Talk:Ayn Rand

Again, not a philosopher

Sydney Hook, a noted (conservative) American philosopher, noted elementary errors in Rand's "philosophical" 1962 work "Notes for the New Intellectual" in 1962, including the use of the analytic aPriori statement a=a to derive what Rand resoundingly yet erroneously considered profound, synthetic aPriori truths such as the value of capitalism and of selfishness, which cannot be derived from "a=a" in any way. He kindly, gently, but firmly dismissed Rand's work as being of philosophical utility. A "philosopher" is she or he who enters a conversation with people recognized as philosophers; this recursive, set-theoretic definition of philosopher is the only reasonable definition of one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.88.255.151 (talk) 00:38, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

There are many sources saying she's not a philosopher, and sources saying she is. Is there some way we can edit to reflect this debate? --Frybread (talk) 09:02, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

It has been a problem for some time. She is called a philosopher in a limited number of texts (a lot of which are de facto funded by by Randian institutions). There are a limited number of texts that criticise he claims in that respect - Hook is one of several. A lot of these are blog posts as in general very few Philosophers take her seriously as a Philosopher. The main evidence that she is not a philosopher is that she is not mentioned in any major directory or text book covering the field as a whole. Negative evidence is difficult to assess. Personally I think the overall balance makes it clear that the label Philosopher should not be applied here but that resulted in a lot of nastiness and an Arbcom ruling some time ago ----Snowded ^TALK 10:24, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I think the editors of the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy will be surprised to learn that they do not cover the field as a whole and are funded by Randian institutions. Den Uyl and Rasmussen will probably also be surprised to hear that they were funded by such institutions (which did not exist at the time they prepared their book). And of course the previous citations used for this point included that venerable Randian institution, The New York Times. The "balance" against all this really needs to be something more than wishful thinking and reading implications into silences, which is what the "many sources saying she's not a philosopher" tend to be. Hook does not say she isn't a philosopher, notwithstanding the claims of the block-evading troll who started this section. --RL0919 (talk) 11:22, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

The Stanford entry is one of a series of essays commissioned as you know. Routledge I would need to see the next. There is little dispute she is largely ignored by Philosphers and criticised even by her followers. She is primarily a novelist not a philosopher ----Snowded ^TALK 12:56, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Her novels are also criticized, but that doesn't make her not a novelist. I'm all for being discriminating about sources, but not for inventing seemingly arbitrary new criteria just to exclude sources that say things someone doesn't like. If you want to reject peer reviewed sources with no obvious conflicts of interest, it should be for better reasons than this. --RL0919 (talk) 20:00, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

In general the critics do see her as a bad novelist, but they say so. Philosophers with a few exceptions just ignore her ----Snowded ^TALK 20:04, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

RL's analogy is totally wrong because the only requirement for being a novelist is having written a novel, but philosophy has objective standards. Even the worst writer in the world is a novelist once they've completed a single, terrible novel. Although an English degree might include classes in novel-writing, you don't need a degree to write a novel or even to get it published. All it takes is basic competence with the language, and you are judged on being creative and subjectively entertaining. It's even ok to make stupid English mistakes, because publishers have copy-editors on staff. It's a bit harder to be a published novelist, although it still doesn't mean being any good, and even harder to make a living at it. Rand succeeded as a novelist.

On the other hand, philosophy has an objective bar based on a certain level of academic competence in the field, which almost always comes from having degrees. Practicing philosophy requires a working knowledge of what has gone before so that you can both avoid the errors of the past and explain views by comparing and contrasting with well-known positions using common terminology. Rand had an open disregard for all philosophy since Aristotle (even though was obviously influenced by Nietzsche) and was criticized for not understanding the views she opposed, rather than (just) for being wrong. Her only degree was in education, and it shows.

No matter how you slice it, Rand was not an academic philosopher, though she does fit into the Russian tradition of novelists with a philosophical bent. She had philosophical ideas which were highly influential in the world at large, but almost entirely ignored by academia. This makes her a professional writer and amateur philosopher. That's not so say she wasn't a philosopher at all or even that her philosophy was bad. It just means that this wasn't her profession and we'd be lying to readers by saying it was. MilesMoney (talk) 21:51, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

It is a bit odd to refer to debatable criteria such as "competence" and "working knowledge" as "objective standards". Whether someone has a published novel is far easier to evaluate objectively. Regardless, the article does not refer to Rand as an academic or professional philosopher, so we have avoided that problem. --RL0919 (talk) 22:41, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok, now we've avoided it. MilesMoney (talk) 22:56, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

An evaluation of competence is always going to be subjective. I hope you keep such evalutions away from the introduction, though critisism sections could use them. And the field of philosophy seems too diverse to actually have unified standards. Dimadick (talk) 23:50, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Dimadick, and more importantly the sources that call her a philosopher do not generally use the qualifier that MilesMoney wants to add. --RL0919 (talk) 05:50, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

We obviously can't use a qualifier which is not sourced but it still leaves us the WP:WEIGHT issue. The questions of negatives is an issue for Wikipedia but at the moment we have three sets of evidence (i) her not being mentioned (ii) her competence to assert the claim being questions (iii) references that use the word. So we need to find a way around that. A note might be a solution and I to be honest the word is easier to use in the body of article not the information box. So use in text with the existing citations OK and there is other material that explains things. The use in the information box, less so. A compromise would be to leave it in the lede, remove it from the info box. ----Snowded ^TALK 06:47, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad you brought up sources for "amateur", because we do have them. For example, according to this, the The Oxford Companion to Philosophy has Anthony Quinton classifying Rand as an amateur.

Gotta say, I'm not in love with "amateur" but at least it's sourced and it gets across the fact that she's not a philosopher in the sense someone might expect if we didn't qualify the title. Maybe we could search for sources with nicer adjectives, like "non-academic". But we can't just lie by omission. MilesMoney (talk) 07:24, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

All righty, I confirmed that page 740 of that book does call her an amateur philosopher. If we want to avoid that term, we could also use the same reference to justify calling her a popular philosopher, which sounds nicer but might be confused with being a philosopher who's popular, as opposed to an advocate of popular (amateur) philosophy. For now, I'm going to put "amateur" back in as a placeholder, but I'll add a citation so RL has nothing to complain about. It's up to him to find a better term that's still honest. MilesMoney (talk) 07:52, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

One last thing. I'm betting RL or someone with his views might argue that Anthony Quinton is some sort of strange fringe voice. That would be pretty silly, even from a glance at his background, but William F. Vallicella provides another vote for "amateur". On the other hand, I haven't been able to find any source claiming she was either a "professional" or "academic" philosopher, so we have to go with what we've got. MilesMoney (talk) 07:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I lied: one more thing. Snowded mentioned Rand's omission from comprehensive summaries of philosophers. I noticed that, on page x of The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, the editor specifically mentions deciding not to grant her an article in the book because he has standards. This just screams "not an (academic) philosopher". MilesMoney (talk) 08:26, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Not necessarilly. Perhaps its my frustration with certain "peer-reviewed" sources of low quality speaking, but I have often had trouble with supposedly comprehensive lists and reviews which ommit all but the most famous female writers, rulers, and other historical figures. As an editor interested in women's history its quite a pet peeve. It screams bias Dimadick (talk) 10:12, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

No, there are enough female philosophers included to rule out the idea that Rand was excluded just for being a woman. Instead, the editor reveals that he quite intentionally turned down a proposed article on Rand because it "did not penetrate [his] fortress of philosophical principle", a coy way of saying they just didn't measure up to his standards. The other article mentioned as failing on this basis is "marital act", which was presumably about sex, not a particularly philosophical topic. MilesMoney (talk) 10:33, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

"..No matter how you slice it, Rand was not an academic philosopher.." - No matter how you slice it, "academic" in front of philosopher is a straw man. One need not work for a university to be a philosopher. Her works on philosophy are far more published than many "academic" philosophers, no doubt inspiring jealousy & bitterness. What university did Aristotle work for? Amazing how dedicated her detractors here are to obscuring the truth.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 06:04, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Sure, you can be a philosopher without any education at all; an amateur philosopher. That's not my personal opinion, it's what our sources say. MilesMoney (talk) 12:39, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

"Our" sources? Lol...open admission of your membership in the anti-Rand Borg. "..That's not my personal opinion.." - Yes it is - you or whoever shares your opinion just had to dig up sources that agree with you. Other sources that are and were perfectly acceptable as per how the article previously read for a long time stated she was a philosopher without qualification. Whether you agree with her or not, Ayn Rand was a philosopher. A published philosopher. Many people don't like her ideas (a testament to her prominence) and it galls them to see her publicly recognized in any way. I guarantee there are those who would eradicate her article altogether if they thought they could get away with it.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 13:55, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Again, given that the anti-Randers want to cling to "academic" as being the only possible validation of one's legitimacy - what university did Aristotle have tenure with?TheDarkOneLives (talk) 14:22, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I just checked the reference which does make it explicit that she was not included. That is the first reference in a very authoritative work that says she is not a philosopher. As I say the best thing is to remove it from the information box and leave it as a qualified text in the main body? ----Snowded ^TALK 08:55, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Between Routledge and the Oxford Companion, I believe there's strong support for the conclusion that she is not significant as a philosopher (at least within the circles of academic philosopher as opposed to popular philosophy) and is not a professional or academic philosopher at all, but an amateur one. Since she's not a philosopher by profession, I don't see why any mention of it should be made in her Occupation in the information box.

