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)

Karbinski's removal of sourced material AND structure changes

Ok, I had a little fun with the header --Karbinski (talk) 00:16, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Anyhow, the Frank Lloyd Wright and Isabel Peterson entries are verifiable and bibliographical. I'd like them deleted as I don't think they are encyclopedic. --Karbinski (talk) 00:16, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Rand's interaction with Wright, although interesting, was limited, and I don't think it has the significance to be included here. (Although for what it is worth, an academic wrote a whole book about it.) Patterson, on the other hand, was an important relationship for Rand, so it seems more reasonable to keep that material. --RL0919 (talk) 00:23, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Define "encyclopedic". The way I see it, both were significant figures in their time who had an important impact on Rand. Their inclusion adds valuable context to how Rand related to the American intellectual milieu outside her cloistered movement, adds the sort of biographical meat this article needs.  Skomorokh  00:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. What about the rest of my cuts (and structure changes)? --Karbinski (talk) 00:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the deletion of the endless detail about Rand's views on every political and cultural issue, I heartily approve. I've got a website with over 250 pages of material about Objectivism and even it doesn't have as much detail about those items as the article did. It was clearly overkill. --RL0919 (talk) 00:35, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I feel sick seeing 15k of verifiable content get the chop, but the article is better for it.  Skomorokh  00:36, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I endorse the idea that 15k (at least) of content should get the axe. I propose that Rand's views on homosexuality, war, her HUAC testimony, Jim Powel's opinion of Ayn Rand (?????) as the greatest thing since the invention of peanut butter in the philosophy section, etc. can easily be cut. While we're at it, I would respectfully suggest that the philosophy section be trimmed to remove all unnecessary cruft (it's long again) UNLESS the objective is to integrate the criticism section into the philosophy section, in which case we go line by line. J Readings (talk) 00:46, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the new Philosophy section needs more cuts. --Karbinski (talk) 00:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Support in principle the removal of this material, although having one line here or there about, say, homosexuality or her belief that a rational woman would never want to be president might be interesting, give a bit of flavor and so forth. But those can be added back in once restructuring is done. I also think that more cuts are likely to still be necessary. However, I won't have time to take a close look at changes till later tonight, so count this as tentative. Incidentally, though, I would keep brief references to Patterson and Wright. TallNapoleon (talk) 01:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

These is all notable stuff. An author famous for writing fiction about an architect has a relation with one of the most famous American architects? Her notable views on homosexuality are also worth including. Don't delete stuff that meets inclusion guidelines. Split to sub articles. Have the removed sections been moved? Where are they now located? ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:08, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia is supposed to provide a summary. If people want more detail, there's ARI, TOC, JARS, countless blogs, books both by and about Rand, and so forth. As Runciman explains, it is the quantity of detail itself that makes these articles so obnoxious and such poor quality. It doesn't matter if it's farmed out into subarticles--the fundamental problem of exhausting overdetail would still remain. That said, for our Objectivist editors, it might be interesting to make an Objectivism Wikia if one does not currently exist. Some of the material that is being cut, though inappropriate for Wikipedia, might be great over there. TallNapoleon (talk) 01:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Objectivism Wiki? Already covered. And I agree the article needs to be trimmed. It's an encyclopedia article, not a doctoral thesis. --RL0919 (talk) 02:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Every time you suggest cutting, it's content that is notable like her positions on homosexuality or war or other notable details of her career. Your time would be better spent improving the encyclopedia by sourcing and adding content to subjects not well covered, or copyediting and making other improvements, than trying to cut down subjects that you don't care for. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, this is a big improvement on the article. Further cuts are needed in order to make this article more readable. CABlankenship (talk) 08:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Why I am in favor of cutting

A while ago, I posted this excerpt from Borges here. However it has since retreated into the depths of the archives, so I'm taking the liberty of posting it again:

... In that Empire, the Art of Cartography reached such Perfection that the map of one Province alone took up the whole of a City, and the map of the empire, the whole of a Province. In time, those Unconscionable Maps did not satisfy, and the Colleges of Cartographers set up a Map of the Empire which had the size of the Empire itself and coincided with it point by point. Less Addicted to the Study of Cartography, Succeeding Generations understood that this Widespread Map was Useless and not without Impiety they abandoned it to the Inclemencies of the Sun and of the Winters. In the deserts of the West some mangled Ruins of the Map lasted on, inhabited by animals and Beggars; in the whole Country there are no other relics of the Disciplines of Geography.

