, debate the merits of the evidence, or other material not directly related to deciding what the criteria are that, if satisfied, would either warrant or disqualify terming Rand "philosopher."

I believe that the proposal so far is:

• The tests are not aimed at answering whether Rand is a philosopher, but rather whether Rand is 'referred to' as a philosopher within 'a certain population'.
• The citations may be either direct references to Rand as a "philosopher" or references to Rand in a context where the topic is clearly philosophy.
• The suggested population is authors of articles and citiations within peer-reviewed journals.
• There is (implicitly) some number of articles and citations needed to establish Rand as a philosopher. Assuming agreement on all the forgoing (which has yet to be confirmed), we would need to agree on this number.
• We have an open question whether or to what extent statements that Rand is not a philosopher count.
• We have an open question whether or to what extent the absence of citations of Rand as a philosopher in contexts that are large lists of philosophers count.

Is this essentially correct as a fair representation of the proposal on the table?

Gyrae (talk) 00:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I am really not sure what you are trying to achieve here and I am not endorsing the process as you currently outline it. Some comments

(i) peer-reviewed journals is too broad and can mean too many things It would have to be journals recognised as professional journals in the field of philosophy and reviewed by a broad range of views. (ii) you can't assess this by number, it has to be by weight which would have to be by comparison to say philosophers working in the same period whose status is not in question. (iii) The final two points you make are probably at the heart of the debate and the issue we have here (as on other pages) is that Rand is simply not mentioned in most philosophy. That is the issue of policy. --Snowded TALK 00:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Would it be possible for you to propose a clearly defined test that, if met, you would agree should result in Rand being termed "philosopher"? Gyrae (talk) 01:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

How about appearing in a majority (of maybe a significant minority) of encyclopedias and dictionaries of philosophers from major institutes? That she appears in some (Stamford female philosophers as stated below for one) that she doesn't appear in most is the point several of us are making. The nature of the entry should also acknowledge her as a philosopher not as a literary figure who influenced the development of a philosophy. Another would be that articles acknowledging her as such appear in the major journals of the field. --Snowded TALK 07:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Snowded - I severely doubt that you would AGF if I (or an admin, any other editor without an ax to grind) went to the library and looked up five random dictionaries/encyclopedias of modern philosophy and came back to report the results, unless the results were "none or one mentioned her." Could you explain how "most" can be verified objectively? arimareiji (talk) 13:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Likewise, could you explain your qualification of "not as a literary figure"? Does that mean that if the entry mentions that she was an author anywhere in the entry then she's disqualified; does it mean that does it mean that it's acceptable as long as it doesn't say some variation of "she wrote books that caused others to come up with a philosophy"; does it mean something else entirely? arimareiji (talk) 13:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

So we have, as one proposal, Rand's "appearing in a majority (or maybe a significant minority) of encyclopedias and dictionaries of philosophers from major institutes" and "not as a literary figure." There is an observation that Rand appears in some but not in most and that Rand, while cited, may be being referred to as a literary figure, not a philosopher. Some objections are raised above to this proposed test. I would add another criticism, by contrasting the proposed test to a similar one, "cited as a philosopher, not as a literary figure, in the majority (or maybe a significant minority) of the citations appearing in encyclopedias and dictionaries of philosophers from major institutes." The difference between these two tests is that the former measures two things while the latter test measures only one of them. The former measures whether the compilers think that Rand is notable enough to mention, and also whether Rand's relevance is as a philosopher; the latter measures only whether, in those cases (however many or few) where Rand is thought notable enough to mention, Rand's relevance is as a philosopher. Phrased differently, the former test measures both popularity and function; the latter only measures function (as a philosopher). Phrased differently yet again for clarity, the former measures whether the compilers say that Rand is an important philosopher while the latter test measures whether the compilers believe that Rand is a philosopher. If we can agree that there is a valid and important distinction between these tests, then we can debate their merits. Gyrae (talk) 15:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

A list of resources

• IEP
  
• Wadsworth
  
• SEP
  
• McGrath
  

There's my four; now I'm off to have dinner. Next? arimareiji (talk) 16:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• Encyclopedia of World Biography Supplement, vol 20. Gale Group 2000. This resource lists her occupation as: Author, screenwriter, and philosopher. It also states that she was a "visiting lecturer at Yale, Princeton, Columbia, University of Wisconsin, John Hopkins, Ford Hall Forumn, Harvard, MIT, and The United States Military Academy at West Point."

• "Rand, Ayn." St. James Encyclopedia of Popular Culture. 5 vols. St. James Press, 2000. This resource states, "Few philosophers or philosophies can claim the public recognition and "fan" following of Ayn Rand and her philosophy, Objectivism."

• Sheehy Benedict, "The Challenge of Objective Ethics: Ethical Thinking in Business, Rationalism, and Ayn Rand" The International Journal of Applied Philosophy 18.2(Fall 2004):p231(10) From this resource: "Arguably the most prominent philosopher of the last century, Ayn Rand, has provided a philosophy of business that is satisfying to many people, not the least of which is Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan."

• The Scribner Encyclopedia of American Lives, Thematic Series: The 1960s. Ed. William L. O'Neill and Kenneth T. Jackson, 2 Vols New York, 2003 This resource lists describe's Rand's occupation as writer, novelist, philosopher and screenwriter. In the bio it also mentions, "...author, lecturer and philosopher..." Just a few for now... --Steve (talk) 22:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

OK lets look at these. The first is is not a encyclopedia of philosophy, neither is the second or the fourth. Lots of people use the word philosophy in the sense that someone is "philosophical" and many authors including ones of far greater note than rand have written philosophical works but are not described as such in WIkipedia. The third is in the field (although not a major journal) but the author or the paper is a lecturer in LAW not philosophy. I'll start to believe this when some one shows me a citation in a 4 or 5 star journal in the field. --Snowded TALK 22:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Just getting starting, Snowded. By the way, where is your list of notable sources who state that Rand is not a philosopher, despite all of these sources that say she is? Personally, I don't beleive that you would admit that Rand was a philosopher even if Aristotle himself came back to life and signed an affidavit in blood saying it was so. --Steve (talk) 23:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

If Aristotle did that Steve, I would accept it (or a major international Aristotle scholar) You keep producing lists, I keep looking at them in good faith and end with more questions than confirmations so forgive me if I question your constant assertion of multiple sources. You still haven't named your emeritus californian professor by the way. --Snowded TALK 00:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• "Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Bibliography of Feminist Philosophers". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Gyrae (talk) 05:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• Already covered it as source 3 in my list, Gyrae - but the mistake is easy to make, since I reduced it to an acronym.
• Snowded, since you perpetually have questions about Steve's unlinked lists, perhaps you'd like to go back and address the credibility of my previous four {{cite}}'d ones? It might be easier to scroll down a bit first and look at them in ==Reflist== (refs 3-6) before coming back here to comment. Alternately, it might be good to start working on a similar list of RS's which directly assert she wasn't a philosopher, to counter those which directly assert she was. arimareiji (talk) 06:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

