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)

Deleted material

User: The Devil's Advocate has removed information on Rand's "mental health" citing the edit as contentious. Yes, I do concede this is controversial material, however, that does not mean it should be eliminated from the bio. That Rand championed the killer of a twelve-year old child, wrote about it extensively in her journal and even planned a book inspired by this....is this not significant?! I did reference only one source, but I have other corroborating sources. The Wiki entry on the killer, William Edward Hickman, includes Rand's interest in the case.

Too many Wiki editors are "uncomfortable" with information that, yes, is unpleasant, and challenges pre-conceived conceptions of iconic historical figures. They'd rather not see, hear, or read about it. This kind of selective thinking keeps humanity in ignorance, no way furthering the search for truth. Is the mission of Wikipedia to be an encyclopedia crafted for 12 year olds writing class reports? I hope not.Betempte (talk) 21:10, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

The inclusion/exclusion of material about Hickman has been debated multiple times. There is even a discussion above on this talk page currently. Any insertion of material about him that doesn't have talk page consensus is likely to get reverted. As to the particular material you added, there are three big problems: 1) it was highly tilted towards one particular POV; 2) it used a political blog as a source; and 3) it was an excessively large amount of material to describe views that are minor within the overall literature about Rand (see WP:UNDUE). --RL0919 (talk) 21:52, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Ayn Rand used the same words to describe Hickman as many of her heroes. Her admiration of Hickman (she even uses the word "admire": 130.6 in Journals of AR) may be an important aspect in the formation of her later work. The references available on this subject now span hundreds of sources from all sides of the political spectrum, including scholars, the Oxford University Press, and Objectivists. It's become near impossible to find a magazine or book's critique of Ayn Rand since 2010 that does not reference the Hickman case. This subject is due a mention, at the very least. I'm troubled to notice that those who delete any mention of Hickman also happen to be Objectivists. --Frybread (talk) 19:03, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Topical vs. chronological in Life section

An editor recently made a change to separate the subsection formerly called "The Fountainhead and political activism" in to two sections. This divides the material thematically, but it creates some chronological jumping, because (to take some examples) Rand 1) became politically active, then 2) The Fountainhead was published, then 3) she testified before HUAC, then 4) the movie of The Fountainhead came out. With the topical division, these are discussed in the order 2, 4, 1, 3. The previous sub-sectioning of the Life section was designed to maintain chronological order as much as possible, per discussions that happened back in 2009. There's nothing that holds us to that, but I think it deserves some discussion if we're going to move towards topical groupings instead. --RL0919 (talk) 20:14, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

No one seemed interested in discussing the change, and there was never any follow-up to make the rest of the Life section topical, so these two subsections ended up being the only non-chronological part. That doesn't make much sense to me, so I've regrouped them in chronological order as they were before. --RL0919 (talk) 20:36, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Tone

This statement "[most of her supporters are Republcans] despite her being a pro-choice atheist." assumes that the reader is familiar with the general alignments of the US "culture war", and some one from, say, St. Petersburg, might not understand the inference. Also note that the sentence is US centric, as it wouldn't apply to Rand supports in other countries, and finally, it should be mentioned that there are atheist and pro-choice Republicans in the USA. I'm not necessarily a fan of Rands, but I'm just interested in accuracy and having a worldwide perspective on what is, after all, a global movement.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 23:44, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

This isn't what I would call a "tone" problem, so using a {{Tone}} tag for it is odd. (More generally, editors on Wikipedia ought to be discussing issues instead of slapping tags everywhere.) Anyhow, the wording can easily be adjusted to be less US-specific, while still retaining the (sourced, and I think true) claim that US Republicans are the most common among political figures who describe her as an influence. The contrast of a "pro-choice atheist" with conservatives is not strongly US-specific, but if the reasoning can be clarified a little without a lengthy digression. --RL0919 (talk) 19:44, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

shameful randians

i am quite confused by the edit summaries attached to this repeated contentious edit: [1]. Both the shorter and the longer claim seem true. The longer claim seems more useful in my eyes as more inclusive and informative: i.e., more links. What is the purpose of the removal and the attacks here? μηδείς (talk) 21:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't mind either version (although as you say the longer form is more informative), but the IP is obviously edit warring. They are also very likely the same editor who was previously blocked for similar edit-warring under multiple other accounts. (See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pc1985/Archive.) I have filed an edit warring report. --RL0919 (talk) 21:36, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Blocked for a week.[2] As far as the content goes, the big problem for anyone pushing the "even a minimal state is collectivism" view is that this is a position primarily taken by anarchists, who are a small minority. With appropriate sources it might be mentioned as a criticism, but as a minority view I don't think it would belong in the lead of this article. More likely it belongs in the appropriate body section of Objectivism (Ayn Rand). --RL0919 (talk) 22:15, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

There has been an impasse on this sentence, and I think it's over a disagreement about which the reverting editors are fundamentally mistaken. They have said that because Rand believed she condemned initiation of force and opposed collectivism, therefore it's true that she did so. No, she was mistaken that she did so, and in fact she was doing something else entirely. She was throughout her life expressly advocating as fundamental components of Objectivism a form of collectivism and forms of initiation of force. If I'm colorblind and don't know that the shirt I'm wearing is green, it can't be said that I oppose all forms of green shirts, because my purchase and wearing of the shirt negates my verbal opposition. This article isn't about Rand's view of herself or an advertisement for Objectivism. We're supposed to be presenting the most fact-based perspective possible. Such use of the term 'collectivism' as only referring to certain levels of government intervention is unique to Rand, and it's occasional use in political discourse today is mostly by Objectivists or those strongly influenced by Objectivists. The claim that she opposed initiation of force is provably false, as I will show below, and should be discarded.

1) It is painfully clear on a daily basis to individualist anarchists that a 'minimal state' is in fact a form of collectivism ...... (that it is a unicorn, a lost cause that has never been achieved and never will be; that states throughout history that have started small have, without a single exception, engorged themselves on increased tax revenues from an economy grown on laissez faire policy, until they eventually strangle their private economies and collapse their societies socially, politically, and economically; that to educate a voting populace in the virtues of limited government will never be successful if for nothing else than human stubborness) ...... and that such a notion is not immediately grasped by a layman does not change this truth. Notions of democracy and our societal features of voting, jurisdiction, juries, citizenship, borders, taxation, conscription, and war are all manifestations of collectivism, like it or not. Maybe they're components of a collectivism that can be practiced in a way relatively unobtrusive to individual rights, but they indeed constitute collectivism. On the other hand, the century of a stateless anarchist American West, and the 1,000+ years of statelessness in medieval Iceland and Ireland, for example, could not be described as environments of forced collectivism. The current statement about Rand's opposition to all collectivism is false.

2) No reasonable person would deny that compulsory taxation and conscription constitute the initiation of force. You might say such initiation of force is necessary for the protection of rights, but it doesn't change the fact that throughout history individuals have opposed taxation and been aggressed upon by kings or 'representatives' and forced to pay, and to this day in this country are jailed or killed if they attempt to keep their property. Also, Rand herself and her students at the ARI endorse pre-emptive war (Virtue of Selfishness, 'Collectivized Rights,' p. 118) against nations deemed 'unfree' by politicians. Further, no reasonable person can deny that war not in self-defense and especially conscription for a pre-emptive war, or any war, is the initiation of force; maybe it's initiation that is justifiable in order to reach a certain end, but it's still initiation. The initiation of force sentence is provably false and needs to be removed. Rand is on the record throughout her published works endorsing the initiation of force and initiation is instrumental to Objectivist political order, regardless of whatever other stance towards force initiation she erroneously thought she was taking.

3) I can sign onto the use of the word statism. Although I disagree that a minimal state isn't statism, and believe it will eventually come to be known as statism, it is true that in common parlance statism means large government with highly interventionist policies, and not just any state. However, I deleted statism because it shortens the sentence and it would follow that if someone endorses limited government, they would oppose statism as the word is commonly understood. By contrast, it does not follow that one would reject all forms of faith and religion if they embrace ethical egoism, so that clause is not superfluous. The double 'all forms' structure looks awkward and desperate, and though I'm not an Objectivist I'm actually helping Objectivists here because removing it makes the article look more credible and less like an advertisement for Rand or the back cover of one of her books.

