Talk:Ayn Rand

Pretty long article for an unimportant author--huge talk page

Objectivism? Objectivism Movement? Epistemoligical views? Ethics? social and political view? war? economics? charity? gender and sex? homosexuality? gender &sex? huac testimony? philosophic criticism? if she is not a philosopher why include her unworthy philosophical views on things?

Does robert ludlum or judy blume include all this? what is james joyces view on native americans? tom clancy's epistemolgy?Brushcherry (talk) 08:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)brushcherry

Clancy's An Introduction to Neoconservative Epistemology is stuck in the proofreading stages, while Joyce's dalliances among the Native Americans were too risque for Irish publishers and the manuscripts are closely guarded by his estate. Thanks for asking though. Skomorokh 08:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't be Flippant...TallNapoleon is watchingBrushcherry (talk) 08:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)brushcherry

She might be unimportant for you, but not for many. If you want a small section why don't you skip the sections or even the whole article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.197.116.16 (talk) 18:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

i apologize. i was being flippant, and sarcastic,....my point was to say that the very fact that ayn rand has such a long and contentious wikipedia page is proof of her importance, for better or worse.Brushcherry (talk) 10:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)brushcherry

Yevgeny Zamyatin

I added a passing mention of Yevgeny Zamyatin and his book We to the article. I sourced it from the Rand journal. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

While its a useful addition it needs modification. Firstly the source specifically states that the link is SPECULATION so it can't be stated as fact. Also you have have simply cut and pasted the first paragraph of the article which is unnecessary in a reference, or if it is then it should be in quotes. --Snowded (talk) 07:03, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Getting comical

Plato a communist mystic! What was this about? its getting worse "anti-mind materialist Marxist-Leninist detractors", starting to read like a student political leaflet--Snowded (talk) 21:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Such language is totally unacceptable and should be removed. TallNapoleon (talk) 22:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's hilarious, but sort of true. The Republic is quite similar in structure to totalitarian communist states, and Plato was certainly somewhat of a "mystic". Still, pretty inappropriate language. CABlankenship (talk) 23:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Brushcherry (talk) 09:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

How can we move past the Philosopher debate?

any ideas? just asking. don't like my idea of a "ayn rand status as a philosopher" section, with both sides limited to a paragraph or two? what is your idea? we can't have the main page be a re-hash of the ayn rand talk page. i was a little disappointed all i got was feedback from banned editors. (yes i know you are banned from editing the "ayn rand" page not from the talk page).Brushcherry (talk) 09:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)brushcherry

You know I just don't think I am going to put myself through working on this article, I don't see this arrangement as a working arrangement. Why try to gain consensus from banned editors? Why should anyone put themselves through such an experience. I added in a link to an article I created one that is sourced and it was instantly called into question. I was then told that my contributions would get a "push back" by another banned editor on the talkpage here before I had even begun. This is about politics and not establishing a environment that fosters contribution. The article is lacking allot and I have sources that I could reflect into the article to give sourced dates and times for Rand's time in Russia and for the influence on her of the Russian Silver Age but I just don't have the time to fight about it. I think other editors would also rather not be bothered so they won't even reply to you. I stand up for myself and get told I can be banned. Just not worth the hassle. Note also how little the article has about Rand's time with Paterson and her time as a journalist. But sobeit. I could add allot but it's just not worth it.

LoveMonkey (talk) 13:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

i'm trying gain consensus from non-banned editors. but you are one of the few ones here, help me out here pal. tallnapoleon, snowded, and Idag are banned from editing the article but not the talk page. stevewunder, should not be here.Brushcherry (talk) 09:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)brushcherry

[Comments from User:Stevewunder removed per topic ban by Skomorokh 07:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)]

Banned editors have a place already Talk:Ayn Rand/SandboxBrushcherry (talk) 09:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)brushcherry

Pat Boone Anthem reference

This really, really seems like trivia to me... does anyone else agree? TallNapoleon (talk) 20:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Moved to the Anthem article. Skomorokh 22:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

glad tallnapaleon and skomorokh agree, guess there is no need for consensus.Brushcherry (talk) 09:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)brushcherry

Ignored by academia

How should this be phrased? This was recently changed from "largely ignored by academia" to "ignored by some in academia" (paraphrasing). How should this be phrased? TallNapoleon (talk) 06:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

It shouldn't be in the article at all; all the cited ref says is that one philosopher considers Rand an "amateur philosopher". Not even a proper reference at that. Skomorokh 07:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

But now we get to the core of the philosopher issue and others, the question of negative evidence. With the odd exception no one even mentions her. The reference isn't brilliant, but there are a lot worse in this article. I agree it should be removed as is, but the issue can't be ignored and needs a sensible and structured discussion --Snowded (talk) 07:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Now that we get to the core of the philosopher issue...how do we deal with it? piecemeal? "largely ignored by academia" vs "ignored by some in academia"? deal with the core of the philosopher issue.Brushcherry (talk) 08:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)brushcherry

We take it to the Reliable Sources noticeboard instead of continuing to bash our heads against this wall ourselves. TallNapoleon (talk) 08:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that makes sense, but we probably need to get to a statement of fact and issues to present first, its mostly there but submerged. Its not the only issue in effect we have three (i) should she be called a philosopher (ii) how to treat 'ignored' in criticism and (iii) the sources for philosophical claims. They are not all the same issue. --Snowded (talk) 08:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Was Arbcom not enough for you? The reliable sources board is not going to decide if ayn rand is a philosopher. neither will (or have) the multiple conflict resolution forums. make a "ayn rand is not a philosopher" page...others can make a "ayn is a philosopher" page. just make a small section " ayn rand as a philosopher" both sides give a paragraph or two, and fight it out on your own pages. let the person searching for ayn rand for whatever reason on wikipedia, find their own path to your argument.Brushcherry (talk) 08:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)brushcherry

Brushcherry, Arbcom specifically said that those were the places we should take that debate. TallNapoleon (talk) 09:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

You also need to realise Bushcherry that part of the interest/concern here is a wider issue on Wikipedia. It hits articles on pseudo-science as well articles such as this which attract cult like followings. Such matters need discussion in the community as a whole. Your idea (which has attracted no support) is not really the wikipedia way. The contention about her status will need coverage, but the debate is about a label in the introduction paragraph and the information box. I'd recommend you take Arbcom's recommendation to broaden your interest a bit and look through some of the guidance articles that were in your welcome notice. --Snowded (talk) 09:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

you also need to realize Snowded, the talk page is about content issues. not threatening people with this or that wikipedia policy. while you are good at quoting wikipedia policy, i have seen no evidence of you following it. hence you being banned from editing the ayn rand page. the few new editors i have seen since arbcom have been scared aware.

the debate is about her status as a philosopher, not the label in her introductory paragraph and the information box. you can not prove she is not a philosopher. others can not prove she is a philosopher. arbcom is never gonna decide on this content issue, reliable sources is never gonna decide it either, or any other wikipedia forum. get over it. Brushcherry (talk) 10:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)brushcherry

No one is threatening you Brushcherry and I'm more than happy to stand by my edit history on many wikipedia articles. The debate is actually about wikipedia policy, there is little dispute on the facts per se, its how they are interpreted. Oh, and if I have "scared aware" a few new editors then I will take it as a task well done. --Snowded (talk) 10:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

debates about wikipedia policy should be directed to the appropriate venue. debates about content issues such as ayn rands status as a philosopher should be taken up in the ayn rand talk page.Brushcherry (talk) 10:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)brushcherry

Such as the "Reliable Sources notice board" for example? Whether Ayn Rand is a philosopher or not depends on policy in respect of sources. I don't think there is much new evidence to gather, hence TallNapoleon's suggestion. --Snowded (talk) 10:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, for example the "Reliable Sources notice board" Yes, there is no new evidedence. we, you, i, they, have beat that horse to death. Arbcom for example?Brushcherry (talk) 10:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)brushcherry

She is called a philosopher in the New York Times. I have qualms about that particular paper's reliability, but as far as Wikipedia is concerned it generally passes muster. ;) I haven't seen a source for her being ignored by academia and that type of statement seems rather POV. I think her ideas and significance are certainly controversial and that shoul dbe covered based on reliable sources. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not going to repeat the counter argument to that and there is no point in going through the debate yet again. What is needed is some type of summary of the issues (and arguments) then take it to some form of review (possibly reliable sources). --Snowded (talk) 02:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

[Comments from User:Stevewunder removed per topic ban by Skomorokh 07:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)]

Books Ranking

Typically book ranking information doesn't appear in articles. Furthermore, it doesn't say whose rankings. Are they Amazon's? The NYT's? Whose? TallNapoleon (talk) 18:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Do these book rankings matter? Should they be kept? It sounds more like advertising than anything else. TallNapoleon (talk) 22:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Why is the The Oxford Companion to Philosophy not considered a reliable source?

So the reference to 'amateur philosopher' has been removed. The chief editor of the encyclopedia is Ted Honderich, who is a luminary of British philosophy, and he was helped by a team of sub-editors and article writers who hail from the great and good of the Anglo-American philosophical establishment. The reference to 'amateur philosopher' was by Anthony Quinton, who was made a peer of the realm for a lifetime of service to academic philosophy. Whoever removed this is a complete WP:DICK.