My mistake. Thanks. Gyrae (talk) 02:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

sad little zombie corpse is looking pretty ragged

Sorry, Bruscherry, your claim is false. There is not a list of 340 sources on Lexis that say Rand is not a philosopher. There are indeed plenty of sources that don't call Rand a philosopher, just as there are plenty of sources that don't mention Obama is black, or that Iceland is an island. But negative evidence doesn't matter, reliable sources do. So far we have the New York Times calling Rand a philosopher, and Varicella on his blog saying otherwise. The currently supported DEC 31 version of the article has it right, it calls her a philosopher, drops a note and contains a criticism section where people like the hostile Catholic Platonist blogger Varicella can be mentioned. The only "problem" here is that a certain faction has an a priori POV "I refuse to call it a philosophy' which they want to push, and unable to do so following established WP principles, they want to invent all sorts of new tests that don't apply to anyone else on the site. The sad little zombie corpse is indeed looking pretty ragged. Kjaer (talk) 19:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Kjaer, one of these days (maybe with a following wind, but only maybe) you might recognise that what a lot of us are asking Arbcom to do is to determine if negative evidence counts. You assert that it doesn't and if you are right then there is probably a case. The issue here is of major importance to several sites. Pathetic remarks about zombies really do not help. Oh and citing stuff from books by Sciabarra who has an academic association, but actually is running an Ayn Rand institute.... You really need to start addressing the quality of your sources. Oh, and my views as expressed on my blog (thank you for pointing people to it) are my views which are shared by many others. You have a pro-Rand position as evidenced by your other "persona". I don't consider that your position disqualifies you from editing so please reciprocate and address the arguments not the person (although that is a pretty forlorn hope but I thought I might ask)--Snowded TALK 22:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Snowded, Sciabarra is a scholar of the first rank. If you think that the quality of his work is lacking in any way whatsoever you had better look again. You casually remark that he "has an academic association" but then make a snide comment about the quality of sources. Maybe you should check before you impugn the integrity or qualifications of someone. The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, which you implied is an "Ayn Rand institute," is a peer reviewed, scholarly, academic journal that is nonpartisan, that is it specifically seeks a balance of pro and anti articles. Tell me, if someone specialized in Kant, and edited a journal on Kant, and wrote books on Kant, would that disqualify them as a source on Kant? And I notice that you didn't mention that Sciabarra has also written on Marx and Hegel among others, or that he has written articles for major encyclopedias (the ones that pay - not Wikipedia :-) The main thing we are asking of ArbCom is to judge the bias that is going into the editing. Maybe it is you that should be whistling up that following wind. --Steve (talk) 23:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I am making no comment on his scholarship Steve I am quoting facts. He has an academic association only and he leads a Rand based institution. I have this general problem that so much of the material on this articles comes from advocates of Rand's views and so little comes from independent sources (maybe because she isn't considered seriously outside her inner circle). The quality of the scholarship may or may not be high, but he has a declared interest. Now that might not be a major problem, if it was not characteristic of most of the quoted material. It would help if you would calm down a bit and think about the balance of the evidence you are presenting rather than just producing lists. --Snowded TALK 00:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Snowded, you made a snide comment on the quality of sources when speaking of Sciabarra, and you imply that he isn't making independent judgements. How would you like it if people assumed that because you are a Roman Catholic you couldn't possibly make independent judgements about an atheist like Rand? You accuse Sciabarra of having a 'declared interest' - Wouldn't that be a declared interest on your behalf? If that is not the case, then how can you make such an accusation of Sciabarra? You said the 'quality of the scholarship may or may not be high' - does that mean you don't even know! Telling me to calm down... that is so condescending. I have presented lists to help - while you have presented Original Research and unfounded complaints. I, and others, are now presenting fully fleshed out quality cites (again). While you are providing innuendo and slurs against someone you appear to have never read. Where are your cites showing Sciabarra's scholarship is less than first rate? --Steve (talk) 07:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Its not a snide comment Steve (although that is pretty typical of your language). If the only sources on Rand were Catholic then it would represent a lack of balance. If the sources are mostly from Rand based institutes then there are substantial issues in the same way. You have presented long lists mostly without citation or links, and when those are checked questions are raised. Of course I realise that you only present reliable sources and all those who disagree with you only indulge in innuendo, slurs and OR. How foolish of me to challenge a hero of the cause. --Snowded TALK 07:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

which specific claim is false? i tend to ramble and can't remember what i said to to multitude of arguments here. my basic argument is that both sides are full of it. my personal OPINION is that ayn rand is a philosopher. her lack of standing in the elitist halls of academia not withstanding. i acknowledge her lack of standing in "professional" philosophic circles. i am also am aware that i view her as a philosopher, as do lots of other people. although i view her as a philosopher, i am not myself, an objectivist. she has many fine points to make but seems a little nutty sometimes. i think the catholic church is nutty, that doesn't mean its not a religion. what very few people here are willing to do is say "its my OPINION" that ayn rand is or is not a philosopher. they have their sources that support their opinion, and all other sources be damned. "I HAVE PROVED THAT AYN RAND IS (or is NOT) A PHILOSOPHER" based on this or that. lets just use peer reviewed journals....but wait...what peer reviewed journals snowded wants to know. are they peer reviewed journals that support his (or her..new here) opinion. of course any peer reviewed journal that disagrees with snowded is suspect. if leonard peikopf says she is a philosopher and the ayn rand institute says she is a philosopher, that doesnt mean sh** either. once again i would like to point out that both sides are full of s.......not being objective (no pun intended). you are never going to prove that she is or isnt a philosopher!!! there is no definition of philosopher.......spare me your resources that define phillosopher that support your viewpoint, we've all seen them already. back to bifurcation....either she is a phillosopher or she is not a phillosopher. other options are available. she is a pop phillosopher? bad phillosopher? amateur phillosopher? rouge philosopher? aspired to be a philosopher? rebel philosopher? delusional author that called herself a phillosopher? phillosophical cult leader? idealogue? obnoxius bitch that offended my sensibilities? bad author that exspoused crazy ideas? great author that went a little nutty?Brushcherry (talk) 08:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)brushcherry

While I am sure you enjoyed that stream of consciousness Brushcherry, but it misrepresents the point and is hardly helpful in moving things forward. I am not interested in only finding peer reviewed journals that support my view, but in sorting out this mess. That means that the peer reviewed journals need to be balanced (ie not from all one source, Catholic or "objectivist") and respected within the field of Philosophy. I await a reasoned contribution to that debate, ideally without too many asterisks. --Snowded TALK 08:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

you prove my point. you do not accept peer reviewed journals that are not "balanced" in your opinion, no objectivist peer reviewed journals not catholic peer reviewed journals (not sure where that came from) but ayn rand is not a phillosopher peer reviewed journals are ok? i did in fact enjoy that stream of conciousness.Brushcherry (talk) 09:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)brushcherry

This is getting really tiresome, but respecting WP:bite I will reply. If you read the threat you will see where the Catholic comment came from (I'll give you a hint its in one of Steve's contributions and my reply). We are assessing if she can be called a philosopher or not. I am suggesting that this should be a balance of encyclopedia/dictionaries of Philosophy and journals which are respected in the field. The aim here is to try and find some objective approach. --Snowded TALK 09:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

This is really getting tiresome, "respected in the field"? what's that? who exactly is respected in the field? why are they respected in the field? who is in charge of philosohy in the secret world govt? Brushcherry (talk) 10:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)brushcherry