I think my edit honors your definitions of statism, removes uniquely Objectivist understandings of collectivism and initiation of force, and elucidates Rand's actual political position, which was that individuals should identify themselves as being members of a group with collective goals of a standing army, a police force, and a court system, the establishment and maintenance of a minimal government, and be forced to collectively pay taxes to politicians to fund these goals, even if they disagree with the goals in general or particular or do not even recognize the existence of the group, identify with the group, or consider themselves members of the group. It's also important not to call laissez-faire a 'social system,' which is inaccurate. It's an economic policy. Rand believed in the 'separation of economy and state,' so political and economic circumstances should be described separately as they have in my edit.

The statements about initiation of force and Rand's understanding of collectivism belong in a subsection of the Objectivism article or paragraphs in a subsection of this article that explains Objectivism in detail, and not in the lead, and should be presented in the form of quoted statements and not objective encyclopedic statements.

This paragraph contains ample detail about Rand's views, and all other sentences in it are true and totally uncontroversial.

On another note, I also deleted the 'sharply critical of all philosophers' sentence. It's awkwardly worded, looks contrived and out of place, and isn't true. Rand endorsed the political philosophy of the Founding Fathers who designed the Constitution and of Thomas Aquinas. She also endorsed the economic philosophy of the Austrian School and the educational philosophy of Maria Montessori, which are indeed philosophies, contrary to suggestions made by another editor that only certain branches of philosophy, which I presume to be epistemology and logic, are 'real' philosophy. She may not have identified them all as fully Objectivist or as personal philosophical influences, but she was also not sharply critical of them. Moreover, she had qualified praise for Nietzsche and many other philosophers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.111.149 (talk) 00:51, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

This is all just your opinion. It's also wrong opinion, at that. Rand might have respected Aquinas, but she hardly endorsed his philosophy. She wasn't a Thomist. Also, would you please stop accusing me of edit warring while edit warring yourself? That does tend to get annoying. Even if I don't respond to you on the talk page immediately, that doesn't give you an excuse to revert me, when there hasn't been time to discuss your changes. See WP:BRD. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 07:33, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

My last paragraph in last post is not opinion, it's simply fact. The rest is not opinion either, I'm providing reasons why it is true, and you have yet to provide any serious rebuttal. You did this before: 'your opinions are irrelevant.' You posted that repeatedly when you were warring on my edits before. But then your opinions 'better before' 'some good some bad,' those are supposed to be more relevant? You swarm my edits, which are never reverts, and revert them and then accuse me of warring. It's ridiculous. Rand said she recommends Three A's: Aristotle, Aquinas, Ayn Rand. She also gives unqualified praise and zero criticism let alone sharp criticism of Montessori, a philosopher. Also gives unqualified praise for Hugo, arguably a philosopher. She also gives strong praise of Austrian School economists with few to no criticisms depending on the philosophers. I let your stylistic reverts stand but there are no grounds whatsoever to keep that sentence. By the way, I've read nearly all of Rand's works. If you want sources I'll provide them. Just because I'm an IP editor doesn't mean my edits are dubious or I have ulterior motives. Let them stand or fall on their own merits i.e. provide a reasoned case why they are erroneous if you believe that is the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.111.149 (talk) 07:51, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I haven't provided a "serious" rebuttal because I don't believe your unsupported comments deserve or require one? When I called your opinions irrelevant before, I did it because you were apparently expressing your own personal convictions about the nature of the state and collectivism. Please take that ideological garbage somewhere else. There's no place for on Wikipedia, and it won't help you win content disputes. Your comment, "You swarm my edits, which are never reverts, and revert them and then accuse me of warring", shows absolute ignorance of what constitutes a revert, and your insistence that you don't have "ulterior motives" reveals a misapprehension that I would care what your motives are. I don't care what your or anyone's motives might be. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 08:11, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

It's not ideological garbage. The previous edit could more easily be called that. Much of this article reads like the inside of a hardcover jacket. It doesn't read like an encyclopedia article, especially the beginning, with phrases like 'born and raised in russia. . .' 'she then achieved her fame.' There's a lot that gives the impression of a promotional piece for Rand, and that's bad for wikipedia. It should tell you something that of millions of articles on wikipedia, this article was singled out for not living up to what is supposed to be the spirit of the site, and the reviewer specifically noted that it contained excessive detail of questionable relevance and seemed like it had been written by someone obsessed with Rand, and based on the article's overwhelmingly positive tone at the time, that would be an Objectivist. It just doesn't sound as impartial as most other articles, even articles about people more controversial than Rand. I've just been attempting to add some balance and credibility to this article and remove clearly misleading and erroneous phrases and gushy construction or Randian style that has an air of fanaticism such as triple see-saw supported/opposed construction with two 'all forms of' back to back. People who aren't Objectivists generally don't write like that. It might not be untrue in the strict sense when referring to faith and religion, but it's unnecessary and bombastic, and makes this site seem silly to discerning readers.

If you want the state, defend it rationally, don't flush dissidents down the memory hole. If the state's necessary, as Rand believed, then say why. If you mention the social contract, I'd like to see one example of it that was signed by all the people that it binds at the point of a gun. There are no examples because every state in world history was established the same way, by violence, by thugs declaring dominion and then demanding tribute. That's fact, and every documented founding of a state is the evidence. If you have counter evidence, offer it. Juries, voting, and democracy, all of which Rand supported, can and do amount to mob-rule collectivism. Rand also supported conscription during both World Wars and Vietnam. That is both collectivist and an initiation of force. Didn't Rand say 'I will never ask a man to live for me, nor should he ask the same of me,' to paraphrase. That's the mantra of Atlas Shrugged. Under conscription, you don't go and fight for politicians, and you go to jail. You desert the battlefield, and you get shot on sight. Both are examples of government initiating force that Rand supported. The jailed or killed subject in those cases has not initiated force or aggression against any party. If you want a starting point source that makes most of the same points I am making now, it would be the essay 'Anatomy of the State' by Murray Rothbard. There are many other sources that are factors in my argument, but that's one, and I can provide more if you like. Meanwhile, if you're going to question the edits, please offer a substantive response. You may not agree with my opinion, but I'm clearly attempting to engage you in peaceful and productive discourse in order to resolve the issues, and you don't seem to want to participate. Instead you've responded with personal attacks and attempts at insult. You clearly haven't read Rand, or you would know about Aquinas. You jump the gun and revert and make uninformed statements that attempt to appear informed about Rand 'respecting but hardly endorsing' Aquinas. You don't even need to read Rand; a simple google search 'Rand Aquinas' would have done the trick- it's the first result, which links to this very wikipedia article, which includes a citation for the primary source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.111.149 (talk) 08:23, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you need reminding that this isn't a discussion forum? It's been pointed out before, and no doubt will have to be pointed out again if you keep going on like this. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 09:12, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

This is not general discussion about Rand, it's about a specific edit in the article. The warning is intended to prevent this from becoming an Ayn Rand forum containing threads about Rand that are not related to the wiki article. And you continue to make empty accusations of 'unsupported statements' even after I specifically point to a long-standing, cited sentence in this very article that proves that you irresponsibly made a misleading, false statement about Rand and Aquinas. It doesn't appear you're even reading any of my posts before responding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.111.149 (talk) 09:21, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

The primary problems here are twofold: 1) You insist on promoting a minority viewpoint (the view of anarchists) as the basis for wording the lead, not because of any reliable sources but because you personally support it. The walls of text above are not a a source. 2) You were previously blocked for edit warring, and when your block expired you immediately came back and took up the edit war again. Your desired changes clearly lack consensus from other editors, and therefore should be discussed here first. I could support bits of what you want (e.g., "all forms" is an unnecessary wording), but your approach isn't constructive. --RL0919 (talk) 09:49, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

The only thing I support in this edit is restoring the part about Aristotle. The other changes do not appear necessary. And to the IP: given the length of your comments, their tediousness, and their repetitive nature, you are quite right that I am increasingly disinclined to read them. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 10:04, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

If I were going to update the relevant sentences myself (as opposed to restoring the longstanding version), I would adopt some of the IP's modifications and not others. I would suggest something like this:

Rand advocated reason as the only means of acquiring knowledge and rejected all forms of faith and religion. She supported rational and ethical egoism, and rejected ethical altruism. In politics, she condemned the initiation of force as immoral and opposed all forms of collectivism and statism, instead supporting limited government and laissez-faire capitalism, which she believed was the only social system that protected individual rights. She promoted romantic realism in art. She was sharply critical of the most philosophers and philosophical traditions known to her, except Aristotle.