At the very least, it's completely misleading because a reader might reasonably expect that, like "regular" philosophers, she had a comprehensive, as opposed to idiosyncratic and eclectic, education in philosophy, and that she was seen by other philosophers as qualified to teach accredited courses on the subject. That's certainly what comes to my mind when I think of "philosopher", and I doubt I'm alone in this.

I think the best counterargument would be that the Nathaniel Branden Lectures were a school that taught Objectivism. However, Objectivist movement says, "Not wanting to be a teacher or leader of an organized movement, she allowed Branden to lecture on her behalf." Despite this, we list Branden's occupation as "Psychotherapist", not "Philosopher". Of course, it doesn't help that NBL was unaccredited. MilesMoney (talk) 09:30, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

To be honest, the first think that comes to mind when I hear philosopher is a Sophist charging money to supposedly teach virtue and wisdom. Followed by the image of a Scholastic philosopher trying to make sense of contradictory dogmas and doctrines. 21st-century individuals are simply not what I picture as philosophers. Dimadick (talk) 12:03, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

All the text above notwithstanding, the source recently added (which has been discussed on this talk page before, BTW) does not in fact use the term "amateur philosopher" to describe Rand. The snipe from the editor's introduction does not use this phrase, and neither does the article on "popular philosophy" (the page 740 citation, which is offered without the courtesy of credit to the author). The latter does imply that she created an "amateur system" but doesn't call Rand, or anyone else, "amateur philosopher". Perhaps this is a quirk of the author's writing choices, but it is a fact of the plain text. So the basis for this particular phrasing is thin to say the least, particularly when the qualifier is not used by several other sources that are already cited. What is particularly ironic is that the cited article implicitly affirms Rand's classification as a philosopher (albeit not a professional one, which no one in this discussion has claimed) -- something that this thread started as an attempt to deny.

If qualifiers are needed, the best-supported one is "popular philosopher" (an alternative mentioned above by MilesMoney). This phrase -- the literal phrase, not an inference of it -- is used in sources. Even the source added to prop up "amateur" designates amateur philosophy as a sub-class of popular philosophy. The phrase is already used in the body of the article, with a source, so it would also conform to WP:LEAD, which tells us that the lead should summarize material from the body rather than include significant information not found in the body. --RL0919 (talk) 12:25, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

No, that argument doesn't even begin to fly and only makes me wonder about how WP:COMPETENT you are. The source says she's an amateur, plain and simple. No amount of hairsplitting original research on your part is going to explain away how an amateur philosophy comes from anyone but an amateur philosopher. Oh, and the citation you removed was for Honderich's comment on page x, not just Quinton's on 740, so that's another error on your part.

Regardless, I'm not going to dote on your systemtic mistakes. Instead, I'm going to remind you that I suggested "popular" but also had reservations that you failed to address. Right now, it sounds as if she's a philosopher who happened to be popular, as opposed to the writer of popular (amateur) philosophy, so the article is lying again. That just won't do. MilesMoney (talk) 05:10, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I return to my idea of removing from information box (as it really can't be justified) but keep in the main body with a proper explanation of the different views.----Snowded ^TALK 06:19, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that's how it is now. The box calls her a writer and mentions that philosophy is her subject. By the way, the Routeledge entry is available, with hostile commentary, here. MilesMoney (talk) 06:29, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

The phrase "popular philosopher" is almost always used to indicate a writer of popular philosophy, as philosophers who are popular are remarkably rare. Regardless, a phrase that has more than one interpretation is not "lying", especially when the phrasing comes directly from multiple sources, as it does (more on that below). The claim that "The source says she's an amateur" is pure confirmation bias. There are currently six sources cited around her being a philosopher. Four call her "philosopher" with no qualifier. One calls her a "popular philosopher". The fifth, which you wish to focus on exclusively, indicates she was an amateur, but does not use the phrase "amateur philosopher" and also places "amateur" as a sub-category of "popular". I was able to quickly find five seven additional uses of "popular philosopher" in respectable sources (reference works, journal articles and books from academic publishers):

• The Encyclopedia of Ethics (published by Taylor & Francis and edited by Lawrence C. Becker) calls her a "novelist and philosopher" in the first sentence of its entry for her, then later says "many intellectuals continued to dismiss her as a reactionary popular philosopher".
• The entry for her in the long-running American Writers reference series says, "No longer merely a best-selling novelist, Rand quickly became a popular philosopher."
• Atlas Shrugged: Manifesto of the Mind by Mimi Reisel Gladstein says that novel "ended her career as a novelist and launched Rand as a popular philosopher".
• Above the Bottom Line: An Introduction to Business Ethics (written by Robert C. Solomon and Clancy Martin, published by Wadsworth Publishing Company) refers to her as "The popular philosopher of 'the virtue of selfishness'".
• The 2008 article "Just Deserts: Ayn Rand and the Christian Right" (written by Cynthia Burack and published in Journal of Religion and Popular Culture), says "Rand is renowned as a best-selling author, a popular philosopher, and a guru who created her own system of thought and her own cult of personality."
• Another from Burack (this time co-authored): an introduction to a special issue of New Political Science which calls her "novelist and popular philosopher". Online and ungated here.
• In "The Challenge of Objectivist Ethics", an article in the International Journal of Applied Philosophy, Benedict Sheehy proclaims that "Rand’s influence as a novelist and popular philosopher can hardly be overstated. She is without doubt, America’s most popular, popular philosopher."

We should follow the sources, plural, not just the one that says what you prefer. --RL0919 (talk) 16:28, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your original research, but I'm going to stick with our sources.

We all agree that Rand is a popular philosopher, but our sources identify three different meanings for "popular" in this context and then specify that the relevant meaning is "amateur".

Every source that calls her "popular" is just supporting the conclusion that we need to call her "amateur". MilesMoney (talk) 02:46, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Searching for additional sources and citations does not constitute "original research". Some of these sources may help with the specific sections on philosophy, reception, and legacy. Not just the introduction. Dimadick (talk) 07:20, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

RL's misinterpretation of the sources is the original research. Logically, since amateur philosophy is a subcategory of popular philosophy, no amount of sources identifying Rand as a popular philosopher can contradict her status as an amateur philosopher. On the other hand, we have sources which specifically identify her as not just a popular philosopher, but as an amateur.

Now, I want this article to be completely fair and I'm still not in love with "amateur" because of its connotations. As that source points out, there were centuries of only amateur philosophers, and it's no insult to call them amateurs. On the other hand, "popular" is not only imprecise, but misleading, so it won't do.

I'm not here to either bury Rand or praise her, so I'd be happy to replace "amateur" with something that gets the same idea across but is nicer to Rand. One way might be to define her in terms of what she's not: "non-professional" or "non-academic". The positive is that "amateur" could mean either non-professional or unprofessional, so the former avoids this misunderstanding. In the same way, "non-academic" makes it clear that she has no degrees and isn't recognized by the community of philosophers, which is also accurate. What do you think? MilesMoney (talk) 14:44, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

This isn't going to appeal to her fanbase, but I did find a way we could use "popular" or something close to it. Sciabarra writes:

Academics have often dismissed her ideas as "pop" philosophy.

Unlike "popular philosopher", which makes her sound just popular, not amateur (or the other two meanings), "pop philosopher" makes it clear that she was both popular and amateur. However, while it's accurate, I'm not sure how flattering it is. On the other hand, it's not our job to flatter. MilesMoney (talk) 14:57, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

To describe the use of the exact phrase found in multiple cited sources ("popular philosopher") as "original research" and "misinterpretation" is ridiculous, especially when you keep adding an alternative phrase ("amateur philosopher") that is used in none of the cited sources. Also, the term "popular" is not misleading in any way, since in comparison to most philosophers who get little notice from the general public, Rand is quite popular. But "non-academic" could work -- there is support in sources for the phrasing, including The Oxford Handbook of the History of Political Philosophy, Contemporary Women Philosophers, and several others. It is also decidedly neutral, having no opinion-based coloring that might be found in some other terms. "Non-professional", on the other hand, has no support, and it would be misleading because it suggests Rand wasn't getting paid for her non-fiction work, when in fact she was. This is also a possible implication of "amateur" that makes it misleading in comparison with "popular" or "non-academic".

I think there is something more that needs to be taken from the sources: several of the sources brought up in this discussion make a point of the change in Rand's career, going from mostly writing fiction to writing non-fiction exclusively. The last 15-20 years of her career was not the same as what went before. This change is mentioned in the body of the article and is clear enough biographically. I would suggest a more substantial rewording of the lead to take account of this career division. I propose we say something like the following: she was "a Russian-born American novelist, playwright, and screenwriter, who later in her career became a non-academic philosopher and essayist." ("Essayist" has support in sources also, although the term is so obviously applicable I would hope it doesn't require another raft of footnotes.) Thoughts from others? --RL0919 (talk) 15:58, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

The problem here is that the Oxford Companion tells us that "popular philosophy" has at least three distinct meanings, and common sense adds a fourth as a foreseeable misinterpretation. Fortunately, it removes any ambiguity by specifically identifying "amateur" as the meaning of "popular" in this context. Now, if you want to argue that the other sources mean it in some other way, you're going to fail, since neither of the other two meanings is even plausible. By exclusion, every source that calls her a popular philosopher is necessarily supporting her being an amateur one. As a result, showing us sources that call her popular only strengthens the argument for amateur. Refute this or accept it. MilesMoney (talk) 17:10, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Just because you interpret a phrase in a particular way does not mean that is what the author meant. Sheehy, in particular, is very clear about meaning both "popular" as in non-academic and "popular" as in well-known. So your belief that it isn't plausible for any of the sources to mean this is provably wrong. --RL0919 (talk) 18:07, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Your premises cannot lead to your conclusion. If a usage of "popular" refers to how many books she's sold, then it's irrelevant. If it doesn't, then it's calling her an amateur.