If you don't understand the various status of different journals in a field then there is little I can do to help you further. You might want to look at the earlier references to wikipedia pages and you will see the issues of authority etc. laid out. It would be a minor investment of your time that would save considerable effort which will otherwise have to be expended by your fellow editors. --Snowded TALK 11:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

poor little me, so uneducated to understand the status of different journals. what is the status of of various journals in the field? please enlighten me. no doubt they agree with your point of view. hmmmm. yes i looked up some random issues of authority and found snowded is correct. ayn rand is a the anti-christ.Brushcherry (talk) 11:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)brrushcherry

Hi Brushcerry -- maybe I can explain this a little bit because it's unfair to assume that everyone here is a professional academic. For serious and/or professional academics (to say nothing of philosophy departments), publishing in the "right" journal matters. Usually, the "right" journal matters for obvious reasons: future job employment, not to mention securing such things as tenure, wage increases, and other job benefits. The more one publishes in the "right" journals, the more likely it will be that recent PhDs will secure "post-docs," and post-docs will secure "assistant professorships" and assistant professors will secure "associate professorships", etc., etc., etc., up the food chain. What are the "right" journals? Usually, the "right" journals are those which are subject to a high degree of independently conducted blind peer-review in which the reviewers don't know the authors and vice versa. The more rigorous the vetting process, the greater the quality of the publication...at least in theory. University publications usually fit the bill. Nowadays, "respected" journals can be measured by way of publicly available citation indexes. The higher the number of citations to a specific journal, the more "respected" the journal is said to be. Now, here's the problem. Wikipedia considers a reliable source to be anything with a high degree of editorial oversight. A glance at the guidelines clearly indicate that "academic" sources matter. HOWEVER, with all due respect to others on this list, they are NOT the only reliable resources. Other reliable sources are acknowledged in the guidelines as independent third-party sources such as newspapers and magazines. Blogs obviously don't count nor do partisan websites and publications pushing an agenda. So, to get back to the issue at hand, what does one do with the serious policy issue of undue weight. How many sources does one need to state an undisputed "fact" as opposed to an "opinion"? 1? 2? 10? 20? Wikipedia policy states clearly that "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints (emphasis added) that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to (emphasis added) the prominence of each." The policy continues by stating quite clearly: "Keep in mind that in determining proper weight we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources (emphasis added), not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors. (emphasis added)" And therein lies the rub. This whole situation is about prevalence in reliable sources -- respected journals, university publications, newspapers, magazines, etc. The whole shoot and match. Some editors here --- for reasons I don't quite understand --- seem to have forgotten what the policy says, only to get caught up in side issues about whether a handful of sources stated XYZ. In all good faith, I believe they were missing the white elephant in the middle of the room. The prevalent view of Rand in reliable sources was to describe her as, first and foremost, a novelist. That is not my opinion, by the way. It's simply the prevalent view among reliable sources. J Readings (talk) 14:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

As always, the devil is in the details. Hypothetically, let's say that someone neutral does such a meta-survey, and finds that 62% of philosophy-concerned RS's mention that she is a philosopher and 38% don't. We round it to a 3:2 ratio, and use a representative sampling of the most reliable ones on each side. Based on this, we insert into the appropriate section of the body of the article: "Sources differ in how they refer to Rand. For example, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Allan Gotthelf in the Wadsworth Philosophers Series, and her New York Times obituary all referred to her as a philosopher, while the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy and the New York Times Arts & Culture section both refer to her, but not as a philosopher." I don't think anyone could argue the verifiability of that, though some might argue its notability.

But it would be erroneous to use this hypothetical meta-survey as a basis for saying this in the lead: "Her supporters' claims that she was a philosopher are widely disputed; almost half of all sources say she's only an author." Going from "they mention her but don't use the word philosopher" to "'they say she's not a philosopher" is false attribution. You can't assert that a source "really meant" something other than what they actually said. arimareiji (talk) 21:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

First, let me state firmly that I am neutral in my editing. To suggest that I'm not is a little insulting, but I'll take it in good faith that you weren't suggesting that I wasn't neutral and we'll leave it at that (not to be raised again, if that's alright with you). Second, one's occupation is easily discernible by way of a qualifier "so-and-so X" or "X, the known so-and-so". It's an easily verifiable way to determine how reliable sources identify a subject -- which ultimately is the question and is consistent with the verifiability policy. Was Ayn Rand known for being a novelist or a philosopher or perhaps something else? For the lead, the identification of one's occupation matters. Third, and perhaps most important to this discussion, no one is suggesting that we place a footnote documenting original research. What I am suggesting is that we take the undue weight policy seriously after reviewing all of the known verifiable reliable sources. I identified the appropriate policy passages above. The rest is up to ArbCom. There isn't any need to use adjectives like "meta" or "false attribution" in this particular discussion. J Readings (talk) 22:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

If the prefix meta- disturbs you, it might be helpful to read the WP entry on it. It's not particularly pejorative, but rather it's descriptive of the level on which debate or analysis occurs.

In my opinion, it is indeed false attribution to insert wording of "she's not a philosopher" (or remove RS-backed assertions of "she is a philosopher," which is the same) based on reading this reasoning into sources who actually 1) omit the word philosopher or 2) provide a listing of philosophers which doesn't include Rand (unless they assert that their listing is comprehensive). I believe this is true whether the sources and reasoning are explicitly attributed or implicitly attributed. If you disagree, you disagree. arimareiji (talk) 23:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear Bureau of Weights and Measures:

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

Sincerely - SmashTheState

This:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Life Section citation issues

A lot of the cites in the Life section are to questionable sources. I think Sciabarra's book, The Russian Radical, discusses most of Rand's life, so we could replace a bunch of the current sources in this section with cites to Sciabarra's book. Does anyone who has the book want to give this a shot? Idag (talk) 00:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

It is best if we wait for the ArbCom to complete before resuming editing. But Sciabarra's book would be good for those. --Steve (talk) 04:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Its an uncontroversial edit, hence no real need to wait (I'm not proposing changing the info, just updating the reference sources). Does anyone here have access to the book? Idag (talk) 04:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes upgrading to a more reliable or more authoritative source can result in a loss for the reader. For example, if the current reference is to an on-line biography of decent quality, it is better to either leave that, or to add Sciabarra so as to have two sources - one of which can be verified with a click of the mouse instead of a visit to a library, and as an instant path for more information if they desire. --Steve (talk) 04:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

An additional source is always better than an alternative source. Indeed, if they agree, then what is wrong with the old source? The more the merrier.Kjaer (talk) 04:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

For those sources that already meet WP:V, that's fine. But there are a number of sources in that section that do not currently meet that criteria, and should therefore be replaced. Idag (talk) 15:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Lay off Edits til Arb is over

Yes, the flow was better with the sentences moved, and even the flagged comments removed by the editor who has recused himself from editting need support.