Removals from the earlier version struck through, additions in bold. This eliminates the unnecessary and potentially controversial "all forms of" construction, but retains Rand's well-documented oppositions to the initiation of force, collectivism and statism, and it clarifies that she did support the existence of a government. --RL0919 (talk) 11:29, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Why do you insist on saying she was sharply critical to all others? There are at least a few philosophers she praised and didn't criticize, so only putting 'except Aristotle' and omitting the others is misleading. Either put all of them, or better, just discard this totally pointless and problematic sentence. Her influences are already listed on the sidebar, and covered in two different areas later in the article. For that matter, if we're going to accept that she had all these influences, then you're also saying she was sharply critical of all her influences? The sharply critical sentence is problematic and needs to be scrapped.

Why not just leave limited government and delete 'collectivism and statism'? The words serve no purpose. If someone espouses limited government, they automatically oppose the things that you believe collectivism and statism mean, and you're also being more intellectually rigorous by just saying 'limited government and laissez faire.' No thinkers from any known political or philosophical group, whatever the size, would have issue with that wording.

There is more dispute over the meaning of collectivism and statism than there is over whether Rand advocated occasional initiation of force. I think I and other philosophers have made clear enough objections to Rand's stance on non-aggression that they at least deserve some response from you and others. It's simply false on its face that Rand opposed all initiation. There is zero response to my objection in the Objectivist canon; they just avoid the subject. When confronted with the non-aggression question by other academics or in media interviews, Rand would fly into a tailspin, calling anarchists 'anti-life' 'anti-mind' 'the worst kind of scum' 'monsters' 'hippies,' you name it, while never once providing a real answer even until her death. She doth protest too much. Neither Rand nor any Objectivist scholars have confronted the fact that taxation and conscription constitute non-retaliatory aggression, so the only existing disagreement is between me and the original writer of this section; it's not part of some larger academic dispute as you suggest.

Even if Objectivists had addressed this question and taken a position, your contention that the small and shrinking self-identified Objectivist community is larger than the anarchist community is highly doubtful. I believe the anarcho-capitalist community in the US alone, let alone the other branches, is larger than the self-identified Objectivist community. The self-identified broader anarchist community is much, much larger than Objectivist community worldwide, and all anarchists believe government initiates force. So you're contention about it being a minority position is questionable. They're both minorities, and anarchism is a bigger minority. Few non-Objectivists are even familiar with the concepts at hand, so they can't be included on the Objectivist side in this dispute. You cited what likely amounts to a few pages within a few Rand biographies all written by relatively obscure academics as your preponderance of sources, and those don't even take a position or present an argument, they simply inform the reader of what Rand thought she was opposing. There are thousands and thousands of works, entire books, by world renowned anarchist thinkers, household names to anyone educated to a fair degree in any discipline of political philosophy, based on making the argument that the state initiates force, and a large amount concerning the state being collectivist. If we're talking about sheer volume and weight of academic opinion on these questions, the anarchist side blows the Objectivist side away. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.111.149 (talk) 06:41, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

The error you're making is that you believe it's a minority viewpoint. It's not. The issue is that Objectivists tend to be absolutist and relatively analytical thinkers, and they're the only ones who butt up against the deeper argument made by Rothbard. The vast majority of people don't have an inkling of what the NAP even is, let alone a thorough understanding of or coherent position on it. Were this edit made on the article of any other politician or group, they likely wouldn't even notice or care that the change had been made. That's because they don't deal in absolutist terms. Regarding the NAP: if a man sits at home with his hands in his pockets during wartime, making his income from past lawful investments, and doesn't pay taxes or show up to the draft, the government will break down his door, handcuff him, abduct him, and jail him by force, even though he has initiated no force against any party, and might kill him if he physically resists their aggression. The government is initiating force. Rand supported that outcome, so she cannot be said to oppose all initiation of force. That's fact, not opinion. 95+% of people accept my position, but then they just say, "well that's the way it is, 'we' (collectivism) need to initiate force sometimes to keep order, and it's the only practicable system. when 'we' (collectivism) get attacked, 'we' have to go to war." Objectivists, who allegedly entertain no contradictions whatsoever, just plug their fingers in their ears, call anarchists hippies, and apparently start reverting wikipedia edits 24/7. Either that or it's people against IP editors.

Please read my argument instead of recycling your original post. It's really disappointing working with this site. I made productive edits that were objective, diplomatic, and superior in literary quality, and took a long time to write why, and it was all deleted. The edits were 100% true and not offensive or contentious. They used simple, widely understood language and did not attempt to make any direct political or philosophical point. They simply omitted the provably false material or reworded the sentence to show what Rand was for instead of what she was against. Please stop using ad-hominem 'minority' attacks against anarchists to bully your view into the article, and answer my objections substantively. If they have no merit, it should only take a few sentences. If they have some merit, please restore my unoffensive, better written, and 100% true modification of the paragraph that avoids facing this obscure philosophical NAP question head-on, sufficiently informs the reader about Rand in a way that allows them to make their own judgment on the premise of limited government, and shouldn't cause either Objectivists or anarchists to become upset. The issue we're having here is that certain people want to keep a blatant lie in the article just because it was there before, and I simply want to remove it and put the truth, and they're either offended by the truth or are just against me because I'm an IP editor, which apparently is highly common based on the wiki article about IP editors, which I just saw recently. By the way, Polisher, it's not tediousness, it's called rigorous thought, and it's something that should be welcomed here, not driven away. You, on the other hand, make false contentions about Rand that contradict well-known statements made by her, statements highlighted in this article, don't even acknowledge it, insist on keeping the clause that had been demonstrated to you minutes before to be incorrect, and just move on to more personal attacks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.111.149 (talk) 10:25, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are supposed to be based on what reliable sources say about a subject. Reliable sources document (for example) that Rand opposed collectivism. Examples: Jennifer Burns, Goddess of the Market (a peer-reviewed academic book); Mimi Reisel Gladstein, The New Ayn Rand Companion (another academic book); James Baker, Ayn Rand (another); Anne Heller, Ayn Rand and the World She Made (a biography by a journalist); Gary Weiss, Ayn Rand Nation(a book critical of Rand). That's without engaging a single Objectivist or even "Objectivish" sources (which of course would be numerous and unanimous on this point). You are not coming forward with sources; you are engaging in philosophical argumentation. You expect people to bow to your supposedly superior argumentative position, or engage you in some long-winded dispute about philosophy. But that isn't how Wikipedia works, at least not when it works well, which is why you find it so frustrating. The viewpoint you are propounding is documented in sources. However, those same sources would show that it is a viewpoint that is specifically associated with anarchists -- a minority viewpoint. And Wikipedia has policies on that situation as well: minority viewpoints should be documented with "due weight" -- not given special prominence, such as in the lead of an article, but perhaps mentioned somewhere. --RL0919 (talk) 11:29, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

The lead is already slightly too long, especially the second paragraph. It contains too much detail, too many isms, unnecessary, biased, and bombastic language, and false statements.

I'm not sure if you read my edit, but it doesn't take an anarchist position, and doesn't seem remotely political, but is actually markedly less political than the current version, and it's far more precise and more neutral than the current version. It's also easier to read.

