Talk:Ayn Rand

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Talk:Ayn Rand/Sandbox

I've created a Sandbox subpage. The idea is that editing that might be a better way to achieve consensus than further edit-warring on the main page. Unfortunately the source copy I did nuked all of the newlines, so it's a bit of a mess right now, and currently my browser is not cooperating with me on fixing it. If this is considered problematic, against policy, in the wrong place or whatever I have no problems with it being speedied. TallNapoleon (talk) 09:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

This is actually a great idea, IMHO, but based on my experience, someone will need to remove the "categories" section ASAP or it definitely will be deleted. "Categories" are only added to the real articles, not the copies. I also think that a "sandbox" template or something similar at the head of the article stating that the article is a copy will be necessary. I'm not sure where I saw that template, but it's around somewhere. J Readings (talk) 11:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Cool, I'll try to find that. Also, although it is still lacking in paragraphs it now has all the section headers sorted. TallNapoleon (talk) 17:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

It is a not a good idea to edit in a sandbox. That kind of editing without consensus took us to where we are now. The people who spend time working on the sandbox version will feel like they have done good work and will want to transfer it to the real article when it is thawed. But unless we have rulings from ArbCom before then, all that has been done is create a large increase in the motivation to edit war between those who have invested time in the sandbox and those who resent large numbers of edits being made at once from the sandbox to the real article. It is far better to edit some other articles or to take a break and await the ArbCom decision. There can be no claims of a consensus when work is being done in a sandbox while other editors are avoiding this article while it is under ArbCom and frozen. With millions of articles available there is no excuse for making the situation here more explosive. --Steve (talk) 03:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

That's a moot point considering that the ArbCom decision looks like its going to be finalized fairly soon. Idag (talk) 21:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

What's the feeling on this now that the decision is out and the protection lifted? Are we going to use this for topic-banned editors to experiment on? Skomorokh 13:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Rand and the Tradition, § edit

I would separate what currently is listed as Posthumous in the bib into a "Further Readings" § (or otherwise distinguish her works from those of others) and add:

The Philosophic Thought of Ayn Rand. Edited by Rassmussen and Den Uyl., 1986 ISBN 0-252-01407-3. U. of Il. Press.

Puts the lie to the notion that Rand was treated unfairly by academic philosphy in general. Lycurgus (talk) 17:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The Bibliography section ought to list all the published writings of Rand and nothing more. So the section at stands is a good one, though the Screenplays and adaptations and film adaptations and Films about Rand subsections ought to be split out. A Further reading section serves a quite distinct function to a Bibliography, and rarely includes the author's own work. The Further reading section here is quite extensive, and is already distinguished from the Bibliography (the two are divided by an also-extensive References section). I have no objection to adding the Rassmussen and Den Uyl to the Further reading, but I am really not seeing the thrust of your argument. Sincerely, Skomorokh 20:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The standard connotation of "posthumous work" is one wholly by an author (albeit perhaps redacted to its published form) but published after their death. I (inconsistently till now) would have considered fourth level §s to be paragraphs not sections (since currently they don't result in a <HR> and edit link). Obviously it (the § level) is irrelevant/not substantive/a mere style issue. Lycurgus (talk) 00:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

BTW, Steven Colbert tonight referred to Ayn Rand as: author, philosopher, and female comb-over specialist. Can we quote the Colbert Report here now? Stevewunder (talk) 06:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

On the chance Stevewunder was being serious (I suspect he wasn't), Steven Colbert is a comedian. Quoting a comedian's opinion of Ayn Rand in this biography would seem a little out of place. J Readings (talk) 16:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

My point was that I thought it was pretty interesting that Ayn Rand was the topic of Colbert's The Word last night and that he offered such a description. Of course, Colbert is also known for making frequent WP references and encouraging vandalism. GEEZ, LIGHTEN UP! Stevewunder (talk) 02:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