But editors like myself are holding off on any edits. I even reverted CoM's addition of philosopher out of good faith, not due to my objection. So let's all be grown ups, and waite for the ruling. If you really have to act now, ask for a vote first. Kjaer (talk) 06:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

why do people make edits that they know are going to be removed anyway? its not like everyone is gonna go away for a weekend and for a few days you get to define ayn rand.Brushcherry (talk) 08:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)brushcherry

Just to say that I support Kjaer in this and acknowledge that his reversal was in the spirit of the current state of the Armcom process. (Brushcherry I also formated your comment) --Snowded TALK 08:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

thankyou for formating my comment. Brushcherry (talk) 09:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)brushcherry

My understanding of ArbCom's refusal to full-protect this page was that we could make edits that would not lead to an edit war (hence my uncontroversial edits). If people would prefer to refrain from all edits, then I'll lay off. Idag (talk) 15:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

My specific issue with your edit, Idag, was that while the flow was improved, the second sentence should just be deleted. It is not true that "some" of Rands books are based on experience. Only one is, and it is fiction. Also, she considered herself an opponent of statism, not communism, so that statement is inaccurate/undue weight. But to address that I would have to start editting the entire lead. So I would just prefer we hold off. Like I said, if there is consensus and no objection to a change as controversial here first, I would have no problem. Kjaer (talk) 16:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the second sentence needs to be deleted entirely. I was holding off on deleting anything though. Idag (talk) 17:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

We should begin identifying sections, OR, &c., which harm the ability of this article to attain Good Article status. Two examples would be the misleading insertion of Rothbard (without qualification) as being influenced by Rand (when, if anything, he came away with a greatly negative impression of Rand, so any influence ended up hostile), and the claim that she has an "intellectual kinship" with Locke, which is unsupported and extremely questionable. CABlankenship (talk) 22:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Um, what's the deal, CABlankenship? Do you want me to restore all the people deleted from that list? First, show some adult restraint, and lay off the substantial edits. You know this section is disputed. also, how in good faith are we supposed to sya that Rothbard's being an economist, or influenced by Rand is OR? did you read his article? I suggest you take your own advice, and edit where you can do so helpfully. Kjaer (talk) 22:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't think it was a "substantial" or "disputed" deletion. Rothbard was obviously hostile to Rand, and compared her to communist personality cult leaders. You ask me if I read "the article". I can only assume you mean this one: The Sociology of the Ayn Rand Cult by Murray Rothbard. I also didn't feel that deleting original research was substantial or disputed. I have been unable to verify anything like the claim that she had an "intellectual kinship" with Locke. I personally find that phrasing absurd, as Locke (like Jefferson, Madison, &c.) derived their concept of natural rights only from the presupposition of a "good and just" creator. None of them would have agreed that natural rights could be derived without such a clause. It's misleading and, more importantly, unverifiable. I deleted it because I didn't consider it substantial or disputed. Do you feel that the original research section on Locke, and the claim that Rothbard was influenced by her (which is misleadingly thrown in with people whose reaction to her was positive), are substantial aspects of the article? CABlankenship (talk) 23:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Could the various camps Identify themselves?

who is a rand fan? who is a rand hater? who is tired of rand fans and rand haters? who is in between? don't accuse anyone of being anything. don't cite references to prove your case. i am only asking about you. from 1 to 10. 1 being "ayn rand is an evil b****"..to 10 being "she is right up there with aristotle".Brushcherry (talk) 09:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)brushcherry

This article has enough issues with WP:AGF already without attempting to formally divide ourselves into "factions". Read the comments of the various editors, I'm sure you can sort it out for yourself. TallNapoleon (talk) 09:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

well there are 17 archives, and a very very very long argument about the same topics. I am not attempting to formally divide you into "factions". you are already divided into factions. i just want to know where everyone stands.Brushcherry (talk) 09:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)brushcherry

Can I strongly recommend that as a new editor you spend some time reading the various wikipedia help pages which have lots of relevant material that will help you understand just how inappropriate that request is, and might also help you with some of your other edits. WP:CITE and WP:AGF would be a good starting point. --Snowded TALK 10:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Can I strongly recommend that you, as an old editor, do the the same. Assume good faith. This article is a train wreck. Do you deny that? There is clearly two camps having an edit-war. Show yourselves and let arbcom decide.Brushcherry (talk) 10:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)brushcherry

No --Snowded TALK 11:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

yesBrushcherry (talk) 11:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)brushcherry

four edits, three via an IP just to say "yes"? Impressive dedication to the cause. --Snowded TALK 11:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

so sue me. you should all all ignore brushcherry because he did four edits, three via an IP just to say "yes"Brushcherry (talk) 11:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)brushcherry

(undent) I don't think it can be broken down that simply, Brushcherry. For example, as I just said a little earlier, "I don't particularly like Ayn Rand or her conclusions. I don't much know her from Adam's housecat; the little I know about her, I don't find impressive. But I find no common cause with those who would turn her Wikipedia page into an attack page, or with those who would strip her of her accomplishments (such as they are) without any RS basis." If I were to score myself under your system, I would probably fall between 3 and 4 - but to the 1's and 2's around here, I probably look like an 8. arimareiji (talk) 12:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

BrushCherry, this has never been about pro or anti Rand camps. It is about editing according to bias, or not. It is easily possible for someone with a dislike for Rand or for her ideas to still do neutral and quality editing. And it is also easily possible for someone who likes Rand and who agrees with most of her ideas to still do neutral and quality editing. The ArbCom revolves around a couple of points, but the only really important one is a claim that some editors are consistently not choosing to be neutral in how they edit. As to having people declare themselves, well, I hope that you can see that doesn't make any sense given that what needs to be identified are those who say they are being neutral, but really aren't. That is why there is an ArbCom. Beyond that, you are on your own trying to figure stuff out. --Steve (talk) 23:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I want to apoligize if my posts come off as tirades. "those who say they are neutral, but really aren't" that's my point. you (the false neutral editor..not steve) can quote all the wikipedia policies you want, it is clear to everyone else that either are anti-rand or pro-rand. so why don't you just go away a quit being a pest. who are the people who constently add/remove stuff? Brushcherry (talk) 11:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC) brushcherry

Openness in communication, rather than doublespeak, is a good thing. It allows us to directly talk to each other. The longer you can stay that way rather than becoming jaded, the better - but unfortunately, in the Wikipedia world it can be a vulnerability.

I think you might find this essay to be amusing; it shows that you're not the only one who feels these frustrations. arimareiji (talk) 15:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I am a huge fan of both Ludwig van Beethoven and Pedro Almodovar. Kjaer (talk) 23:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I am quite fond of deviled ham and "The Godfather"Brushcherry (talk) 11:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)brushcherry

Bruschcherry seems to be the one sane voice standing against the fools here. (I'm in the Brushcherry camp) i give her a 3.5. I am also one of the people who adds and removes stuff. why not? it's no more pointless than adding stuff to the talk page. Stevewunder (talk) 03:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

woo hoo.i got someone in my camp. wait....i dont have a camp. adding/removing stuff from the main article affects millions of users of wikipedia. the talk page just affects people with nothing better to do do than edit talk pages. (that is, all of us reading this)Brushcherry (talk) 07:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC) brushcherry

Randites and P@pists, no doubt

While I am unaware of any registered users here sympathetic to Rand calling the Jews or Catholics here names, we have quite a history of people using the word cultist to refer to editors here as well as other derogatory terms. So, under the assumption that everyone wants to keep the dialog out of the gutter, just as we do not use slurs against Catholics and Jews and others, please do not make up derogatory names to describe us Objectivists. Other terms are a violation of WP:CIVIL.

