Talk:Ayn Rand

Article cross-talk

Use of cross-talk page

There doesn't seem to be much use of the Objectivism cross-talk page lately. I'm the only one who has used it since February. Is it still relevant? --RL0919 (talk) 20:41, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps not. Although I love it, I have to say it now seems like an esoteric feature. Karbinski (talk) 14:25, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Use of Social Security and Medicare (redux)

Brettxiv (talk · contribs) added the following comment at Talk:Ayn Rand/Archive 41#Use_of Social Security and Medicare:

"This issue is not minor, it took a FOI request to get, it should be documented. This is not a propaganda piece."

Since that page is an archive, I'm moving it to the active talk page for discussion. --RL0919 (talk) 20:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Nope. For example a person who votes against major highway funding would not be notable for riding on roads. A person who opposes teachers' unions would not be two-faced for allowing their kids to go to public school. She had to pay into the system therefore it is reasonable to use what one has paid for. In fact, it is union backers who send their kids to private school who should be notable. If one pays for something and does not use it, that does not make them "better" in any way - only a tad irrational. Collect (talk) 20:21, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I concur with omission. The only reason this is being thrown around now is because it was an attempt at point scoring by Rand's political opponents ('She opposed govt social services but used them herself - hypocrite!') that misfired rather obviously (endorsed morality of using s.s. in public writings) leaving the story here being yet another indication that reception of Rand is polarized and ideologically-driven – a point covered amply already. Skomorokh 21:08, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Her collection of Medicare and Social Security benefits under a false name hardly seems like a case of "driving on roads she did not vote for". If there is a question of weight, sourcing, then those should be addressed. Using logical synthesis as above is not a policy driven rationale for exclusion. As there seems to be no clear policy based reason for removing the reference, I have restored it.aprock (talk) 21:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

If you read the archived discussion linked above, you will see that there are indeed significant issues of weight. Only one biography of Rand mentions that she took Social Security. It does not make any accusations of hypocrisy. This is an issue championed primarily in non-reliable blogs, with the occasional marginal RS in the form of an opinion piece. Normally we would not include trivial details about someone's life, nor would we source biographical facts to opinion pieces, nor would we give space in the article opinions to expressed by insignificant authors in a tiny minority of reliable sources. So discussing this in the aritcle is undue weight, and attempting to insert opinion pieces as "sources" for facts that are already cited from higher-quality sources is a POV variation on citation spam. --RL0919 (talk) 21:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I neither mentioned hypocrisy, nor did I put content related to Social Security in the article. If the one biography (which one?) is a more reliable source, then I agree it would be a better source than alternet. I also agree that op-ed characterizations are not appropriate. With respect to weight, what level of coverage would be sufficient for inclusion of her using a false name to collect entitlement benefits? aprock (talk) 22:02, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The topic of discussion is the material related to SS and Medicare that was previously added to the article, not just things you personally may have mentioned. As to your question, for any biographical claim, I would consider coverage in a serious biography or journal article rather than web opinion pieces and blogs to be a minimum criterion. And since the regular editors here have been trying to improve the quality of sources used in the article, I am totally opposed to using citations to web opinion pieces as "sourcing" for factual claims that can be sourced to a print biography, which is what you have done by adding the alternet ref back to the article after I added a citation to Heller for the same fact. --RL0919 (talk) 22:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, as I agreed above, sourcing the Social Security content to the one biography that mentions it would be preferable. aprock (talk) 22:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The plain fact that she took Social Security needn't be in the article at all, because it is trivial. If we are going to expand the article, there are numerous more significant things to say first. But if we are agreed that Alternet should not be used as a source for something already cited from a print bio, then the current refnote using it should be removed from the article. --RL0919 (talk) 22:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

If her collection of Social Security were a "plain fact", it would not merit inclusion. Sourcing her use of a pseudonym to collect entitlements to the appropriate biography would certainly be preferable. aprock (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

What "pseudonym"? O'Connor was her married name, and "Ann" could easily be a clerical mistake by a government bureaucrat unfamiliar with the unusual name 'Ayn'. Even the Alternet article doesn't call it a "pseudonym" or make any claim of significance for the variation in name. (Of course 'Ayn Rand' also was not her birth name, but that is discussed in the article already.) --RL0919 (talk) 22:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there's any real need to get hung up over terminology. "Ayn Rand" is a pseudonym. That said, I certainly agree that sourcing content to cite is the appropriate way to handle things. aprock (talk) 23:04, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

(outdent) I concur with RL, Skomorokh, and Collect: this is an extraordinarily trivial issue being stirred up in a bunch of unreliable sources for political points scoring. It's a tempest in a teapot, and doesn't belong in the kind of high-level biography one would expect to find in an encyclopedia. TallNapoleon (talk) 01:31, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The unreliable sources are irrelevant, only the reliable sources have any bearing on the article. aprock (talk) 02:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

And only one reliable source even mentions it, and they don't think it's a big deal. Seriously, this article is gigantic. Discussing the fact that she collected Social Security--like everyone else--is unnecessary detail. TallNapoleon (talk) 08:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The gigantic size of the article is not relevant. If she collected Social Security like everyone else this wouldn't be an issue. aprock (talk) 14:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