"GEEZ, LIGHTEN UP." Wow, bold case screams for politely responding to what I thought could have been a serious question. I'm sorry, Stevewunder. J Readings (talk) 02:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Easy Steve. J.R. indicated he thought you were kidding, but lots of times people add pop culture information based on show appearances. So offering his opinion that Colbert's comments can't really be used is quite reasonable. Your reaction comes off as a bit touchy, so it may be you that needs to lighten up? :) Someone mentioned the segment to me on my talk page so I watched it when it was replayed on Comedy Central. It was quite a long segment, so it was kind of fun to watch I thought. Interesting, somewhat amusing, but I'm not a huge Colbert fan. He seems a little glib or trite to me. Anyway, it's too bad we can't take Colbert's referring to her as "author, philosopher, and female comb-over specialist" as conclusive because it would certainly end an awful lot of drama. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Support describing Ayn Rand as "author, philosopher, and female comb-over pioneer" in the lead. Who's with me? TallNapoleon (talk) 03:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

One other proposal is to say: "Ayn Rand is a bad science fiction author who also founded Objectivism, a philosophical movement." ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

That's been done. Skomorokh 02:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

"She first achieved notoriety with The Fountainhead (1943),[6] and her best-known work – the philosophical novel Atlas Shrugged – was published in 1957."

HURR DURR Achieving notoriety means she is notorious. Being notorious is a bad thing. This is like confusing famous and infamous. Holy shit people these words are not interchangeable.

Reworded to "fame", thanks. Skomorokh 02:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Philosophical criticism section

The philosophy criticism section is weak sauce.

"Online U.S. News and World Report columnist Sara Dabney Tisdale says academic philosophers have generally dismissed Atlas Shrugged as "sophomoric, preachy, and unoriginal."[93] In addition, Greg Nyquist has written that Rand's philosophy fundamentally misunderstands the very core of human nature.[94]

On his blog, Kant scholar William Vallicella has been scathing in describing what he calls her lack of rigour and limited understanding of philosophical subject-matter.[95]"

Why are the opinions of Sara or William worth anything? One is referenced for an undefended generalization and the other for being opposed to Rand which isn't of sufficient significance for mention in itself. The arguments of philosophers further down are explored a little but incompletely accounted for. If a critique of Rand's worth including in the article it's worth giving a full summation of: explaining how [name] says Rand is wrong and in what document. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.103.30 (talk) 21:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Previous comment is correct. The section could be made better by removing quotes from newspapers and blogs, and replacing it with material about Nozick's critique. --68.44.133.14 (talk) 02:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the blog comment which is not a reliable source on this topic per WP:SPS. I would argue that the Tisdale quote puts the section into context, and that it should be retained until we have a superior replacement. Do either of you have access to Nozick's critique? Skomorokh 02:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I'm tempted to put the Kant expert's blog comment back in per WP:SPS, but perhaps it's best just to ask the reliable source noticeboard first. I seem to recall that DGG advised Snowded on this particular issue when he originally put the expert's comment in. Agree with Skomorokh about Tisdale. It's fine. J Readings (talk) 05:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

There is a fair amount of sourcing on the article which includes web sites dedicated to Rand etc. which is used as authority. It is also true that several note worthy philosophers (Colin McGinn for example) are using blogs as a form of commentary. I doubt that Vallicella would ever write an article in a refereed journal about Rand for example (the is Rand taken seriously by philosophers issue). Heumer here (original reference from Peter D does a pretty good job of taking her apart for her ethics despite having sympathy of her ideas. The question of what is or is not evidence was a part of this dispute in the first place. The Tisdale stuff is fluffy) but then so is much of the pro-Rand stuff quoted and reused (the guardian piece and others) so removing that en mass would make sense. However blogs by serious philosophers are another matter. WP:RS states "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." so it doesn't justify deletion of this material and I suggest its reinstatement while a discussion takes place about how to handle the material. --Snowded (talk) 06:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree I thought we had established that so long as the writer is in effect a reliable sources, then whatever he or she writes counts as RS. Exactly. And we should add the material by Huemer in. I shall do this at some point. Peter Damian (talk) 20:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