Note that Rand is only mentioned once in this comprehensive work (namely as an amateur philosopher). Peter Damian (talk) 13:01, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

It is certainly a reliable source, and probably belongs in the article. Could you provide the full citation (ISBN and page number is fine) if you have access to it? And, it it is a brief mention as you say, would it be too much trouble to quote the relevant sentence(s)? Thanks in advance, Skomorokh 13:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to steer clear of this farce. Peter Damian (talk) 13:17, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate that, but if we neither have access to a work nor the means to do so, we cannot responsibly include it in an encyclopaedia article. Skomorokh 13:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

p. 704 in a section by Quinton on "Popular Philosophy" and specifically about the kind of popular philosophy that is the "amateur consideration of the standard, technical problems of philosophy;" p. 703. "In this century, amateur systems increasingly fail to find their way into print: most languish in typescript and photocopy. One arresting exception is the "Social Contract of the Universe", by C. G. Stone a most ambitious piece of deduction. There are also the works of LL White and George Melhuish, and in the United States, Ayn Rand, strenuous exponent of objectivism and self-interest." It is available on Amazon's look inside, [1]. --Slp1 (talk) 13:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! So I suppose the Rand-relevant claim would be something like "In a discussion of amateur philosophical systems, [adjective here] Anthony Quinton cited Objectivism as one of the few examples from the twentieth century which made their way into print". Cite: Quinton, Anthony (1995). "Popular Philosophy". In Honderich, Ted (ed.). The Oxford Companion to Philosophy. Oxford, Oxfordshire: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0198661320. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |separator= ignored (help). This would seem most relevant to the Philosophy and Legacy sections. Thoughts? Skomorokh 13:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Amateur is not accurate because Ayn Rand was paid for her work. If we need say anything at all, then Popular follows the source in a more accurate way. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

That seems a strange statement given that Quinton specifically uses the term amateur twice. Amateur does not imply payment/non-payment; as an adjective it means something coming from a non-professional and/or one lacking in experience or competence.[2]. --Slp1 (talk) 14:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I can see both sides of the argument here, but note that in my proposed wording above, Wikipedia is not calling Rand amateur, all we are saying is that Quinton discusses Rand in the context of amateur philosophy. If we put this in the Legacy section, the reader ought to already know very well from the biographical sections Rand's degree of amateurishness or lack thereof. Skomorokh 14:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no logic in this. Quinton does not merely discuss Rand 'in the context of amateur philosophy', he gives her as an example of an amateur philosopher. Earlier in the section he makes clear that by 'amateur' he means self-taught, a product of mass education and mass literacy. He also says that Coleridge is 'too substantial' to count as an amateur. So it is clear what he means. Peter Damian (talk) 16:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not clear from the quote provided above that Quinton "gives her as an example of an amateur philosopher"; if you can supply a citation where he does this, then by all means we can put it in. Skomorokh 18:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Its surely clear that the quote states that she is an example of an amateur whose work got published. --Snowded (talk) 18:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

As a reply to those who say that Rand earned money for her work. Not correct: she earned money for her romantic fiction. This is not the same as philosophy.Peter Damian (talk) 16:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Her non-fiction philosophy books and collections earned her quite a significant amount of money, without doubt. Skomorokh 18:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

⬅ I think it is reasonable to state that Quinton uses her as a illustration of an amateur philosopher who made it into print (the word amateur is not necessarily linked to be paid), it is not reasonable to remove the material as it is one of the very few references to Rand in any of the various encyclopaedias and directories of philosophy. Quinton is clearly calling Rand an amateur by the way. --Snowded (talk) 15:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Snowded is mistaken as a brief search indicates that there are better sources to be found in works of this sort. For example, see the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy which contains a good entry for our topic. We need not glean other sources for passing mentions when we have better material to work from. This source talks of her popular success and says nothing of amateurism in any sense of the word so our presentation should state the former, rather than the latter. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:09, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

If you check back in the history of this talk page you will find a large number of ones where she is not referenced (and where if she had any international recognition you would expect her to be listed). The Quinton quote is reliable and provides balance (I trust by "better" you do not intend "more favourable"). The Routledge one you reference makes the point that her novels are the primary way in which any philosophy is expressed. --Snowded (talk) 16:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Snowded. Ask yourself why Rand only gets 'passing mention'? Could that be because her work is in fact largely ignored? However the Routledge is no less objective. Routledge "Rand's political theory is of little interest .. her attempts [to solve her rejection of anarchism with her hostility to the state] are ill-thought out and unsystematic". "Of more enduring interest is her fiction, belonging to a genre she labelled 'romantic realism'." It says that her work "has attracted little attention from academic philosophers". Peter Damian (talk) 16:24, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

As academic philosophers take little interest in our topic, it follows that, in general, they are not a good source for it. We may thus dispense with the The Oxford Companion to Philosophy which does not address the topic directly. Are we done with this section now? Colonel Warden (talk) 17:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure, just make the article about her as a novelist and its done, otherwise all the points above stand. --Snowded (talk) 17:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

"As academic philosophers take little interest in our topic, it follows that, in general, they are not a good source for it. " This is easily one of the stupidest things you have said. Which is something in itself. Peter Damian (talk) 17:47, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Now on Wikipedia Review

I've taken this discussion to Wikipedia Review as it is so perfect an example of the problem of cults and cranks and crackpots infesting the project. Peter Damian (talk) 17:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

• It is a nice irony that the Wikipedia Review is inhabited mostly by malcontent individualists who constantly urge Wikipedia's brightest and best to withdraw their labour from service of the collective. Who is Peter Damian? Colonel Warden (talk) 00:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

maybe peter damian can solve what arbcom can'tBrushcherry (talk) 09:44, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

brushcherry

"She continues to be influential and Atlas Shrugged continues to sell well, especially since the Financial crisis of 2007–2009."

What is this sentence supposed to mean? Influential with whom? If she has sold well because of the financial crisis, then the reason should be explained. And why is this sentence in the introduction? Peter Damian (talk) 16:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it's an example of recentism and does not belong in the introduction, though a line might not be out of place in the legacy or Atlas Shrugged sections. Skomorokh 18:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The lead is supposed to summarise the topic. The point being made here is that Rand's views are not just historical but still have a significant following. User:Peter Damian asks who she is influential with. The Routledge source above tells us that she is or was influential with college students, while other sources indicate that she has a following among significant people such as Alan Greenspan and Brad Pitt. The Economist and other journals recently reported that sales of Atlas Shrugged have spiked since the credit crunch and even outsell Barack Obama. The contemporary nature of her following seems significant and so the lead should summarise this - currently it says nothing. Her lack of standing with academic philosophers might be mentioned too but we should not give this undue weight as they do not seem to command the field of political philosophy in which there are many players. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Since we need some citations for these kinds of suggestions, here are a few The Guardian]; the Daily Telegraph;The Village Voice (which contains an interesting caveat); another Guardian article--Slp1 (talk) 23:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The references are useful, looks like they pick up on a Ayn Rand centre press release and speculate about "The Strike", interesting three of the four are left wing and have an ironic or satirical tone. Interesting also that the edit translated briefly "outselling Obama" to "outselling Obama" (repeated by the Colonel above) which is par for the course on the use of evidence. Concur with Skomorokh on this. --Snowded (talk) 03:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

removing more rubbish

I removed this sentence and the long incoherent and rambling citations that were meant to support it.

Rand held her metaphysical, epistemological and ethical views to be fundamental, saying "I am not primarily an advocate of capitalism, but of egoism; and I am not primarily an advocate of egoism, but of reason."

The sentence gives no explanation of what 'metaphysical, epistemological and ethical' means, and it does not say why they are fundamental. It mentions 'egoism' but without any explanation of what egoism is. Peter Damian (talk) 16:47, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Someone (an IP) asked for more discussion on my removal and reversion. I don't think we can say anything in the introduction about Rand's belief that her political views could be derived from basic and fundamental principles (identity and existence and so forth) without also mentioning the view held by all serious philosophers that her belief was simply mistaken. By all means say that she believed her views could be founded in this way. Peter Damian (talk) 17:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Yet more rubbish

I haven't deleted the most recent version yet, but here it is (the three consecutive sentences separated by bullets)

• Rand’s philosophy, Objectivism, is derived from the Aristotelian tradition; naturalist in metaphysics, empiricist in epistemology, and promoting self-realization in ethics.
• Objectivism is firmly individualist, emphasizing an ethical egoism of rational self-interest and self-responsibility.
• Rand's political views, reflected in both her fiction and her theoretical work, emphasize individualism, laissez-faire capitalism, and the constitutional protection of the right to life, liberty, and property.

The first sentence is drawn from Hicks, but that is not an independent source. I think a lot of homework is needed to derive Objectivism 'from the Aristotelian tradition'. Particularly as Rand probably never read Aristotle (or at least seems consistently to have misunderstood him). The second sentence seems to say the same thing in slightly different ways, without adding anything to our understanding of Rand's philosophy. The third sentence is also drawn from Hicks - indeed it is a remnant of the original intro I wrote in January, minus the label of 'classical liberalism'.

As I said, I refuse to contribute to this train wreck, I am just going to hack it to pieces from the sidelines until someone decides to write something clear, sensible and well-sourced. Peter Damian (talk) 18:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Concur with Peter - the changes should be reverted and discussed here first. --Snowded (talk) 19:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but anyone who claims that "a lot of homework is needed to derive Objectivism 'from the Aristotelian tradition'" is profoundly ignorant of the topic at hand and without question unfamiliar with the secondary literature. The lead as it stood described nothing of Rand's philosophy; the addition was entirely taken from reliable sources. Skomorokh 03:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Rand's metaphysics may be firmly Aristotelian, however the ethics and other philosophy she "derives" from them definitely are not. TallNapoleon (talk) 05:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

As for Rand supporting "the constitutional protection of the right to life, liberty, and property," is it really a sufficiently distinctive position to be mentioned in the introduction?KD Tries Again (talk) 21:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Yes. Absolutely. It's critical to her philosophy. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

My point is that the fifth amendment offers constitutional protection precisely to "life, liberty, or property" - so what's critical about her taking that position?KD Tries Again (talk) 13:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Much of the article is little more than crass sloganeering.CABlankenship (talk) 22:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe this is justified in the introduction, as Rand did not emphasise this point as an integral belief of hers. Skomorokh 03:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

She certainly advocated those ideals. But the wording should be based on the best sources. Individual libery rather than liberty might be more accurate, but certainly property. Life is a bit abstract I suppose. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Skomorokh is right Rand was most specficially for the individual as the determiner of truth. You can call that Aristotle if you want (which would be correct). The tools Rand uses to arrive at truth is an objective view (one without emotion per se) and then an integral take on "common ground" between the opposing positions. This is dialectical yes but also syllogism. Rand is a syntheists philosophy is sobornost just like Sciabaara showed in his book Ayn Rand the Russian Radical. Rand was using very Russian cultural philosophical approachs to "create" a philosophy that was a logical argument to the socialism of Russia. Sobornost was a democractic idea in Russia during the Tatar occupation for example that taught the rule of individuals who could collectively and spontaniously organized to attack and defeat big problems that faced the collective. You only needed sobornost when you needed it. You'll find allot of her ideas came from Dostoevsky, Lev Shestov, Illyin and of course Nikolai Chernyshevsky's What Is to Be Done? (though Notes from Underground pulls all of her romantic teeth and undermines the idea that logic or reason is the absolute litmus for the truth). Russians today will tell that Rand was very much in the vein of the socialism that they endured in Russia. If you read Chernyshevsky and Zamyatin you'll see that socialism was supposed to the logical or ration and reasoned approach to reality while any opposition to it was considered slavophile conservative and mystic. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

There's the introduction right there! I regret to say that the central tenet of Shestov's philosophy, repeated throughout his works, is that A does not necessarily equal A. Are you arguing that Rand should be treated as some sort of covert irrationalist? This page is endlessly diverting.KD Tries Again (talk) 13:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

!Bah! Shetov was nothing but someone who tried to say Dostoevsky and Nietzsche where the same- which is completely wrong. Sciabarra shows how Nietzsche got most of his irractional premise directly from Dostoevsky's Notes from underground. Syllogism is axiology. A is A is no different then the one who started it, which was Dostoevsky!