You're embracing a fallacy here. That because some of my political views are anarchist, and most people aren't anarchists, all my edits can be discounted for being minority positions. The same is true with others: most people aren't anarchists, but most people know that taxation and a mandatory draft are force initiation. They just say that in some circumstances the government has to use force to fund itself, defend itself, and maintain order. They just say, it's not perfect, but we need to organize as a group because other nations have and they'll attack us if we don't. Objectivists won't even answer this question because they allegedly won't accept exceptions or compromises, while most other people readily do, and their deontological rights position goes to consequentialism when the question is broached: it wouldn't work (even though it has and does work). So they say individualist anarchism would lead to collectivism, and bizarrely therefore that it is collectivism, even though in it's nascent stage at least it has no characteristics of collectivism. Well, what is it during that trip from individualism to collectivism? I don't need a long-winded argument. Just tell me in one sentence how my example about the person abducted from his home after initiating no force does not violate Rand's non-aggression principle.

To start, the argument about Aristotle is so obviously wrong, and it has to go. The sentence is false, badly written, and does not even fit with the rest of the paragraph, which associates Rand with various ideologies. Rand named and praised philosophers other than Aristotle, on the record, and there is no evidence of criticism, therefore sentence is false. If you say 'most' and then say 'except Aristotle,' it's technically correct but very awkward. It implies he's the only one when he isn't and it smacks of a political or philosophical agenda.

My other edits simply reduce the number of words and isms, and convey an identical point, and make the sentence totally uncontroversial and something that has no points of contention. Rand espoused limited government. That automatically means she opposed the more totalitarian variants of collectivism, and that she opposed what some people term statism, or a highly interventionist state. It's totally excessive to say 'I espouse individualism, and oppose collectivism' 'I embrace heterosexuality, and I reject sex with men' The former implies the latter. It's verbose, combative, obnoxious, and desperate to have to use the see-saw effect every time. It's something Rand did constantly because she was attempting to be a gadfly, and because she was a bad writer in a technical sense. That style doesn't belong here.

 ::— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.111.149 (talk) 20:45, 13 December 2012 (UTC) 

What an odd comment. Could you please explain what is bombastic about saying her most popular work came out in 1957 or that she called her style romantic realism? Please be specific with your criticisms, because otherwise they are quite helpless. (And I mean that, not only unhelpful, but "helpless".) μηδείς (talk) 02:45, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Can you read English competently, and for that matter did you even read any of my comments? Or did you just see the word bombastic and start typing? I never once edited or commented on any of the sentences you just mentioned. I've explained in past edits and comments what is bombastic and used words that are similar to bombastic when used in combination, like verbose, combative and obnoxious, and then explained exactly what I was talking about, but I'll explain again. What is bombastic is the use of unnecessary 'conflict' clauses (supported/rejected, advocated/opposed, etc) and phrases such as 'all forms of' which are false and would serve no constructive purpose if they were true.

Despite the length of this conversation, I have yet to hear any criticisms on my actual edit. I've just been getting ad-hominem attacks for my perceived political views from RL, even though my views are irrelevant to the edit other than that they informed me of the error of the current version; my views are not being pushed by the edit. I chose the most diplomatic way possible to describe Rand's views in a truthful way. Polisher hasn't read anything yet and has been talking out his you know what, saying Rand 'respected but hardly endorsed' Aquinas when the endorsement was right in front of his face, and her published books and essays have several other unqualified endorsements of other philosophers, and then there have been irrelevant responses like yours just now that demonstrate zero comprehension of the situation and what has been discussed thus far. Please read the comments, and respond substantively on the two significant changes I made:

1) There is absolutely no basis for the 'sharply critical' Aristotle comment, thus I deleted it. 2) Saying 'limited government' made the sentence true instead of false, substituted relatively obscure language for universally understood language, made the sentence and paragraph considerably more concise, and also cleary implied opposition to collectivism and statism as you understand the words to mean, allowing us to retire the debate over their meaning, and made it possible to eliminate the second silly 'all forms' conflict clause. Rand's exact political position was advocacy for limited government and laissez-faire capitalism, which is exactly how I described it in my edit. If you're hung up on calling it a social system rather than a political and economic system, even though the latter two are exactly what they are, I'm not going to bicker over that, even though a social system has directly to do with culture, social hierarchy, etc, not politics and economics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.111.149 (talk) 06:12, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm happy to agree to RL0919's proposed version. To the IP editor, I would say first that it is foolish to make assumptions about what other editors have or have not read, and second that if you keep on being that rude you can expect to be ignored. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 06:40, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Please see my latest comments on that version. You say my comments are irrelevant, have no substance, and deserve to be ignored, then you tell me I'm rude? You undo all my totally reasonable edits without at least offering a reason as RL has done, then tell me I'm edit warring? After your bald-faced lie about Aquinas, I had to assume you either didn't even read the article that we were discussing, let alone Rand's works, or that you're unable to comprehend English even though you appear to be a native speaker. I decided the former was the least rude suggestion I could make.

Regarding your accusation that I made a "bald-faced lie", please see WP:NPA. I think you will find that you are digging your wiki-grave by making comments of that kind. I will leave it to others to explain to you that you are at least as guilty of edit warring as anyone else, if they have the patience. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 08:19, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Both of your warnings have been irrelevant to this thread. First, you accused me of general Rand discussion when everything I said was directly related to the edits being discussed. Now you're accusing me of a personal attack when I called something that you said that was untrue a lie, which among other things is an untrue or inaccurate statement. A bald-faced lie is just a lie that is very obviously such. That's not a personal attack. I attacked your statement, not you personally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.111.149 (talk) 09:10, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Quoth the IP: "Despite the length of this conversation, I have yet to hear any criticisms on my actual edit." The length is mostly your doing as you write long discourses trying to argue the substance of your beliefs (which is not an appropriate approach in a Wikipedia editing dispute, as you have been told multiple times now). Your edits have repeatedly removed information about Rand's views that is available in numerous sources, some of which I named above. That is the main problem with them, which you have done nothing to address. The stylistic complaints are matters of opinion, and a three-paragraph lead is not too long for an article of this size (see WP:LEADLENGTH). The motivation of your edits is transparent from your edit summaries and discourses on this talk page, even though you are now trying to backpedal and say your views aren't relevant to your edits (making the long paragraphs above irrelevant?).

As to the question of personal attacks, I note that the title of this discussion section is taken from one of your edit summaries that have included such gems as "you clearly have no interest in the truth, only in protecting your teen idol" and "gaggle of delusional Randians", and more recently you started a reply to another editor with "Can you read English competently...?" Is what you count as "objective" and "diplomatic"? Objective and diplomatic would be accepting that you can get some improvements in the wording, while recognizing that other editors have plausible objections to some of what you want. In the spirit of diplomacy, I will repeat the compromise wording I suggested previously (with a correction to the placement of one strikethough):

Rand advocated reason as the only means of acquiring knowledge and rejected all forms of faith and religion. She supported rational and ethical egoism, and rejected ethical altruism. In politics, she condemned the initiation of force as immoral and opposed all forms of collectivism and statism, instead supporting limited government and laissez-faire capitalism, which she believed was the only social system that protected individual rights. She promoted romantic realism in art. She was sharply critical of the most philosophers and philosophical traditions known to her, except Aristotle.

It appears that Polisher of Cobwebs is open to this wording, and I believe it is a legitimate improvement both factually and stylistically. If others like this wording, or have alternatives to recommend, then perhaps we can come to some consensus before the page protection expires. --RL0919 (talk) 16:36, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

First, I'm not arguing the substance of my beliefs, I'm paraphrasing the position of an academic community, anarchism, that is far larger than the Objectivist academic community. Second, although I did express opinions in past edit summaries, which admittedly wasn't judicious, they haven't been an issue in this thread, and I'm capable of writing objective content without regard to my political beliefs. The edit should be judged on its merits alone, not my past comments or perceived motives. Also, I didn't title this thread. Regarding the 'competently' comment, in this thread I have to post firmly under the presumption that all people involved have read the article at hand and all comments posted thus far. When after posting pages of material over more than a week someone accuses me of saying specific things that I've never once even suggested, I have to question his reading comprehension, unless he was actually just engaged in bizarrely worded and thinly veiled bullying, even thuggery with his 'helpless' comment, which appears to be the most probable case.