As there are abundant reliable sources that discuss Rand, there's no need to have a war of the blogs. The article is best served by including the best and most notable sources. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

We have already been there. There is very little published academic philosophy that discusses Rand. Therefore we must include unpublished material by an academic philosopher, an expert on Kant. Yes? Yes. Peter Damian (talk) 20:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I strongly suggest removing the the link to William Valicella's blog. Not that blogs must always be forbidden, but probably mostly avoided. Otherwise why not post some original research on one's own blog and then describe and link it from the article? But perhaps the overall usefulness and quality of the contribution, and its authority and relevance, would be questionable, as is the case for this material. If there aren't reliable sources for something, don't try to scrape the bottom of the barrel just to extend the article. JMCorey (talk) 21:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. We're talking about the Kant expert here (allowed under the current WP policy) who offered his expert opinion on the work of someone who wouldn't merit -- in his view -- an even longer peer-reviewed journal article for whatever reason academics have (probably career related). The questions to ask are: (1) is Valicella an expert in his cited field? Yes. (2) Are we citing him for his opinion on Rand's interpretation of Kant (for whom he is an acknowledged expert?) Yes. (3) Is it verifiable? Yes. (4) Do we cite him properly and accurately? Hopefully, yes. If these criteria are met, I personally don't see why anyone would object. Overall, however, Valicella is not an ordinary blogger without credentials for which he is being cited. J Readings (talk) 21:29, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Are we in fact citing him for his opinion on Rand's interpretation of Kant? Perhaps there's some hidden subtext that I'm not aware of, but the actual quote is "On his blog, Kant scholar William Vallicella has been scathing in describing what he calls her lack of rigour and limited understanding of philosophical subject-matter". It seems like the quoted opinion doesn't have anything to do with Rand's interpretation of Kant, as stated. I can't vouch for point (1) above, but the linkage seems broken at point (2), IMO. JMCorey (talk) 23:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm largely in agreement with JMCorey here; as J Readings notes, citing Vallicella for his opinion of Rand's interpretation of Kant is appropriate, as Vallicella is a published expert in Kant scholarship. Citing him for Rand's general philosophical competence is inappropriate because he is not a published expert on Rand, nor has he even studied Rand's work in depth for all we know. And on a procedural note, can we not revert-war over this? I removed the blog citation originally because I thought it was uncontroversial and there was consensus here at the time for its exclusion. I propose that we retain the reference, but alter the text to focus primarily on Rand's understanding of Kant and situate Vallicella's general criticism (re:rigor and comprehension) in this context. Is this agreeable to all? Skomorokh 13:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I have no objections to Skomorokh's proposal as stated. However, I want to note one particular sentence in Skomorokh's comments: Citing [Vallicella] for Rand's general philosophical competence is inappropriate because he is not a published expert on Rand. Fair enough, but this is where it gets interesting. As we all know, several books have been published criticizing Rand, Rand's movement and Rand's methodology. If the criteria for inclusion is being a published expert on Rand (however defined), then I see no reason to avoid one or two sentences a piece for the authors whose general theses of Rand merited either an entire critical book or (in some cases) a book chapter (as a few anthologies on Rand's thinking demonstrated). Does anyone disagree with that proposal? J Readings (talk) 13:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the principle is fine. A Kantian expert assesses her as incompetent in her understanding of Kant, but not deriving a general condemnation of all of her philosophy. Heumer on the other hand has studied Rand, and his conclusions are similar to others who while agreeing with her politics dismiss her as a serious philosopher. Getting the essence of that wold go a long way to reducing conflict. --Snowded (talk) 13:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I seem to have missed the discussion of the Huemer ref; got a link/citation? Thanks, Skomorokh 14:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I gave the link above, but happy to repeat it: here