Anyhow, you're wrong in a few other ways because you're sloppy and can't read. The Oxford Companion lists three meanings for popular philosophy, none of which are about having lots of readers. So, once again, you get everything wrong. You are not WP:COMPETENT, much less WP:NPOV. MilesMoney (talk) 18:21, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

The 3 footnotes after "amateur" contain 10 references. Do each of these 10 references use the term "amateur" to describe Rand? If not, then it is improper to conflate the description of Rand by using any of them which uses the term, with the others that do not. WP:RS says "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article." [Emphasis in the original]. (This guidance applies whether or not editors consider the term "amateur" to be positive or negative.) This does not mean "some of the sources should support". If there are particular sources that describe Rand as an amateur, those sources can be cited (preferably with quotes) later in the article. Including this term in the lede (without proper sourcing) is UNDUE. – S. Rich (talk) 16:45, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Srich, have you read the Oxford Companion entry? MilesMoney (talk) 17:10, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

The question is not whether I've read something. The question is whether we are conflating the sources. I agree that "popular" is a vague and poorly chosen word to use when describing Rand. Perhaps using the term "philosophical fiction writer" would work. – S. Rich (talk) 17:21, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Even in the information box, we classify her as a novelist who wrote about philosophical topics, but RL is right about her career shifting towards essays about her amateur philosophy. The problem is that any use of "popular" will mislead readers into thinking we're just saying she sold a lot of books, which is incidentally true but irrelevant. I could write popular philosophy while being an unpopular writer. In addition to many sources that refer to her "popular philosophy", which is ambiguous in four different ways, we have an extremely good source which has an article on the subject of popular philosophy and uses Rand as an example of amateur philosophy, in as many words. No conflation is required here. That's why I asked you if you read it. If you didn't, say so and I'll dump quotes here. MilesMoney (talk) 17:50, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

To answer the question asked: Of the 10 cited references, five (Den Uyl & Rasmussen, Sciabarra, Kukathas, Burns, and Badhwar & Long) use the term "philosopher" without a qualifier. Four (Sheehy, Gladstein, Younkins, Baker) say "popular philosopher". (I would also note that in some cases, a source might use a qualifier in one place and no qualifier or a different qualifier elsewhere in the text.) None of these sources uses the phrase "amateur philosopher", but Quinton discusses her in a context that makes it clear that is how he categorizes her. Since all of these sources support "philosopher", removing that word would be entirely out of line (and it has been discussed ad nausem in the past). I'm open to the use of a qualifier as quite a few sources do use some sort of qualifier. "Popular" is a one specifically cited in the body of the article, but others used in reliable sources (not all cited currently) include "non-academic", "public", and "pop". The last is specifically described by sources as being the view of critics, so emphasizing it in the lead would be non-neutral. "Popular" is used by sources from a variety of POVs, possibly because it is ambiguous. As noted above, I'm fine with "non-academic", which seems very neutral and says something clear and meaningful. "Public" is also neutral, but doesn't seem very informative. --RL0919 (talk) 18:02, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

MilesMoney, it is not a question of conflation being "required". Rather, conflation is to be avoided. As per the reference count by RL0919, we do not have sufficient basis to use the term "amateur". (Even if it were a 1/9 or 9/10 split, we should avoid the terms "popular" and "amateur" because of their vagueness.) In any event, how many "professional philosophers" are out there in the world? University professors would qualify, but do they typically describe themselves as professional philosophers? Well, here is some interesting reading on the idea. [1]. – S. Rich (talk) 18:24, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Since you seem not to have the Oxford Companion handy, I posted a section about it at the bottom of this page. You should read it.

How many professional gynecologists are there? All of them, right? If I was an amateur gynecologist, then I wouldn't be a gynecologist at all, just some strange perv. And to be a professional, I'd need the academic background. It's the same with philosophers: unless otherwise specified, we assume it's a professional with relevant academic degrees. MilesMoney (talk) 18:45, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I want to go back to what I suggested before, that we could say something like: she was "a Russian-born American novelist, playwright, and screenwriter, who later in her career became a non-academic philosopher and essayist." Does anyone object to "non-academic" as a description? I already noted multiple sources using this term, which could be added to the cited sources. --RL0919 (talk) 03:56, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

RL's suggestion looks good. Thanks to MilesMoney for the amateur gyn remark -- it was a LOL moment. – S. Rich (talk) 04:09, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I prefer amateur, it is closer to 'largely ignored' (which is reality) than non-academic which would be a very modern phrase anyway. ----Snowded ^TALK 06:47, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

"Amateur" doesn't have enough support in sources to stand in the lead. (As often happens, this discussion is overly lead-focused -- we should be incorporating the relevant POVs in body.) I'm not sure I understand your concern about "non-academic" being "very modern". Philosophy was an academic profession during Rand's lifetime. It's not like we are imposing a distinction on some ancient figure who predates professional academia. --RL0919 (talk) 14:28, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

This discussion really deals as to whether or not the words "amateur" and/or "popular" should be in the lede. And I note there is a lot of dispute/opinion on the basic question as to whether or not AR and Objectivism are philosophic/philosophers/a philosophy. With this in mind, I think the best WP approach to the lede is to follow guidance in WP:LEDE. In writing it, we've got to consider NPOV, the most important aspects of the topics, and any prominent controversies. For the most part the lede works well. But the 3rd paragraph needs work. While AR's fiction may have been "poorly received", the fact that The Fountainhead (film) was filmed by King Vidor is significant, but ignored. Also, book sales increased markedly in later years. So, I recommend that the first sentence be broken up into two parts. First cover some of the specific literary criticisms and praise, and popularity of her works. Next we add remarks about how academia has accepted/rejected her ideas – using the terms "popular", "amateur", and "whatever". – S. Rich (talk) 15:34, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

No, there's universal agreement that Objectivism constitutes a philosophical system of some sort. There's some disagreement about whether it's any good, but that's another matter entirely. Likewise, Ayn Rand is some sort of philosopher. The question, in both cases, is what sort. Not academic, certainly. Popular, in the sense of having many supporters, sure. Popular, in the sense of being amateur, sure. These are important aspects that we can't ignore.

I'm ok with some of RL's suggestion, where we say she started off as a novelist/screenwriter/etc. and then segued into philosophical essays and speeches. I'm not ok with using the ambiguous "popular" when we really mean amateur. I'm also not ok with ignoring the fact that her writing was initially very unpopular, meaning nobody liked it. It's not enough for what we say to be accurate, it has to give an accurate impression. MilesMoney (talk) 02:36, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I notice you are still arguing against "popular", even though others have more recently been discussing the alternative of "non-academic", which is supported by at least 6 sources (I put three into the article in my last edit) and is 100% clear and non-misleading. But I see you've chose to revert in favor of the specific term "amateur", which is supported by 1 source and is misleading because it suggests Rand wasn't writing her philosophical essays as her career (which she was for about 20 years). Would you like to explain what your objection is to "non-academic"? --RL0919 (talk) 03:39, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Look, either you're not WP:COMPETENT or you're lying. Every source that describes her as a popular philosopher (and doesn't just mean she had lots of fans) is supporting the idea that she was an amateur. You keep skipping over this as if nobody's gonna notice. Well, guess what, someone noticed.

I know a web site that calls her popular, but is honest about it. It says:

"Also, Objectivism is a "popular" philosophy, which originated in the writings of novelist with no formal background as an academic philosopher."

See how it explains that what sense "popular" is intended and even puts in in quotes to make sure nobody mistakes it for "lots of fans"? That's the sort of honesty we need here. Why are you against this sort of honesty when you wrote that quote? MilesMoney (talk) 03:53, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I have replied to the difference between "popular" (which has multiple meanings) and "amateur" (which also has multiple meanings, one of which overlaps with "popular"). If the sources were as clear as I was, we wouldn't have an issue, but they aren't. They often say "popular philosopher" without clarifying which meaning they intend. I can interpret my own thoughts but I don't presume that I can resolve every ambiguity in a printed source. In some cases they might be using the ambiguous term on purpose, either to mean both or to leave it open to interpretation. Your own argument against "popular" is based on a concern that it will be ambiguous! I prefer the entirely unambiguous term "non-academic", which you seemed to be OK with above. What changed, other than I accepted it and found multiple sources to support it? --RL0919 (talk) 04:21, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh, really? Show me an ambiguous "popular" in a reliable source about her. If you can't, then I call BS. MilesMoney (talk) 04:23, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

'Amateur' or 'pop' work, 'popular' might it if was qualified by some reference to the narrow range of that popularism. Non-academic does not as there are many who fit within that who have international repute, she does not ----Snowded ^TALK 04:57, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. The Oxford Companion contrasts Rand with Coleridge, who was non-academic but not amateur. MilesMoney (talk) 05:08, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

So in the thread below you "don't disagree" with Yeti Hunter that "amateur" isn't negative because it can apply to reputable philosophers. (Yeti's example is Aristotle, one of the most renowned philosophers in history.) But here you agree with Snowded that we should exclude a perfectly neutral term precisely because it allows that interpretation. Is "amateur" neutral or negative? Please pick. --RL0919 (talk) 05:17, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

What does "popular" mean in reference to Rand if not amateur? I'll answer your question when you answer mine. MilesMoney (talk) 05:21, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

In a number of cases it is ambiguous, because the author clearly understands that Rand has lot of fans and that she isn't an academic, and when they use the phrase "popular philosopher", it isn't clear whether they mean one, the other or both. Examples:

• Gladstein, Atlas Shrugged: Manifesto of the Mind, p. 28, says that novel "ended her career as a novelist and launched Rand as a popular philosopher." No further explanation of the term is offered.
• The description in Younkins, Atlas Shrugged: A Philosophical and Literary Companion, p. 1, says it "propelled her into a career as a popular philosopher."
• The American Writers entry is similar: "No longer merely a best-selling novelist, Rand quickly became a popular philosopher."