2 + 2 = 4 but 2 + 2 = 5 is sometimes just as nice. Propaganda is rubbish!! Propaganda is filthy poshlust!

LoveMonkey (talk) 14:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

No, Sciabarra shows an extensive influence of Nietzsche on the Russian symbolists, but suggests that the neo-Idealists were more likely directly influenced by Dostoyevsky, who himself influenced Nietzsche. That's rather more subtle. As for Shestov, he certainly regarded Dostoyevsky and Nietzsche as "kindred spirits" but also drew a sharp distinction between their responses to the "underground man" problem (see section 29 of Dostoevsky and Nietzsche : The Philosophy of Tragedy). I'm afraid I don't follow the rest of your comments; A=A is hardly a syllogism, and I suspect you may be conflating axiology with the study of logical axioms - which it isn't.KD Tries Again (talk) 14:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Sciabarra wrote that Nietzsche wrote on Dostoevsky how you can comment what you wrote on what I posted makes no sense. Here a fun one-[3] what does this from the blood mean? At best your response will be that you still don't understand. Lets start here for clarity.[4] As for the underground man, why did I mention it? Shetov can be disregarded one does not have to agree with him. And Nietzche quite clearly disliked Dostoevsky's christianity and made comments to that effect[5]. No one can accuse Nietzsche of taking the high ground. As to here is one of the conflicts I am relating to in my comments. [6]As for your comments that axiology is not the study of value and existence I can only say "all is immanent in all".[7] Value and existence is still value and existence. Rather that be a painting or a pickup truck. A=A is as much logic as trying to talk to people on this talkpage in that it shows just how much as waste of time such an activity is. As we can try to address it as N. O. Lossky did [8]. Or "my mother's mother is my grandmother" is not subjective it is not opinion is an axiom of logic.

LoveMonkey (talk) 15:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
P.S. here is my response to the cultish comments about Rand. [9]. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say that axiology was not the study of value; that's exactly what it is. You had said that "syllogism is axiology," a claim I certainly still do not understand. I am happy to disregard Shestov; you cited him as someone from whom Rand derived "a lot of her ideas;" since Shestov utterly rejects the concept of objective truth and the universal validity of identity judgments like A=A, I was expressing amazement. Of course he should be disregarded, as should Chernyshevsky and Zamyatin, not to mention the nihilist Pisarev. It's worth noting that Sciabarra's interpretation of some of these figures is questionable, and if we have to start introducing balance to his views - on Russian philosophers - the article will become quite unwieldy (you should hesitate to have too much confidence in an author who can describe Schiller as a "nineteenth century romantic"). Who accused Nietzsche of taking "the high ground"? With all due respect, I think this discussion probably is a waste of time. A section on Stirner would be more appropriate, if anything.KD Tries Again (talk) 16:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Sure you did stop projecting. Axiom is axiom. The study of axiom is axiology. A=A. As for Nietzsche and Dostoevsky here's one without Professor Sciabarra. [10] LoveMonkey (talk) 16:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, you were confused then. Axiology is not the study of axioms, despite the common Greek root. It's the study of criteria for value judgments, especially ethical judgments. A=A is, of course, the principle of identity, and not a topic in axiology. All I have said about Dostoyevsky and Nietzsche is that Shestov didn't claim that they "where the same" (sic); so I think you're arguing with yourself there. Unless there's a practical proposal here for editing the article, I fear we are wasting space.KD Tries Again (talk) 16:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

More Projecting I did not introduce A=A thats you nor did I say the axiology is syllogism thats you projecting and putting words in my mouth. [11] Again "all is immanent in all". Now if we can show how Aristotle and Rand proposed that the individual was the determiner of truth this discourse might redeem itself. Here a better example of axiology

For all things A, B, and C, A is better for C than B is just in case the set of all of the right kind of reasons to choose A over B on C's behalf is weightier than the set of all of the right kind of reasons to choose B over A on C's behalf.

LoveMonkey (talk) 16:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Since I assume you are in good faith, I can only suppose you are a little absent-minded today. This was you:

"!Bah! Shetov was nothing but someone who tried to say Dostoevsky and Nietzsche where the same- which is completely wrong. Sciabarra shows how Nietzsche got most of his irractional premise directly from Dostoevsky's Notes from underground. Syllogism is axiology. A is A is no different then the one who started it, which was Dostoevsky! 2 + 2 = 4 but 2 + 2 = 5 is sometimes just as nice. Propaganda is rubbish!! Propaganda is filthy poshlust! LoveMonkey (talk) 14:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)"

Emphasis added.KD Tries Again (talk) 16:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

What do you think I am saying when I posted?- Propaganda is rubbish!! Propaganda is filthy poshlust! As in who determines the truth?

LoveMonkey (talk) 17:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Again-Now if we can show how Aristotle and Rand proposed that the individual was the determiner of truth this discourse might redeem itself.

LoveMonkey (talk) 17:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

You tell me.KD Tries Again (talk) 17:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again.

N.O. Lossky wrote on Rand's philosophy. Lossky stated that the philosophy of selfishness does not work. It does not work because it's axiology is selfishness. Look at the Stanford link for the def of Value theory. OK... Now lets start here.

3.3 Agent-Relative Value?

3.3.1 Agent-Centered Constraints Plausibly the most central, in-principle problem for classical consequentialism is the possibility of what are called agent-centered constraints. It has long been a traditional objection to utilitarian theories that because they place no intrinsic disvalue on wrong actions like murder, they yield the prediction that if you have a choice between murdering and allowing two people to die, it is clear that you should murder. After all, other things being equal, the situation is stacked 2-to-1 — there are two deaths on one side, but only one death on the other, and each death is equally bad.

So here is what is right or what is truthful consequentialism?

Are Aristotle's ethics deontic, consequential or noetic? [12][13]LoveMonkey (talk) 17:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Now is eudemonia and Entelechy what Rand was purposing?

LoveMonkey (talk) 17:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

A general discussion of ethical theories is not an appropriate use of the talk page. I thought you were proposing incorporating some statements about Rand's relationship to certain Russian thinkers and schools of thought.KD Tries Again (talk) 17:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

I am purposing that Rand's philosophy draws it's ethics from Aristotle. I am purposing that what you have been saying is inconsistent with what N.O. Lossky taught. I believe he taught this to his students about Aristotle and I believe that one of those students was Ayn Rand. Eudemonia and Entelechy. Rand's philsophy has ethics those ethics are based on Aristotle. N. O. Lossky taught this as well, (about Aristotle).

LoveMonkey (talk) 17:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I've said that axiology is not the study of axioms, that Shestov rejected the principle of identity, and that he did not state that Dostoyevsky and Nietzche were "the same". If Lossky disagrees about any of this, I'm awfully sorry (look up "axiology" in a dictionary). I haven't taken any position on Aristotle. Now you draw my attention to it, I do see that the noesis article is another Wiki philosophy horror story.KD Tries Again (talk) 17:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Here is the second half of the axiology part I asked you to consider.

But the problem is very closely related to what is an in-principle problem for consequentialism. What if you could prevent two murders by murdering? Postulating an intrinsic disvalue to murders does nothing to account for the intuition that you still ought not to murder, even in this case. But most people find it pre-theoretically natural to assume that even if you should murder in order to prevent thousands of murders, you shouldn't do it in order to prevent just two. The constraint against murdering, on this natural intuition, goes beyond the idea that murders are bad. It requires that the badness of your own murders affects what you should do more than it affects what others should do in order to prevent you from murdering. That is why it is called “agent-centered”.

If Rand taught Aristotle's eudemonia (which she did) then why is she supposed to be thought of "as Rand probably never read Aristotle (or at least seems consistently to have misunderstood him)." I think that was what started my endorsement of Skomorokh but now your onto somrthing else. If you want to clean up the noesis article please do.. But cleaning it up - is off topic HERE. Like I am saying Dostoevsky stated 2 + 2 =5 as a response to propaganda. Shitov doesn't own it and Rand was not first, it is a staple of Russian philosophy even before Victor Hugo...

LoveMonkey (talk) 17:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The limits of Aristotle also relate to the limits of Randian Objectivism. If one be not a psychopath or sociopath then one must know that what is good for their self interest[14] is also to include noesis. Noesis means sometimes our goals hurt or destroy and all of the logic in the world will not silence that noetic understanding that exploiting people is harming or damaging them. This is a very loose interpretation of Lossky. This Noesis is missing from Rands' Eudaimonism.

LoveMonkey (talk) 18:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Russian philosophy before Victor Hugo should be an article all to itself. Shestov - is there a problem spelling his name? - was citing Dostoyevskyt, of course. But let's by all means not interrupt Lossky. Part of me would love to know whether you are claiming that Rand followed Dostoyevsky and Shestov in questioning the principle of identity, but someone change the subject, please.KD Tries Again (talk) 18:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Yes or put a T at the end of Dostoevsky.

LoveMonkey (talk) 18:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Full circle. I found the passage I was referring to in Professor Sciabarra's work.. The Rand and Aristotle connection. In Ayn Rand the Russian Radical-[15] So Rand's philosophy is related to Aristotle. So why the sarcastic comments and wasteful fighting?

LoveMonkey (talk) 19:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

"This is not a forum for general discussion about Ayn Rand; any such comments will be removed."

1. Read.
2. Understand.
3. Post.
   

TallNapoleon (talk) 19:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

OK now that is being disruptive. I am discussing if Rand can be logically shown to have been influenced by Aristotle. To also show if there is evidence she even read Aristotle to including comments into the article to that effect. That it is valid that she read Aristotle and that she understood him. Your behaviour is disruptive and counter productive.