— Jorge Luis Borges

The point is that a map so large and so detailed is worthless, because the user would drown in the detail. The whole point of a map is to summarize--that is, to selectively exclude detail to provide an overview that can be seen and comprehended at a glance. An encyclopedia's purpose is similar. Even though Wikipedia is not paper, when the level of detail grows too great, usability suffers. Readers seeking a general overview of a topic drown in an endless, self-referential sea of detail--whether or not it's split into sub-articles. For years, the Objectivism WikiProject has essentially been collapsed under its own mammoth weight. We need to fix this, and the only way to do so is to cut the fat. TallNapoleon (talk) 01:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

That's like saying we don't need an article on Australia because it's mentioned in the Earth article. Some subjects that are very notable need to be split up. Keep the main biographical stuff and summaries of content here, preserve the notable details in sub articles. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

You cannot compare the notability of Ayn Rand's views on homosexuality to the notability of Australia. To attempt to do so is absurd. By and large a detailed discussion of Rand's views on homosexuality, per Runciman, would simply not be of interest to the average reader. These would only be of interest to enthusiasts--and Wikipedia is for general readers. TallNapoleon (talk) 05:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Ayn Rand is a popular and controversial figure of great influence. I understand your opinion and your dislike for her. But when her views receive substantial coverage in reliable sources, that is the basis for notability and inclusion. To pick and choose which areas we think the "average" reader would be interested in is beyond the scope of our work as editors and contributors. There are lots of subjects and entire articles that "average" readers wouldn't be interested in. Ayn Rand is very notable and so we have to cover her adequately and appropriately by including her views on war, homosexuality etc. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

There are lots of notable people in the Wikipedia and most of them (including many far more notable than Rand) have shorter summarised material. This is an encyclopedia after all and it can reference other sources. --Snowded ^TALK 06:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

CoM, my low opinion of Rand has nothing to do with the fact that I favor cutting down these articles. I favor cutting these articles down to size because I believe that any reader coming to Wikipedia looking to learn about Objectivism would be better served if they were concise. As I have said before and will say again, the purpose of encyclopedias--including this one--is to summarize. That necessarily means that interesting information will not be included. This is unfortunate and regrettable, but it is also the only sane way. Otherwise we wind up with a mess, a collection of articles so verbose, overdetailed, and introspective that they positively intimidate the reader. In short, we wind up with what we have now. TallNapoleon (talk) 08:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I do not have a low opinion of Rand, but I agree that the detail before was excessive. Some of the big cuts made recently (especially the 15k whack that Karbinski gave to the political and cultural issues) have significantly improved the article by making it more digestible. I would also add that a number of the views discussed in the article previously, although interesting in their own right, were not biographically significant. Rand had her own magazines throughout the 60s and 70s, plus access to mainstream outlets, so if an issue was important to her she could and did publish whole essays about it. Issues like racism, the role of women, abortion and censorship all got this sort of significant treatment from Rand. Other issues, where the details are coming from passing remarks and answer to interview questions, were being discussed in the article because they are hot buttons today, not because Rand gave prominence to them in her own work. --RL0919 (talk) 15:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

If they're not biographically significant move them to an article on her views. As many editors previously have objected, I too object to the deletion of notable and well sourced information. Rand's views on war, economics, charity, indigenous rights, gender and sex, homosexuality, race and her role in popular culture are VERY notable and need to be restored to the encyclopedia ASAP. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:16, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but "VERY notable" to whom? Take, for example, Rand's views on charity. Where is the extensive discussion of this in reliable secondary sources that makes it so "VERY notable"? The previous article material on this subject was cobbled together from primary sources and frankly verges into WP:OR territory. Now, I have no objections to Rand's views on charity. I find them quite appealing. But they simply are not notable in terms of widespread discussion, nor are they important enough to her biography to belong in an encyclopedia article about her. --RL0919 (talk) 16:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

<outdent> Please see wp:notability. A search of google news and google books makes it quite obvious that Rand's views on charity and the other issues are VERY notable. I've offered a compromise to move the content to a subarticle. But deleting this notable and widely discussed content on her views is inappropriate as it violates our guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what kind of searches you are doing, but reading the results from a search for "'Ayn Rand' charity" on Google News suggests to me that there is very little discussion of her views on charity in reliable news sources. There is some discussion of charity in books that discuss her ethical theory, and the proper place for any mention of that is in the Objectivism article in the section on her ethics (with appropriate brevity). Since I don't care to search every corner to prove negatives, I leave it to you to bring forth the evidence of significant discussion in reliable sources about of Rand's views on "indigenous land rights" (which had four lines in the previous article material) or the 1973 Arab-Israeli war (five lines).

