Talk:Ayn Rand

Atlas Shrugged

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

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

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

Literary Criticism POV

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

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

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

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

Rand being a Jewish writer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cult Criticism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"self-serving" → "relevant".

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

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

Third Party Opinion

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

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

Pronunciation

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

500,000 books per year

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

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

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

Zogby Study

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

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

This is where you added back the statement:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cult Criticism POV

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Third opinion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why the change?

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

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

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

Legacy

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

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

Flame Wars

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

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

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

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

Rework Article

This article is very long as many have noted. I think we could reduce it by shrinking a lot of the Objectivist philosophy and Objectivist Movement parts. There are separate artcile for those that are better places for a lot of the material. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Ethan a dawe (talk) 22:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

This seems sensible, but we want to watch whether shrinking some sections gives undue weight to others - it would be odd if the philosophy section were shorter than the philosophical criticism for example. Overly long sections at the moment include the Gender/Sex/Race and Further reading sections. Another means of cutting down the article size would be to move content that is better suited to other articles - the "Cult criticism" section for example seems far more relevant to the Objectivist movement than to Rand personally. Another idea would be to split the Bibliography into a separate article, as is common for articles on prolific authors. Skomorokh 22:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I was reading someone's comments on talk richard dawkins that criticism section were bad, and that inline integrated criticism bit would be better. I agree that the cult criticism section would be better in the Objectivist Movement article, though I want to be careful not to upset balance by removing any pieces of criticism altogether without a great deal of consensus. Perhaps a first step is to divide the work into blocks that are easy to do. Ethan a dawe (talk) 22:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that we can cut down on both the movement and the criticism. A one or two paragraph summary for the movement and another one for the criticism, each with links to the corresponding main articles would do it. Idag (talk) 04:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I think another good area for cutting down is the section under philosophy on influences. All those sections are better placed under Objectivism. Thoughts? I'm going to try and come up with a draft of changes. Ethan a dawe (talk) 12:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Raymond Boisvert

A user asked why we should keep reliably sourced material per WP:ATT that he personally doesn't like? A strange question, I thought. The obvious answer would be simply that the quote was attributed to a reliable source and that one crisp sentence outlining Boisvert's opinion of Ayn Rand in the Criticism section of this article is neither overloading the article per WP:UNDUE nor providing any other red flags per Wikipedia policy. That should be enough for anyone. But in case it's not, students of academic philosophy might remember Raymond Boisvert for his book John Dewey: Rethinking Our Time(Albany: State University of New York Press, 1998), which was favorably reviewed in The Philosophical Quarterly (Vol. 49, No. 195 (Apr., 1999), pp. 270-272) and Philosophy East and West (Vol. 48, No. 4 (Oct., 1998), pp. 671). Best regards, J Readings (talk) 23:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think he's that noteworthy, but a one-sentence concise summary is consistent with Wikipedia policies. Idag (talk) 00:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand why a couple of editors want to remove concisely sourced reliable and relevant material, but aren't interested in removing the far more problematic unsourced material in this article. In any case, regarding Boisvert, I checked Worldcat, The Philosopher's Index, LexisNexis, Factiva, and other academic indeces. If notability is an issue, I'd like to read from which exact policy statement on Wikipedia they're basing that claim. Beyond what was already mentioned, Boisvert wrote several academic books on philosophy and also was reviewed in other academic journals such as Metaphilosophy. The Philosopher's Index, which provides indexing and abstracts from books and journals of philosophy and related fields, also indicates that he's published over thirty academic journal articles on philosophy and that his work is cited in such journals as the American Journal of Education, The Journal of Philosophy of Education, and The American Historical Review (among others). According to LexisNexis, journalists have quoted him on issues pertaining to philosophical subjects in the past. Apparently, he's also won a Fulbright Award. Unless someone can think of a good reason why we need to delete reliably sourced material from an academic philosopher on Ayn Rand, I'll restore the sentence. J Readings (talk) 02:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

deleted all section by Edward Nilges blocked user

After consulting with and on advice of admin I have removed all of Edwards comments and related ones. All further will also be deleted. he is a blocked user. Ethan a dawe (talk) 02:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

censorship

It's bad enough that you keep deleting Edward's comments, but it looks like you wiped out some other inconvenient truths while you were at it. In specific, you erased this exchange:

In any case, I was looking at the footnote justifying Rand's description as a philosopher, and the quote only says that she's considered one in literary academica. That may be so, but philosophy is not literature, so that is no more relevant than Rand being considered a medical doctor by street cleaners. You have one day to find a better citation to support this claim, or I'm going to relabel her, tactfully, as a lay philosopher. Good luck and the clock is ticking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.170.159.12 (talk) 20:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you read the previous archived discussions on Rand being a Philosopher. The debate has been had and closed. Saying you don't agree and asking me to do your research for you is not reasonable, or nice. Before you go changing things I suggest you research the history here and get consensus. ThanksEthan a dawe (talk) 20:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Not only am I going to rescue the words you erased, I'm going to jump into this fray to remind Dawe that no debate on Wikipedia content is ever closed, at least not until Wikipedia 1.0 is shipped. Your claim that there was some discussion in the distant past carries no weight, even if it were supported by evidence instead of lazy hand-waving.