I am curious, are you saying that "Randites" is a form of abuse (your second citation)? Objectivism has other meanings in Philosophy and I for one am really not prepared to allow its use as an exclusive label for people who follow Rand. Have you other suggestions? Now if you want to talk about cults in the Catholic Church then that is fine by me (there are several) and the word is used in respect of Rand in various sources including this. Are there collective names other than "Objectivism" which you are happy to accept. --Snowded TALK 17:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I have also stopped using the term "Objectivists" for the group. I usually refer to her followers as "Randians". It's not a slur, anymore than calling evolutionary biologists "Darwinists" (even though many evolutionary biologists dislike the term) is a slur. There is no reason to be overly-sensitive. I do find the comparison of Randism to other religious groups to be appropriate, however, and your point is well-taken. Not that I believe that faith-based groups deserve undue respect, nor do I believe that it's objectionable to call Randism a cult (numerous respected academic sources have been cited for this opinion), rather, I believe that referring to editors here as cultists is unhelpful to progress. However, if someone says that Randism is a cult, backs it up with solid sources, and her followers become angry, that's very difficult to avoid. We cannot ignore relevant and verifiable facts (such as the fact that many respectable academics consider Randism a cult) simply because those facts might offend a small group of people. If I'm wrong on this score, point me towards the wiki guideline that such facts violate. CABlankenship (talk) 17:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, I was always rather fond of "Papist". That kind of slur has character :D TallNapoleon (talk) 19:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

True, now Fenian B****** or Filthy Taig is an insult, Papist has never worried me. --Snowded TALK 19:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

All of this dancing back and forth on what to call each other, with the names intended to be derogatory, while somehow staying inside of WP, but clearly violating its spirit, misses the whole point. Everyone has a POV - unless they are brain dead or in a coma. But to get a good article requires editing that is not attempting to circumvent WP for the purpose of sneaking in or slanting the article towards a particular POV. --Steve (talk) 19:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Uh, nobody suggested that we change "Objectivism" to "Randism" in the article, or anything like that. You'll need to identify actual evidence that people are editing for a POV, not merely make the accusation. For me, I think misleading assertions (Rothbard thrown in with admirers in the influence section, disingenuous original research on Locke), and resistance towards the removal of such content, is an example of "sneaking in or slanting the article towards a particular POV", namely, trying to fabricate a relationship between Randism, Empiricism, and anarcho-capitalism which simply doesn't exist. CABlankenship (talk) 20:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it's an interesting problem: are users obligated to refer to the followers of Ayn Rand as "Objectivists" on this talk page? Is there any clear evidence that "Randian" is generally a derogatory term? I ask because Snowded makes a valid point that "objectivism" has multiple distinct meanings in philosophy, comparative religion and sociology. A quick glance at JSTOR, a scholarly database, confirms the existence of close to 4,000 peer-reviewed articles on the subject -- none of them mentioning Ayn Rand or her movement as the subject of the term. I'm just wondering what the proper etiquette should be in these types of situations. J Readings (talk) 20:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

You might like to go over to Schools of Philosophy and make the point there! This issue is where much of the current debate started with the attempt to rename Objectivism (Ayn Rand) as Objectivism. --Snowded TALK 21:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I might visit that page, but I haven't read enough of these articles to state anything definitive. I will say that I just read an interesting paper entitled "Professor Hayek's Philosophy" published in Economica, New Series, Vol. 12, No. 47 (Aug. 1945), pp. 149-162. It was a publication of Blackwell Publishing. Its author A. H. Murray discusses the school of economic thought known as objectivism that Hayek supposedly critiqued. Ayn Rand is never mentioned in the paper and, considering that Rand published The Fountainhead in 1943, I thought he might be referring to her. But no. Her work is never mentioned once. There are many, many papers like this discussing a school of thought known as "objectivism" without Rand ever being mentioned. J Readings (talk) 23:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

CABlankenship, I didn't think of the sections labeled "Influence" as being only "admirers." I see Rothbard as having been influenced during his time with Rand (and he mentioned as much), as were all of those individuals who spent some time as part of the inner circle. Rothbard learned from her, then they disagree and break, they repudiate one another, they express different positions in some areas, and some of what Rothbard says after that is the kind of material that would go into a "Criticism" section. I'm not trying to eliminate that. Rand clearly was not a part of the Anarcho-Capitalist movement and I'm astounded to think that you believe I'm trying to slant the article that direction. I'm not familiar with what you are referring to regarding Locke. And I'm not intending to smuggle any POV or to fabricate any relationship that doesn't exist. You on the other hand were quite clear in your statement that you were far too biased to ever do any neutral editing on this article. --Steve (talk) 21:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Matthew 7:15 again Steve, deal with the facts not the editor and heed your own advice earlier in this thread --Snowded TALK 21:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I changed my mind about being too biased to contribute to the article. I took a break and found that my contempt for Rand was replaced with mild amusement. CABlankenship (talk) 22:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Snowded, take another look. Nothing in my post is other than a reference to a fact. Your short little post, on the other hand, is just an implied statement that I did not stick with facts and am attacking an editor. Don't believe me? Find one fact in your little post. --Steve (talk) 22:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

⬅ "far too biased to ever do any neutral editing on this article" for starters Steve. you and Kjaer are very quick to tell other people not to edit, or to accuse anyone who disagrees with you of bias. Hence my biblical reference. --Snowded TALK 22:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

You're correct that "far too biased" is his characterization and hence opinion of CAB's post, rather than a fact per se. Saying someone is "biased" is indeed an opinion.

However, it is a verifiable fact to note that immediately after being asked to stop calling his opponents "Randites" for civility's sake, CABlankenship immediately 1) referred to "Randism" four times, 2) called it a putative "cult" thrice, 3) and alluded to "followers" and "cultists" who 4) coincidentally happen to "become angry" at being called a cult.

Just my personal opinion, but repeatedly skirting the edge of WP:CIVIL in such a fashion is hardly wise while under the scrutiny of ArbCom. At some point, they'll conclude that they have a duck on their hands.arimareiji (talk) 23:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

When I said, "...far too biased to edit..." I was quoting CABlankenship and he was talking about himself, he made that comment on DDStretch's talk page. That wasn't me giving my opinion, I was stating a fact, that he himself had said he was too biased to do neutral editing here. --Steve (talk) 03:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Not a matter for discussion

This is not a joke or a matter for discussion. I am Jewish by descent and have been confirmed in the Catholic faith. All forms of name calling must cease, and debating whether on can call people a name is just as offensive as the act itself. Kjaer (talk) 22:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Warning, Stop Name Calling

Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

This is not a matter for debate.

The terms Randist, Randite, Randroid, cult, cultist and so forth are simply uncivil name calling, and are considered personal attacks. No matter what anyone thinks, people who identify themselves as Objectivists or Rand supporters should be referred to respectfully by their own self identification, and not some alteration of Rand's name. Any further comment will be reported to administration.