I would recommend including brief mentions of some of her more prominent views, such as her views on gender. But this should be in summary form and only about essentials, not long quotes and minor details. These sorts of topics deserve a sentence or two each in a short section about her role as a commenter on cultural issues, not named subsections and multiple freestanding paragraphs for each view. And any such discussion should be proportional: from the available evidence, Rand spent far more time commenting on the presidential campaign of Barry Goldwater than she ever did talking about homosexuality or indigenous land rights. --RL0919 (talk) 23:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, so I was going to post this last night before my Internet unceremoniously died. Anyway, just because Rand is notable does not mean every aspect of her life was notable, or that every one of her views was notable. The things which Rand are notable for are the things she was most known for, which are, in broad strokes, her books, her ethics (self-interest), her politics (capitalism), her passionate advocacy, the movement she created, and the impact she had on society. In addition, we include her biography and elements of her philosophy which, though she was less known for them, are valuable for understanding what she was more well known for. We also include criticism, and a brief analysis of her overall impact and legacy. That's quite a lot as it is. But note how none of this stuff is about Rand for Rand's sake. It's all about why Rand matters to the outside world and what she's well known for. In short, it revolves around what makes Rand notable. Rand's views on sexuality, homosexuality, race, ethnicity, and indigenous land do not make her notable, any more than Immanuel Kant's views on these matters make him notable. As with Kant, we should focus on the things which make Rand notable, taking care to summarize and always seek brevity and clarity. Although subarticles have a place, we cannot allow them to grow too extremely detailed, either, lest we wind up with an unmaintainable mess and inappropriate levels of detail. Anyway, it appears as though there appears to be a general consensus that this is the right way to go. TallNapoleon (talk) 00:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you can usually find the right answer to these kinds of questions by asking what we would do if it wasn't Rand. You won't find out what Sartre or Chomsky or Derrida have to say about homosexuality in their Wikipedia articles, and they are each in their way very notable intellectuals; you will find it in Bertrand Russell's Wikipedia article, because he took notable action on law reform related to homosexuality. Just because Rand is notable, not all of her attitudes and opinions are notable.KD Tries Again (talk) 15:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

"You won't find out what Sartre or Chomsky or Derrida have to say about homosexuality in their Wikipedia articles" Interesting since when I've made this type of observation someone cites some alleged Wikiprinciple that what happens elsewhere on Wikipedia has no bearing.Docsavage20 (talk) 15:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

To be fair, I said something similar once because it's true: what happens elsewhere on Wikipedia doesn't necessarily prove that something should or shouldn't exist (in terms of having an article). See: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The key point is that independent reliable third-party sources discussing the matter -- with due consideration of undue weight, etc., to emphasize what is an is not important for an article -- are what we should be going by (generally speaking). That still does not mean that we should start inundating the reader with every surfaced factoid known to mankind making the article unreadable. That's not helpful, either. J Readings (talk) 00:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Bingo. This was exactly my point, too. No reasonable editor would dispute the notability of Ayn Rand based on Wikipedia's notability criteria. All one needs to do is type the name "Ayn Rand" into any number of useful and well-respected databases and a plethora of information from independent third-party sources immediately surfaces. That fact does not mean suddenly that one has carte-blanche to inundate the reader with every factoid one can find on Ayn Rand. That was Dr. David Runciman's published point, too, and the point TallNapoleon continues to hammer home for months (if not years): why the excessive detail? A biography should have basic personal background material surrounding the author, what he or she is essentially known for, what the controversial pluses and minuses were/are surrounding his or her work, his or her legacy (or lack thereof) and that is essentially all. Needless to say, everything must have the appropriate attributions to *reliable* independent third-party sources or we get into the wonderful world of original research and synthesis (not good). I'm surprised that some people still disagree with this structure. I guess it might have something to do with the fact that Wikipedia is not a print publication, ergo some editors start to think that an article can be as lengthy as any one individual wants it to be. I'm not so sure that is (or ever was) an established policy on Wikipedia when one considers those who rightly object to coatracks, undue weight, and synthesis (among other things). J Readings (talk) 04:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

So I would suggest that HUAC Testimony, early years and immigration are all sections that could use some judicious trimming. TallNapoleon (talk) 04:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The HUAC section should probably just be combined with the prior section on "Early activism and professional success." It fits both chronologically and thematically, so there's no strong reason for it to be sectioned off.