There are multiple books about Rand's life and a journal devoted to the study of her, plus numerous journalistic pieces and other sources. It is not feasible for an encyclopedia article to include every fact documented in these sources. We must pick and choose. I can reliably source the names of Rand's cats, but such trivia does not belong in the article. We can reliably source the fact that Rand took SS benefits, which is also a trivial fact. The best quality sources either don't mention it at all or treat it as a routine fact. Only a few minor opinion pieces give it significance, among a long list of opinion pieces about Rand that discuss a huge list of issues that again are overwhelmingly larger than what can be included in an encyclopedia article. Since as you say, only the reliable sources have any bearing on the article, we should give this the same relative significance that they do. In a 6000-word article, that boils down to no mention at all. --RL0919 (talk) 15:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I certainly agree. Trivia is not rendered weight by appearing in a single reliable source. Opinion pieces generate weight only with respect to the author's views and are generally not appropriate for BLPs. I would not characterize the treatment in "100 voices" of her collection as one of routine fact. Let me ask again, "what level of coverage would be sufficient for inclusion"? aprock (talk) 16:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

100 Voices is a series of interviews of people who knew Rand in some way, basically primary source material. One of the interviewees was a legal consultant who helped her apply for Social Security. So of course that is one of the things she talked about in her interview. A couple of interviewees were officers at West Point when Rand made a speech there (another detail not mentioned in the article), so they talked about that. So, yes, this is treated as a routine fact in that book, just another topic from another interviewee talking about the tiny slice of Rand's life that they participated in, no different than descriptions of parties Rand's attended or her secretary talking about how Rand's handwriting was hard to read. As a primary source, these interviews are potentially useful, but the book is not a biography and makes no attempt to weight material by significance. The one actual biography that discusses Rand taking SS benefits is Anne Heller's Ayn Rand and the World She Made. She mentions that Rand took SS in a parenthetical comment while talking about Alan Greenspan's participation in a government committee on Social Security, "(a benefit [Rand] deplored as socialistic but, unlike Isabel Paterson, accepted, because she had paid into the fund)." That's the whole treatment, in a book of 567 pages, which is just one of several biographies of Rand. So while I do not have a precise response for the heuristic question of "what level of coverage would be sufficient", I am comfortable that the answer is "more than what this gets". --RL0919 (talk) 17:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I second Heller as a source settling the issue. Seems to me that everyone who is touting Rand today or tearing her down are really just focused beating their own chests or beating their opposition into a pulp. I have no reason or intent to detract from her contribution to literature, however, she was not an original thinker; moreover, those enamored of her today should consider that she went out of style in her own lifetime. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 20:26, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

@RL, so there are two reliable sources. One that mentions it, and another that goes into detail about it. While I can understand that you're not really interested in setting goal posts, given the amount of coverage the topic received in secondary and tertiary sources, it's difficult for me to see that including it is undue. aprock (talk) 21:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Then evidently you still don't understand that this is a drop in the bucket. This article is not a stub or about some obscure subject where we are lucky to find a single secondary source that mentions a piece of information. Compare "She collected Social Security" with such statements as "She never learned to drive", "She attended an Apollo moon launch", "She was friends with Mickey Spillane", "She enjoyed playing Scrabble", and "Her favorite color was blue-green". All of these are better sourced. --RL0919 (talk) 22:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

You'll pardon me if I don't find that sort of synthesis convincing. aprock (talk) 22:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't expect you will ever be convinced, but I think it is safe to say the consensus is against you. If anyone else wants to speak up they are welcome to join the conversation. --RL0919 (talk) 22:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Against me in what way? There's a clear consensus that this information is reliably sourced in multiple sources. There is some debate about whether or not it is due, but I suspect that a two word mention of it in a "gigantic" article is not substantially out of line. You've established that you disagree. That's fine. It may be that you are a little too involved in the topic to be completely objective. When I get a chance I'll do some more research into the topic and put up an RfC. aprock (talk) 22:51, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Personally, the "Political influence" influence section should go at the end, discuss her effect, then include a subsection on "Resurgence among political conservatives." All the slavish admiration of Rand and the counters to it in current political discourse (if you can even call it that) can go in there, including the whole Medicare thing. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 22:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

It is not surprising that there is consensus over a point that absolutely no one has been arguing about. The source of contention has never been whether the fact that she took benefit payments can be reliably sourced. It has always been over whether such trivia is important enough to include in the article. It isn't. But do as much research as you need, since it certainly would help if you were familiar with the subject and its sources before commenting on what topics deserve coverage in an article about it. (And I would love to see the "two word mention" that would cover this issue, since it takes that many words just to say "Social Security" with no subject, verb, or context.) --RL0919 (talk) 00:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps there should be a note in the article saying "don't add this". What do you think? -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 03:12, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

That sort of note is best avoided unless there is a very serious need for it. There used to be a note (since removed) about the use of the term "philosopher", which was added at a time when the page was headed into an arbitration case. I don't thing things are quite that bad with this particular issue. --RL0919 (talk) 04:22, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Surely the use of Social Security is only a minor footnote in Rands life but can nevertheless be included since two words serve the purpose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.201.100.83 (talk) 14:38, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