You are not in a position to be threatening blocks, nor are you in a position to be claiming that things "are not a matter for debate". If terms like Randite offend you, then you should say so first without threatening blocks. There are sources specifically referring to Objectivism as a cult, and those sources need to be discussed. If that offends you, with all due respect that's your problem. TallNapoleon (talk) 23:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I thought he had only placed that on my talk page, not issued it as a threat it to the world! The idea that we should have a wikipedia policy that any group of editors should be respectfully referred to by their own self-identification raises some interesting possibilities. I am thinking of setting up a group to be called "Purveyors of truth and enlightenment" and placing warnings on the pages of any editor who dares to use any other form of words. --Snowded TALK 23:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Courtesy and AGW demand that we refer to people respectfully. When people have expressed a clear preference, we should refer to them by their self-chosen name, not by names that are known to be insulting or typically used in derogatory contexts. Else we are substituting OR for identification, among other faults. Gyrae (talk) 23:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Very open to their suggesting a name, but a part of this whole debate is the use of the term "objectivist". If we just take philosophers (with no implication here), then people talk about Hegelians so we could have Randians if people find Randists offensive (although I can't see why). --Snowded TALK 23:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Randism even has a wiki link. I'm not sure how reasonable it is to be offended over something so trivial. No, I will continue using this well-known and common phrasing instead of "Objectivism", a term which covers much more philosophy than just that of Ayn Rand. It is not "substituting OR for identification"; it's a common phrase. Nor will I stop using this term simply because Kjaer demands it and threatens me with a ban. He actually posted a message on my talk page saying "you will be blocked" if I continue using the term "Randism". I find such threats unimpressive, petty, and strange. CABlankenship (talk) 23:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

If it is all the same to those of you involved in editing this article I'd prefer to be referred to as "Steve" or as an editor. I'd prefer not to be lumped in with any other group. I might refer to myself as belonging to the "pro-Rand" faction in this recent period of edit warring, but I believe in neutral articles and am only "pro-Rand" in the sense that I oppose attempts to impose an anti-Rand bias on the article - not in the sense that I feel any urge to write "fan" material. Those who insist on labels where they are not needed and not wanted, particularly derogatory ones like "cult member" are not helping, and are not within Wikipedia policy. The fact that there ARE cult like followers of Rand is no different than the fact that there are cult like followers of Catholocism or anarchy or Marx or... But accusing another editor of being one of those would go outside of the bounds of civility. Is it too much to ask that we not call each other names? --Steve (talk) 01:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

There's really no reason to have this debate on the article's talk page when there's plenty of uncontroversial edits that we could be discussing (e.g. putting in Rand's views of Plato and updating the references). See WP:Talk and WP:Soap. Idag (talk) 01:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

But I wasn't speaking to you or about you Steve, as reading the context clearly shows. I was talking about "Randism". If you chose to identify yourself with this term, that's your business. I didn't specify you or any other editor on this board in any way. Kjaer simply decided he was offended by the term, and started making threats. I will also not insert the name "Steve" in place of the word "Randism", and I don't think this suggestion would help in any way. For instance, take this sentence from my original post (replacing "Randism" with "Steve" as per your request): "I have also stopped using the term 'Objectivists' for the group. I usually refer to her followers as 'Steve'...nor do I believe that it's objectionable to call Steve a cult...We cannot ignore relevant and verifiable facts (such as the fact that many respectable academics consider Steve a cult) simply because those facts might offend a small group of people...nobody suggested that we change 'Objectivism' to 'Steve' in the article...trying to fabricate a relationship between Steve, Empiricism, and anarcho-capitalism which simply doesn't exist" Obviously, this simply will not work in context of my statements, and underscores the fact that I was clearly not speaking of any specific editors here in any way. CABlankenship (talk) 02:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Playing cute word games doesn't obscure the fact that if Steve has self-identified as an "Objectivist" and asks that you stop calling his group "Randites," immediately making a point of repeatedly using a close relative of that term is uncivil. Your "I wasn't speaking to you... I was talking about 'Randism'" reminds me of the rather silly phrasing children sometimes use: "I'm not naming any names... but someone whose name starts with a 'C' is blahblahblah." And again, just my personal opinion, but openly dancing around the edge of WP:CIVIL while this article is being observed by ArbCom seems like a pretty bad idea. arimareiji (talk) 07:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with you that innocuous terms like "Randism" are "dancing around the edge of WP:CIVIL. I think it's strangely unreasonable, in fact. I have never used the term "Randite", so I will ignore that comment. CABlankenship (talk) 23:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Arimareiji is correct - these are word games at best and often just naked attacks. Here is an example of Snowded calling me a cult member[38] - I have not self-identified as anything but a Wikipedia editor and I'm getting really tired of being accused of being a liar, dishonest, and a cult member. This is inexcusable behavior. --Steve (talk) 08:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see your name in the diff Steve, I was making a general comment about abusive behaviour being a characteristic of cults defending their views to another editor. Moving on (I think) to "self-identification"; as far as I can see the term Randists or similar has been used to describe the approach associated with Ayn Rand not individual editors. I do think there is a real issue here (signified by your and similar comments) of personal identification. It does seem that criticisms of Rand are taken personally by some editors, a behaviour which is problematic. --Snowded TALK 08:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

It was my comment, made to you, about an Aristotle scholar who recommended that other scholars take a look at Rand's work that you were referencing. So, yes, I was the one who you were referring to as cultist. Using a word like that is offensive and a direct violation of WPA:NPA and even debating it is unacceptible. --Steve (talk) 03:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Steve, I'm sorry if you consider the term Randism for Objectivism to be a "naked attack". I don't mean it to be insulting or an attack. Nor did I ever refer to you by any such terms. I will not stop using the term "Randism", so just be aware that I don't mean this term as an attack against you (or anyone else). CABlankenship (talk) 05:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

CABlankenship, I didn't have to look far to find these quotes of yours on this talk page: "It's clear that Rand has many cultists (sorry), just like Hubbard. They will of course rabidly object to any unflattering information about her." So, anyone objecting to your edits or comments (which somehow always seem to be of the 'unflattering' sort) makes the objecting editor into a rabid cultist. And, "I usually refer to her followers as 'Randians'." And, "There is no reason to be overly-sensitive," which shows a lack of concern for making any positive contributions towards a good working relationship with fellow editors. Again, do not use these offensive terms in context with with Wikipedia editors. It violates WP on civility and personal attacks. --Steve (talk) 08:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

You are identifying yourself with those comments. I clearly did not point any of those terms or comments at you. I still fail to understand why on earth the use of the term "Randism" is an insult or personal attack against you or other editors. You are choosing to identify yourself with this term (I didn't identify you with the term), and I cannot help this. What if creationists decided that they wanted to be called "scientific rationalist empiricists" and declared that any mention of the word "creationism" was "personal attack"? Would we, then, have to call all creationists "scientific rationalist empiricists", else be guilty of a "naked attack"? "Randism" is an innocuous term. You're being unreasonable by calling it offensive and a personal attack. It is, as I said, "overly sensitive". You have also failed to explain why referring to Rand's personal philosophy as "Randism" is incorrect or offensive. You just assert that it offends you, and so it should not be used. I agree with you that I have indulged in too much discussion on Rand, and her followers. But I don't agree with you that the term "Randism" constitutes a personal attack on editors. In fact, this is ridiculous to me. I will not be bullied into using whatever terminology you demand simply on the basis that you dislike certain terms. I believe that this shows your "lack of concern" in forming a "good working relationship" with me. CABlankenship (talk) 09:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Its a smokescreen I think. Seizing on anything to try and present people opposed to them (Kjaer, Steve, Jazz) as lacking good faith etc. Given the general tenor of their own contributions it looks like a tactical effort to try and achieve a "both sides are as bad as each other" type ruling and/or simply muddy the water by attacking the motivation and behaviour of others while feeling entitled to say anything, or make an assumptions themselves. The behaviour is in accordance with the ideological position they maintain so we shouldn't really be surprised. I know that I have never referred to Steve as anything other than Steve when addressing his comments. I have used (and will continue to use) "Randism" as the name for this particular group. While I think it is a cult, and the behaviour of its followers cult like, I do not think it would be balanced to have that reference in the lede or to allow it to dominate the article. There needs to be a cited reference to the "cult" label and its use but that is it. If Steve or anyone else wants to self-identify with that its their problem. --Snowded TALK 09:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