Etc. There are several more short uses like these that simply don't have sufficient indicators to pick a meaning. (You might leap in your own mind to your own preferred interpretation, but the text doesn't provide that.) In contrast, there are instances where one or both meanings are clear:

• The entry in The Encyclopedia of Ethics says "many intellectuals continued to dismiss her as a reactionary popular philosopher". That seems clearly the "amateur" interpretation.
• In an article in the International Journal of Applied Philosophy the author says "Rand's influence as a novelist and popular philosopher can hardly be overstated. She is without doubt, America’s most popular, popular philosopher." The double use of the word makes it clear that both meanings are being invoked.

So, is "amateur" the neutral term envisioned by Yeti Hunter, or the implicit critique envisioned by Snowded? Or is it ambiguous? --RL0919 (talk) 05:34, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

That's not even a little bit true: any competent person can see that all of the links are about her practicing popular philosophy, rather than being a philosopher who's popular. MilesMoney (talk) 05:55, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Amateur is neutral in respect of the balance of the sources which do not take her seriously as a philosopher. As to her status in the US she is very popular within a particular political grouping, both outside (a minority party) and within (a minority section) of the Republican Party. Internationally she is more or less unknown and we are an international encyclopaedia. Being popular for espousing a political doctrine of selfishness is not the same thing as being popular as a philosopher. ----Snowded ^TALK 06:03, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Amateur is undoubtedly accurate. Whether it's neutral, positive or negative depends on who you ask, and doesn't matter one bit to us. Every mention of her as popular either means she had lots of fans or she was an amateur. Even if we ignore the fans, the remaining mentions all support calling her an amateur. Frankly, the Oxford Companion is such a great source that it's good enough all on its own. But it's not all on its own. MilesMoney (talk) 06:06, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh, come on. We all know "amateur" has a negative connotation to almost anyone who reads the article, and therefore borders on NPOV -- just like a lot of wording in this article. How about "disputed"? A "disputed philosopher"? How about that one? Adam9389 (talk) 22:03, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

A bit vague -- philosophers are always disputing with each other, correct? I'm for keeping the "philosopher" designation free of contentious adjectives and leave the controversy later down in the lede. Or, how about "autodidactic"? – S. Rich (talk) 22:21, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, S. Rich. I would be fine with "autodidactic philosopher." It's certainly the most accurate, neutral, and clarifying. On a broader point though, we really do need a criticism section -- something separate from the reviews section, etc. The lack of one is just forcing the rest of the article to straddle the lines of POV. Adam9389 (talk) 16:14, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

NPOV is neutral in respect of the sources not neutral in respect of the issue. I don't like amateur as it still implies she is a philosopher when per WP:WEIGHT a significant number of sources ignore her completely or state they have excluded her. The same would apply to autodidactic. The simple facts are that she claimed to be one, some sources say she isn't and the bulk exclude her. That makes some variant of 'self-professed' the most accurate way of summarising for the lede (and remember we are talking about the lede which summarises). I can't see the objection and I can't see why you are asking for page protection ----Snowded ^TALK 04:48, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

FYI

 – I have requested page protection. – S. Rich (talk) 03:00, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

According wikipedia Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing such problems by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument. In more casual speech, by extension, "philosophy" can refer to "the most basic beliefs, concepts, and attitudes of an individual or group". Being a philosopher does not mean you are right, than would mean that Empiricists are not philosophers if the Idealists are right and vice versa. They can't be all right. Secondly being a philosopher is independent from being recognized by the Academia, there was a time that Academia did not exist and philosophers did. For example Socrates was a philosopher before there was an Academia. Thirdly you don't have to be recognized by your peers in order to be called a philosopher, it's not that the Epicureans went to ask a permission from the Stoics in order to be able to call themselves philosophers neither there is a Philosophers Guild which grants you the title of Philosopher. Ayn Rand fulfills all the requirements of Philosophy as they are stated in Wikipedia, therefore all the adjectives that aim to discredit her such as amateur, self-styled etc should be left out as POV. User talk:ElGriego 18:32, 10 September 2013 (ECT) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.55.100.216 (talk)

A well-put argument by ElGriego and I agree on all points. Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, etc. certainly did not have a degree from the holy and unquestionable Oxford or the Ivy League but nobody doubts that they were, in fact, philosophers. Ayn Rand introduced a systematic philosophy with laid-out points on the five primary sectors of philosophy (metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics, aesthetics), meaning she's given more to the field of philosophy than countless others who are well-recognized as philosophers (apparently, simply being a philosophy professor nowadays qualifies...). Now, whether a particular opinionator likes or wholly despises her philosophy is irrelevant. Argumentum ad populum does not determine who is or is not a philosopher. Adam9389 (talk) 22:13, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I also agree "self-styled" should be removed. The current "citation" is to an opinion column, which is not a reliable source for this purpose. Yworo (talk) 22:54, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

The argument ElGriego made is addressed and refuted in the Oxford Companion, which talks about how ancient philosophers were amateurs simply because the profession had not yet been established, and then goes on to say that the same excuse does not apply to modern philosophers. It specifically names Rand as one such modern amateur philosopher.

We can either go with ElGriego's argument or with our reliable sources, and policy forces us to choose the latter. Sorry, ElGriego, but this is not a tough call. MilesMoney (talk) 23:12, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, MilesMoney but your argument that the Oxford Companion says that the ancient philosophers were amateurs just doesn't cut it, if Socrates and Plato are amateur philosophers then you should change their wikipedia entries too which is laughable and I don't see that happening. Wikipedia must have consistency and you just can't enforce your opinion about philosophers you despise. Being a philosopher does not need a degree or the approval from those who don't adhere to your philosophy. ElGriego (talk) 13:53, 11 September 2013 (CET) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.55.100.216 (talk)

If you want to disagree with the argument, you really need to understand it first. It would probably help if you read the article we're using as a source. The whole point is that all of the ancient philosophers were amateurs because there was no profession, so it's pointless for us to add that as a modifier. On the other hand, almost all published philosophers during Rand's life were professionals, which is what the article points out. Since she's a rare published amateur in a world of professionals, it makes sense to point out this distinction.

The other part is that, to work at the level expected of professional philosophers, you need to understand the history of the field. This is something that she proudly lacked, another reason why the article calls her an amateur.

If you're having trouble getting your hands on it, check out the history of this page and you'll see sections of it posted. That'll help you understand so that you can decide whether you agree. MilesMoney (talk) 02:20, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Yworo, if you can't find reliable sources calling her a self-styled philosopher, you're just not looking hard enough. Try this non-opinion article by a staff writer at a regular newspaper. It's no blog. MilesMoney (talk) 23:44, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

An encyclopedia should not read like a newspaper article. If an encyclopedia does read like a newspaper article, then this is evidence that someone is editing incompetently. "Self-styled" should be removed. I have no objection to calling Rand an amateur philosopher (or, for that matter, to calling her a philosopher pure and simple). FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:52, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia counts newspaper articles as reliable sources. The fact is that she called herself a philosopher, but that title was often modified by others with one adjective or another. I don't have a strong opinion about "amateur" or "self-styled" -- I supported the first but I'm ok with the last -- but both have strong sourcing. MilesMoney (talk) 01:32, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

As much as I disagree with your definition of 'philosopher' as essentially a robot spewing whatever dogma is popular with the academic hierarchy (of course the Oxford Companion is going to defend that), I will settle with "self-styled" if that's the best we can hope for, but can you explain to me why "independent philosopher" or "autodidactic philosopher" is unacceptable? Adam9389 (talk) 02:31, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Nobody said that newspapers aren't reliable sources, MilesMoney. My point was that an encyclopedia should read like an encyclopedia, not like something else. How unfortunate that this should even need to be said. "Self-styled philosopher" is unacceptable, and other terms such as "independent philosopher" or "autodidactic philosopher" are also unacceptable, for obvious reasons (that they're vague, meaningless, obscure, etc). FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:33, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Adam, there's actually much stronger support for "amateur" than "self-styled", but I don't know of any sources for "independent" or "autodidactic", and in fact, they're contradicted. Ultimately, we have to go with reliable sources, not our own opinions. That's why I don't know what to say to FreeKnowledgeCreator's unsupported blanket rejection of what our sources say except that his opinion doesn't overrule the experts'. MilesMoney (talk) 04:02, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

The sources may not specifically use the words "independent" or "autodidactic" or even "self-styled," but since when does Wikipedia go by exact wording? Oftentimes, we have to summarize or paraphrase, and "independent" or "autodidactic" is what Rand is, especially in relation to academic philosophers. And FreeKnowledgeCreator, those adjectives are far less vague and obscure and more NPOV than "amateur" or anything similar. In the interest of providing an objective, NPOV article, we can't just go with "amateur" simply because a lot of her detractors are calling her that. Adam9389 (talk) 04:14, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

And, by the way, both the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and Encyclopædia Britannica have her down as a philosopher. No adjectives. Adam9389 (talk) 04:22, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

"Independent" is empty of meaning (and shows, of course, a complete misunderstanding of philosophy), and "autodidact" is obscure and unencyclopedic. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:51, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Adam, the Oxford Companion to Philosophy is authoritative, huge, and encyclopedic. Calling it a "detractor" is completely wrong. The brief mention wasn't even negative; it just said she was an amateur, like some others also mentioned.