If you mean your edit adding "publicly funded" to the sentence about her lung cancer surgery, then that won't do at all, because it is false. Rand had her surgery in 1974, before she had signed up for either Medicare or Social Security. If you read the source you attempted to cite, you would know this, because in her interview, the woman who helped Rand sign up talks about learning that Rand "had had cancer" before they met. --RL0919 (talk) 14:49, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Good point. Its interesting though that you took this incident as a cause to not only remove my edit but also the source. You also justified the removal of it not with its falsity but with the redundancy and my misinterpretation of the source. That seems to be no viable argumentation since you argued above with a necessary redundancy of sources to render a fact important in Rands life and my misinterpretation does not jeopardize the source at all.212.201.100.83 (talk) 15:05, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I may also draw your attention to the fact that the Medicare issue was found to be important enough for a short note on the German wikipedia site: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand. --212.201.100.83 (talk) 15:15, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The only reason that particular source is in the article is because of past attempts to use it when introducing the Social Security trivia and associated POV pushing. Removing it is overdue cleanup of oversourcing, which ought to be done throughout the article. As to needing multiple sources to provided due weight, the point there is that we can validate the inclusion of material based on its treatment in secondary sources. That doesn't mean that all those sources have to be cited inline. And an interview with a witness is a primary source anyway; if multiple citations are needed, it would be better to cite other secondary source biographies, such as Burns or Britting or Branden. And I can't help it if mistakes and crap sourcing linger on some other wiki; that's hardly justification for the same here. --RL0919 (talk) 16:31, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Clearly this source is not a case of oversourcing which refers to ridiculous cases making the text untidy or unreadable. It has also nothing to do with due weight because there are no contrary opinions present in this case other than those expressed in this forum. The SS and Medicare issue is a fact that you don't want to be included for whatever comprehensible or questionable reason and not a matter of different viewpoints in the literature.

You also missed my point since I didn't directly address the fact that you removed the source but that you removed it for false reasons ("Later years: benefits signed up for in 1975 couldn't pay for a 1974 surgery; rm redundant ref that led to this mis-association") which implies that it had to be deleted because I misunderstood it. It's ridiculous to delete one of two sources because of redundancy, just incidentally being the one that contains information you don't want to see here. I could as well delete the other one! Selective handling of sources and facts, isn't that the definition of POV pushing?--212.201.100.83 (talk) 17:47, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The non-POV approach to sources starts with actually reading them. That way, you could figure out whether one of them is a secondary-source biography that fully supports every detail of the sentence it is cited for. Or whether the other is a primary-source interview that only supports a small portion of the sentence. And if you read them, you might be able explain what information from the interview is not in the biography. As to the due weight issue, that is discussed above and the conclusion about what belongs in the article is supported by multiple parties, so I won't rehash it again now. --RL0919 (talk) 19:09, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Kind of makes me wonder why 212.201.100.83 feels SO strongly about this issue. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 20:33, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Rand seems to have a lot of influence on contemporary politicians. I think that's reason enough to deliver people the whole picture. The very reason why biographies are written is that you can't divide the creator from his creation, right? When you mention that Barack Obama got the nobel peace prize you should also take into account that he intensified the drone war in Afghanistan or is there no connection? What good would be a biography about Rousseau who had influence on pedagogy without mentioning that he gave three children to an orphanage? On the other hand I really don't think of this issue as THAT important. But that only adds to my suspicions towards an advocator who is evidently trying to keep this biography clean, not only regarding this matter alone.--212.201.100.83 (talk) 15:36, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

The article should be kept "clean" of trivia and POVs that are not given significance by reliable secondary sources. It is not supposed to be a soapbox for bloggers. Could it be improved by adjusting parts of the article that have more of a pro-Rand slant than the best sources? Yes, there are spots where this could be done. But the addition of this particular detail is not an improvement, because reliable sources overwhelmingly ignore this issue or treat it as minor trivia. --RL0919 (talk) 16:32, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a blogger nor do I read many blogs but what disqualifies them to be an indicator for interesting aspects about persons who caused a lot of controversy? As I read in the archived discussion there was once a section in the article that told about the issue and also about Rands justification for that which I find quite convincing. I'd be fine with that being mentioned.