Why do you insist on saying she was sharply critical of all others? There are at least a few philosophers she praised and didn't criticize, so only putting 'except Aristotle' and omitting the others is misleading. Either put all of them, or better, just discard this totally pointless and problematic sentence. Her influences are already listed on the sidebar, and covered in two different areas later in the article. For that matter, if we're going to accept that she had all these influences, then you're also saying she was sharply critical of all her influences? If so, a confusing assertion like that would deserve a subsequent explanation, addition of which would make the lead unwieldy and misdirect its purpose.

Why not just leave 'limited government' and delete 'collectivism and statism'? The latter words serve no purpose. If someone espouses limited government, they automatically oppose the things that you believe collectivism and statism mean, and you're also being more intellectually rigorous by just saying 'limited government and laissez faire' and not needlessly introducing controversy. No thinkers from any known political or philosophical group, whatever the size, would have issue with that wording.

While neither question is hotly disputed outside of this article page, there is more dispute over the meaning of collectivism and statism than there is over whether Rand advocated occasional initiation of force. Other philosophers, who I have paraphrased here, have made clear enough objections to Rand's stance on non-aggression that they at least deserve some response from you and others. It's simply false on its face that Rand opposed all initiation. There is zero response to my objection in the Objectivist canon; they just avoid the subject. When confronted with the non-aggression question by other academics or in media interviews, Rand would fly into a tailspin, calling anarchists 'anti-life' 'anti-mind' 'the worst kind of scum' 'monsters' 'hippies,' you name it, while never once providing a real answer even until her death. She doth protest too much. Neither Rand nor any Objectivist scholars have confronted the fact that taxation and conscription constitute non-retaliatory aggression, so the only existing disagreement is between me and the original writer of this section; it's not part of some larger academic dispute as you suggest.

Even if Objectivists had addressed this question and taken a position, and, I repeat, they haven't, your contention that the small and shrinking self-identified Objectivist community is larger than the anarchist community is highly doubtful. I believe the anarcho-capitalist community in the US alone, let alone the other branches and regions, is larger than the entire self-identified Objectivist community. Worldwide, the self-identified broader anarchist community is much, much larger than Objectivist community, and all anarchists believe government initiates force. So you're contention about it being a minority position is questionable. They're both minorities, and anarchism is a bigger minority. Few non-Objectivists and non-anarchists are even familiar with the concepts at hand, so they can't be included on the Objectivist side in this dispute. You cited what likely amounts to a few pages within a few Rand biographies all written by relatively obscure academics as your preponderance of sources, and that material doesn't even take a position or present an argument, it simply informs the reader of what Rand claimed she was opposing. There are thousands and thousands of works, entire books, by world renowned anarchist thinkers, household names to anyone educated to a fair degree in any discipline of political philosophy, based on making the argument that the state initiates force, and a large amount concerning the state being collectivist. If we're talking about sheer volume and weight of academic opinion on these questions, the anarchist side blows the Objectivist side away. And that's assuming the Objectivists agree with you. In reality, Rand and Objectivists aren't even present in the debate: it's you, Polisher, and the original author of this article versus the anarchists. You confuse what is mostly a vacuum, disengagement, silence on the aggression question for broad societal consensus. Why broach this controversy when there is better alternative wording available that doesn't do so?

A goal of the article and especially the lead should be conciseness. While the current lead may not be that long for the article's size, any way to make an equivalent point with fewer and simpler words should always be embraced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.111.149 (talk) 17:03, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

RL0919's suggestion is fine, and I think we should go with that. I apologize for encouraging the IP by replying to it. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 19:47, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Ultimately this should be about properly summarizing how sources describe Rand's views, not about anyone's behavior or any argument over whether her views are correct. The majority of sources that describe Rand's views on these issues do say that she opposed collectivism and the initiation of force, and supported limited government and capitalism. I've noted several such sources above, none of them Objectivist partisans although of course those sources exist as well. Rand's views in this area are a significant part of her public image, so ignoring these points in the lead would be odd. A smaller number of critics, mostly anarchists, say that Rand has contradicted herself in holding these positions. Some "thousands and thousands of works" that don't mention Rand are not part of the equation, nor does it matter how many anarchists there are in the world vs. how many Objectivists. --RL0919 (talk) 23:57, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

It seems that Polisher and I are both good with the revision I suggested. I'd appreciate input from other editors. --RL0919 (talk) 04:54, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

We shouldn't allow the article to get wrapped up in a wider debate on anarchism. A major problem with many disputes on this article (is she a philosopher for example) is the sheer absence of sources outside of a very narrow interest group. I'm not sure that there is a need to have the "opposed all forms of ..." phrase however as its too ambiguous. Not sure in all the mass of words what is the essence of the dispute however. Would you summarise your proposal? ----Snowded ^TALK 05:49, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

arb break

My proposed wording is posted twice above, but there's quite a mass of other words intervening! Here it is again:

Rand advocated reason as the only means of acquiring knowledge and rejected all forms of faith and religion. She supported rational and ethical egoism, and rejected ethical altruism. In politics, she condemned the initiation of force as immoral and opposed all forms of collectivism and statism, instead supporting limited government and laissez-faire capitalism, which she believed was the only social system that protected individual rights. She promoted romantic realism in art. She was sharply critical of the most philosophers and philosophical traditions known to her, except Aristotle.

Proposed additions in bold, deletions struck through. --RL0919 (talk) 06:04, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, it was difficult to follow. Looking at it I can see why its seen as over positive. She wasn't opposed to violence per se (look at the West Point lectures) but to "violence" by the state to restrict individuals. Minimal Government is too broad a term it might be better to say what she thought was the role of Government. The statement on laissez-faire is valid as is that on philosophers. ----Snowded ^TALK 07:30, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Naturally, as soon as protection expired, the IP editor made an edit that isn't what we've been discussing, but something similar that more favors his own positions. Most notably he omitted any mention of Rand criticizing other philosophers, something that everyone except the IP seems to agree should be mentioned. But I'm tired of this particular dispute, and it's not like there aren't 800+ other people with this page on their watchlists. If someone else wants that fact back in, they can open their edit windows. --RL0919 (talk) 23:30, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Most of this thread has not been a philosophical dispute about anarchism or any other ideology, and many of the responses by other editors show that they did not even read what was there at all, and made a false characterization based on a word or two. It's been about the generally accepted meaning of words and about saying one thing in two different ways for no reason. As I've said before, I can sign onto the use of the words collectivism and statism, since in Webster's and Oxford dictionaries, some accepted meanings of the words are what you think they are. They're superfluous and technically incorrect and I'd prefer they be omitted, but I can leave them in, as I did in the last edit.

The 'sharply critical' and 'initiation of force' sentences are false on their faces, based on common understanding of the plain English words. It has nothing to do with political philosophy.

Re: initiation of force. Rand supported compulsory taxation and conscription, which she acknowledged would be necessary to fund and protect even a minimal government. When something is compulsory, it means that force will be initiated in order to achieve compliance. Without force initiation, it's no longer compulsory. If one does not initiate participation in these two activities, government initiates force against them, either to punish them or achieve compliance. Just because Rand never addressed absolutely glaring inconsistencies in her philosophy doesn't mean they didn't exist. This isn't Rand's diary where she gets to post her personal views on things. If something is false, it should be removed.

Re: 'sharply critical' sentence: how can I remove a false sentence like the Aristotle one, and then provide sources to justify it after the sentence is already gone? First, the sentence does not have and never has had a citation. On top of that, there are already several sourced and vetted statements in other areas of the article (influences sidebar, philosophy section, and academic reaction section) that establish that she knew of other philosophers and was not critical of many of them. I've also cited primary texts by Rand that show praise of other philosophers, and no one has offered a counter-source that shows any criticism at all of that person, let alone sharp criticism. I don't know why it's in your head that this sentence is even necessary, or reads well. It's badly written and placed, and unequivocally false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.111.149 (talk) 03:08, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

The right thing to do would be for you to engage the discussion of alternative drafts without article edits until some compromise language is agreed upon, instead of continuing to make your preferred edits. Continuing to edit war is unproductive. The end of that road is either another block or re-protection of the article. You are actually hampering improvement of the article by making non-consensus changes that just get reverted, when we could be getting consensus on at least some changes that you would like better than the current wording.