LoveMonkey (talk) 20:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Again, please seek help about this. This is not the place Peter Damian (talk) 20:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I left another message on Wales' talk page. Not that it will help, he will do f--- all, but it relieves the pain and the agony. Peter Damian (talk) 19:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

So did Rand read Aristotle?

There evidence that Rand did not read Aristotle (or at least did not understand him) are as follows:

• She claims that the celebrated principle 'A = A' is Aristotelian. It isn't. Certain nineteenth-century popular works about Aristotle did claim this, which suggests (possibly) where Rand derived her ideas about Aristotle.
• This excellent critique by Michael Huemer also claims that Rand probably did not read (or did not understand) Aristotle. Rand's claim that Aristotle "left unanswered the questions of" why noble & wise people do as they do, and "why he evaluated them as noble and wise." completely overlooks Aristotle's discussions of the function of man and of the nature of the virtues in the Nicomachean Ethics. "Perhaps Aristotle's answers to the above questions are wrong, but it is grossly inaccurate to imply that he had nothing to say about them. " "I do not think Rand was openly dishonest: she was not deliberately trying to manipulate an ignorant reader by lying about the history of philosophy....I do not see how to avoid concluding that she was very ignorant of the history of her subject. I believe that this explains, in part, why her ethics is so flawed."

Peter Damian (talk) 19:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

From above. I found the passage I was referring to in Professor Sciabarra's work.. The Rand and Aristotle connection. In Ayn Rand the Russian Radical-[16] If Rand took a course from N. O. Lossky then she has to have read Aristotle. Guess what- Rand is documented to have taken a course from N. O. Lossky. Here's just something in passing[17].Joseph Rowlands

LoveMonkey (talk) 19:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

You are severely deranged. Perhaps you should go and seek help. Meanwhile, keep off this page. Thanks. Peter Damian (talk) 20:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about and also why are you engaged in personal attacks. Also why are you being allowed to be hateful and disrespectful and post comments like this? LoveMonkey (talk) 20:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I am talking about you. You clearly have a serious problem and I'm afraid there is nothing I can do to help in this virtual world - can I ask you politely to leave this talk page? Thanks Peter Damian (talk) 21:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The person screaming and yelling and having an emotional breakdown all over wikipedia including JimmyWales talkpage as well as DGG's and calling content rubbish and threatening to tear this article to pieces is not me BUT YOU. You are the one who has repeatedly engaged in hateful and disruptive conduct. The other editors here egging you on with comments on your talkpage and here, are also contributing and justifying your behavior. They have already gotten banned as you keep pointing out. You dont know me and you have no justification for your comments, harassment or behavior. My comments are sourced, I have not behaved as you did and then called you a lunatic or deranged.

LoveMonkey (talk) 22:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Peter's comments are highly inappropriate. I highly recommend that he retract them. TallNapoleon (talk) 22:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

LoveMonkey, it was you that posted about Shestov, Chernyshevsky, Zamyatin, etc - I am still not sure why or what you intended to say. I was responding to that, and to your odd comments about axiology. You have been busy creating plenty of content on Wikipedia about Lossky, his concept of noesis, and the faults of positivism - which you even brought to the existentialism page. I have no objection to the Rand article mentioning that she studied, however briefly, under Lossky. It does not follow that she read Aristotle. Plenty of students I taught didn't read what I assigned them. Rand's superficial remarks about Aristotle are what they are. What do you want to add to the article (other than yet more material on Lossky)?KD Tries Again (talk) 23:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

OK that seems a step in the right direction.. But it seems that both Lossky and Sciabarra disagree. I will try to address this further before adding it to the article, it appears however that I can not count on this talkpage to be civil. You will at least admit that N.O. Lossky read Aristotle, no? I am courious about the A=A as a comment as not being the same as 2 + 2 = 5 as an anti-authority statement consistent with Rand.

LoveMonkey (talk) 23:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I have nothing against Lossky, and am willing to believe he read whatever he says he read. That he taught Rand is interesting (whether or not true, I acknowledge there's a source for the claim). I would strongly caution about bringing an undue emphasis on Lossky's own thought to this article, which is already sufficiently bogged down. I applaud your interest in Lossky - anyone can see that you have been editing the Wikipedia article on Lossky for the last three years!KD Tries Again (talk) 23:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Yes this is fair. Lossky bitterly disagreed with selfishness he proclaimed it satanic. But he was very respectful and still loved freedom and free will. His socialism is equality under the law only (well sort of). Yes you are right undue weight would be to push Lossky's conservative position (slavophile) over Rand's liberial position (in the Russian paradigm). LoveMonkey (talk) 23:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Wundt is A=A

Considering the shameful, disruptive, hateful and disrespectful display by Peter Damian I would like to request that a link I have noticed and came to the talkpage here to address might be addressed by editors other the Peter Damian. I think that is completely reasonable. Since any logical or historical proof which links Rand with Aristotle will cause Peter Damian to become offended and march off to Jimbo's talkpage and make all kinds of absurd and hateful personal attacks I am hopeful that he would follow his own advice and stay away from the talkpage. Now in the N. O. Lossky article it is noted that Lossky worked under Wilhelm Wundt. Did he or didn't he, my sources (including Lossky himself say he did). Now why can N. O. Lossky and Rand not use Wundt? Is there any clear logical objection to Wundt's work on Law of Identity? Please clarify. Clarify please without hostility and harassment. That way Lossky's "all is immanent in all" can then be properly addressed and added into the section here. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

See WP:SYNTH, WP:NOR, and WP:WEIGHT. If there's a connection between Wundt and Rand, there will be sources that talk about it. If that connection is discussed widely in the sources, then we can include it without violating WP:WEIGHT. Otherwise we would be violating numerous WP guidelines. Furthermore, Lossky's relationship to Wundt is totally irrelevant to the topic at hand, namely Ayn Rand. Frankly all of this discussion of Lossky is largely irrelevant; at most it should be mentioned that Rand studied under him at college. Look Love, if you want to show that Rand read Aristotle, you need a source SAYING she read Aristotle. Anything else is synthesis. TallNapoleon (talk) 17:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Your comments are inconsistent with what is being discussed. You maybe are not following the discussion? A=A is Wundt, Wundt taught Lossky Lossky taught Rand. Because A=A is not explicitly stated by Aristotle does not mean Rand did not read and or understand Aristotle. This comment below from User talk:KD Tries Again is what I am addressing..

"It does not follow that she read Aristotle. Plenty of students I taught didn't read what I assigned them. Rand's superficial remarks about Aristotle are what they are."

LoveMonkey (talk) 17:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Again so what is the reason behind making such a statement SPECIFICALLY what logic is behind User talk:KD Tries Again stating -

"It does not follow that she read Aristotle. Plenty of students I taught didn't read what I assigned them. Rand's superficial remarks about Aristotle are what they are."

LoveMonkey (talk) 17:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

No, my point is that this entire discussion is a pointless tangent. If you want to show that Rand read Aristotle, find a source that says so. Wundt does not matter, unless you can find a source detailing his influence. Lossky matters only slightly more. TallNapoleon (talk) 17:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

And now I repeat such a source FOR THE THIRD TIME.

Full circle. I found the passage I was referring to in Professor Sciabarra's work.. The Rand and Aristotle connection. In Ayn Rand the Russian Radical-[18] So Rand's philosophy is related to Aristotle. So why the sarcastic comments and wasteful fighting?

LoveMonkey (talk) 17:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
This comment and posting above with the sourcing in it is what got me called insane by Peter Damian.. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC) The entire discussion has been that even with sourcing Peter and KD are stating that Rand did not read and or properly understand Aristotle and then Peter is calling me insane for posting that sourcing states Rand read Aristotle and understood Aristotle (albeit from a Russian cultural perspective). LoveMonkey (talk) 17:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Wundt is mentioned only in the briefest passing, and then only as an influence on Lossky. Furthermore there are issues of weight, and the fact that Sciabarra is NOT an objective source; he is an objectivist himself. Furthermore the source provided only attempts to place Rand within the Aristotelian tradition, not, as far as I can see, state whether she read or understood him. Again, if you want to say Rand read Aristotle, you need a source that says so explicitly. Frankly I don't think it is necessary to state that explicitly at all. TallNapoleon (talk) 17:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Nope- source -Sciabarra was peer reviewed by SUNY, source if you read also names another source for the belief that Rand read Aristotle. You are being disruptive and appearing to create frustration by constantly changing your criteria once the already established WP:SOURCE has been met. You are appearing as if you can make Wikipedia policy. And your policy is that you are insatiable. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Then why are you wasting our time with Wundt?! If the source said she read Aristotle (which I didn't see in my five minute skim of the pages you provided) just cite it and be done with it. I don't even see why it's necessary to include that. All one needs to say is that Rand claimed intellectual kinship with Aristotle. All of this runaround about Lossky, Wundt et. al. is totally irrelevant to the question at hand and frankly exhausting. TallNapoleon (talk) 17:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Then why are you wasting our time with stating the source is invalid and then making me argue with you that it is not?! Why do you think I asked for clarification? If it so obvious to you then why are you even responding with opposition AT ALL? You should not have to wonder why you are banned from editing this article by the behaviour you have just exhibited. What are you doing? Projecting on my that I'm wasting time...

LoveMonkey (talk) 17:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
I repeat what opposition is to the source I provided?? Again without posting on Jimmy Wales talkpage that I am insane. What is the opposition? What is the criteria or logic behind the comment

"It does not follow that she read Aristotle. Plenty of students I taught didn't read what I assigned them. Rand's superficial remarks about Aristotle are what they are."

LoveMonkey (talk) 18:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
As this from the Lossky BIO article states.

"Lossky undertook post-graduate studies in Germany under Wilhelm Windelband, Wilhelm Wundt and G. E. Müller, receiving a Master's degree in 1903 and a Doctorate in 1907."