Much obliged. A (Rutgers-educated!) non-Objectivist philosophy professor with multiple articles published in the JARS is just the kind of chap we want to reference. He certainly engages in detail with Rand's work. Given the lack of a summarising introduction or conclusion, there is not much in the way of a money quote in the critique, however, unless you count "The argument contains eight fatal flaws" (ouch!). It might be a struggle to sum it up in a line or two without engaging in interpretation. Skomorokh 14:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Well Huemer is a political supporter of Rand, and was in the list of those who "support" so I think his criticism is notable. The issue here is that even philosophers who agree with her politically dismiss her as a philosopher. A summary paragraph of that with references to Huemer and Nozick would not be OR --Snowded (talk) 14:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Being a published expert (defined as someone "whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications") on Rand is only a requirement for self-published sources that would otherwise be appropriate. The criteria for inclusion of full-length works are less clearly defined (see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Scholarship), but for example in most cases books on Rand by an scholar in philosophy or english literature published by an academic press would be reliable and worthy of inclusion (space and weight-permitting). Something like Scott Ryan's Objectivism and the Corruption of Rationality would be a tougher call to make. But by all means, name the works you have in mind and we will consider them. Skomorokh 14:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of sources, what the heck is this? TallNapoleon (talk) 22:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

A botched fork of Wikipedia articles from times gone by. Skomorokh 22:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

Someone just vandalized the page, however I'm not sure if I'm permitted to revert due to the topic ban. Could someone else do so, and perhaps I could get clarification? TallNapoleon (talk) 01:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Reverted. Per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Fringe_science#Further_motions_following_Request_for_Clarification, your topic ban prohibits you from editing any Rand-related articles for any reason. Skomorokh 02:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Philosopher

This ought to get taken to the RS noticeboard, I think. At least three of those sources in that cite are Objectivists, and Machan is another libertarian. This is a matter of some complexity and I think wider community involvement would be good. TallNapoleon (talk) 08:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Do we really want to dive straight back into that debate? I think it would be better if we focused on non-controversial improvements and beat the article into some kind of shape, thereby creating a healthy collaborative environment from which more difficult questions can be addressed. Skomorokh 09:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Returning that argument back to you, why do you not revert the controversial changes you have made? 'Objectivist' sources are not independent, but Wikipedia policy requires independent sources. Take it to RS noticeboard, please. Peter Damian (talk) 19:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Addressing the question of evidence is part of that, maybe clearing out all the non-third party references first and then constructing a format for the debate? --Snowded (talk) 09:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I think past discussions have shown that "the question of evidence" is at the heart of the controversy. And removing the citations to Rand's work in an article about Rand would be senseless. Skomorokh 09:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I was not clear. Yes the question of evidence is key and that links to sources (see my comment on blogs above). Reference to Rand herself is obviously appropriate, I meant the number of references to various web sites and related material from Rand based institutions. You appear to be doing some of that now. We do however (and I assume you are not sayng no to this) need to construct some format for the philosopher discussion. --Snowded (talk) 09:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Yes, I agree that replacing the Objectivist sites (ARI, ARI watch, Noblesoul etc.) where possible is desireable, not that they are necessarily unreliable or damaging to the article. On the philosopher debate issue, I think a lot of hard work and research has gone into trying to structure the arguments in older times when the environment was less toxic, and so I don't see now as a very good time to get into it, especially considering the article has just come out of protection. I won't stand in the way of course (I'm not that interested either way), I just fear it could re-ignite disputes, distract from content-building and create an adversarial climate. Skomorokh 09:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Please consider removing the "intellectual kinship with John Locke" passage. It's inappropriate original research, and has the added bonus of being a highly dubious and contentious statement. CABlankenship (talk) 13:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I've removed it as unsourced, per WP:BURDEN. Skomorokh 13:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

"Remain controversial where studied"