As to the content: It is easy to document that Rand condemned the initiation of force on multiple occasions, and numerous primary and secondary sources could be cited to this point. A few examples: Gladstein, The New Ayn Rand Companion; Gotthelf, On Ayn Rand; Sciabarra, Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical; Burns, Goddess of the Market -- that's four academic secondary sources without even looking very hard. You may believe her condemnation to be inconsistent with other aspects of her philosophy, but that doesn't change what she said. Even among sources that criticize her on this point, they acknowledge that she at least claimed to oppose the initiation of force.

Regarding her condemnation of other philosophers and philosophical traditions, the current wording of "the" is over-inclusive, which is why the proposed alternative above says "most" instead. The sentence doesn't have a citation on it currently because content in the lead often isn't cited (it should summarize material found elsewhere in the article), but sources can be added if that's the only sticking point. As to your claim of her not being critical of "many of them", in the title essay of For the New Intellectual, she makes negative comments about Plato, Immanuel Kant, Karl Marx, Plotinus, Augustine, Rene Descartes, David Hume, Georg Hegel, Auguste Comte, Friedrich Nietzsche, Jeremy Bentham, Herbert Spencer, the pragmatists, and the logical positivists. That's 11 individuals and two broad movements criticized in one essay! In Philosophy: Who Needs It, she hits many of those again, and adds John Stuart Mill, William James, Bertrand Russell, Reinhold Niebuhr, John Rawls, Paul Feyerabend, "Linguistic Analysis", and "all our current philosophies". She tilted positive about a handful. Besides Aristotle, her favorites seem to have been Thomas Aquinas, John Locke, Baruch Spinoza and Brand Blanshard -- all thinkers Rand saw as being in the Aristotelian tradition. But clearly she was critical of most. As for whether "sharply" is an appropriate modifier for "critical", her discussions of them include such terms as "treason", "frightened slave", "gibberish", "nauseating", and "Witch Doctor". She said Hume had the philosophy of an animal and Kant was a "monster".

That's all primary source material. If I were going to cite a secondary source (which is what I would actually prefer if additional citations are needed), William F. O'Neill give a decent start: "Rand holds virtually all of modern philosophy in utmost contempt." (With Charity Toward None, p. 18) Sciabarra refers to her "harsh and polemical tone, coupled with her caricaturing of many philosophers". (Russian Radical, p. 118) --RL0919 (talk) 07:52, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I've updated the lead with a more nuanced version of the "sharply critical" sentence, with two sources, and added five sources saying that she opposed the initiation of force. By the way, since I didn't address it above, in what fantasyland did Rand support "compulsory taxation and conscription"? She wrote essays against each of those ("Government Financing in a Free Society" and "The Wreckage of the Consensus", respectively). --RL0919 (talk) 19:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Quotes substantiating Rand on taxation and conscription

Since I took the trouble to read the above discussion and began my search of sources before I reached the end, here are quotes to substantiate what RL0919 says above:

Rand on Taxation:

[Q]"What would be the proper method of financing the government in a fully free society?"

[A]"In a fully free society, taxation — or, to be exact, payment for governmental services — would be voluntary. Since the proper services of a government-the police, the armed forces, the law courts-are demonstrably needed by individual citizens and affect their interests directly, the citizens would (and should) be willing to pay for such services, as they pay for insurance." (Ayn Rand, "Intellectual Ammunition Department" The Objectivist Newsletter, Vol. 3 No. 2 February, 1964. Reprinted as "Government Financing in a Free Society" in The Virtue of Selfishness)

Rand on Conscription:

"Of all the statist violations of individual rights in a mixed economy, the military draft is the worst. It is an abrogation of rights. It negates man's fundamental right — the right to life — and establishes the fundamental principle of statism: that a man's life belongs to the state, and the state may claim it by compelling him to sacrifice it in battle." (Ayn Rand, "The Wreckage Of The Consensus," The Objectivist, May 1967. Reprinted in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal) --Blanchette (talk) 00:25, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Jefferson and Madison as influences

An IP editor (166.137.88.40) is insisting on adding Thomas Jefferson and James Madison to the "Influences" list in the infobox, using as their justification a quote from Rand about the "Founding Fathers". The quote names neither Jefferson nor Madison individually. In past discussions we've required specific evidence of influence in order to include people on this list. Obviously Jefferson and Madison are among the Founding Fathers, but from the evidence at hand I'm not sure why we should be naming them and not, say, Ethan Allen or Patrick Henry. (Rand clearly admired the latter, for example, naming a fictional university after him in Atlas Shrugged.) Thoughts from other editors would be appreciated. --RL0919 (talk) 00:48, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Agree, no grounds for inclusion ----Snowded ^TALK 07:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring in academic reaction section

Re: Ayn Rand. Using double standards for quotes in 'academic reaction' section. If you have an issue with the quote posted, then most of the entire section should be scrapped by that standard.

Editor appears to be selectively reverting edits en masse that are not explicitly pro-Rand. Has been warned on talk page for this practice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.88.38 (talk) 01:30, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

You are both edit warring in a classic two-person back and forth, and it should stop ASAP. Please discuss the merits and/or problems of this quote here on the talk page, and please avoid speculation about the motives of other editors. Thanks. --RL0919 (talk) 01:41, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I'm fine with this quote being included. It's from a notable source, and others have made similar criticisms. If the section keeps expanding, at some point we will have to triage what should be included to avoid it being overlong, but I don't think it is problematic yet. Regarding Lewis, he is an academic, but you could have been misled by the fact that the wrong John Lewis had been wikilinked previously. --RL0919 (talk) 01:51, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the update on Lewis. I have no problem with his or Wheeler's statements or standing, but believe Murray's should also. Rand's highly aggressive approach, lampooning figures like Beethoven and Hemingway, among many others, as basically worthless, invites harsh criticism. Her 'I owe an intellectual debt only to Aristotle' statement is absurd, and Murray rightly criticized her for it. There's evidence Rand was psychologically unbalanced and under the influence of drugs, namely strong stimulants, on a daily basis for most her life. I don't feel the need to post any of that on the article, but it should be considered as context, and the article should not be a Rand praise-fest. Almost all people in the academic reaction section are self-proclaimed Objectivists and explicit Rand supporters, many of them have limited credentials, and there are few neutral or critical parties represented. More balance is needed. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:00, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

The content this IP editor has added is seriously misleading. Rand did not say that she was "only influenced by Aristotle" - rather, she cited Aristotle as her only purely philosophical influence. She made clear that she owed her part of her understanding of economic issues to economists such as Ludwig von Mises, but they weren't philosophical influences on her per se. The "childish" quote is gratuitous and should be removed. It looks like a quotation added for the sake of adding a quotation, and I'm opposed to that. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 03:28, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Rand said 'the only philosophical debt I can acknowledge is to Aristotle.' She didn't say 'purely' philosophical, whatever that's supposed to mean; you're putting words in her mouth.

Re: Von Mises: Objectivism is presented as a complete and totally original philosophical system. Rand presents Austrian economic theories as part of that system. I've read over 3,000 pages of Rand's work, and the bulk of Objectivism is Rand plagiarizing well-known works almost verbatim and rebranding them as Objectivist. I've read literally every book by Rand, and I happen to have a near-photographic memory. In her published books, she mentions Von Mises once, ever, and it is in one of her later works in the 1980s ('Philosophy: Who Needs it?', p. 198). She doesn't acknowledge him as an influence or pay him any credit, she simply recommends that children of the future read him for in-depth economic thought at a level deeper than she goes in her works.

If one takes the fundamental philosophical components of Objectivism (all of which Rand presented as original material) and removes the Ayn Rand Art Deco wrapper, they'll just find other philosophers' work. Unwrap 'Objectivist' self-ownership, non-aggression, homesteading basis for private property, and epistemology- and Hey! that's just John Locke! Unwrap 'Objectivist economics,' and Hey! that's Von Mises! Unwrap Objectivist egoism and it's Nietzsche.