Rand is justified in using Wundt's A=A and this does not invalidate her position or show that she did not read Aristotle and that if she did she did not misunderstand Aristotle. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Rand supposed anti-academa bias

Rand's stance on academia 'could best be described as Epistemeological libertarianism WIKIPEDIA is an Epistemeological libertarian experiment.
Here is a definition of the term by Nassim Taleb. Epistemeological libertarian-someone (like myself) who considers that knowledge is subjected to strict rules, but not institutional authority as the interests of organized knowledge is self-perpetuation, not necessarily truth (just like governments). [19] Taleb has the best introduction going on Byzantine philosophy in his mock up Anti-Platonism for Dummies! LoveMonkey (talk) 17:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it could be described that way. Now find a source who does so. TallNapoleon (talk) 17:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Even so I am trying to adher to the rules of contribution and discuss it's addition to the article here first.

LoveMonkey (talk) 17:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and I am doing the same. I just happen to think that it shouldn't be included because it violates policy. TallNapoleon (talk) 17:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Specifically which policy the policy of sourcing the comment? Until you change your mind again. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH and WP:NOR. It is synthesis and original research to claim that Rand is an epistemological libertarian. Unless you can find a source stating such, it doesn't belong in the article. TallNapoleon (talk) 18:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

It is a clarifaction for KD tries again as to why I was responding to his comments above like I did. You are again not reading and or following what is being discussed and are just interjecting yourself into the discussion un-informed about what is being stated and being disruptive in the mean time. What does it mean to say A=A (which is in the article)? Who is the determiner of truth? It is not WP:SYNTH and WP:NOR to say that either the state is the Arbitrator of truth or the individual is. Either Rand was a libertine- free thinker or she was not... LoveMonkey (talk) 18:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

None of this discussion has much to do with the editing process so far. What would be helpful LoveMonkey is simply to paste or link to citations with the appropriate quotations you would like the Community to consider. Discussion -- including policy considerations -- always should flow from that first step. J Readings (talk) 19:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

And, incidentally, just so we're all on the same page: if the response is to read other discussion veins not found under the title "Rand supposed anti-academa (sic) bias", then it's not really anyone's fault if there's a little bit of a misunderstanding. Comments about editing suggestions should be in that section for the benefit of the reader, I think. FWIW, J Readings (talk) 19:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I was just responding to Peter Damians comments. Just following WP:BRD

---

More Rubbish--- I haven't deleted the most recent version yet, but here it is (the three consecutive sentences separated by bullets)

Rand’s philosophy, Objectivism, is derived from the Aristotelian tradition; naturalist in metaphysics, empiricist in epistemology, and promoting self-realization in ethics. Objectivism is firmly individualist, emphasizing an ethical egoism of rational self-interest and self-responsibility. Rand's political views, reflected in both her fiction and her theoretical work, emphasize individualism, laissez-faire capitalism, and the constitutional protection of the right to life, liberty, and property. The first sentence is drawn from Hicks, but that is not an independent source. I think a lot of homework is needed to derive Objectivism 'from the Aristotelian tradition'. Particularly as Rand probably never read Aristotle (or at least seems consistently to have misunderstood him). The second sentence seems to say the same thing in slightly different ways, without adding anything to our understanding of Rand's philosophy. The third sentence is also drawn from Hicks - indeed it is a remnant of the original intro I wrote in January, minus the label of 'classical liberalism'.

As I said, I refuse to contribute to this train wreck, I am just going to hack it to pieces from the sidelines until someone decides to write something clear, sensible and well-sourced

---

And also this here's another Peter Damian response "As academic philosophers take little interest in our topic, it follows that, in general, they are not a good source for it. " This is easily one of the stupidest things you have said. Which is something in itself. Peter Damian (talk) 17:47, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

---

Anyone feel like being honest about what is going on with this article as to why editors are being allowed to insult people and be disruptive? Anyone? Anybody? LoveMonkey (talk) 20:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Whether you are responding to peter or not, you are failing to respond to requests for citation and creating entries which are OR in nature (see comments above from several editors). Replicating chunks of material from Peter which we have already read just confuses this page - you could always learn about pipelinks. --Snowded (talk) 21:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

If you are interested in carrying out general discussions with other editors, the place to do so is on their talk pages. Might I suggest that this dialogue you have been having with KD would be better conducted on his talk page? TallNapoleon (talk) 02:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, thanks!KD Tries Again (talk) 22:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Frank O'Connor Link

This links to a different Frank O'Connor, so it should be delinked. TallNapoleon (talk) 22:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Ditko

If he belongs anywhere it's in the influence section. I'm not sure that he does belong in this article, but Spiderman is fairly iconic. TallNapoleon (talk) 07:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, I will move him. I would like to note that Rand has a deep influence on Pop culture that currently her ideas are on trial in the movie the Watchmen (Notzrim). The character the Ditko created to embody Rand was Mr A and then later the Question. Alan Moore created Rorschach to embody Randian objectivism as a character with unbending intergrety and as someone (suprise) Moore reviles. Of course MR A is an embodyment of A=A but then whatever, trying to colloborate with you is impossible. Hahahaha who watches the watchmen but the Underground man. LOL...inside libertarian joke sorry..What the joke is about is that Alan Moore as a follower of gnosticism (which is the most anti-semitic thing on the planet) and yet he can call Ayn Rand (someone Jewish) Objectivism a laughable philosophy of "white supremacist dreams of the master race". LoveMonkey (talk) 12:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Your latest additions are pure OR, please either cite or remove--Snowded (talk) 13:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh I can go to the other articles and completely source it. Now see this is exactly my complaint. You did not assume good faith. You have made ridiculious allegations that it's pure WP:OR which is counter productive. And your criticisms are not productive in that they are threatening as, who is it that is going to remove my pure OR additions? You simply could have just asked me to source the addition instead of throwing inapproporate allegations..This is a consistent pattern of abuse in your interactions with me. But then again I am here to improve the article where you are here with an obvious axe to grind. WP:Axe to grind. LoveMonkey (talk) 14:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Do try and calm down, I asked you to cite or remove which is a reasonable request. Your have now put in various references to comic book web sites (although one requires a subscription) which can be verified. Its simple really. --Snowded (talk) 14:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Please stop projecting try and calm down yourself. You accused me of pure OR. Now please refrain from such disruptive behaviour and not accuse people of nefarious behaviour. It is against WP:AGF But rather be respectful and try and collorator with them. Again you are the one who is banned for pervious conduct not me. LoveMonkey (talk) 14:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Its not disruptive to ask someone to cite or delete, checkout policy. --Snowded (talk) 14:46, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

It is disruptive and against WP:AGF to not assume Good faith and accuse them of pure OR. But you'lll just keep arguing since what prompted my response was- As you clearly stated- "Your latest additions are pure OR" LoveMonkey (talk) 14:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

As written they were, hence the polite request --Snowded (talk) 14:54, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Please stop this pointless bickering, it is not conducive to the improvement of the article. Lovemonkey, thanks for your interest in developing the article further; might I request that when adding new content, you include its source, even if only a URL, book title or ISBN? That way other editors can verify the content for themselves. Snowded, I appreciate your intention in trying to make sure the article satisfies high standards WP:V and WP:NPOV, but if you can't conduct yourself in a welcoming and charitable manner you need to re-evaluate whether your continued participation here is in the interest of the encyclopaedia. Now back on topic, please. Skomorokh 15:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Skomorokh, asking for a source is reasonable, responding politely to the resultant phrases such as "persistent patter of abuse" is being charitable and I could cite a few comments from you on various pages which are comparable at least. Good idea to break up bikering, bad idea to preach. --Snowded (talk) 15:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Will do Skomorokh. I am most sorry. I am doing my best to not lose my cool on this. Again Skomorokh I am sorry. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I feel that the in-depth analysis of various Objectivist influenced character is out of place, as it tells us nothing about Rand. Would prefer having a brief, one-sentence description. TallNapoleon (talk) 06:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I concur with TallNapoleon; although I would like to see an in-depth analysis of various Objectivist-influenced characters, it is a little out of place in a biography of Rand. Perhaps we can find another article in which the material can be developed. Given the wealth of writing about these comparatively minor footnotes on Rand, and the space concerns TallNapoleon highlights below, there may be cause to do with this section as has been done with Objectivism, Ayn Rand, and homosexuality and Ayn Rand and the history of philosophy. Skomorokh 07:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Lovemonkey.....run away from this page.69.105.58.132 (talk) 08:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC)brushcherryBrushcherry (talk) 08:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC)brushcherry

??? Who wrote this was it you brushcherry? But you know I think I'll comply. I don't really agree with Rand but I believe people should be free.

LoveMonkey (talk) 02:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Article length

The article is now 105 kilobytes long. It has been my contention for some time that this article is overlong. Would people be willing to begin to consider trimming it down? TallNapoleon (talk) 04:45, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The relevant metric is "readable prose", which I judge to be 49 kB, suggesting that splits are something worth considering. The Philosophy section is poorly written/cited, and we already have a number of sub-articles (Objectivism (Ayn Rand), Objectivist metaphysics, Objectivist epistemology, Objectivist ethics, Objectivist politics, Romantic realism) on the topic, so I think it can be condensed to a brief summary of the important points (which shouldn't be difficult given the systematic nature of Rand's beliefs). As the fine recent addition indicates, there are big gaps in the article's coverage of Rand's life; perhaps, if expanded to be comprehensive, this would be long enough to justify splitting as a stand-alone article, with a much-condensed (i.e. in the region of three 10-line paragraphs) summary here. The fiction section probably needs to be dismembered into (future) subsections on Rand's middle years (Hollywood to New York), impact/legacy and literary criticism, for coherency (current article jumps from biography to fiction to biography) but it's of appropriate length. The Objectivist movement section (in "Later years") can be tightened up a bit; the general reader is less interested in factional schisms and fallings-out than the Wikipedia editor, and there's little need to repeat in as much detail to content already in Objectivist movement, The Collective (Ayn Rand), Criticisms of Objectivism (Ayn Rand) and so on. I think the "Political and social views" and Legacy sections are given far too much weight; the former deserves maybe a paragraph in a politics subsection of the Philosophy section. I think Objectivism and academic philosophy is definitely tenable as a standalone article, and can be summarised in a few lines here (Rand hostile to academics, academics dismissive of Rand, some institutes, recent advances in Objectivist scholarship/academic interest). The "Popular interest and influence" of the article, as in most articles, struggles to resist the temptation to turn into a crufty "in popular culture" list; it's difficult to pull these sorts of sections off, as while it's important to inform the reader of the person's impact, there is often little high-quality critical commentary of the popular interest. One easy and uncontroversial candidate for a split is the Bibliography section; it's conventional to take this out and leave just a {{details|Works of Ayn Rand}} tag. If a restructuring along these lines were done, we would have a much leaner and sharper article, and it would be more difficult for editors to insert paragraphs on topics of marginal relevance. Skomorokh 07:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

could we start with 90% of the article that deals with her non philosoher status, philosophical criticism, political and social views? inasmuch as she is not a philospher, it seems silly to deal with her philosophical views.Brushcherry (talk) 07:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC)brushcherry