To this day no one knows if Adolf Hitler had jewish ancestors and there are no reliable sources on that matter but guess what: In the most significant biography about him (J. Fest) there is a large section devoted to this topic. Isn't the coherence of a persons work and their character òne of the basic issues of a biography?--90.136.4.130 (talk) 22:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

In regard to the use of blogs, I refer you to the pages on verifiability and reliable sources. As to your analogy, if there were "a large section devoted to this topic" in one or more of the major Rand biographies, then we would be having a very different conversation. Perhaps in the future there will be. Something similar happened regarding Rand's use of amphetamines. It was mentioned briefly in an early bio that not everyone trusted, but then more recent biographies from uninvolved authors confirmed it and gave more detail, so now it is included in the article with no significant dispute. For another example, there used to be a lot of heated dispute over whether she should be described as a "philosopher", until proof was provided that the term is used in multiple reliable sources. --RL0919 (talk) 01:15, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

alternet.org

See WP:RSN at [1]. Opinions must be cited as opinions and not as fact. Alternet.org is not RS as a source for facts. Collect (talk) 10:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure who this is directed to or why this is being discussed. alternet.org is not cited in the article. aprock (talk) 14:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't, because Brettxiv (talk · contribs) is edit-warring to include it. --RL0919 (talk) 16:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Ayn Rand missing from uw-sanctions template

The ArbCom discretionary sanctions warning template, {{uw-sanctions}}, doesn't appear to have a topic option for the Ayn Rand case (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ayn Rand). This would seem to be an accidental omission, but I'm not sure I'm up to the task of making the required fixes to this complicated template. I'm mentioning the issue here in case someone following this page might want to fix the template. Richwales (talk · contribs) 03:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

This doesn't really pertain to the improvement of the article, so this might not be the best forum at which to take the matter up. I recommend contacting the ArbCom clerks to rectify any anomalies. Best, Skomorokh 11:54, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

It could, in fact, pertain (indirectly) to the improvement of the article, as an essential step in any necessary enforcement of the ArbCom ruling pertaining to this topic. I originally brought up the issue on the user-space template talk page (Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace), but since no response seemed to be forthcoming there, I was hoping to find some suitably motivated and skilled person here to fix the template. In any case, I went ahead just now and fixed it myself — my first time at something like this, but hopefully I did it right. Again, I felt it was appropriate and reasonable to mention the matter here, but if others disagree, I hope they will accept my apologies. Richwales (talk · contribs) 16:33, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

No need to apologise, and thanks for fixing the template – my point was only that the people who write the articles and those who administer sanctions rarely overlap, and article talkpages tend to be populated by the former. Skomorokh 16:57, 26 May 2011 (UTC

Residency in Echo Park, Los Angeles, California

RL0919, regarding her residency, and your edit summary upon deletion of the fact I added: I agree we should cite a reliable source, and since there are multiple sources,I'll look for a better one, but I wouldn't call the one provided either a blog or a poor source, so the point should remain, and 2) Re: your edit summary comment "it definitely wasn't where she lived when she moved to New York in 1951". Please elaborate on the source(s) of your certainty. The article already says "Los Angeles", and she lived in Echo Park, a long and well-established neighborhood of Los Angeles, as stated in that article. How sure are you? duff 10:30, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Her last residence in LA was at 10000 Tampa Avenue, which is in the San Fernando Valley, miles from Echo Park. If she lived in Echo Park, it was prior to this, either in the few months she and her husband rented an apartment just prior to buying the 10000 Tampa residence, or when she lived in LA previously in the 1930s. Multiple print biographies discuss the San Fernando Valley location, so that much is well established. I don't know of any that specify a residence in Echo Park, but from the description of her short-term rental just before buying in Anne Heller's Ayn Rand and the World She Made, it might have been there. --RL0919 (talk) 13:24, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks for looking that up. Here's a more reliable source for her residency, [2], which still does not specify the time period, but does make clear that she was a rather notable resident of the community. It seems unlikely that so many sources (RS or not) would point to her residency there if she only rented an apartment for a few months. I think it's more likely that it was during the 1930s period, but I'd like to be clear on that too, as her name is in the Echo Park, California article as well. I left a tag there for a citation for the information, and may add this one there if I don't get a response. The Heller citation of her rental seems, from what you shared, to be non-specific also, as to the actual location of the rental, so that's not really citeable on point. I want to include her in the category I created to gather & research notable residents of Echo Park, more than make any particular point about it on her page (though I think it might actually be notable here too). I think you've clearly established that the point does not belong quite where I included it, but can you think of a better way to state what is citeable thus far, and a more appropriate place to put it? duff 18:47, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Rand's first residence in LA was the Hollywood Studio Club, followed later by an apartment after her marriage at 823 Gower Street, both firmly inside Hollywood and not Echo Park. In between Heller mentions a "furnished room" that Rand lived in briefly just prior to her marriage, with no description of its location. As far as I can determine from Heller's book (which gives the most detail about Rand's residences of any Rand bio I've seen), Rand was living on Gower St when she left LA for New York in 1934. When she returned to LA, she lived in the apartment mentioned above, which Heller describes only as being "not far from Hollywood Boulevard". Since Rand's other LA residences are at known locations, if she lived in Echo Park it was either there or the "furnished room", both of which were short-term, or else there is someplace Heller doesn't mention. --RL0919 (talk) 20:22, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

introduction

Why not put the quotation where she describes her philosophy, "My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute." in the introduction? I know it's mentioned further onwards, but I think it would be more appropriate to have it in the introduction too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.181.251.10 (talk) 00:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Because the purpose of the introduction is to provide an overview of the article. That quote is not helpful in doing so. TallNapoleon (talk) 23:15, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Collectivism