The reality is that Rand is influential in politics, but not in academia. You're just not going to find many philosophers who take her seriously because she was very much an amateur and made amateur errors. That's reality; it's how she's viewed by the authorities in the field and how we have to report it. We can't write from the POV of her fan club.

FreeKnowledgeCreator is right about "independent" not really meaning anything, and "autodidactic" is not really true, either, since she had some exposure to philosophy in school. Unless you can find reliable sources for either, I think we can rule them out now. MilesMoney (talk) 06:39, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Being influential in Academia is irrelevant, making amateur errors same. Epicurus made amateur errors in physics such as that the size of sun is about the size it appears. As for the Oxford Companion see my previous response. ElGriego (talk) 14:03, 11 September 2013 (CET) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.55.100.216 (talk)

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy names her as a philosopher. I'm sure that falls under WP:ReliableSources. If not, how about we use another word, such as "intellectual" or "cultural critic"? Adam9389 (talk) 15:49, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh, you mean the source that also says:

"For all her popularity, however, only a few professional philosophers have taken her work seriously. As a result, most of the serious philosophical work on Rand has appeared in non-academic, non-peer-reviewed, journals, or in books, and the bibliography reflects this fact."

This is why, as an encyclopedia, we can't just call her a philosopher without some modifier to highlight the difference between her and, say, Bertrand Russell. MilesMoney (talk) 02:24, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

No, because she was a philosopher and Wikipedia must reflect that as other Encyclopedias do. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is one paradigm for her person, Encyclopaedia Britannica is another about her philosophy, no adjectives. This sources war doesn't lead to anywhere, there are sources for the support of both sides so we must resolve it right here. We need a definition of "Philosopher" and "Philosophy" and then argue why she fits that description or not. BTW she studied Philosophy in the University of Petrograd, with MilesMoney reasoning this is sufficient to be called a Professional Philosopher :) If we accept MilesMoney argument about The Oxford Companion to Philosophy and the amateur adjective that applies according to that source also the the Ancient Greek philosophers he must edit also the Socrates and Plato entries and declare them amateurs. (I'm ElGriego and the nickname was taken) --DagonAmigaOS (talk) 19:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

She's some sort of philosopher, which is why we need to say what sort. She's definitely not the sort that people would expect if we just used the p-word without qualification. MilesMoney (talk) 02:24, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

She is exactly the sort of philosopher that people would expect if we used it plainly. Most people don't even know that there is a degree in Philosophy, if someone asks a philosophy alumnus what does he do as a job and replies I'm a philosopher he will laugh. People expect a philosopher to be someone who produces Philosophy, not someone who studies or teaches philosophy. I believe informal terms like self-styled etc belong to the criticism section. --DagonAmigaOS (talk) 02:15, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

That's just not true. If we say someone is a philosopher (but don't mention that she's an amateur), we expect a certain level of knowledge of the field. Rand demonstrably lacked this level, which is why she got the cold shoulder from academia.

If you told me you were a philosopher, I'd politely ask you where you got your degree (listening for what degrees you mention), and what sub-fields your expertise is in.

As far as I can tell, your big argument is that you have no standards. Doesn't matter. We have to follow the standards of academia. MilesMoney (talk) 02:40, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Your whole argument is based on the belief that we will deceive the readers because they expect someone with a certain level of knowledge of the field, that is not true, people when they hear that someone is a philosopher don't expect someone who reads philosophy and has a good knowledge of it, they expect someone like Socrates or Confucius. Someone who created a philosophy, Ayn Rand did that hence she is a philosopher. --DagonAmigaOS (talk) 10:52, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

You're repeating yourself without addressing what I said. Rand is a type of philosopher -- the amateur kind. We need to say that because our best sources say it. Our best sources expect modern philosophers to meet some basic criteria that Rand doesn't, but nobody applies these criteria to the ancients. Nobody asks whether Socrates had a PhD in philosophy because - duh! - those didn't exist. But if I tell you I'm a philosopher and admit I have lack the knowledge that would come with education, you should be as skeptical of me as of an amateur gynecologist. MilesMoney (talk) 14:42, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

She studied Philosophy in the University of Petrograd, your requisite (which by the way is invalid, you don't need a degree to be a philosopher, just like programmers, at best you could say uncertified philosopher, Bill Gates was a programmer with no uni certification) is satisfied. There are sources like the encyclopedias mentioned before that refer to her as a philosopher with no adjectives, so use for your criticism the criticism section. --DagonAmigaOS (talk) 10:17, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Your original research is directly contradicted by the Oxford Companion to Philosophy. Please stick to our sources, not your personal beliefs. Also, it's not particularly criticism; Rand was quite hostile to academic philosophy and proud of her independence. MilesMoney (talk) 14:45, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

"We need a definition of "Philosopher" and "Philosophy" and then argue why she fits that description or not." Uh, no, definitely not. That's the very definition of original research. We can report on the findings of sources which report doing this, we cannot do it ourselves as Wikipedia editors. We do not research. Yworo (talk) 18:58, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok you are right, then we should argue in which sources should be based the article. I believe that we should go the way other Encyclopedias go because as I said the line of reasoning of MilesMoney leads into editing the articles about Socrates and Plato too. He can use the Criticism section for his sources. --DagonAmigaOS (talk) 19:13, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, we don't even get to do that. If two or more reliable sources call her a 'philosopher', then we call her a 'philosopher' in the lead. We clarify it later with other opinions, pro and con. Trying to decide which sources are "best" is also original research; trying to determine the "quantity" of each differing opinion is also a slippery slope. Some reliable sources consider her a philosopher, so for the purposes of the lead sentence, she just is. Yworo (talk) 19:18, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

The issue here is twofold: how should Rand be labelled in the lead sentence; and what opinions exist about her qualifications as a philospher. The solution is simple: if any reliable source states that she was a philospher, that's what we put in the lead sentence. The lead sentence is not for opinions: amateur, self-professed, self-styled, etc. are all the opinions of others about whether and what kind of philosopher she was. This gets discusssed in the body of the article, not the lead, with cited opinions from both sides of the divide. This is basic encylopedia writing 101. We don't get to judge, we only report the judgements of others, and that is not done in the lead sentence, paragraph, or even section. Yworo (talk) 16:01, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

If two sources call her a philosopher, that's nice, but we can't just ignore our best sources, which qualify that with terms like self-avowed, amateur and so on. MilesMoney (talk) 02:26, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

What do you define as "our best sources," Miles? The ones that are saying what you prefer? We have two reputable and peer-reviewed encyclopedias (which is enough), Stanford and Routledge, that refer to her as a philosopher without adjectives. You're being arbitrarily--and freakishly--selective. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy are quite valid sources. If those are somehow not good enough, I don't know what grounds you have to say your other sources are any better. Adam9389 (talk) 03:33, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Remember when I pointed out that we have many solid sources calling her a "popular philosopher" (and not in the sense of being a philosopher who happens to be popular)? MilesMoney (talk) 03:38, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Solid sources? Like the opinion column cited for "self-styled" in violation of W:RS? Besides, from what I've read, you don't sound too keen on using "popular philosopher" either. Anyway, that's more or less beside the point as we now have solid sources identifying her as a "philosopher," and you have no reason for rejecting them. I don't see how philosophy-related sources get any better than reputable philosophy encyclopedias like Stanford and Routledge. At this point, we're starting to argue in circles and the debate becoming more semantics rather than substance. The fact is--and Yworo has elaborated on this point a few posts above--is that by Wikipedia's standards, she qualifies as a philosopher without adjectives; and for anyone to remove that based on some new arbitrary standards borders seriously on WP:OR and POV. In fact, by your logic, every philosopher's article (especially the ancients) needs to be completely re-evaluated in terms of whether or not they genuinely qualify as a philosopher as decreed by...what, the orthodoxy of men in present-day universities? But, then, that wouldn't be philosophy -- that would be organized religion. Adam9389 (talk) 08:23, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

You claim that "self-styled" is found only in opinion pieces, but if you even took the time to search this page, you'd know that the The Oxford Companion to Twentieth-Century Literature in English uses it on page 559. That's not an opinion piece and your argument is unsound. If you don't pay attention to what's already been said, you're just wasting everyone's time.

The idea that calling Rand an amateur means we have to do the same for Plato has already been refuted. You probably didn't even notice the refutation, but now that I pointed it out, you need to either accept it or counter it; you can't just ignore it.

As for what to call someone, consider Jose Canseco. We have many sources calling him a celebrity, because he is one, but we don't say that in the bio. We have many sources that, more specifically, call him an athlete, which is true but still too general. We have many sources that, even more specifically, identify him as a former baseball player, which is close but but we don't stop there. The bio identifies him by the specific positions he played. That's good writing.