I would concur with Skomorokh here. The cited edit which started to take a neutral and chronological approach to her life is more what this article should be about, rather than an advocacy platform for her views, or a dismissal of criticism. I am less sure about creating and article on "Objectivism and acadmic philosophy" as that might be better and more logically handled in [Objectivism (Ayn Rand)]. Incidentally Skomorokh, while I am and will remain opposed to naming that Obectivism I wonder if another qualification might be better. It seems to me that the philosophy that has arisen post Rand is serious, and is not simply a development of Rand's ideas but fits within a broader tradition. --Snowded (talk) 08:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

i would not concur with Skomorokh here. Is this a biography page or an author page or philosopher page or cult leader page or what?69.105.58.132 (talk) 08:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)brushcherryBrushcherry (talk) 08:10, 28 March 2009 (UTC)brushcherry

It is a biography about an author who is variously considered either a philosopher or a cult leader. Perhaps you could explain with what you do not concur? TallNapoleon (talk) 08:48, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

she is an author. she wrote x,y,z fiction books. she wrote a,b,c non-fiction books. all the rest is opinionBrushcherry (talk) 08:57, 28 March 2009 (UTC)brushcherry

Yes, and it is Wikipedia's job to explore the major opinions about its subjects. TallNapoleon (talk) 09:00, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

as snowded is fond of saying....wikipedia is not a democracyBrushcherry (talk) 09:05, 28 March 2009 (UTC)brushcherry

Actually I have never said it in this forum, however it is true. --Snowded (talk) 10:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Not only is the article too long, I think editors should also note the proliferation of articles on Objectivism. Does Wikipedia treat any other philosophy in this manner? Are there separate articles on criticisms of empiricism, empiricism and academic philosophy, empiricism and politics? No. Rand is getting special treatment, and this seems to me to be clearly an epiphenomenon of the energy of editors who approve her views.KD Tries Again (talk) 15:45, 28 March 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

To split or not to split

So there seems to be some support for shortening the article, and some concern at the number of Rand-related articles out there. Do editors support splitting overly-long but reliably sourced sections of this article into their own articles or not? (Presuming they would satisfy WP:N, WP:FORK and WP:SPLIT). Skomorokh 13:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

"their own articles" ??KD Tries Again (talk) 16:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Sections of the Ayn Rand article being split into stand-alone articles. I apologize if my expression was not clear, English is not my first language. Regards, Skomorokh 17:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Can I get some input on this? The article is expanding, and unlikely to get any shorter without splits. Skomorokh 10:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The Prisoner

The recent insertion on this as "influenced by Rand" is not supported by the citation which simply says it is anti-communitarian, the reliability of the source is also disputable, its just an opinion piece in a libertarian web site as far as I can see. It is surreal i nature and can be interpreted as supporting individualism over collectivism however (i) You can't go from Rand is an individualist, to all individualists are influenced by Rand and (ii) no evidence is presented in the citation that any of those involved in the production were so influenced. --Snowded (talk) 05:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

i don't concurBrushcherry (talk) 08:35, 28 March 2009 (UTC)brushcherry

Well perhaps you could point to the words in the citation that support the edit? --Snowded (talk) 08:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

well perhaps you could tell me what citations are acceptable. any pro-rand citation is unacceptable because it is pro-rand.Brushcherry (talk) 08:45, 28 March 2009 (UTC)brushcherry

As a starting point, citations should support the claim to which they are appaended. This one does not. The article quoted gives a passing mention of Ayn Rand:

Ask a Parisian to name an Ayn Rand book and he'll give you a blank stare; mention The Prisoner and you'll likely hear back the French version of the series' catch-phrase, "Be seeing you"–Bonjour chez vous!

That's it. There is nothing in the citation to support the claim that The Prisoner was influenced by Rand. As such the statement is misleading and deceptive, and should be removed immediately. TallNapoleon (talk) 08:56, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

i am sure Skomorokh will oblige.Brushcherry (talk) 09:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC)brushcherry

You gave a "non-answer" above BushCherry, I suspect because you could not find anything. This is not a matter of pro and anti-Rand, its a matter of evidence. Is there anything in the citation which says the Prisoner was influenced by Rand? No, so the edit does not stand. --Snowded (talk) 09:07, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough...if lovemonkey and skomorokh both agree. i concur to remove.Brushcherry (talk) 09:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC)brushcherry

I removed it. I see plenty of online Objectivist sources expressing fondness for The Prisoner but we don't have evidence that Patrick McGoohan had even heard of Ayn Rand.KD Tries Again (talk) 17:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

I support removal at this point, pending reliable sources to the contrary. Skomorokh 17:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Strange I added it due to the upcoming movie and that it is a very good representation of 60s individualism. Many have made the connection between the shows ideas and Rand MANY. So now please clarify is the validity of the inclusion that Patrick McGoohan must express that he was directly influenced by Ayn Rand? Or just another source mentions the connection that is not strictly Randian biased. Since the editors here consistently throw out policy, and rather state that no longer are common ideas about people and groups held by them valid but rather only ideas about sources held by those in opposition or neutral to them are valid since Objectivist sources can not be used. Deletion happy but unable to be fair and even handed? So much for balance in presentation.

Here's some examples [20]

"It’s probably the only series Ayn Rand might have admitted to watching."

And..[21]

"As with much of the extensive symbolism employed in the series, this device had multiple layers of meaning. Obviously, it signifies the elimination of individual identity, a time-honored SF device found in such dystopias as Ayn Rand's Anthem, Mordecai Roshwald's Level 7, and Yevgeny Zamyatin's We. At the same time, it pokes fun at the identity codes of popular spy fiction, in particular the famous "007" of James Bond."

Since now things common to a subject but not directly but secondarily common to the subject are no longer valid information worthy of inclusion.

And.[22]

"Some of the episodes, including the absurd finale, were too nonsensical (it was the hippy-dippy late ‘60s, mind you), but the better ones rank right up with Ayn Rand in their power to promote the idea of individualism."

I mean its no like I quote a libertarian biased site like Box Office Mojo. Since now things common to a subject but not directly but secondarily common to the subject are no longer valid information worthy of inclusion. LoveMonkey (talk) 01:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

You can't say that someone was influenced by Rand unless there is a reliable source which says s/he was. The Prisoner has multiple aspects to it, and while it might be claimed by the followers of Rand, or people might speculate that she would have liked to watch it that means nothing. It was very popular in socialist circles in Britain at the time as well. Does that make it a socialist movie? If there are other examples where policy was not applied then point them out.

And you are? (Since you have no sign at the end of your remarks) LoveMonkey (talk) 01:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

It is one thing to say that something has a similarity to Rand's ideas. It is quite another to say that it was influenced by Rand. You would need a solid, academic source stating that, and even then, without the show's creators coming out and saying so explicitly, you could probably only say that some people believe the show was influenced by Rand. TallNapoleon (talk) 01:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

More bickering and attempting to argue and justify bad behavior by banned editors User:Snowded and User:TallNapoleon. This is why WP:Axe to Grind destroys articles. Wow the Rand article has really unclear and unique policies cause WP:Source DOES NOT SAY WHAT YOU JUST SAID! Example Ayn Rand was a celebrity Since when do academic ever validate celebrities info.I'll cut to the chase-NEVER. As if ever thing common about Rand has to be validated by academia.

Example:WP:Source says instead that

"Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications. The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context. Where there is disagreement between sources, their views should be clearly attributed in the text." LoveMonkey (talk) 02:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Love Monkey, no one is bickering just pointing out policy. You have no source that says anything or anyone in the Prisoner was influenced by Rand. Now please cease these commentaries on other editors and address the content issues. You might also check out how to use indents by the way. Its not hard. --Snowded (talk) 02:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh good you signed that comment! You might yourself learn to edit better & put your sig at the end of your comments like you couldn't do with your previous comment above[23]. But you've not been one open to criticism but REAL quick to put your criticism right up front. As for your ignoring my comments above I will re-post one of them here.

And..[24]

"As with much of the extensive symbolism employed in the series, this device had multiple layers of meaning. Obviously, it signifies the elimination of individual identity, a time-honored SF device found in such dystopias as Ayn Rand's Anthem, Mordecai Roshwald's Level 7, and Yevgeny Zamyatin's We. At the same time, it pokes fun at the identity codes of popular spy fiction, in particular the famous "007" of James Bond." LoveMonkey (talk) 03:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

And where does that say that there was any influence by Rand? --Snowded (talk) 03:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

And since why are you ignoring what I posted above, in that it is a common association made with Rand? I just sourced with multiple sources? By your standard Christmas isn't Christian because A. Christ didn't celebrate it and B. it ain't in the bible C. And scholars didnt say so (i.e. pliny).. You and this group of editors' conduct is ruining this article. LoveMonkey (talk) 03:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

You have not produced a single source which says that the writers or actors in The Prisoner were influenced by Rand. If you do come back here and we can have a discussion. --Snowded (talk) 14:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

quote all the sources you want. "They" will find fault with them. Anything that says ayn rand is a philosopher is unacceptable because "obviously" no reputable source would say she is. give up and just watch the show.Brushcherry (talk) 07:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)brushcherry

Good Advice Brushcherry, Good Advice.