A recent version of this article stated that Rand "was a fierce opponent of all forms of collectivism and statism, including fascism, communism, socialism, and the welfare state." Since that suggested that Rand's view that the welfare state is "collectivism" is correct, it was an obviously biased and POV passage. I therefore reworded it here, in accord with WP:NPOV. I think my wording ("She considered herself a fierce opponent of all forms of collectivism and statism, among which she included fascism, communism, socialism, and the welfare state") was perfectly neutral, unlike the previous version. Unfortunately, another editor apparently misunderstood the purpose of this edit, and then did this, with the peculiar comment, "this is a fact--no one could plausibly associate her with any of these." The comment was peculiar since the point of my edit wasn't to suggest that Rand was somehow an advocate of communism, only to clarify that the idea that the welfare state is "collectivism" is her perspective, not absolute truth or Wikipedia's POV. To replace my wording with "She opposed fascism, communism, socialism, and the welfare state", without any mention of collectivism, does readers a disservice - it removes mention of the essential common element that fascism, etc, have in common according to Rand, and dumbs down the encyclopedia. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 23:52, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I should add that the editor who disagreed with me commented in an edit summary here, ", the point of the sentence is that she [FACT] opposed what almost everyone considers collectivism AND the welfare state." If that's meant to be an argument for removing all mention of "collectivism" from the passage in question, it's really beside the point. Rand believed that fascism, communism and the welfare state are all similar to each other because they are all versions of "collectivism." Readers new to Rand might not even be familiar with the idea of "collectivism", and we shouldn't make assumptions about what "almost everyone believes." So the reference to collectivism needs to stay; it doesn't help the encyclopedia in any way to remove it. And neither do edits like this, which removed a huge chunk of relevant material without good reason. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 23:58, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) When I read your version, it was clear what you meant. You were saying that readers should not think that Rand's inclusion of the welfare state et al. under the umbrella of the concept of collectivism is unimpeachably accurate. I think Byelf2007 is not understanding what you were trying to do. His edit summaries, which state it to be nonsense that Rand would support any of those concepts, are also obviously true. It's just that he's not really responding to you, since you weren't claiming anything of the sort. CityOfSilver 00:04, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

This edit by Byelf2007 is confusing and incorrect. It changes the article to say that, "She opposed collectivism, fascism, communism, socialism, and the welfare state." The implication of such a statement would be that Rand saw "collectivism" as a specific ideology distinct from fascism, communism etc, but she didn't; she saw all of them equally as forms of collectivism. I will revert Byelf2007 when 3RR permits, assuming someone has not reverted him before then. I suggest to Byelf2007 that it would be best to discuss things properly on the talk page; I have no idea what his edit summary ('so why didn't you just add "collectivism"?') is supposed to mean. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 04:23, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Though it shouldn't really be necessary, here are a couple of quotations from Rand's works (selected from pages 74-75 of The Ayn Rand Lexicon), to back up my statement that she saw collectivism as the general type of which socialism and fascism, etc, are specific examples:

"Fascism and communism are not two opposites, but two rival gangs fighting over the same territory...both are variants of statism, based on the collectivist principle that man is the rightless slave of the state.

Collectivism has lost the two crucial weapons that raised it to world power and made all of its victories possible: intellectuality and idealism, or reason and morality. It had to lose them precisely at the height of its success, since its claim to both was a fraud: the full, actual reality of socialist-communist-fascist states has demonstrated the brute irrationality of collectivist systems and the inhumanity of altruism as a moral code.

— The Ayn Rand Lexicon: Objectivism from A to Z

The point of this should be clear: Collectivism is not a specific ideology but a general category of ideologies. Since Byelf2007's edit introduced the implication that "collectivism" is a specific ideology, distinct from communism and fascism, it distorts Rand's actual views and needs to be reverted. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 22:41, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion

I recently undid an edit by Byelf2007, changing the wording of the article from "She opposed collectivism and the welfare state" (a wording adopted by Byelf2007 without explanation) to "She considered herself a fierce opponent of all forms of collectivism and statism, among which she included fascism, communism, socialism, and the welfare state." I made that change in good faith, but having looked at the source used - which is Peikoff's book about Objectivism - I now think that neither version reflects the source accurately, and that this material should be deleted outright. The reference is to pages 368-369 and 372-373 of Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand. Despite the title of the book, Peikoff is not really talking about what Ayn Rand personally believed on those pages - he is talking about what he takes the "Objectivist" view to be.

I'm sorry if that seems like a distinction without a difference, but it really does matter. Peikoff is expounding his own understanding of Objectivism, and there simply is no statement there to the effect that "Rand opposed collectivism and the welfare state" or "Rand considered herself a fierce opponent of all forms of collectivism." The material in Peikoff's book that comes closest to such statements is "'Statism' means any system that concentrates power in the state at the expense of individual freedom. Among other varients, the term subsumes theocracy, absolute monarchy, Nazism, fascism, communism, democratic socialism, and plain, unadorned dictatorship" (on page 369) and some hostile comments about anarchism on page 372. The welfare state is actually not mentioned at all, although there is a comment about the mixed economy. So the material should simply go. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 00:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