That's because we are not bound by its conclusions today; the current consensus controls the content, not some arbitrarily chosen historical one that favors your biases. Everytime someone new comes here and questions the content, you need to fight all over again for your view, and you need to win again. You don't get to just declare victory without ever entering the field of battle.

If you were right the in the first place, then all you'd have to do is repeat those sound arguments, trot out the irrefutable citations and bowl us over with the force of your scholarship. If you weren't, and you only won by exhausting, bullying or assasinating your opponents (alas poor Edward, I knew him not at all), then the consensus changes and the article changes.

I second the challenge: show that Rand is considered a philosopher by philosophical academia, not merely literary academia. If you can't do this, then I'll personally change the article to read "amateur philosopher".

Actually, that is incorrect. Once a clear consensus has been achieved (as it has on the philosopher issue) it is not up for debate unless you can think of a very good NEW point that has not been previously discussed. Otherwise, we are not going to rehash the same arguments over and over again because that would be a waste of everyone's time. I would recommend going to the archives and you will find that all of Edward's arguments have already been discussed ad nauseum. Idag (talk) 08:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I deleted Edward's comments on advice from an admin, Atlan and took all the rest of the comments with them as they would be out of context. Edward is a blocked user. Enough said about that. Please note Idag's and my response to you that the philosopher discussion has alread been had. It's in the archives. Please assume good faith, I did not delete anything do get rid of truths that I didn't like. Thanks Ethan a dawe (talk) 11:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I don't want to be as dick about this, but I simply cannot believe you. There's assuming good faith and then there's being a sucker, and I'm not going to be a sucker here. Assuming good faith is, as I've read, not a suicide pact. And let's be honest here: there's no more civil way to say that you guys have shown plenty of bad faith and dirty tricks, including erasing my demand for evidence and getting one of your enemies banned or blocked or whatever. So if there are some compelling arguments for calling her a philosopher, you're just going to have to show them to me. If you wave your hand and pretend it's my job to read your mind, I'm simply going to fix the article. And if I don't, it looks like there are plenty of other people who are willing to jump in and do the right thing.

I did not get Edward banned, he was banned previously for being rude and disruptive. His current posts were an attempt to get around the block. Ethan a dawe (talk) 15:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

As I and another have pointed out, the arguemnts are in the archive. You calim we have to find them for you, but that's not my job. Please go look for yourself. If you ignore what I've said and edit the article, I will be forced to revert it. I'd rather not get in a n edit war over something that is already settled. If you have new information to add to the existing arguemtns please provide it. I'll gladly consider it. Thanks Ethan a dawe (talk) 15:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

You have until the end of day today to come up with justification for calling Rand a philosopher. Feel free to copy and paste tried and true research here, but don't wave your hands at me.

Please consider what I've said above, and don't put deadlines on things. Assume good faith. Ethan a dawe (talk) 15:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Obviously somebody has a chip on their shoulder to whatever end. As discussed numerous times, there is no universal definition of a "philosopher", a course that you take or a body that "approves" the description. Rand put forth a broad philosophy in her novels and non-fiction work that has had a wide ranging impact, she is a de facto philosopher. I disagree with some of the fundamental positions of Kant, or Jesus or Neitsche, but disagreement does not mean that they are not philosophers. In any case, most philosophers are "amateur" philosophers in the sense that they are not paid for "philosophizing", per se. Attempting to force your definition of "philosopher" on this topic is fruitless, it's your POV, and that's fine, but it's not mine and not that of many, many, many other people. Should we now review all philosophers posted on Wikipedia to determine whether they fit your criteria, and re-label everything according to Hook, or whomever? The answer is clearly NO. Philosophy, like art, is in the eye of the beholder. You may believe that a blob of paint is a work of art and I might believe that it's pig crap - but I certainly wouldn't edit the page to state that the piece of art is not art, because I have a source that defines art by a different standard. Is this coming across to you? I doubt it. Grazen (talk) 15:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Charity

Rand's view of charity has already been discussed. Cathy Young's article as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ayn_Rand/Archive_10#charity

Unless JReadings has something new to add, I'm removing the Cathy Young citation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Endlessmike 888 (talk • contribs) 12:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

You're just going to have to show me, right here, and then convince me and everyone else who's part of the consensus. Even if it was the consensus once, that doesn't mean that we're bound by that today.