LoveMonkey (talk) 12:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Biased sources

The presumptuously named "Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy" is not an WP:NPOV compliant source. See for example this radical right-wing extremist piece on the so-called "Right to Private Property." The same would go for citation of anything by its author, Tibor Machan. The guy is a card-carrying right-"libertarian" (Cato Institute) and former faculty member of the *bleeping* Ludwig von Mises Institute, for the love of neutrality! Relying on the likes of Machan and the IEoP to be used as sources for Ayn Rand as a "philosopher" is akin to deferring to Vladimir Lenin as a source on whether Karl Marx was a "scientist." This is simply outrageous. I demand a reconsideration of these extremely biased Austro-libertarian sources. --Down2theRhythm (talk) 11:38, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that the IEP should be treated as a blog source. As far as I'm aware, these are not published articles, as they only appear on this internet site. I really don't see how this site is any more reputable than the philosopher blogs that we have mostly rejected. CABlankenship (talk) 12:38, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The IEP is a peer-reviewed, attributed, scholarly source with editorial oversight from qualified professionals, which is published by the University of Tennessee at Martin, and which has entered mainstream academic discourse. As such, it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for reliable scholarship; though if you disagree, feel free to raise the matter at WP:RSN. Without commenting on the two articles in question, that, for example, an entry on descriptivism be written by an academic who holds descriptivist views, is so common it is mundane. Skomorokh 08:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm extremely suspicious of the neutrality of an article that begins "Ayn Rand was a major intellectual of the twentieth century. " How do we know the IEP is not funded by the Objectivist Centre? I agree however that until we can establish the facts, it should remain a 'reliable' and 'independent' source. Peter Damian (talk) 14:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

---

Emailed the editors of the IEP: "Hello, I have a question about the usually very reliable "Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy". The article on Ayn Rand [25] by Stephen Hicks is highly uncritical of Rand, which is surprising given that very few if any serious scholars consider her as anything other than a novelist with some native philosophical talent but who was self-taught, lacking in rigour and philosophically naive. The article is written by Stephen Hicks who I believe receives a grant from the Objectivist centre and cannot be considered independent. Were the reviewers of this article independent? The Oxford Companion to Philosophy (article 'Popular Philosophy' by Anthony Quinton) classifies her as an 'amateur philosopher'. Hick's article, by contrast, opens with the statement that she is a 'major intellectual of the twentieth century'. I asked Prof. Mike Huemer (Philosophy Dept., Univ. of Colorado) for a second opinion, and he wrote back as follows: "Most academic philosophers do not discuss or think about Ayn Rand. Most who know anything about her probably think she is an amateur who is not worth spending much time discussing. In my own view, Rand had some important ideas that are interesting to discuss. I think her novels show some real insight into human nature and how society works, and I think her political theories are basically right. She also, unfortunately, suffered from insufficient knowledge of the philosophical literature, insufficient training, a tendency to oversimplify, and a severe uncharitableness towards others". With best wishes Dr Edward B-------- Peter Damian (talk) 14:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I had an email discussion on Rand with Daniel Dennett. His response can be summarized with his comment: "Ayn Rand does not deserve the attention of any serious philosopher." However, seeing as how I am not a "serious philosopher", I have continued to give her attention. CABlankenship (talk) 15:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Hicks was a senior fellow at the Objectivist Center, 1999/2000.KD Tries Again (talk) 16:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Thanks. I just had a reply from Jim Fieser (ed in chief IEP). He agrees with what I say, and claims he is no fan of Rand from an academic perspective. The reason they included the article by Hicks was because the IEP tries to model itself after the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy , which has an article on Rand. Hicks had approached them, and they agreed. 'It was a tough call'. I think this reflects very poorly on the IEP, and it had me doubting its credibility. Moreover, the Routledge article is very critical, unlike the one by Hicks. But, regrettably, it has to stand as source. Peter Damian (talk) 17:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

"Rigorous"

A number of new sources have been added, described as "rigorous" defenses of some aspect of Rand's work. We cannot state thta they are rigorous, as that is POV. We can only state that they are defenses. TallNapoleon (talk) 01:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

And the comments should all go. Assuming good faith is all very well, but I checked the two of the "rigorous" authors cited - David Kelley and Tara Smith - he's a director of the Objectivist Center and she holds a chair in "Objectivist studies" somewhere. Sheer common sense detects publication bias here. We are being played for fools.KD Tries Again (talk) 03:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

I think we need administrator intervention here, to be perfectly honest. Things are yet again deteriorating, and without some folks willing and able to lay down the law it will just get work. If no one else objects I'll make a post to ANI and ask for some additional administrative oversight. TallNapoleon (talk) 03:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

i'm surprised administrators, arbcom, etc would even bother with ayn rand anymore. it is such a mess. the fact someone who has been banned from editing the ayn page has the gumption to ask for administrative oversight is astounding. yes, yes, yes, you are free to contribute to the talk page, calm down, and its a free wikipedia, you should feel free to make a post to ANI. "things are yet again deteriorating"?? to what? the situation that got you banned? perhaps you should reflect on your ban and consider if you are part of the problem or the solution.Brushcherry (talk) 07:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC) brushcherry

Ignoring Brushcherry's remarks which could be considered an example of failing to take the Arbcom ruling seriously. I am not sure an administrator will help to be honest. The question of sources and evidence was raised when the case was taken there and Arcbcom resolutely refused to the issue up. At the moment we have a mass of edits which need modification but we only have two editors active at the moment. I'd suggest a discussion on evidence in the context of WP:Weight. We need as a community to agree something here, and or use other Wikipedia groups to moderate an agreement then seek enforcement. In that context while Tara Smith is funded by objectivist sympathisers she does hold a position in a respectable university, while Kelley is more questionable. For the moment it may fall to you KD to remove the qualitative statements, although its good to see more references been added. --Snowded (talk) 07:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

hmmmm.....who isn't taking arbcom seriously? they banned you for edit warring, but you are right because the question of sources and evidence (which of course you are correct about) (<sarcasm) was resolutely refused to be discussed. maybe, just maybe, arbcom was right. are you part of the problem or part of the solution?Brushcherry (talk) 07:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)brushcherry

Bushcherry I've got a three month topic ban which I am respecting. Arcbcom said that their remit did not include the issue of evidence but it had to be resolved within the editorial community. You were reminded that the talk page is for content discussion and asked to broaden your interests. Todate few if any of your contributions have been about content, but you have continued talking about editors and you have not diversified your interests. I strongly suggest you abide by and respect the Arbcom ruling. --Snowded (talk) 08:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I have posted a request for intervention here. TallNapoleon (talk) 08:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there's any question that the descriptive content in those references needs to go, so I'll remove it (I've inserted neutral language instead). Ironic to find Rand, of all people, defended in language which would be at home in a giveaway Trotskyist newsletter. I expect soon to read that she "relentlessly demonstrated" something or other.KD Tries Again (talk) 15:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

• • Perhaps I could ask User 72.199.110.160, who has made an enormous number of edits over the last two or three days, to be cautious about using the reference section for advocacy purposes? Rand is indeed a character in Buckley's novel Getting it Right, but the appropriate supporting reference is to that very book, and not to an objectivist blog article criticizing Buckley; which is not a Wikipedia reliable source in any case.KD Tries Again (talk) 19:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

I think limiting the Notes section strictly to publishing details and quotes from the source would be a good idea. Skomorokh 10:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources

I've started reviewing the large and growing list of references, especially in the context of self-published sources, but also Wiki policy on sources generally. I got through the first hundred. Quite a few references appear to direct to three self-published blogs, and these are unacceptable per Wiki policy:

• http://www.noblesoul.com/: I know "Objectivism Reference Center" sounds grand, but anyone can start a blog with a grand name. It's just some guy's site.

• http://www.lewrockwell.com/

• http://ariwatch.com/: This actually appears to be anonymous, unless I am missing something.

Chris Sciabarra's own web-pages are also cited a number of times, but I suppose he's "an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications"?

I don't want to re-hash old debates (or read the archives from beginning to end). Is there an existing consensus about using the Ayn Rand Institute's website as a source? It's certainly not a "reliable source" - I suppose it might be admitted as a self-published source on itself (although it's really used here as a source on Ayn Rand), but surely it could be described as "unduly self-serving." Surely the article relies on it too much? (I hope it's noted that my comments are impartial as to whether the sources are pro- or anti-Rand).KD Tries Again (talk) 23:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

You now get to the real nub of the problem - sources. This is particularly true for Philosophy. If you check then sources seem to be (i) Objectivist Philosophers of standing who like her ideas but reject her as a philosopher (ii) People with varying levels of academic connection in objectivist institutes (iii) people whose work is funded by objectivist donors (iv) occassional reference by non-objectivist philosophers in their blogs etc. The best formulation we had on the lede was that she was an author who generated or inspired a philosophical movement and that gained consensus but was reversed just prior to a freeze. My view is that we need to agree principles for citation and weight here before making too many changes to the article. --Snowded (talk) 23:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Snowded, most "Objectivist Philosophers of standing" definitely don't reject her as a philosopher, otherwise they would hardly be Objectivist. There are a number of Objectivist philosophers post-Rand who have done serious work, and I think they should definitely be considered experts on the topic. I actually know one who is a philosophy professor at my university. If the atmosphere here weren't so downright poisonous I'd ask him if he'd be willing to help with sources, but I don't want to bring anyone else into this mess. TallNapoleon (talk) 00:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, they are dismissive of her philosophical understanding (see various quotes above), and I think Objectivism has moved on from Rand and while I disagree with them in the main I acknowledge the quality of their work. I think that distinction is important to resolving the issue. --Snowded (talk) 00:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

One of the extremely poor sources I identified is, of course, violently opposed to Rand. I plan to carry on editing as if this were any Wikipedia article, and see what happens.KD Tries Again (talk) 01:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

It would be preferable to replace the sources identified. In some cases, these sorts of references are mostly harmless, e.g. citing Noblesoul.com for a quote excerpted from one of Rand's books – it's unlikely an Objectivist site would misquote her. Most of the questionable sources are simply republishing material that would otherwise be considered reliable; that is, the only question is whether or not their republishing preserved the integrity of the original work ([26], [27], [28]). The reprint of Rothbard's Sociology in Lewrockwell.com is a good example of this; Rockwell is the Peikoff of the LvMI and extremely unlikely to misrepresent Rothbard. The point here is that it's not the reliability of the website that is of primary importance, but that of the original publisher.