This is the right section to speak of another individual, SmashTheState, who closely mirrors the position on Rand taken by Snowded, Idag, TallNapoleon, and CABlankenship. This is a quote from the bottom of his User page: "Wikipedia is at best a useless collection of random trivia, and at worst an active exercise in State and corporate propaganda for the personal profit and aggrandizement of the King Nerd and his sycophantic cult of Randroid hangers-on." No one with that attitude is likely to contribute to a neutral encyclopedia article. --Steve (talk) 21:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SmashTheState"

comment deleted Kjaer (talk) 03:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

StS, see WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF and WP:SOAP. TallNapoleon (talk) 07:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Steve, do you honestly

Vandalism

A new editor has repeatedly vandalised the article: 12. I have warned him on his talk page. Kjaer (talk) 03:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Invisible Vandalism

Well, saw some vandalism, decided to help pretty the name of Anonymous Editor. Unfortunatly, I can't find the actaul vandalism in the page source. It's not there. Could someone else take care of it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.41.145.24 (talk) 04:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

click on the numbers [1] and [2] above under the other Vandalism head to see the vandalism in the history. It has been deleted from the live article, and the user has been warned. Kjaer (talk) 04:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The changes i just made make the article better. If you disagree, please explain why. Stevewunder (talk) 09:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

There are some very obvious, simple changes that could be made to the article that would improve it immediately. Mainly, get rid of the negative tone in the lead. I have attempted to do this and place the criticism under criticism, but of course that has been viewed as vandalism. you can't say i haven't discussed this matter here and that others haven't agreed with it -- but the stupid philosophy debate is holding everything else up.

Since we have all proved ourselves incapable of holding a mature discussion here, the best thing we can do is for ALL of the current editors to abandon the article and hope that the next group that comes along will prove more mature. I count myself in the current immature group, but i am no worse than the rest of it. Stevewunder (talk) 10:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

A warning to all parties. The purpose for this page is discussion of the article.

Warnings are not a subject for discussion. Please read WP:NPA. Offensive terms are unacceptible, as is debate. Do not comment further. Further comments can be a violation of WP:NPA and off point discussions are abuse of the talk page. Please limit your discussion to improvement of the article. Kjaer (talk) 00:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

This is The Ayn Rand Talk Page

Thank you for your comments on how to improve the article. Kjaer (talk) 03:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

LOL. JBsupreme (talk) 08:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia already states Rand was a philosopher

There are articles specifically on Rand's Objectivism and "Criticisms of Objectivism" which are accepted as notable on Wikipedia and in both articles it's referred to specifically as a philosophy. It's ludicrous to assert the individual who created a philosophy isn't a philosopher. If both Objectivism and even criticisms of Objectivism are regarded as notable, then obviously Rand was notable as a philosopher.TheJazzFan (talk) 12:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

It is in fact perfectly possible for a novelist to give rise to a philosophy without being a philosopher. However I think you are missing the point. This issue is not a simple either/or its a more complex question of weight and other factors all of which have been elaborated above. The determination of policy in that respect will determine the way forward. Pending that determination I don't really see that much progress can be made. At the moment there are three options are (i) she is a philosopher, possibly qualified to reflect the general lack of recognition (ii) Her profession is novelist/screen writer but she gave rise to a philosophy called objectivism (iii) she is recognised as a philosopher within a certain geography. There may be others, but all of these depends on policy decisions or interpretation that are I think (given this history) beyond the ability of the active editors on these pages to agree. --Snowded TALK 12:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

You're engaging in sloppy use of language and ignoring facts so that might impede progress. She didn't "give rise" to a philosophy - weasel-wording to frame it as something she well, might have had *some* influence on. She named it and explicitly defined it, spent most of her adult life writing and speaking about it. Her novels were only part of the picture. There's no amount of "weight" that will alter this fact. It's ludicrous nonsense to suggest that someone who creates and dedicates their life to a philosophy isn't a philosopher. No matter how much you or others parse the language and dance around, however much of your life you dedicate to campaigning to keep it out of this article based on ridiculous, specious reasoning as if your efforts actually mean something, stamp your feet and hold your breath and refuse to accept it, engage in various mental gymnastics to try & bifurcate logic and fact, she was a philosopher. TheJazzFan (talk) 00:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Probably one of the best illustrations of why there are problems with this article JazzFan. One could equally say that its "ludicrous" for someone to be called a philosopher when the vast majority of academic work in the field simply ignores her. However as I had said several times the issue is a policy one. If the policy is that a few notable citations count then I'll accept that ruling. You keep missing that, not sure why, although you would be limited in your use if hyperbole if you engaged with it so that may be the motivation. --Snowded TALK 08:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

What's "one of the best illustrations of why there are problems with this article", that your reasoning is specious and will eternally shape-shift with no anchored consistency save that you simply don't like Ayn Rand's ideas despite having demonstrated no real comprehension of them? The fundamental dishonesty of your methodology continues. If it were true that you'd accept notable citations, the discussion would have been over long ago. However, acceptance or non-acceptance by the "academic world" has no bearing on whether one is a philosopher. That entire question is a red herring that you and others latch onto. I'm engaging in no hyperbole, I'm reflecting what you and others have demonstrating. The "problem" with the article is that the environment doesn't foster a genuinely neutral article. TheJazzFan (talk) 12:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

To answer your question, your previous comment. You are fully entitled to the opinion that acceptance or otherwise by the academic world has no relevance. I am entitled to think otherwise. Just calm down and wait for Arbcom, its obvious a consensus is not possible but you might try to respect another points of view and stop using words like "dishonesty" and the like. I was being polite using "hyperbole". --Snowded TALK 12:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

You're entitled to harbor the notion that the Hoover Dam was built by magic flying monkeys and that someday you'll have a bigamous marriage with several supermodels. And in exactly the same manner the difference between my position and yours is your position is unsupported by reality. TheJazzFan (talk) 01:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

There are also a few useful essays that respond to the types of arguments raised by TheJazzFan. Rather than rehashing them, I'll just provide the links. I offer no opinion on these essays other than to state that they exist:

Wikipedia:Other stuff exists, WP:INN, and WP:SEWAGE. No doubt, everyone here (if they haven't already) should read and think about them. No one is discussing deletion of any articles here, but rather an extension of the same logical fallacy -- "I found a word (e.g., philosopher) used to refer to someone on another Wikipedia page, therefore it should also be on this page." The response is: "Perhaps it shouldn't be on that page, either." What matters is the adherence to *all* Wikipedia policies based on the preponderance of verifiable evidence from reliable sources. J Readings (talk) 12:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