(And Locke's economic theories were in the classical liberal economic tradition, which, at the depth Rand presented economic theory, does not differ at all from the Austrian school. Rand later loosely allied herself with the Austrians and quietly endorsed their works, so I guess that's why everyone's insisting Von Mises is her economics influence, and not Adam Smith or David Ricardo. Objectivism is basically Lockeanism cobbled together with Nietzchean egoism and Rand's ancillary theories on art, music, and sex.)

This is particularly objectionable because Rand made claims throughout her life that her work was being plagiarized by the Libertarian party, and viciously personally attacked others over it for decades, calling them 'scum,' 'monsters,' etc. She was laying full claim to the centuries-old foundational concepts of libertarianism which she had nothing to do with discovering i.e. individualism, self-ownership, non-aggression, Lockean private property, limited government, non-fiat money, low taxation and regulation. That's the real bulk of Objectivism, and Rand had nothing to do with these ideas other than popularizing them, yet she accused anyone who championed them after 1960 of plagiarizing her work. I tried to link to examples of this in the original paragraph but the citation was removed. Here are some examples: www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=ar_libertarianism_qa

What remains after the plagiarized portions of Objectivism are the bona fide Rand originals: ardent support for serial killers and carpet-bombing of 'unfree' nations by 'free' nations (Virtue of Selfishness, p. 120-122), diatribes about 'correct' taste in art and music, and a few good action novels, whose titan main characters, it should be noted, are all based on Rand's husband, a hobbyist gardener (Rand claimed she abhored hobbies), summer camp counselor, and part-time, low-level actor (not that there's anything wrong with those things, but after reading her books one must presume such a life would make Rand vomit, at least when paired in marriage with what she thought of as her own stratospheric position).

Rand is one of the greatest popularizers of liberty in world history, and has done an enormous amount of good, probably more than I will ever be able to do. So I'm glad this article provides ample discussion of Rand's great accomplishments, but the deification needs to stop, and the flaws need to be pointed out. This section needs to be more balanced and criticisms of Rand should be let to stand instead of being buried.

The quote is not gratuitous at all. Murray intentionally used strong language such as 'childish' and 'out of touch with reality' to encapsulate Rand's history of profound hypocrisy of accusing others of plagiarism when almost all her theory is lifted from others, and Murray implies that Rand's drug use and erratic personality may have contributed to her bizarre position about her philosophical influences. Euphemizing Murray's criticism by removing the quote is a disservice to wiki readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.88.19 (talk) 08:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Obviously, by 'purely philosophical' I meant that Rand claimed that her only specifically philosophical debt was to Aristotle. What did you think I meant? You have Murray saying that Rand claimed only to have been influenced in any way by Aristotle, and you present it in such a way that it endorses his claim, but it's clearly not true. That Rand mentions Von Mises only once in her published books may be true, but it doesn't mean that she didn't ever acknowledge a debt to Von Mises. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 16:13, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

The vast majority of what you two are arguing about is irrelevant to the article. We are talking about to what extent we should document what a third party's reaction was. It is not particularly critical whether that reaction was fair or fact-based, since it is a person's opinion. What we should worry about are questions such as whether the opinion is an example of a relatively common viewpoint (per WP:DUE), whether we have chosen an interesting example of that viewpoint, etc. Murray is himself a notable figure, and the opinion he is expressing is similar to comments that others have made (perhaps not always in such personalized terms), so it seems a fair enough example to use. The only real problem I've gleaned is with the wording in the current text that refers to "her contention that she was only influenced by Aristotle", which seems inaccurate as a description of Rand's own claims and is currently worded as "objective" text rather than quoted from Murray or described as his opinion. If we fix that, then I have no problem with quoting Murray. It isn't our job as editors to police his opinions. --RL0919 (talk) 17:48, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

RL9109: I'm OK with using the term philosophical debt instead of influence since Murray used that phrase himself in the same passage. We're talking about academic reaction to Rand, a philosopher, and all of the subjects Rand covered could be filed under philosophy (which is why doctorate students studying all fields of knowledge, or sophia, become Doctors of Philosophy or PhDs), so I think the distinction 'philosophical' is not really necessary. But Rand did mention Hugo as an influence for her writing, and the nature of that influence is not totally known, so unqualified 'influence' would be slightly unfair.

Polisher: Just putting things in italics doesn't mean they make sense. Pick up any Rand text and you'll see that trick used every other sentence.

Are you saying the work of Locke, Smith, Von Mises, and Nietzsche is not philosophy? I think every philosophy student in the world would beg to differ. But then, it isn't 'pure' philosophy. OK, so if it's a matter of complexity, when did 'pure' philosophy stop and 'impure' philosophy begin?

As a former Objectivist sympathizer, I think I understand your unbelievably ludicrous, uniquely Objectivist position. You actually believe, like Rand claimed to believe, that by channeling the methodology of Aristotle, who himself was influenced by hundreds or thousands of previous thinkers (was their work pure or impure?), Ayn Rand was able to deduce, entirely within the confines of her own mind i.e. without reading them, entire bodies of original work of Locke, the classical liberal economists, the Austrians, and Nietzsche, to the point of being almost a verbatim reproduction. And all high-intelligence Objectivists have the capability of doing the same by employing the same methods, it's just that Rand beat them to it. Give me a break. (If I'm wrong about that, I'm sorry; please enlighten me to the truth, and please don't use italics.)

I'd rather go with this: at some point she came across Locke and classical liberalism, which are staples in high school and college curricula (I was a history major like Rand and was introduced to both of them in high school and college), and copied them and called it Objectivism, and convinced herself that Objectivism was really just a Herculean feat of reason and not a retread of old ideas. That type of behavior fits perfectly with her personal life.

P.S. Re: Von Mises specifically: She had over 3,000 pages to acknowledge that 'Objectivist economics' was a wholesale ripoff, and over the same pages claimed it was all original several times, and viciously attacked anyone else who tried to present the same economic ideas. Childish and out of touch with reality: that doesn't sound unnecessary or gratuitious, that sounds exactly right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.88.19 (talk) 21:34, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Again, as the edit notice says, "This is not a forum for general discussion about Ayn Rand". We should be trying to decide what information to incorporate from reliable sources. Editors theorizing about the subject matter is not particularly helpful to the article. If you want to argue such topics, there are many forums around the internet. --RL0919 (talk) 21:51, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I may have gone to excessive depth, but that was all related to whether we should use the term philosophical debt or just influence, and to Rand's influences in general, which we were also talking about. I'm fine with the edit as it stands now.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.88.19 (talk) 22:04, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Weasel words in the lead

This edit by Medeis changed the wording of the lead, with the apparent goal of putting a more positive spin on how philosophers and literary critics reacted to Rand. It should be reverted, per WP:WEASEL. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 19:00, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree it should be reverted, although I don't know that WP:WEASEL is the reason. "During her life" is just wrong as a qualifier, since the qualified remark is still true after her death. "With some exceptions" is true, but already absorbed earlier in the sentence where it says "generally" (not "universally"). Poorly vs. hostilely is a subtle difference, but "poorly" is more general and therefore I think more correct, since not every negative review was openly hostile. The "often for non-literary reasons" part is intuitively correct from reading the reviews, but it is not in the source that is currently cited, so to keep it would require an additional source -- preferably a peer-reviewed academic to minimize wrangling about source biases. So definitely revert for now, and perhaps add back the one phrase (or something similar) later if it can be supported with sources. --RL0919 (talk) 19:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

List of people Rand influenced

I was considering the problem of the "Influenced" list in the infobox, which has been discussed on this talk page in the past. There are more people who could be added to the list, but at some point it becomes unwieldy to list them all, not to mention problematic to cite them if her influence on them isn't properly cited in their own articles. I wondered how this was handled for other popular thinkers, so I looked at the infobox for Rand's own idol, Aristotle, one of the most influential thinkers in the history of the world. Seeing what was done there has led me to create a new article, List of people influenced by Ayn Rand. There are about a hundred people listed therein (all bluelinks), with supporting citations. I'm hoping we can use this to both shorten the infobox list and perhaps cut down on the prose discussions of people she has influenced. Let me know what you think. --RL0919 (talk) 07:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Reducing the list here to the really notable would be a blessing. I am less sure of the list itself as there are some potential BLP violations. The fact someone is listed in a book on the "cult" would really need corroboration for example. I suggest a drastic reduction to self-identification of a major influence ----Snowded ^TALK 10:35, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