The Philosophy section needs a weed whacker taken to it. There is an entire large article about Objectivism. For this article we only need condensed summary, plus any personal idiosyncrasies of Rand's that are about philosophy but don't fit into the Objectivism article (her criticism of Kant, for example). --RL0919 (talk) 04:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Bioshock

The way the anon IP changed it is not as good as it was before. How would people feel about reverting it? I'm on 0RR so I'm not going to do so myself. TallNapoleon (talk) 04:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I went one better and cut the mention back to the brevity it deserves, and found a cite for it. --RL0919 (talk) 01:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Gladstein literary criticism

The article currently contains the following passage under the Ayn Rand#Literary reception section:

Critic Mimi Gladstein (author of The New Ayn Rand Companion), called Rand's characters flat and uninteresting, and her heroes implausibly wealthy, intelligent, physically attractive and free of doubt while arrayed against antagonists who are weak, pathetic, full of uncertainty, and lacking in imagination and talent.

A citation is provided, which is to Feminist Interpretations of Ayn Rand, page 140. There is no such material on page 140 of the edition I have. Moreover, this is an anthology that Gladstein co-edited, so the article at that page is not even by Gladstein. Her only article is much earlier in the book, so even allowing that the reference might be to another edition with different pagination, I doubt her article would appear anywhere near page 140. Also, the criticism described does not sound like Gladstein's opinions of Rand that I have read elsewhere. So I've tagged the citation asking for a quote, but even more importantly whoever provides this should double-check the author of the passage, because I seriously doubt it is Gladstein. --RL0919 (talk) 04:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Questioning sources

This source continues to be used to support the statement that there is growing international interest in Rand. In fact it doesn't. Its a 2001 article about the award of a grant to the University of Texas (which is the source of other references). It otherwise reports on a web search carried out by the journalist. Aside from the fact that it doesn't really support the text, one would think there would be something more substantial in the last eight years if this was real. The University of Texas case also seems over quoted through various secondary/tertiary sources. One obvious question, eight years on is "Was the Grant renewed?" --Snowded ^TALK 18:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually the article does support the claim, through mentions of that web search (which apparently produced evidence of non-US student clubs) and of contributions to JARS from European authors. That said, it is a poor source. Despite some recent improvements, there are still a lot of cites in this article (and related ones) to online news pieces and tertiary sources. Sometimes it's necessary to cite news sources for the latest happenings, but some examples verge into ridiculousness. In this article there is a review of a biography that is cited (twice!) to establish biographical facts. Why not cite the biography itself? The answer of course is that it is far easier to surf the web than it is to obtain a book and read through it to find the relevant information. (This problem occurs all over Wikipedia, not just here.) In most cases the information is accurate, but deserves better support.

For what it's worth, yes, the grant was renewed. That's actually the subject of this press release, which is currently the article's final source note. --RL0919 (talk) 19:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

It weakly supports the claim in 2001 and I agree it has been sized on and used. One web search by a journalist 8 years ago is not enough to say that there is growing international interest as of 2009! I couldn't see any other sources when I looked, so this needs to be deleted or qualified unless there is other material. --Snowded ^TALK 08:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The Routledge quote on Rand and the "intellectual mainstream"

I don't think that the spirit of the Routledge quote is that Rand became notorious simply for defending capitalism, but rather that it was the style of her defense (a celebration of selfishness) which lead to her being rejected. I found the previous phrasing to be subtly misleading. CABlankenship (talk) 23:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)In reference to this, I agree that the right-hand side version is more accurate, but the reason the left-hand side version is less faithful to the source is to avoid plagiarizing it. The statement currently reads as a close paraphrase.  Skomorokh  23:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Something needs to be done about that entry, though. Clearly, it wasn't simply Rand's defense of capitalism that kept her out of the intellectual mainstream, as we can be sure that her rejection by Buckley, Nozick, Rothbard, and others had nothing at all to do with simply defending capitalism. As such, that phrasing seems extremely misleading. Furthermore, there are plenty of philosophers who defend capitalism and are not "kept out of the intellectual mainstream" (as seems obvious), and so I think that a clarification is needed. CABlankenship (talk) 23:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Necessary changes in the philosophy section

I am concerned that over half of the section is dedicated to critiques of Rand and of her work, and yet there is very little presentation of essential aspects of the philosophy or of its development. I think that these need to be added. Also, I think that the acknowledged criticisms of that section should be placed under the Reception portion of the article. — Brandonk2009 (talk) 03:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Upon further reflection, the Reception section is not appropriate to place the criticisms. But I still maintain that something needs to be done here. Brandonk2009 (talk) 03:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

It's very much on the list... we don't want this section getting too big, though, because there's already a whole article about it. TallNapoleon (talk) 07:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course we trimmed a lot and I'm thankful. But I think that the amount of attention, in the philosophy section, aimed at criticizing Rand (and not necessarily just her philosophy) is a major problem. For example, if the criticism on her view of Kant is to be included, there needs to be more on what her view of Kant is. Brandonk2009 (talk) 17:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

We can trim the criticism instead of bulking up the objectivism bit. --Karbinski (talk) 22:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

After re-reading the section, the Kant stuff is an example, so its fine. --Karbinski (talk) 22:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of necessary changes, debate on the Template page led me to look at the actual source for this passage:

Stressing that this "is not to deny the sophistication or originality of Rand's thought," Chris Matthew Sciabarra discusses Branden's suggestion that her "wholesale rejection" of some other viewpoints was due to her "theatrical, emotional, and abrasive style." As a polemicist, Branden argues, she often dismissed her opponents on "moralistic or psychologistic" grounds, and her broad generalizations often lacked scholarly rigor.