With Ayn Rand, calling her a philosopher would be like calling Canseco a celebrity; it's true, but too vague to be appropriate. Just as we must call Canseco a former baseball player, not a baseball player, we can't call Rand a philosopher, because it's likewise misleading. Rand is a very specific type of philosopher: an amateur. That's not my opinion, it's what the Oxford Companion to Philosophy says in as many words. We don't get to ignore this reliable source. MilesMoney (talk) 13:59, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I did not claim "self-styled" is found only in opinion pieces. I stated correctly that the source cited for "self-styled" was an opinion piece and therefore in violation of W:RS. Regarding the Plato thing, it has not been effectively refuted. Only in your mind. But that's a whole different argument into the nature of philosophy that draws away from the matter at hand. I have no intention of ignoring Oxford, nor do you get to ignore Stanford and Routledge. We needed reliable sources for calling her a philosopher -- I have given them. Seems the only thing our sources have in common on that front is that they identify her as a philosopher at least in some form or another, so it makes sense to use "philosopher." Adam9389 (talk) 19:14, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Routledge. Why does that sound familiar? Oh, wait, I remember. It was the brief article that said:

"Rand’s political theory is of little interest. Its unremitting hostility towards the state and taxation sits inconsistently with a rejection of anarchism, and her attempts to resolve the difficulty are ill-thought out and unsystematic."

It also talked about her having disciples, and put Objectivism in scare-quotes and lower-case while reducing it to a mere movement, not a philosophical system. But, hey, it called her a philosopher, so you're willing to quote from it out of context while violating WP:NPOV by ignoring the parts you just don't like.

Stanford's no better. At the top of a much longer, more comprehensive summary of her ideas, it says:

"For all her popularity, however, only a few professional philosophers have taken her work seriously. As a result, most of the serious philosophical work on Rand has appeared in non-academic, non-peer-reviewed, journals, or in books, and the bibliography reflects this fact. We discuss the main reasons for her rejection by most professional philosophers in the next section."

It then goes on to talk about her "young acolytes", her contempt for academic philosophy, and criticizes her various amateur errors. Each summarized topic summarized is immediately followed by robust, scathing criticism.

Once again, you'll cherry-pick a single word, violating NPOV, but you'd howl at the moon if we quoted the juicy parts. I have great difficulty considering your opinion on this matter significant when it flies in the face of honestly reflecting the content of our best sources.

Worst part is that it don't help your case one bit. Just as calling Conseco an athlete doesn't refute the idea that he's a retired outfielder and designated hitter, calling Rand a philosopher doesn't refute the idea that she's an amateur philosopher, a self-avowed philosopher or a female philosopher. You're arguing for a less precise, less accurate label when we can do better. We can and we will. MilesMoney (talk) 02:18, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

You're not helping your case one bit, either. You almost don't even have one. And I am not cherry-picking. I know exactly what Stanford and Routledge say. I read through the entirety of both pieces (along with IEP page on Rand). Stanford made that statement you just quoted because it's true. I'm not disputing that, so why do you keep throwing it in my face? I never said we shouldn't acknowledge that and I've been the one saying we should have a Criticism section. My first and foremost point is, and remains, that we should use all reliable sources at our disposal instead of cherry-picking and disregarding multiple perfectly legitimate ones simply because they call her a philosopher without adjectives and you don't like that. Hell, I'm pretty damned sure you're not going to go through this same rigorous label evaluation and pull out these arbitrary standards with the other "amateur" and "self-avowed" philosophers on Wikipedia. You know, there are more examples than just the ancient Greeks. Max Stirner? No more academic than Rand. But nah, we'll leave that one alone, right? Adam9389 (talk) 03:34, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

It looks to me like you don't understand the issues at hand. We have any number of sources saying Rand is some sort of philosopher, but we need to be specific about what sort. Nothing you said has changed this.

You tried and failed to bring up these two sources in support of the idea that she's a philosopher, but this is a waste of time because (1) we agree that she's a philosopher and (2) these sources are being cherry-picked by avoiding inclusion of the critical parts. No amount of sources insisting that Canseco is an athlete can undermine a single, authoritative source identifying him specifically as a retired outfielder.

One of the things that the Oxford article (which you clearly haven't read) points out is that, with few exceptions, modern amateurs do not get published. Of those who do, few achieve any notability, as Rand did. So there really aren't any other articles for me to correct. If you disagree, go edit Max Stirner so it's consistent with this one. But don't even try it until you get a source nearly as reliable as the Oxford one that actually calls him an amateur. MilesMoney (talk) 04:23, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

How are the content of those sources being cherry-picked? Cherry-picked by whom? Certainly not me. I don't care if you incorporate the critical parts as well. We probably should; although most of said parts are better fit for the Objectivism article rather than this one, as they criticize her ideas. And I understand your Canseco analogy, but you're comparing apples and oranges. Sports is a much more concrete topic than philosophy, and therefore positions and such are very cut-and-dry. Again, by your logic, we should do a rigorous reevaluation of every "philosopher" on Wikipedia because we may be calling them a philosopher without adjectives erroneously. But--again--I know you're not going to do that. You're fighting this battle with semantics, I'm fighting it with sources. And what our sources seem to have in common across the board is that she is a philosopher -- and at least two of them (reputable, peer-reviewed philosophy encyclopedias) identify her as one without adjectives. By Wikipedia's standards, she qualifies as a philosopher without adjectives, just like the countless others (most of whom never developed a systematic philosophy). Adam9389 (talk) 16:56, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Anything that is seen as critical of Rand has to fight uphill to make it into this article. That's why none of the criticisms in the two sources that you brought up are even hinted at in the article. There is severe bias here, and you're adding to it by trying to make the article pass her off as just another philosopher, when she was something very different. If the sources calling her a philosopher made it clear that she's no amateur, then we'd have conflicting sources. We don't. We just have sources that vary on how clear and specific they are, so we have to choose the most specific. The Canseco analogy applies perfectly; no amount of vague descriptions undermines the most specific.

Who's cherry-picking? You are, right now. You argue that she made a systematic philosophy, but one of the sources you brought up in defense of calling her a philosopher disagrees with this. Over and over again, Rand's fans pick and choose the parts they like and ignore the rest. Well, Wikipedia just doesn't work that way. We have to count all the sources and count all that's in them, so we're going to keep calling her an amateur, self-avowed and so on, because our sources do. MilesMoney (talk) 17:19, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I'm starting to see your reasoning to a certain degree. I still disagree with you on why we need to be so specific about her being an "amateur" philosopher. Philosophy is not religion -- it shouldn't matter whether she's sanctioned by the selected orthodoxy of professors, or whether she's "amateur," therefore an adjective shouldn't be necessary unless the same standard is applied just as rigorously to all philosophers on Wikipedia across the board -- which, from what I've seen, it isn't. I also disagree with you on this article being severely biased, as every description seems to linguistically downplay her view at every turn (making sure to emphasize "in her opinion," "in her view," "known to her," etc.) when the same phrasing is not used in the articles of other thinkers. Other articles merely state straight-forward the person's position.

Anyway, while I still disagree with you on those points, this is Wikipedia and we do go by what the sources say. And, in the name of specificity, we can attach an adjective to "philosopher." I just want something a little more neutral-sounding than "amateur" (given common perceptions of the term as a pejorative, one can still make a case for potential NPOV violation).

So, I'll tell you what: I'll concede the debate if you agree to go with "self-avowed," "self-professed," or simply replace "philosopher" with "intellectual" (which is sourced by the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Adam9389 (talk) 05:17, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Per comments below either of those options are better than amateur, "self-professed" is probably the better one ----Snowded ^TALK 06:05, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

"Self-professed" is a totally unacceptable and inappropriate term. It reads like an expression of bias against the subject of the article, and it's also extremely poor style. "Amateur" would be fine. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:39, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

We're just going to keep going in circles with this, aren't we? It's not an ideal term, but it's a hell of a lot better than "amateur" or "self-styled," neither of which I'll accept. Yes, I know it's bad writing, but so is calling her an "amateur philosopher." It pushes the line of POV and I've already made my case against "amateur" more than once. Would you go with "self-avowed" or does that have the same connotation? If we can't do "philosopher" or "intellectual," I, personally, would prefer one of the ideas listed previously (e.g., "novelist-philosopher," "popular philosopher," "non-academic philosopher," etc.). Contrary to previous objections, they're more accurate, more neutral, and better writing. Adam9389 (talk) 00:37, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

"Amateur philosopher" is not bad writing. It is a perfectly accurate description of Rand. Your argument against "amateur" rested on what you believed the vulgar, ignorant popular perception of the word "amateur" to be. It's unthinkable to me that vulgar, ignorant popular perceptions of the meaning of words should ever be taken into account at any time. "Self-avowed" is another ugly and blatantly biased expression. I'm sorry that it is even necessary to state something so obvious. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:00, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Rather than citing the various (and competing) dictionaries/encyclopedias of philosophy, I suggest we consider the meanings shown at Wiktionary:amateur. – S. Rich (talk) 01:33, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

That would be original research. We're not going to do that. As much as you don't like amateur, self-styled, or self-professed, these are all accurate terms that are supported by our sources. I realize that some of her fans may be offended, but that's not at all important, is it? MilesMoney (talk) 01:48, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I was a bit vague. OR is not what I meant. As this discussion continues, it seems we loose sight of the fact that amateur has a variety of meanings. (And the synonyms of amateur have meanings that we certainly could not use.) WP:YESPOV, among other things, prefers nonjudgmental language. As per the dictionary, "amateur" conveys (more or less) a judgment about the subject, so we have to avoid it. Later down in lede we give a brief description as to the acceptance of her as an intellectual and later in the article we give a fuller description. This is not based on what her fans or anti-fans like or feel. Avoiding the word "amateur" in the lede's first sentence/description is done because we must represent "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views..." The same policy applies with the other suggested terms. As we are disputing which term to use, it is clear that we cannot agree on what particular term is non-judgmental. Thus we best leave out any of the disputed terms in the lede sentence to achieve a NPOV presentation. – S. Rich (talk) 14:34, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Our best sources are academic philosophers -- experts in the field -- who really don't think much of Rand as a philosopher, so any negative connotation to "amateur" is totally accurate. We're allowed and even expected to repeat the "bad things" that our sources say about someone. We have to be extra careful if they're alive, but Rand's not. Our sources make it clear that we can't just call her a philosopher and nobody's come up with any alternatives to amateur and self-professed that pass the basic test of being cited and accurate. But I'm repeating myself.