BLP is of course a concern for any article that mentions the living, but limiting to just explicit statements of self-identification creates oddities because not everyone makes public autobiographical statements. So, for example, if we can't find an autobiographical statement by Robert Bidinotto or Peter Schwartz, both of whom have worked for Objectivist organizations, should they be excluded? That seems weird. That's why I went with the three-part statement of inclusion that appears at the top of the list (partially modeled on a similar list at List of thinkers influenced by deconstruction). In most cases additional sources could be provided; I actually tried to limit the number of different sources used to avoid reference overload. --RL0919 (talk) 17:47, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

If they worked for an objectivist institution then there is a case - my point is they are to some thing they said or did which makes it clear, not just someone claiming they were ----Snowded ^TALK 18:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that should be mostly accounted for in the initial list; I tried to avoid any instances that seemed unconfirmed or gossipy. I didn't include some people mentioned by Branden or Merrill for this reason. The Block book is all autobiographical essays and Weiss did one-on-one interviews, so anything referenced to them should be very solid. I used Walker sparingly, although despite the title and tone of the book he was relatively careful about what he said about living individuals. That said, going forward over-inclusion is probably one of the biggest potential problems for the new article, since we have seen here the tendency to name-drop every celebrity who mentions one of her books in an interview. --RL0919 (talk) 21:15, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

OK sounds good, not able to check all the books but assume you have done your work there. Fully agree on name dropping. Suggest we now cull the list on this page to maybe 4/5 and link?----Snowded ^TALK 21:45, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I tried, but if any seem dubious I can double-check. Everyone makes mistakes. (In the other direction, I already noticed a couple of omissions.) As for the infobox on this page, I'd be happy if we omitted names from the Influenced list entirely and did something like this:

Ayn Rand

If folks can live with that, it would short-circuit future wrangles over who is "worthy" to appear in the box. --RL0919 (talk) 23:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with that - no one else seems engaged so I suggest you do it!

Aristotelian Philosophers

She certainly liked him (the famous 3As and all that) but to say she was one requires a third party source. So I have deleted the addition of that category ----Snowded ^TALK 11:12, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Not too hard to find sources that say this: Edward Younkins says it Philosophers of Capitalism, Thomas Gramstad in Feminist Interpretations of Ayn Rand, David Kelly in The Contested Legacy of Ayn Rand, James Sterba in From Rationality to Equality. In The Philosophic Thought of Ayn Rand, Jack Wheeler argues that Rand is even more Aristotelian than she thought herself. On the other hand, it is not an entirely non-controversial classification: Roderick Long argues that Rand isn't really an Aristotelian in Reason and Value: Aristotle versus Rand. On balance it seems there are more sources saying she is than saying she isn't, with the usual large number of sources that don't discuss the question. YMMV about how one-sided it needs to be to justify a category. --RL0919 (talk) 15:38, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Exactly its controversial and given that she is hardly taken seriously in main stream philosophical circles the balance (if its there) is understandable. How anyone can read Aristotle on virtue and think that Rand is an Aristotelean I can't understand. I would want to check some of those sources anyway, saying that she was influenced by is not the same thing ----Snowded ^TALK 16:16, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Sources with quotes and page numbers to facilitate the discussion:

• "I am an Aristotelian." Rand, Letters of Ayn Rand, p. 394
• "Ayn Rand's philosophy is Aristotelianism without Platonism." Peikoff, Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, p. 459
• "Ayn Rand, whose philosophy is a form of Aristotelianism, had the highest admiration for Aristotle ..." Younkins, in Philosophers of Capitalism, p. 82. In the preface, he calls her philosophy "neo-Aristotelian" (p. ix).
• Sterba's section about Rand is titled "Ayn Rand's Aristotelian Alternative" (From Rationality to Equality, p. 94).
• "...Rand is an Aristotelian. Although much of Objectivism (especially its metaphysics) differs significantly from Aristotelian philosophy, Rand falls generally within the Aristotelian tradition..." Smith, Atheism, Ayn Rand, and Other Heresies, p. 191
• Notwithstanding what Smith says, Kelley says her metaphysics is "basically Aristotelian" in The Contested Legacy of Ayn Rand, p. 81.
• Burns calls her "neo-Aristotelian" in Goddess of the Market, p. 148.
• Sandefur also calls her "neo-Aristotelian" in an entry on individualism in The Encyclopedia of Libertarianism (p. 241). The Rand entry in that same encyclopedia (by Sciabarra) refers to her "Aristotelian premises" (p. 414).
• In Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical, Sciabarra manages to mention Aristotelianism numerous times without ever quite saying whether Rand was an Aristotelian or not.
• Machan refers to "Aristotelian characteristics" and "Aristotelian-inspired" metaethics in Ayn Rand (pp. 12, 19). He calls her metaethics "neo-Aristotelian" in an essay in Objectivism, Subjectivism, and Relativism in Ethics, p. 116.
• Long says that while her philosophy "proclaims itself a version of Aristotelianism", it takes various positions that "undermine her basically Aristotelian inclinations and sentiments". (Reason and Value, p. 5)

I started this list not particularly caring whether the category was included or not, but after accumulating the material I'm inclined to say it should be there. I also note that the category page says (in text stable since 2006), "This category is for philosophers who have been strongly influenced by Aristotle." That seems to fit Rand. --RL0919 (talk) 22:00, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Which of those are reliable third party philosophical sources? If those say it OK, otherwise its dubious and even influence has to show some understanding :-) ----Snowded ^TALK 06:28, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Add to that the simple fact that she is not universally accepted as a Philosopher and I think we need something that is third party and authoritative ----Snowded ^TALK 11:21, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I hope you don't want to turn this into a reprise of the lopsided "philosopher" dispute. Only one of the sources above is Rand herself, so most are "third party", but I expect that isn't what you really mean. Sterba and Burns are non-Objectivist academics writing in books published by a prestigious university press. Machan and Younkins wrote in peer-reviewed academic essay collections. To the sources above I can now add the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on Rand by Chandran Kukathas, and an essay by John C. Merrill in Ethical Communication: Moral Stances in Human Dialogue. Both are non-Objectivist academics. So even if you dismiss everyone who is an Objectivist or even "Objectivish", that's at least four peer-reviewed sources. --RL0919 (talk) 16:39, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

The issue of how do you prove a negative on Wikipedia is well illustrated by the "philosopher" issue, no idea why its "lopsided". Not sure the Burns quote counts, Sterba possibly. Long would be a contra argument and I own up to that being my sentiment. Routledge is more the sort of source I was looking for. If that is unambiguous (unlike Sterba) it could be enough ----Snowded ^TALK 22:51, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

oh my god ......you guys are still fighting over Ayn Rand. its been like 4 years since i last checked in. i guess everyone needs a hobby. Brushcherry (talk) 21:51, 3 May 2013 (UTC)brushcherry

The use of Sciabarra's "Transcript" article as a source

I have a question on the use of Sciabarra's 1999 JARS' article "The Rand Transcript". The article is used several times, mostly for very innocuous information. However, as I was reading the second edition of Essays on Ayn Rand's We The Living (ed. Robert Mayhew, 2012), I came across this very interesting critique of Sciabarra's source by Shoshana Milgram (p108-110, notes 26 and 32). Milgram makes several arguments as to why Sciabarra's analysis is erroneous. Since the article only cites Sciabarra for evidence that Rand studied Plato and Aristotle in college, I don't have a problem with the citation per se. But I'm wondering if it's more intellectually honest or whatever to cite Milgram's article in conjunction with Sciabarra's? (In any case, the citation for the Mayew essay anthology should probably be updated with the information for the second edition as it incorporates three new articles.