That Rand believed each of these to be forms of collectivism and statism is true, relevant, and can be sourced, even if you think the specific source used doesn't say this explicitly enough. For example, in her Playboy interview, Rand actually lists all of them (plus a couple of other ideologies) as doctrines she opposes for their "sacrifice of the individual to the collective". So the worst case here is that the sourcing needs to be updated, not that the material should be deleted. --RL0919 (talk) 11:24, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

What's in the article is an original research interpretation, if not an outright distortion, of the source used. I'm inclined to remove it if someone doesn't add a better source. Truth isn't the threshold for inclusion. Per WP:VERIFY. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 19:23, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Note that I said "can be sourced" and mentioned a specific source. The only reason I didn't re-source the passage already is that I prefer not to replace a secondary source with a primary one, when substitute secondary sources could probably be obtained with a short delay for research. Readers aren't being misled about Rand's views, and frankly I don't think they are really being misled as to what the current source means. Peikoff thought he was representing Rand's views in his book, and says as much in the introduction. But such subtleties of interpretation aren't necessary since an alternative source can be used instead. --RL0919 (talk) 21:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The content is a quite imaginative use of a source, and bears little direct resemblance to what it says; refusing to admit this really won't help. The source is about Objectivism as a philosophy, not about Rand personally, and would be more suitable to an article about Objectivism than to an article about Rand as an individual. The description of "statism" on page 369 and the explanation of how forms of "statism" include theocracy, absolute monarchy, Nazism, fascism, communism, democratic socialism, and dictatorship does not mention "collectivism", does not equate "statism" itself with "collectivism", and does not say that Rand considered herself a "fierce opponent" of any of these things. I'm not going to rush to remove that content, but after a few days I will definitely start trimming or rephrasing it if there has been no progress. Outright removal remains an option. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:31, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

In the absence of convincing objections, I've rephrased the material. I note that there is a mention of the welfare state on page 375 of Peikoff's book, but it isn't explicitly identified as either collectivism or statism (Peikoff calls it "a highly controlled stage of the mixed economy", which in turn is "a transition stage, a disintegrating antisystem, careening drunkenly but inexorably from freedom to dictatorship"), so I've removed mention of it from the article. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 19:21, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Nazism

Byelf2007 has initiated a bizarre edit war with me over whether Nazism should be listed as one of the forms of statism to which Objectivism is opposed. He asserts that Nazism is a kind of fascism, and that it is redundant to list Nazism separately. It is certainly true that some sources would consider Nazism to be one kind of fascism. Others, however, would consider it to be a distinct ideology. I am not going to get involved in a discussion about whether one is a kind of the other or not; it doesn't matter. The relevant point here is that Peikoff, the source the sentence about statism is sourced to, mentions Nazism and fascism separately; to reflect the source properly, the article needs to do likewise. Byelf2007's most recent edit summary ("So what? Does the fact that he doesn't claim Nazism is fascism mean Nazism isn't fascism?") appears to suggest that he believes that his personal view that Nazism is a kind of fascism is what matters, and takes precedence over the source. Sorry Byelf2007, Wikipedia doesn't work that way. See WP:NPOV, please. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 05:50, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm certainly not suggesting that my version view is what matters (nor do I see how I've given you any indication that I think that way). The point I'm making is that there is no reason for us to have redundancy. Wikipedia has stated that redundancy is bad, with the only exception (to my knowledge at present) being the synthesis issue. If there's a WP:RULE that redundancy is OK if that's what the source says, then I'm not aware of it and I'd like to see it.

Also, you ignored the other part of my edit summary: "If a source says 'Bob hates animals and cats' should we say he hates both?" You haven't addressed this point. Just because Peikoff says "Rand hated fascism AND Nazism" doesn't mean we have to pretend that Nazism is not a type of fascism (if this isn't true) and have the article IMPLY that Nazism is not fascism. So, as far as I'm aware of how this site works, and you can show me the relevant link if I am wrong, we don't write things that aren't true just because we're writing something that has a source that happens to say something that isn't true. What it really boils down to (I think) is whether or not Nazism is or is not a type of fascism. From what I understand of the two, Nazism is a type of fascism (there is no definitional contradiction/they aren't mutually exclusive).

So, as far I'm aware, you have to first establish that Nazism is not fascism before you write an article in such a way as to imply that this is the case. And, while the fact that the Nazism page currently says that it's a type of fascism doesn't prove that this is the case, we should still work to have articles be consistent. Byelf2007 (talk) 3 November 2011

I'm aware that you think redundancy is bad. I actually agree with you: redundancy is bad. But mentioning Nazism and fascism isn't redundant if the two are seen as distinct, which they can be, and evidently are by Peikoff. I don't need to address your analogy about animals and cats to answer your point, and I believe I already have, several times. You again assert that Nazism is a kind of fascism. That's still only your personal POV, and it doesn't matter under Wiki policy, no matter how many times you repeat it. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 07:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