What exactly is this meant to convey? My impression is that those who actually study Rand's work are objectivist-sponsored philosophers. These do not find her work controversial, obviously. Those who entirely ignore her work, i.e. virtually all professional philosophers, have no published view on whether she is controversial or not. So what is this sentence doing in the introduction? Peter Damian (talk) 20:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

That sentence, summarizing the positive and negative lasting influence/legacy of Rand, has been problematic for a long time. It should be sourced from the conclusions of recent biographies in my opinion. In the meantime, I have removed the "where studied" segment, as you rightly point out this is inaccurate. Skomorokh 13:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Smoking

This subsection is not appropriately phrased at all, in that it appears as though Wikipedia is arguing that Rand and Objectivism's relationship with smoking exemplifies cult traits. Better to say "Critic A has alleged..." TallNapoleon (talk) 23:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protection

Those of us who were not sanctioned explicitly by ArbCom should still take the ArbCom results seriously. That means don't simply hit the undo button or edit war. Furthermore I think we should consider semi-protecting this page. It is a fairly frequent target of vandalism and frankly the environment around here is toxic enough as it is without having to deal with random vandals. TallNapoleon (talk) 23:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

hmmm...i think you were santcioned explicitly. you are welcome to edit the ayn rand talk page, but are banned from editing the article itself.

Uh, yes, I know. By "those of us" I meant "those editors on this page". TallNapoleon (talk) 16:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree on both points; these kinds of edits are not helpful. Skomorokh 16:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

If no one else objects, would you be willing to put in the request for semi-protection (per my ban I don't think I should be doing that). TallNapoleon (talk) 17:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I think I might hold off; an IP just added a solid ref. Perhaps we can afford a little vandalism for a while. Skomorokh 19:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Brushcherry (talk) 08:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)== Philosopher?---non banned editors only please ==

How about everyone not banned by arbcom come to some consensus on the issue? when the arbcom bans expire, we can defend our page better.

My initial proposal would be a new section "Ayn Rand Status as a Phillosher". the pro-rand and the anti-rand people could have mmmmmmmmm.....10 lines each? if the pro-rand people want to cite pro-rand sources, that is fine. if the anti-rand people what to cite anti-rand sources...thats fine.

Brushcherry (talk) 09:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)brushcherry

The resolution of this needs something slightly more sophisticated Bushcherry and the only people not allowed to participate in building a consensus are those banned from the talk page. The phrase "our page" is also unfortunate, no one owns articles in WIkipedia. You might want to consider reducing your reproduction of Arbcom's decision above to a pipelink to the relevant page. --Snowded (talk) 09:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Guess i don't have to consider reducing my reproduction of the ARBCOM decision to a pipelink since its been deleted

Brushcherry (talk) 08:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)brushcherry

I believe i said non banned users.....although you are free to add contructive comments to the talk page, i was hopping to discuss the issue with editors who have not been banned from editing the ayn rand page.Brushcherry (talk) 10:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)brushcherry

Sorry Brushcherry, the talk page is where consensus is reached. (and your contributions have to be constructive too by the way) --Snowded (talk) 10:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

hmmm...wikipedia is not a democracy? ring a bell?Brushcherry (talk) 10:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)brushcherry

Did I say it was? Either way, I've made my opinion known on your proposal so we can leave it there. I suggest you focus on content proposals rather than trying to rule who can and cannot take part in the discussion. --Snowded (talk) 10:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

snowded, can we discuss this in a new section? i wanted to discuss the philospher issue without banned editorsBrushcherry (talk) 10:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)brushcherry

Brushcherry (talk) 10:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Discuss what? I commented on your proposal and responded to your attempt to censor who could contribute here. If you have any questions or comments to make fine but as far as I am concerned (unless someone supports or takes on your idea) its closed. --Snowded (talk) 10:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Does any non banned editor want to to pipe in?Brushcherry (talk) 10:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)brushcherry

smowded, you are welcome to partake in the the discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brushcherry (talk • contribs) 10:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

once again....i would like non banned editors to give input Brushcherry (talk) 10:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)brushcherry