It needs to be rewritten to make it clear who is saying what. The quote which follows, "Branden argues...", for example, is not Branden but Sciabarra; and although it says Sciabarra "discusses Branden's suggestion" we aren't told what he says about it. In fact, looking at the source, he doesn't discuss it at all but basically just reports it - and I regret to say that the "Stressing..." quote does not refer directly to what Branden says (arguably it encompasses Branden's criticism among others, but the current draft is misleading). It can be read here. I can re-word it, but I wanted to ask first if there is any reason we are using Sciabarra's very brief summary of Branden rather than Branden.KD Tries Again (talk) 20:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Honestly, I added a lot of that (not the "stressing" part), and it seemed clear to me that the entire paragraph in question was a discussion of Branden's arguments. CABlankenship (talk) 21:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, but if you take a look at page 12 there are three full paragraphs. The first sets out Sciabarra's intention to compare Rand with past philosophers, the second summarizes some comments by Branden, and the third begins "This is not to deny the sophistication or originality of Rand's thought..." (emphasis added). The Branden paragraph raises no issues about originality, so that summary comment applies at least as much to the preceding remarks on Spinoza, Nietzsche, Locke, etc. Reading just the current article draft, I had thought - especially with the addition of "stressing" - that Sciabarra was specifically putting Branden's remarks into context. But looking at the original, that's not the case.

Solutions? (1) I could try a rewrite; (2) There is nothing to lose by ignoring Sciabarra and referring to Branden's original remarks (Sciabarra is doing nothing else than summarizing them; (3) To be honest, I think we could lose the whole passage, as Branden's comments don't really constitute philosophical objections to Rand's work at all - although we'd then need another way of introducing the comments on Kant.KD Tries Again (talk) 16:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

I think her strong rejection of Kant, and her admiration (albeit qualified) of Aristotle are things that should be mentioned in this article. I'd think a very brief intro of how she read each followed by a very brief statement of condemnation or qualified admiration, and perhaps a single sentence stating that her interpretations of both have been challenged by academics. --Karbinski (talk) 17:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Since I agree, I boldly moved the Kant passage up the section as a contrast with the Aristotle passages, and dumped the problematic Branden/Sciabarra summary. If editors really think Branden's remarks should be in the philosophy section, they can be restored, preferably sourced from Branden directly.KD Tries Again (talk) 17:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Good changes. Makes the section more readable and less of an eye sore. CABlankenship (talk) 02:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

"She remarked that in the history of philosophy she could only recommend "three A's" —Aristotle, Aquinas, and Ayn Rand." I don't have access to the Sciabarra's Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical to which that statement is sourced, but in Ayn Rand Answers there is this passage (on page 149): "So if you speak in big terms, I'd rather Dr. Peikoff said it, but since I'm his stand-in tonight, take the three As: Aristotle, Aquinas, and Ayn Rand." According to this, the statement was Peikoff's, not Rand's as the article indicates.

Left 4 Dead again

This latest addition appears to be pretty irrelevant, however I'm still on 0RR so I won't revert it myself. Does anyone object to getting rid of it? TallNapoleon (talk) 00:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Done --RL0919 (talk) 00:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

"numerous prominent individuals"

If comic book artists and the band Rush are the best examples, maybe this sentence should be a little less hyperbolic. 76.84.108.54 (talk) 19:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Those aren't the only examples. However, I see the term "prominent" is scattered throughout the article, and it deserves review. Okay, I trimmed it back. Nobody needs to be told that Yale and Princeton are "prominent" universities; it occurred twice in the sentence about her detesting liberals, conservatives and anti-communists, and since no examples are given in the first two categories I removed its first occurrence; I made the bit about influences more specific and removed "prominent." I left it in the context of Buckley's novel, where it is usefully informative, and in the comment about funeral attendees.KD Tries Again (talk) 16:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Beware of WP:PEACOCK terms. If you read one on the linked list, just delete it from the article. It's fluff. J Readings (talk) 23:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)