We are supposed to use sources to determine article content. I say this for two points: First, Byelf, you rely far too much on argumentation about what you personally think is correct, rather than addressing what appears in sources. Second, 'sources' is plural. The editing around this passage has come to rely far too much on the parsing of the one source that is currently cited. This is hardly the only source about Rand's opinions of various political ideologies. Here is a direct quote from Rand's interview with Playboy: "... I oppose any doctrine which proposes the sacrifice of the individual to the collective, such as communism, socialism, the welfare state, fascism, Nazism and modern liberalism." This shows that Rand herself used the "redundancy" of mentioning both fascism and Nazism. It also shows that she did oppose "the welfare state", even if Peikoff doesn't use that exact phrase on a particular page. --RL0919 (talk) 23:31, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

"Neocleous, Mark. Fascism. Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA: University of Minnesota Press, 1997 p. 23." (from the "Nazism" page) cites Nazism as a type of fascism. Is there a source that argues that Nazism isn't fascism? Where is it? Why is it superior to the one we have now. There's no way you can argue that we shouldn't make the change I want just because it's "my opinion" when it's opposed to "your opinion"--what matters is whether or not Nazism is in fact a type of fascism which can be determined by argumentation. Read the first paragraph from the fascism article. Anyone with a very limited understanding of Nazism know it ALL applies to Nazism. I hope I don't actually have to go over it point by point. If you object to the description of fascism and/or the sources, then you can make your case here.

Why should the Ayn Rand article imply the two are distinct just because the sources we're citing that she's opposed to fascism implies that the are? This is like people saying "Ayn Rand said she wasn't a libertarian, therefore, she isn't a libertarian" when she clearly was a libertarian based upon what we know libertarianism to be. Just because Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff have implied Nazism isn't fascism doesn't mean any article should imply this is true. Again, where is the WP:RULE that says redundancy (and, I'm pretty sure, the implication of a falsehood--that Nazism isn't fascism) is OK as long as the source we're using to establish something is true also includes the redundancy/falsehood? Byelf2007 (talk) 5 November 2011

Given the rather large amount that has been written about both fascism and Nazism, it would not be that difficult to find sources that explain that they are not, technically speaking, the same thing, at least on some interpretations of what "fascism" is. That isn't, however, the important thing; the important thing is accurately reflecting the source we are using here, Peikoff. Wikipedia's content policies, particularly WP:VERIFY, are based on the understanding that what's "really" true isn't the basis for deciding content issues, so it's no good to say that "what matters is whether or not Nazism is in fact a type of fascism which can be determined by argumentation."

Your question "Why should the Ayn Rand article imply the two are distinct just because the sources we're citing that she's opposed to fascism implies that the are?" is misguided. Mentioning Nazism and fascism separately doesn't necessarily imply anything about whether they are separate; we don't have to make any judgment about that. And even if one can be seen as a variant of the other, it's not necessarily a harmful form of redundancy to mention them separately, it could be viewed as a helpful way of stressing that Rand was opposed both to fascism generally and the Nazi version specifically. Byelf2007's approach is creating a problem where none should exist. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 00:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

"Mentioning Nazism and fascism separately doesn't necessarily imply anything about whether they are separate" Sure it does--if Nazism is a type of fascism and we know she's opposed to fascism then if we already know she's opposed to Nazism. That makes it redundant for no reason. "it could be viewed as a helpful way of stressing that Rand was opposed both to fascism generally and the Nazi version specifically" Well, if we know she's opposed to fascism, then we know she's opposed to Nazism, so there's no reason to mention that. Unless, of course, she was particularly opposed to Nazism compared to most forms of fascism, but the sources don't say that, nor would it be relevant since any person is going to be particularly critical of forms of some political philosophy (they might be more critical of social anarchism than anarcho-capitalism or vice versa, but it's enough for us to know they're opposed to anarchism). Having them mentioned separately DOES imply they are separate. If you can establish that's true, that's fine. If not, there's no reason for us to imply this.

Otherwise, why not say she's also opposed to liberalism and conservatism. If your argument is that it's in the source, it doesn't matter (unless we're actually quoting the material).

How's this for a compromise?

We say: "Rand said she was [begin quote of her in an interview] opposed to....[end quote]" Byelf2007 (talk) 8 November 2011

Please cease and desist from this silly attempt to expunge all mention of the word "Nazism" because of a personal POV you have concerning its nature. It doesn't improve the article in any way, has found no support on this talk page, is starting to become disruptive. I am starting to get impatient with this line of discussion, and see little point in continuing with it; the bottom line is that you are attempting to impose a personal view of article content based on idiosyncratic personal preferences. Again, please stop. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 08:51, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Let me get this straight: You're saying it's irrelevant whether or not Nazism is actually a form of fascism, right? So where is the specific WP:RULE that says that we should have redundancy if it's in the source? Byelf2007 (talk) 10 November 2011

Sorry, the point of your talk page post is lost on me. I don't see any logical connection between the second and third sentences of your post. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 00:54, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

You're arguing that redundancy is OK as long as the source has this redundancy. Where is the WP:RULE that establishes this? In other words, where is the WP:RULE that says that if a source says "Bob hates dogs and poodles" then we should put this in instead of "Bob hates dogs"? If you can't find this WP:RULE, then there's no reason to have redundancy (we all know wikipedia is generally against redundancy; the only exception I'm aware of is the synthesis issue).