Agree with Snowded. Also, Brushcherry, you cannot censor who responds on the Talk page. The only people who cannot respond are people who were banned from the Talk page. Idag (talk) 12:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry BrushCherry, consensus includes everyone still involved with the article--even if only from the talk page. TallNapoleon (talk) 18:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Tallnapolean, Snowded, idag, you are not "censored" from the talk page. feel free to post comments to your hearts desire, they will not be deleted. "non-banned editors please" is a request. interested non-banned editors would, i think, have a better chance of reaching a consensus. Did i delete any of your posts?Brushcherry (talk) 07:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)brushcherry

The God of the Machine

Does this really belong in a See Also section? TallNapoleon (talk) 19:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

If you want to make a section out of it go ahead. Also why wasn't it already mentioned? I mean the book was one of the very first influences on Rand & her brand of individualism. I mean there is faint to not in the passing mention of Paterson in the article now. As Cato is all about it [1]. LoveMonkey (talk) 19:44, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Professor Sciabarra

I would like to added in some more back history into Rand and her time at College. Since there is a blanket silence and editwar loving group of editors on this article. I just don't know if I can get any of Professor Sciabarra's work about this in the article. I have in the past tried to only get editwarred. In specific mention of Ayn Rand's Professor N. O. Lossky. LoveMonkey (talk) 19:44, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Well if the material and the argument is the same quality as you advanced on Existentialism you will get push back, please don't confuse that with edit warring. The only way you will find out is to make suggestions. I would support the suggestion in the next section --Snowded (talk) 19:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Funny I have never been banned for editwarring Snowded. How about you? Have you ever been banned from editing articles here on Wikipedia for acting inappropriately? Your sarcasm and lack of good faith above makes me think that you have had issues with editing articles on wiki. As for what Godel said... You can not change that.

LoveMonkey (talk) 19:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Nice try LoveMonkey, almost made me wish I had been less generous in not reporting you for a 3RR violation. My request was really a simply one; please don't keep repeating a point when ALL other editors disagree with you and please don't assum that if you ideas are rejected its because of "editwar lovers" its more likely that they simply disagree with you, and of course that you may be wrong. It was bad enough on Existentialism I don't think my nerves could cope with a repeat here --Snowded (talk) 20:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Nice try, now stop projecting you can not change that Snowded is banned from editing THIS article NOT LoveMonkey. LoveMonkey is not banned FROM ANY ARTICLE. ANY..Snowded you've editwarred there and you've edit warred here. It got you banned NOT ME. You can try to project that but it won't get you unbanned.

LoveMonkey (talk) 03:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Both of you, please stop commenting on each other. This page is for discussing improvements to the Rand article, not for airing your personal grievances. Take it elsewhere or you may be blocked to prevent disruption and ensure a productive editing environment per the recent arbitration ruling. Sincerely, Skomorokh 03:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey skomorokh fair enough. What can I say. No one should have to be ridiculed or harassed like that. I would like to add more back ground and history to this article but it is starting to look like an impossible task due to the conduct of banned editors.

LoveMonkey (talk) 03:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Lossky

The Nikolai Lossky article contains the following passage:

In biographical reminiscences recorded by Barbara Branden in the early 1960s, Ayn Rand named Lossky as her primary philosophy teacher at the Unversity of Petrograd or University of St. Petersburg until he was removed from his teaching post by the Soviet regime. However, some of Rand's statements have been called into question.

This is supported by the following reference:

Any objection to including this information here? I seem to recall their being a mention of Lossky in the article previously, but not why it was removed. Skomorokh 19:47, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes I am all for it!

LoveMonkey (talk) 19:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

"Called into question"? We need more than that. Was the professor not removed by the Soviets? What's the issue? Seems like fringey speculation that needs some basis in verifiable facts before it's included. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

It's explained in the ref. Sciabarra claims to have seen her transcript and verified the association. Skomorokh 21:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes there was a time when it was denied that Rand ever took a class from Lossky (well sort of). Professor Sciabarra addressed that in his book Ayn Rand The Russian radical.