I'd be more suspicious of using the ARI as a reliable source on the number of copies of Atlas Shrugged; this sort of thing should only be mentioned where an independent (from the ARI and from booksellers) source has published the claim. Although ARI is in some cases the best source available, if only because of their privileged access to documents and reticence to share them with scholars (cf. Sciabarra and Rand's transcript), I definitely agree with KD's suggestion that the article is over-reliant on the institute. One unacceptable reference is Last.fm, whose artist biographies last time I checked were open wikis. KD, I think a thorough fisking of the sources is an idea to be welcomed; it would be a good idea to list the questionable references here in full, so we can debate their merits on a case-by-case basis and hopefully find replacements. Skomorokh 10:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree of course that we should find replacements where possible. If a website is quoting a book, the reference should be to the original book (especially if the website is adding a critical gloss). I think it does stretch Wiki policy a bit far to accept a source as reliable on the basis that it is quoting an original source which is reliable - blogs are not reliable sources - but I don't want to be over-lawyerly about it. I'll try and pull the questionable references into manageable groups.KD Tries Again (talk) 13:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

1.ARI Watch

Okay, kicking off the references review. This website is cited in refs 77 and 79. It's an anti-Rand site. I can't see any details of ownership, authorship, but please correct me if I'm wrong. Looks like a classic bad source - self-published, unreviewed, no fact checking. 77 has already been tagged. 77 supports "While Rand often criticized conventional motivations for U.S. involvement in World War I, World War II..."; 79 supports She strongly denounced pacifism: "When a nation resorts to war, it has some purpose, rightly or wrongly, something to fight for—and the only justifiable purpose is self-defense" and "Rand opposed the Vietnam War". The website purports to quote Rand's texts, and those are the citations we should be using if they are accurate. Is anyone in a position to check for accuracy - it should all be in the "Roots of War" essay in the Capitalism book? I don't see a clear-cut statement of opposition to the Vietnam war in the link, except in a footnote which purports to be a transcript from a Q&A session somewhere. Agree these need to be replaced?KD Tries Again (talk) 15:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

I agree with your assessment of the source, and don't see any reason to retain the references. Sciabarra here verifies Rand's opposition to the Vietnam War and I have a battered copy of Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal I should be able to access this week; will those two refs suffice? Skomorokh 17:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Certainly. I have a few battered old Rands on the shelves, but not that one.KD Tries Again (talk) 18:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Oddly enough, it's the only one I've got. I've added the Sciabarra ref to verify the opposition of the Objective One to the Vietnam War. Skomorokh 18:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks like 160 beat me to it. All references to ARI Watch have now been replaced – shall we move on to the next candidate? Skomorokh 07:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

2.Noble Soul (The Objectivist Reference Center)

Okay, next candidate. Cites currently numbered 33, 35, 43, and 116. Go to the pageand it looks like a clear-cut example of a solo blog, unedited, not peer-revied, self-published. Classic Wiki unreliable source, and the official-sounding tag "The Objectivist Reference Center" doesn't help. 33 purports to cite a transcript of the HUAC proceedings. Even if it's a correct transcript, the editorialising (check the footnotes) makes it an advocacy piece. 35 is something which, if posted directly on Wiki, would be OR. 43 is superflous, as it follows an adequate reference. I can't see how 116 supports the statements in the article anyway; it doesn't seem to contain the language quoted.KD Tries Again (talk) 15:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Anon IP Contributions without discussion

Over the past few days a couple of anon IPs have made a large number of contributions to the article without discussing here at the talk page. For instance, someone just dramatically expanded the "influenced" list in the infobox (although in this case its clear that they were all influenced by Rand). Is there any way that we could try and get them to engage on the talk page before making changes?

Influenced

72.199.110.160 please discuss these additions here first. It was one of the major bones of contention and should not be subject to direct editing without agreement. The prior position was a small number of major names, not a shopping list of anyone who might be remotely influenced. If listed there also needs to be citation. I would recommend that you revert the edit and present the names here for discussion,, contentious issues are meant to be discussed here first under the Arbcom ruling and that is one of them. --Snowded (talk) 00:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Yep, 72.199.110.160 (obviously an editor without an account) has been putting in a lot of work on the article without engaging with other editors. I have to say, 72.199.110.160 clearly has exceptional knowledge of this field, and has created and worked on a range of related articles. And the editing is pretty efficient. I think we must be welcoming, but also guide the editor as far as original research and reliable sources are concerned.KD Tries Again (talk) 01:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Snowded, Rand's influence on all those mentioned is included in their articles, I'm pretty sure. W/ the exception of Ditko all the ones added are Objectivists. TallNapoleon (talk) 03:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree with KD, but that involves the editor spending some time here as well as on the main page. TallN, I don't disagree, but you can't list everyone and we agreed to keep the list tight, it needs discussion and in some cases I would want to check the citation on their talk pages. --Snowded (talk) 06:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh I agree completely, Snowded. I just wanted it to be clear that these weren't problematic because of sourcing but because of brevity. TallNapoleon (talk) 06:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I am however worried that the IP editor is not engaging on the talk page. Hopefully they will, if not then I think its a report for failure to abide by Arbcom rules for editors not named. --Snowded (talk) 14:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Legacy: Christopher Hitchens

It is hard to keep up with the unilateral, undiscussed edits which are being made. I just deleted the reference to Hitchens describing Rand as a leading intellectual of the Right. Why? Yes, he said it. But he has said other things about Rand too. He has described her fiction as "transcendentally awful," and called her "one of the battiest females to have infested the American scene" [29]. The context of the laudatory remark was a discussion of atheism, and he was making the point that leading lights on the Right had been atheists. Again, I'd urge our very busy IP editor (who is doing some good work) to avoid advocacy - in this case through selective quotation.KD Tries Again (talk) 13:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

The material has been reinserted without discussion. I placed a note on the user page. However this IP address ha a history of simply ignoring other comments so I expect this will have to be notified at Arbcom enforcement. --Snowded (talk) 03:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I've removed it. This might be a BLP Notice Board issue, as Hitchens is being deliberately misrepresented here, and he's a living person last time I looked. One could simply add his comment about Rand's unique level of battiness, but that's how this article has already spiralled out of control.KD Tries Again (talk) 15:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Talk:Ayn Rand/Sandbox again

I made a number of changes to the sandbox, trimming a good amount of material off the article. Would anyone care to comment on what they think? TallNapoleon (talk) 04:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it is odd that someone who is not a philosopher has a philosophy section. a philosophical criticism section. rand works and academic philosophy.Brushcherry (talk) 07:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)brushcherry

Brushcherry (talk) 09:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)== Truncate Philosophy Section and subsequent view sections ==

Everything below the first paragraph until we hit Criticism goes. There are a number of articles detailing Ayn Rand's views - the removal of the duplication dicernably decreases the articles load time. Karbinski (talk) 19:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I definitely agree with truncating the philosophy section; it is not at all accessible for a biographical article and there are better articles to exposit this information in. A selective merge might make more sense than straightforward removal, however. As for the political and social views – I think the topic is given undue weight here but it's well referenced (i.e. discussed in secondary literature) and there is no obvious merge target; removing it from the encyclopaedia entirely is inconsistent with Wikipedia's goals. Skomorokh 19:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The point that the material has no obvious merge targets is well-taken. I'm going to boldly try again. Karbinski (talk) 20:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

There's a very important issue here which I think needs input from a number of editors. Certainly there's too much duplication in Rand-related Wikipedia articles. In addition to Ayn Rand and Objectivism (Ayn Rand), there are several sub-articles on her philosophical views. I started checking, and haven't yet finished, but it looks like the way in which Rand's philosophy is spread over several articles is absolutely unique on Wikipedia, and I think it's time either to justify the approach or to change it. Anyone can start going through a list of the most famous philosophers, from Plato to Kant to Heidegger and Wittgenstein. Their philosophy is dealt with in the main, parent article. Certainly, philosophical schools have separate articles - so you'll read about Sartre's philosophy at Sartre as well as at Existentialism. But no philosopher - however significant - has separate pages devoted to their work in metaphysics, ethics, epistemology, etc.

I think we need to address this before moving material into those sub-articles. I don't have a strong feeling whether Rand's philosophical should be here or at Objectivism (Ayn Rand), but I do not think it should be in half a dozen different places. (This is not to object to Karbinski's initiative, but just to broaden the issue).KD Tries Again (talk) 21:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

• Why would the philosophy section go, but the criticism of it stay? Am I missing something? ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:44, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

There is substantial duplication and there are a plethora of articles as KD says. Personally I have increasingly come to the opinion that we need to separate Ayn Rand the person from Objectivism the philosophy. The conflation of the two is part of the problem(s) here. On Objectivism (Ayn Rand) at the moment we have criticism of Ayn Rand's view of Native Americans been used to criticise Objectivism with no statements as to any logical connection between those views, or indications that Objectivism inherently holds that position. I'd suggest that this needs to be an article about Ayn Rand the person, which obviously includes reference to her legacy, not Objectivism the Philosophy. Equally that would mean Objectivism (Ayn Rand) while honouring its origins should focus on Objectivism as expounded by its philosophical adherents. Criticism of the philosophy thus goes to Objectivism (Ayn Rand) and is not here, criticism of Ayn Rand as a person, as a writer etc. belong here not on that page. Agreement to something along those lines (and possibly some central place to discuss and record such agreements) might help considerably. What do people think? --Snowded (talk) 05:27, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I worry that sometimes when there are separate articles for things that content appropriate to the main article is spun off completely. I would like to see a clear summary of the key bits kept here in addition to a link to the separate article. But generally speaking I have no objection to better focusing this article to her biography. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Just seeing snowded say "Objectivism the Philosophy" makes me hopeful of a breakthrough. I generally agree (for once) with snowded. Ayn Rand and Objectivism (Ayn Rand) are two different topics. My only concern would be, at some point in the ayn rand article, we have to address that she founded objectivism the philosophy. just a sentance or two, maybe a link to Objectivism (Ayn Rand). and get rid of all the anti-rand philosophy on the ayn rand page and put it on Objectivism (Ayn Rand). further consolidating the several sub-articles on her philosophical views intoObjectivism (Ayn Rand) i would also support.Brushcherry (talk) 06:52, 4 April 2009 (UTC)brushcherry Brushcherry (talk) 07:00, 4 April 2009 (UTC)brushcherry

I have always felt that saying she founded a school of philosophy is the way out of the problem and have not questioned that Objectivism is a philosophy (although objectivism does not equal post-Rand Objectivism). Other than that in full agreement with the consolidation you suggest BushCherry. --Snowded (talk) 08:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

ohhhh...we are so close. she founded a school of philosophy. objectivism is a philosophy. would it kill you to say she is a philosopher? say what you want about that philosophy at Objectivism (Ayn Rand). i find objectivism simplistic and at best "pop" philosophyBrushcherry (talk) 09:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)brushcherry