If you can't find this rule, then the only other reason to include fascism is if it's not dictatorship. The fascism page currently says it supports dictatorship, thereby making it a form of dictatorship. This is sourced. Unless you can establish that this isn't true, then there's no reason to have it listed (if you can't find the hypothetical rule I covered in the previous paragraph). Furthermore, if you were to establish that fascism isn't a form of dictatorship, then you'd also have to establish that Nazism isn't a form of fascism to get it mentioned. The Nazism page currently says it's a form of fascism. This is sourced. Unless you can establish that this isn't true, then there's no reason to have it listed.

Look at it this way: suppose Ayn Rand said "I'm opposed to fascism and...." and then listed every typo of fascism which has ever existed. Would you want to include all of those types of fascism in the article text?

Finally, I'm wondering what you think about my compromise proposal: we have a direct quote of Rand saying she's opposed to fascism and Nazism, which I'm fine with. Byelf2007 (talk) 11 November 2011

The question isn't if Nazism is a type of facism or not, the question is do the secondary sources treat them as distinct or take for granted that Nazism is subsumed by facism. Clearly the answer is that the secondary sources treat them as distinct. To defy the secondary sources and subsume Nazism under facism is to violate WP:SYN. There is the rule violation. --Karbinski (talk) 10:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Libertarianism

I've eliminated the libertarian categories. Ayn Rand rejected the label herself, and many, if not most Rand scholars, from Peikoff to Binswanger to Tara Smith reject the view that Ayn Rand was a libertarian. The fact that some sources claim she is a libertarian should not avail here — certainly, many would label Noam Chomsky, for example, a communist or say that anarcho-syndicalism is in essence communism, but given the contentiousness of the issue, it would be against NPOV to label him as such. Similarly, anyone who reads the Rand article can decide for himself whether she is indeed a libertarian — but it's far from self-evident and non-controversial. LaszloWalrus (talk) 02:36, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Go to the libertarian article and then try to explain how Ayn Rand isn't a libertarian. Just because she said she isn't doesn't mean she isn't. Since Rand held that individual liberty is the basic moral principle of society, I'm not sure what your case could be. Since, in its broadest sense, libertarianism includes views which "approximate" this view, I'm REALLY not sure what your case could be. She ALSO wanted a voluntarily funded government (Libertarian Party USA). (talk) 9 November 2011

Again, I think we should defer to Ayn Rand's OWN description of her views. Someone might conclude (falsely, in my view) that Ayn Rand was indeed a libertarian, but that interpretation is controversial. After all, Ayn Rand HERSELF rejected libertarianism, as does the Ayn Rand Institute (as do its affiliated scholars, from Tara Smith, to Leonard Peikoff, to Harry Binswanger, etc.). The capaciousness of libertarianism is itself controversial, and it simply violates NPOV principles to assert flatly in the article that Ayn Rand was a libertarian, her own views on the matter and the views of much of the secondary literature notwithstanding. LaszloWalrus (talk) 20:23, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

The fact that there is no one official specific definition definition only makes it easier to correctly label someone a libertarian, not harder. There's no reason to defer to Rand--if Hitler said he wasn't a fascist, that doesn't mean he isn't one. As long as Rand is plausibly a libertarian and many reliable sources refer to her as such, that's enough. If you read her work on ethics, I think it's pretty clear that she think that individual liberty is the basic moral principle of society, or, at least, that her views are approximate to this. It's also true that she wanted a voluntarily funded government, which is one of the most popular definitions. Besides, her understanding of the term may have been different from the way most people understand it. I'm pretty sure she thought of libertarians as those who tried to defend libertarianism without ethical arguments (see the libertarianism and objectivism article on the "non-aggression axiom" vs "non-aggression principle" spat). (talk) 13 November 2011

Again, it is simply one interpretation of Rand's thought that she was a Libertarian. Objectivist academics (I've listed some above) reject labeling Objectivist politics as "Libertarian," as did Rand herself. Labeling Rand a "libertarian" implies that that is a non-controversial interpretation of her views. Her actual views can be found here: http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=education_campus_libertarians. 140.247.187.184 (talk) 01:51, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Rand was a small-l "libertarian," in the sense that she was a champion of individual liberty, but was opposed to the big-L "Libertarian" political movement, primarily on the basis of its scope being so wide that it included not only points of view compatible with her own, but also points of view that she was quite opposed to, such as so-called "Rational Anarchism." Also, around the late 1960s, it was evident that the Libertarian movement was trying specifically to divert many of Rand's followers into political action, which she believed was premature — she thought that a broader base of educational effort would be necessary before there could be an effective pro-individual political movement. So it is definitely wrong to label Rand a big-L Libertarian, and probably somewhat misleading to label her a small-l libertarian. It is easier to understand her views for themselves than to disentangle them from some pre-formed package like "libertarianism." — DAGwyn (talk) 14:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I concur with LazloWalrus and DAGwyn; the intensity and volume of justification of Rand's (and the orthodox Objecivists') rejection of libertarianism is such that categorising the article as such is misleading to our readers. Skomorokh 16:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)