"In biographical reminiscences recorded by Barbara Branden in the early 1960s, Ayn Rand named Lossky as her primary philosophy teacher at the University of Petrograd or University of St. Petersburg until he was removed from his teaching post by the Soviet regime."

How bout just this above instead? LoveMonkey (talk) 03:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Yevgeny Zamyatin

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

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

Sandbox

I would like to remind everyone that we have a sandbox for this article at Talk:Ayn Rand/Sandbox. LoveMonkey, if you've got specific significant changes you'd like to make, why don't you do so there first so that everyone else can discuss them. In the meantime I would like to remind everyone to assume good faith, stay civil, etc. TallNapoleon (talk) 20:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Jeez all I did was add a link to an article I created.

LoveMonkey (talk) 03:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Thought you mentioned somewhere having a bunch of changes you were interested in making... my mistake if I mixed you up with someone else. TallNapoleon (talk) 03:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Nothing on the ayn page is easy lovemonkey. Somehow "we" have created Talk:Ayn Rand/Sandbox to discuss significant changes to the ayn rand page. if any non-banned editor is involved with this project, please let me know.Brushcherry (talk) 07:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)brushcherry

Getting comical

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

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

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

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

How can we move past the Philosopher debate?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pat Boone Anthem reference

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

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

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

Ignored by academia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Books Ranking

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

p. 704 in a section by Quinton on "Popular Philosophy" and specifically about the kind of popular philosophy that is the "amateur consideration of the standard, technical problems of philosophy;" p. 703. "In this century, amateur systems increasingly fail to find their way into print: most languish in typescript and photocopy. One arresting exception is the "Social Contract of the Universe", by C. G. Stone a most ambitious piece of deduction. There are also the works of LL White and George Melhuish, and in the United States, Ayn Rand, strenuous exponent of objectivism and self-interest." It is available on Amazon's look inside, [2]. --Slp1 (talk) 13:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

That seems a strange statement given that Quinton specifically uses the term amateur twice. Amateur does not imply payment/non-payment; as an adjective it means something coming from a non-professional and/or one lacking in experience or competence.[3]. --Slp1 (talk) 14:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now on Wikipedia Review

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

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

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

brushcherry

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

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

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

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

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

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

removing more rubbish

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

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

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

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

Yet more rubbish

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sciabarra wrote that Nietzsche wrote on Dostoevsky how you can comment what you wrote on what I posted makes no sense. Here a fun one-[4] what does this from the blood mean? At best your response will be that you still don't understand. Lets start here for clarity.[5] As for the underground man, why did I mention it? Shetov can be disregarded one does not have to agree with him. And Nietzche quite clearly disliked Dostoevsky's christianity and made comments to that effect[6]. No one can accuse Nietzsche of taking the high ground. As to here is one of the conflicts I am relating to in my comments. [7]As for your comments that axiology is not the study of value and existence I can only say "all is immanent in all".[8] Value and existence is still value and existence. Rather that be a painting or a pickup truck. A=A is as much logic as trying to talk to people on this talkpage in that it shows just how much as waste of time such an activity is. As we can try to address it as N. O. Lossky did [9]. Or "my mother's mother is my grandmother" is not subjective it is not opinion is an axiom of logic.

LoveMonkey (talk) 15:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
P.S. here is my response to the cultish comments about Rand. [10]. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Sure you did stop projecting. Axiom is axiom. The study of axiom is axiology. A=A. As for Nietzsche and Dostoevsky here's one without Professor Sciabarra. [11] LoveMonkey (talk) 16:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

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

More Projecting I did not introduce A=A thats you nor did I say the axiology is syllogism thats you projecting and putting words in my mouth. [12] Again "all is immanent in all". Now if we can show how Aristotle and Rand proposed that the individual was the determiner of truth this discourse might redeem itself. Here a better example of axiology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.3 Agent-Relative Value?