You need to understand that we don't need to agree. Or, more to the point, you don't need to agree with what the sources tell us we have to put in the article. You are free to disagree for the rest of your life, but you're not free to change the article so that it violates Wikipedia rules. If Wikipedia depended on everyone agreeing, it would have two articles, both of them short. Your refusal to accept the sources makes your opinion irrelevant. MilesMoney (talk) 01:53, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, Miles, per WP:NPOV, we can't just describe her in an overtly negative or positive manner simply because a source does. We can't just say, "She's an amateur philosopher" -- we would have to say something like, "X says/considers Rand to be an amateur philosopher," etc., and as S. Rich said, that belongs in a lower, more specific paragraph/section of the article, not in the lead. And you say no one's presented any alternatives when in fact I don't think sufficient arguments have been made against "novelist-philosopher," "popular philosopher," or "non-academic philosopher." I've also suggested replacing "philosopher" with "intellectual," which is cited, accurate, and less contentious. Adam9389 (talk) 04:15, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

We can't call her popular because it's too easy to mistake that for "she has lots of fans", which is true but not what's intended. We know what's intended: they mean popular in the sense of amateur. That's why we settled on amateur.

Calling her a philosopher without reservations is overtly positive, since our sources either exclude her from the rolls of significant philosophers or grudgingly accept her but only as an amateur, a self-avowed philosopher.

We threw out non-academic because it doesn't go far enough and it's not what our sources say. And novelist-philosopher is a hyphenated monstrosity that once again makes it sound like she's a regular professional academic philosopher.

It's not complicated. We have to use terms that are sourced. We can't use terms that are false or misleading. This leaves us, so far, with only amateur and self-avowed/self-professed. MilesMoney (talk) 06:52, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

How is calling her a philosopher without adjectives overtly positive or negative? That's how we refer to almost all philosophers on Wikipedia. And we have legitimate sources that identify her as a philosopher without adjectives. By Wikipedia's standards, she's a "philosopher." Way I see it, I'm already being generous by agreeing on including an adjective of some sort. You say we need to be as specific as we can, well, I'm pretty sure you're not going to go to every philosophy professor's page and change it from "philosopher" to "academic philosopher."

Also, "non-academic" may not be a verbatim description, but Wikipedia's about being accurate, not verbatim. And how does it not go far enough? What do you even mean by that? It puts across the fact that she's not sanctioned by academic orthodoxy, doesn't it? Isn't that what we want?

You also say "popular" is not an option essentially because of how the term "popular" is often perceived by the masses. And yet, I'm criticized for disliking "amateur" for the same reason. Adam9389 (talk) 18:54, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Remember the amateur gynecologist? Calling him a gynecologist would be very misleading, as he's not trained or licensed. Doctors of philosophy, perhaps fortunately, don't need board certification to practice, but they do need to know what they're talking about in order to be taken seriously within academia. Rand did not and she was not. That's why she's pointedly excluded from the Oxford Companion to Philosophy, and the encyclopedias that generously include her all make a point of calling her self-styled or amateur or otherwise saying that she did not practice philosophy at the level one might expect from a trained academic. This is, once again, why we cannot call her a philosopher without modifiers: we'd be lying and we'd be ignoring our best sources.

If readers thought she was popular only in the sense of having many fans, they'd be misled. She's a popular philosopher in the sense of being an amateur. If people thought she was amateur in the sense of not being qualified, they'd be entirely correct because that's exactly what our sources say. Other non-academics are considered non-amateurs due to their skills. Rand is not merely non-academic, she's an amateur. Get over it: she was not taken seriously by academics because she lacked the requisite background. She just didn't know what she was talking about when she criticized real philosophers such as Kant. I hate Kant, but he was undoubtedly qualified, whereas Rand was just an amateur. That's not my opinion, it's what our sources say. We follow our sources. MilesMoney (talk) 21:01, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I've already given you two reputable sources that identify her as a philosopher without adjectives, so, really, stop with all this "our best sources" nonsense. Also, our sources may point out certain mistakes she made (as all philosophers do), but outside of Oxford, I don't think we have any encyclopedic sources that say is not qualified as a philosopher. You're not backing up your argument with any substance. It's just absolutism over that one particular source and ranting about how horrible certain people, including you, think she is as a philosopher. That's fine; but as a Wikipedia editor, who are you to say Rand did not know what she was talking about? Is there no way anyone in academia can be ignorant, and conversely, no way anyone outside academia can be knowledgeable? Philosophy is not a concrete, cut-and-dry discipline like the natural sciences or even some of the humanities like history are, so your gynecologist analogy falls flat. Rand explored all the fundamental questions that philosophy is about. By Wikipedia's standards, she is a philosopher without adjectives. You're just pulling these arbitrary standards out of nowhere. Standards that you apply to no one else, just Rand. And with that last post, you showed your hand -- and it's a POV agenda. Adam9389 (talk) 01:52, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Sources for "philosopher" found

I feel the need to mark this spot as it looks like it's about to get buried. My original post is below. Adam9389 (talk) 01:07, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay, guys, I found the texts. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy name her as a philosopher. If that somehow doesn't fall under WP:ReliableSources, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy has her down as "intellectual." Here are the texts themselves: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy - identifies her as "philosopher." Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy - "philosopher." Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy - "major intellectual of the twentieth century." And, Yworo, agreed. I do believe a Criticism section needs to be created to address these controversies. Adam9389 (talk) 16:10, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Based on the sources, we can and should call her a 'philosopher' in the lead sentence. We do not create "Criticism" sections, a title more like "Status as a philosopher" or something. But the correct NPOV approach is to report on all major opinions as to whether she was a philosopher, and what type, etc. We don't decide this ourselves. If necessary, we can say something like "and according to some sources, a philosopher" in the lead sentence. Yworo (talk) 19:05, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

"and according to some sources, a philosopher" in the lead is unwarranted subjectivism, as you could say "according to some sources" about almost anything on Wikipedia. Again, we should integrate the controversy into a "Criticism" section or, as you said, a "Status as a philosopher" section. Adam9389 (talk) 01:25, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

"It is unfortunate that Ayn Rand’s ideas have not been taken seriously by many professional philosophers. I would like to suggest that readers view Rand’s potential contributions to philosophy as analogous to those of the German writers Goethe and Schiller. Neither of the latter was a professional philosopher—both were poets and playwrights—yet they did write philosophical essays that have been taken seriously by philosophers. Similarly, Ayn Rand was a novelist who wrote philosophical essays that should be taken seriously by philosophers."

Montessori, Dewey, and Capitalism, Educational Theory for a Free Market in Education, Jerry Kirkpatrick, p. 83, http://www.tljbooks.com/MDC.pdf 188.120.131.24 (talk) 19:30, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the research. This is a fine example of someone defending Rand while still admitting she's not a professional philosopher. It calls her a novelist who wrote philosophical essays, not a philosopher. MilesMoney (talk) 19:38, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

It is still advisable to define who is a "professional philosopher." I agree with RL0919 about the idea of "non-academic philosopher." 188.120.131.24 (talk) 16:35, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

It's not really our job to do that; we just go with the sources. And the extremely high quality source that most clearly calls her an amateur also makes a distinction between amateur and non-academic, so if we call her the latter, it would be going against that source. MilesMoney (talk) 19:30, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

It all depends on how "professional philosopher" is defined. 188.120.131.24 (talk) 19:09, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Why should it? We aren't using the phrase "professional philosopher" - what's that mean, someone who gets paid for it? Perhaps we should refer to those people as "prostilosphers". Yworo (talk) 19:25, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

By default, someone called a philosopher is expected to be a professional. Imagine if we said I was gynecologist without mentioning that I have no medical degree and am only an enthusiastic (but gentle) amateur! Also, being paid for it is not enough. According to OCP, what makes someone an amateur is that they lack the knowledge that would come with a degree. The same article says Rand is an amateur. That's why we have to. MilesMoney (talk) 03:06, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Oxford Companion to Philosophy

This is a very high quality source because it's an academic reference, not just the opinion of some particular philosopher. The book is over a thousand pages and it's recent. It represents the mainstream view and beats out cherry-picked opinions.

Now, it does briefly mention Ayn Rand on her own, but only in the context of listing some articles that were submitted but did not pass muster because of their subject material. In other words, the editor rejected the idea that Rand deserves a biographical article. This is typical: academic philosophers generally don't think much of her, so the editor's view once again reflects the mainstream. It also helps remind us of why we can't just call her a philosopher; it would mislead readers into thinking she was someone like Bertrand Russell.