LOL! (Looking around sneaky like) Psst! Don't tell anyone, but when I made this section, I was being facetious. I figured folks would find some reason to naysay. But the irony of those sections you referenced is that they're essentially saying "the Wikipedia environment is such a ridiculously inconsistent mess that just because something passed muster as "notable", it doesn't really mean a thing. But hey it gives some folks a chance to spend lots of time participating in all sorts of pseudo-academic exercises, take on nifty, important sounding titles and the like. But don't actually take any of it as reliable or meaningful." TheJazzFan (talk) 04:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

preponderance of verifiable evidence from reliable sources And it would be a simple matter to create a genuinely neutral article that simply summarizes the facts of her life and works. All relatively straightforward to document. But as long as there are those who insist that somehow "neutrality" means the exact opposite of what it means and introduce the element of taking positions on the subject, then you get exactly the results as seen here.TheJazzFan (talk) 12:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

May I ask you to clarify your statement? I think it's important that you state as clearly as possible what you mean, so we are all operating on the same page. When you write "it would be a simple matter to create a genuinely neutral article that simply summarizes the facts of her life and works," are you suggesting that you believe the "criticism" section or -- criticisms of her life and work (even if verifiable) -- should be removed from the article or something else in particular? It's unclear to me what you're trying to say. Thanks, J Readings (talk) 13:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Read my statement on the main Arbcom page. I spell it out there.TheJazzFan (talk) 17:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

What other novelist created a systematic philosophy? Stevewunder (talk) 00:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

L Ron Hubbard? Oh wait, that's a religion. arimareiji (talk) 01:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I lolled. In all seriousness though, in terms of truly systematic philosophies, I can't think of any--but then I'm not a philosopher. However I can think of philosophers who used novel and fiction to promote their ideas. Plato's dialogues are a fairly primitive form of this. Other notable examples would include Voltaire and many Existentialists. Going with a looser definition of philosopher, one could add CS Lewis to the list. I believe Nietzsche also wrote fiction, but I'm not sure. TallNapoleon (talk) 03:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Nathaniel Branden, Rand's former top disciple, called Randism a "dogmatic religion". http://www.nathanielbranden.com/catalog/articles_essays/benefits_and_hazards.html CABlankenship (talk) 04:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The paragraph where Branden uses the phrase, "dogmatic religion," starts with this sentence: "Ayn always insisted that her philosopy was an integrated whole, that it was entirely self-consistent, and that one could not reasonably pick elements of her philosophy and discard others." He went on from there to interpret her position as equivalent to being a dogmatic religion. That interpretation doesn't hold.

• 1) we all see our knowledge as correct until such time as we discover an error. Every philosopher puts forth their most basic positions as correct.
• 2) Rand saw knowledge as hierarchical, that some concepts build upon and depend upon others. She said, for example, that Capitalism depends upon rational egoism. Her argument with some of the Libertarians was for taking Capitalism but not accepting rational egoism.
• 3) Rand always insisted on reason and logic and never on faith. She was explicit and adamant in disavowing faith. She never said anything like "It is true because I said it is true."
• Those three points demonstrate that Branden is wrong to use the phrase "dogmatic religion" in reference to Rand, but not necessarily with some followers. But those individuals will find no support in her writings or anything she said to support the dogmatic aspect of their belief. The real criticism here is of Rand's personality, style of presentation and not of the philosophy.

Branden speaks highly of Rand and her philosophy in the same article: "Here was a philosopher who taught that the highest virtue is thinking; and she was commonly denounced as a materialist. Here was a philosopher who taught the supremacy and inviolability of individual rights; and she was accused of advocating a dog-eat-dog world. Here was the most passionate champion in the Twentieth century of the rights of the individual against the state; and her statist opponents smeared her as being a fascist."

"Now what are some of the values that Ayn Rand offers, as a philosopher, to the many people who have been moved by her work? To begin with, she offered a comprehensive and intelligible view of the universe, a frame of reference by means of which we can understand the world. She was a philosophical system builder who offered a systematic vision of what life on this planet is essentially about and a vision of human nature and human relationships. And the point right now is not whether she was right or wrong in all respects of that vision, but that she had a vision, a highly developed one, one that seemed to promise comprehensiveness, intelligibility, and clarity; one that promised answers to a lot of burningly important questions about life. And human beings long for that. We humans have a need to feel we understand the world in which we live. We have a need to make sense out of our experience. We have a need for some intelligible portrait of who we are as human beings and what our lives are or should be about. In short, we have a need for a philosophical vision of reality." --Steve (talk) 08:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm guessing that Steve's foray into personal opinion and discussion of Randism will not provoke a warning from Kjaer. Just a hunch. Here is another article I came across from Rand scholar Roderick T. Long: http://praxeology.net/unblog09-02.htm#02 Quote: "Like many admirers of Ayn Rand's work, I've often found it baffling that so many of those who are attracted to her message of reason, independence, and heroic individualism turn out to exhibit such a timid and cultic conformity when it comes to thinking outside the strictures that Rand herself laid down." This could be a good source for one of the articles about Rand or Randism. CABlankenship (talk) 12:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Even if this were correct, it has no bearing on the validity of what she had to say. A topic like this would be suitable for a discussion forum, has no place in an encyclopedia. Once again, failing any ability to intelligently refute what she said, you resort to fallacious carping. Still waiting to hear you expound on the conceptual differences between Russian and Western philosophy.TheJazzFan (talk) 01:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Editing proposals

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

Transposition of "opponent of communism" by Peter Damian

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

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

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

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

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

alternative wording

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Consensus

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

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

Reword of political philosophy to match source by Lo que pasa

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

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

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

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

In addition to the sourced content already in the article about her personal experiences with COmmunism, her first book We the Living ("We the Living is so anti-Communist that it makes Doctor Zhivago look like The Communist Manifesto." and "On paper, the novel's anti-Communist theme was acceptable to the state, which controlled film production. But the film follows the book rather faithfully, and to Rand Communism was less a specific political movement than a free-floating governmental fog that suffocated the individual." [41], her testimony against communists in Hollywood, here's another source; "American intellectuals of the 1930s did not share Rand’s distaste for communism" [42]. The introduction is meant to be a summary giving a clear description of the article contents and maing points about the subject. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

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

---

Paragraph 4 of Lead

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let's have formal votes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1) arbcom is taking forever

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MiszaBot parameters

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's been well over a day, and three people have said this should be done by now to one who's said a few days. I'm making the edit to MiszaBot's parameters. If a second editor (other than the one who already said a few days) who supported archiving objects, then that means we no longer have consensus. If you supported archiving but think it's necessary to wait longer, please revert and come back here to discuss. arimareiji (talk) 02:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The DEC 31 Consensus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And finally, Damien adds this POV piece de resistance:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rand in Popular Culture?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

First Successful Novel?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Everything but Philosopher, then?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reflist

Please Do Not Add Material Below This Section

Kjaer,snowded,tallnapolean,idag

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FYI.

On Ayn Rand

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

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

Fountainhead making Rand famous

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

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

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

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

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