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

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

Are Aristotle's ethics deontic, consequential or noetic? [13][14]LoveMonkey (talk) 17:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Now is eudemonia and Entelechy what Rand was purposing?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The limits of Aristotle also relate to the limits of Randian Objectivism. If one be not a psychopath or sociopath then one must know that what is good for their self interest[15] is also to include noesis. Noesis means sometimes our goals hurt or destroy and all of the logic in the world will not silence that noetic understanding that exploiting people is harming or damaging them. This is a very loose interpretation of Lossky. This Noesis is missing from Rands' Eudaimonism.

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

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

Yes or put a T at the end of Dostoevsky.

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

Full circle. I found the passage I was referring to in Professor Sciabarra's work.. The Rand and Aristotle connection. In Ayn Rand the Russian Radical-[16] So Rand's philosophy is related to Aristotle. So why the sarcastic comments and wasteful fighting?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So did Rand read Aristotle?

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

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

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

From above. I found the passage I was referring to in Professor Sciabarra's work.. The Rand and Aristotle connection. In Ayn Rand the Russian Radical-[17] If Rand took a course from N. O. Lossky then she has to have read Aristotle. Guess what- Rand is documented to have taken a course from N. O. Lossky. Here's just something in passing[18].Joseph Rowlands

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wundt is A=A

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Full circle. I found the passage I was referring to in Professor Sciabarra's work.. The Rand and Aristotle connection. In Ayn Rand the Russian Radical-[19] So Rand's philosophy is related to Aristotle. So why the sarcastic comments and wasteful fighting?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rand supposed anti-academa bias

Rand's stance on academia 'could best be described as Epistemeological libertarianism WIKIPEDIA is an Epistemeological libertarian experiment.
Here is a definition of the term by Nassim Taleb. Epistemeological libertarian-someone (like myself) who considers that knowledge is subjected to strict rules, but not institutional authority as the interests of organized knowledge is self-perpetuation, not necessarily truth (just like governments). [20] Taleb has the best introduction going on Byzantine philosophy in his mock up Anti-Platonism for Dummies! LoveMonkey (talk) 17:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

---

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

---

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

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

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

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

Frank O'Connor Link

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

Ditko

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article length

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To split or not to split

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

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

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

The Prisoner

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's some examples [21]

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

And..[22]

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

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

And.[23]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Example:WP:Source says instead that

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

LoveMonkey (talk) 02:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Biased sources

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

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

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

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

---

Emailed the editors of the IEP: "Hello, I have a question about the usually very reliable "Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy". The article on Ayn Rand [24] by Stephen Hicks is highly uncritical of Rand, which is surprising given that very few if any serious scholars consider her as anything other than a novelist with some native philosophical talent but who was self-taught, lacking in rigour and philosophically naive. The article is written by Stephen Hicks who I believe receives a grant from the Objectivist centre and cannot be considered independent. Were the reviewers of this article independent? The Oxford Companion to Philosophy (article 'Popular Philosophy' by Anthony Quinton) classifies her as an 'amateur philosopher'. Hick's article, by contrast, opens with the statement that she is a 'major intellectual of the twentieth century'. I asked Prof. Mike Huemer (Philosophy Dept., Univ. of Colorado) for a second opinion, and he wrote back as follows: "Most academic philosophers do not discuss or think about Ayn Rand. Most who know anything about her probably think she is an amateur who is not worth spending much time discussing. In my own view, Rand had some important ideas that are interesting to discuss. I think her novels show some real insight into human nature and how society works, and I think her political theories are basically right. She also, unfortunately, suffered from insufficient knowledge of the philosophical literature, insufficient training, a tendency to oversimplify, and a severe uncharitableness towards others". With best wishes Dr Edward B-------- Peter Damian (talk) 14:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

"Rigorous"

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