Rand gets mentioned again in an article that's not about her, though. It's about "popular philosophy", and starts by offering three different definitions. Here's the first sentence, on page 739:

"There are three main kinds of popular philosophy: first, general guidance about the conduct of life; secondly, amateur consideration of the standard, technical problems of philosophy; thirdly, philosophical popularization."

Rand only fits into the second category, and the author explicitly puts her there, removing any ambiguity. Note that none of these listed categories includes "a philosophy that just so happens to be popular among the masses"; that's an obvious but incorrect inference that we can nonetheless expect readers to make.

The author goes on to talk about how amateur isn't always bad and having a degree doesn't always make you an amateur. Then he shifts to more recent examples, writing:

"In the twentieth century amateur systems increasingly failed to find their way into print; most of them languished 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 L. L. Whyte and George Melhuish, and, in the United States, Ayn Rand, stren-uous exponent of objectivism and self-interest."

He's saying outright that her philosophy was amateur. Of course, there's no way she could be a professional philosopher if what she created was amateur philosophy, so this necessarily makes her an amateur philosopher.

If you think I'm cherry-picking these quotes, please post something I skipped but that you think is important. Otherwise, I think it's pretty clear that Rand is an amateur philosopher and Objectivism is an amateur philosophy. MilesMoney (talk) 18:42, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Keeping company with Aristotle is unlikely to be seen as an insult.-Yeti Hunter (talk) 22:50, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't disagree, and yet her biggest fans are against us calling her an amateur. RL runs a Rand fan web site, which shows his biases. MilesMoney (talk) 02:42, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Just gotta say that SRich and RL have been awful quiet here. Guess they agree. MilesMoney (talk) 02:55, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I have a copy of the original, so I don't need to read via your excerpts, and I don't see a need to discuss the same topic across multiple threads on the same page. As long as 'amateur' is fueled by this one source, it isn't going to last. --RL0919 (talk) 03:15, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

"Amateur" is fueled by each and every mention of popular. I've asked you, both here and the other page to explain what "popular" means if not "amateur". Still waiting. Guess you agree. MilesMoney (talk) 03:31, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Since you replied to Yeti but not me, I'm absolutely certain you agree. MilesMoney (talk) 04:07, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Please don't misconstrue my quietness. And please don't misconstrue RL's interest in Objectivism. Discussions on article talk pages must focus on the articles, not the editors. – S. Rich (talk) 03:21, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

This section is about a source for the article, but you've been silent. Guess you agree. MilesMoney (talk) 03:23, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

We, as editors, seek to improve articles by considering policy, guidelines, etc. Guesses do not help. – S. Rich (talk)

So long as you stay quiet on the topic, we can only guess. Do you deny anything I said in this section? MilesMoney (talk) 03:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

MilesMoney has at least provided a short, quotable citation that could be either incorporated into the text or into a note. There is no reason to simply ignore the reference, because we don't have a dozen other references sharing an identical perspective. Dimadick (talk) 13:08, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Thing is, I think we do. The only thing special about the Oxford Companion is that it's more precise.

Think about it. We have dozens of references calling her a "popular philosopher" or saying her work was "popular philosophy", but RL claims he doesn't know what the term means. Fortunately for RL, we do, because the Oxford Companion tells us, in as many words, that Rand's popular philosophy is an amateur one. Of the three legitimate meanings of "popular philosopher" (and the one misunderstanding about having fans), we don't even have to guess. We know the right meaning and can just use the word itself to prevent people like RL from misunderstanding further. We can say amateur instead of popular.

We can't use non-academic because it's not what the source says and it contradicts the source, which gives the example of Coleridge, who is not an amateur despite not being an academic. In other words, it's possible for a non-academic like Coleridge to avoid being an amateur, but Ayn Rand is both a non-academic and an amateur. Again, it's right there. We don't get to disagree with it.

According to WP:OR, high-quality tertiary sources such as the Oxford Companion are exactly what we need when summing up many different views with due weight. And that's what we're doing when we try to briefly explain what sort of philosopher she was. It's more valuable than wrangling over which secondary sources to count, because the wrangling has been done for us by experts in the field. All we have to do is read and understand the source. MilesMoney (talk) 13:41, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Personally I have no objection to the word "amateur". I take it as a compliment, and so would Rand, I have no doubt. As an amateur sportsman, I know perfectly well that it means only unpaid (from the latin amator, "lover") , and its connotation of "novice" is merely a hangover from the total victory achieved by the professionals in the amateur/professional sport conflict.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 03:41, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, and she had no love for the pros. MilesMoney (talk) 03:54, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

@Srich -- Policy states that you should respond to Miles, not remain silent in response to his attempts to engage you in resolution of a disagreement. Miles is not "guessing" about content, and your remark to him on that score is either mistaken or disingenuous. SPECIFICO talk 03:45, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeti Hunter, the problem with the term "amateur" is that only this one source has been found to use this term for her. Other terms are used in far more sources. I can name over a dozen that just call her "philosopher" without a modifier. At least a half-dozen call her "non-academic". Even more call her by the ambiguous term "popular", often leaving it unclear whether they mean she is popular as in well-known (which is true) or popular as in non-academic (also true). Maybe they mean both. Some sources call her a "public philosopher", others a "novelist-philosopher". Some sources use more than one of these. Given the many references, to prefer the term used least often (cited to a single source) goes against WP:UNDUE. --RL0919 (talk) 03:54, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

It's usually pretty clear whether they mean lots-of-fans or amateur. But the right word here is amateur, because that's what our best sources say "popular" means when it comes to her. In other words, every time she's called popular (but not lots-of-fans popular), it supports amateur. You need to deal with this, not ignore it. If you ignore my argument, I gotta ignore your opinion; that's policy. MilesMoney (talk) 03:56, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

RL, I do think the debate is ridiculous and that failure to have a degree or be part of the club in no way determines one's status as a philosopher or otherwise. However this debate is unlikely to go away if even sources like Routeledge and Stanford are apparently unacceptable, and I think "amateur" is a perfectly informative modifier. It gives context to her later financial troubles, as she derived no income from her philosophy. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 04:01, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

And I oppose non-academic purely for the reason that it would be blatantly obvious what a silly debate has been had, and what a silly compromise was reached. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 04:03, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

SRSLY. There is almost consensus for "amateur philosopher". Take it. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 04:05, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

It seems to be 2-2 in the most recent comments, which is hardly consensus. If you think "amateur philosopher" is some sort of compromise with removing the word "philosopher" entirely, then I don't think so. There are literally dozens of sources that support calling her a philosopher, so there is no serious risk of permanent removal. "Amateur" only made it into the article because Miles has been very aggressive in comparison with other editors, but if it comes to it I will open an RFC before I let a handful of editor push a single-sourced, non-neutral term into the lead. "Non-academic" is supported in more sources than "amateur". Take take up Miles' interpretation (arguendo), any source that says "amateur" or "popular" (where the meaning clearly isn't what he calls "lots-of-fans popular) is also supporting "non-academic" since the meanings overlap. Also, I don't know what you mean to say she earned no money from philosophy, since she published a magazine and had several books released, which did in fact make money. Not as much as a bestselling novel, to be sure, but definitely income. --RL0919 (talk) 04:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Way I see it, you and SRich are both breaking the rules by refusing to engage, so you don't get a vote. Besides, consensus isn't voting. MilesMoney (talk) 04:14, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and your argument's bogus because it's based on a false premise. The Oxford Companion distinguishes between amateur and non-academic, and uses the amateur. Look at Coleridge. MilesMoney (talk) 04:17, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Since when is a dozen replies over the last two days "refusing to engage"? But to engage once again: one source is not sufficient to justify placing a controversial term in the lead, particularly when there are better-sourced alternatives that overlap the meaning. There are multiple sources backing other terms, but you reject any other term. Well, stubbornness is not consensus either. --RL0919 (talk) 04:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Since they're bogus replies. You take out the ones that are evasive, dishonest or incompetent, and you're as quiet as a church mouse. Look how you never answer what "popular" means if not "amateur" or how you keep ignoring how each "popular" supports "amateur". Do you have an answer? MilesMoney (talk) 05:15, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Answered in detail in the thread above. It isn't my problem if you don't have the patience to wait a few hours while I put together detailed information from multiple sources (something I notice you don't have for the word "amateur"). --RL0919 (talk) 05:43, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

One rock-solid, high-quality source beats a million of your misunderstood ones. MilesMoney (talk) 05:56, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

L. L. Whyte? Would that be Lancelot Law Whyte who printed works on an unified field theory of physics? Dimadick (talk) 12:51, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

The same. In his spare time, when he wasn't helping Einstein, he dabbled in philosophy. This lists some papers published by the British Journal for the Philosophy of Science. Not many people are familiar with the breadth of his word, and his Wikibio does not do him justice. MilesMoney (talk) 13:22, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

The tale thus far

Dimadick made a relevant point above that deserves response, but it was inserted into the middle of a long thread. I want to respond at some length and give some context to this discussion. Dimadick wrote, "MilesMoney has at least provided a short, quotable citation that could be either incorporated into the text or into a note. There is no reason to simply ignore the reference, because we don't have a dozen other references sharing an identical perspective." That's entirely true. We don't need to ignore this source or exclude it from the text of the article. That does not mean, however, that this one source should be made more important than all other sources when it comes to the description of Rand in the lead. This one source, the only source produced so far that uses "amateur" as the description of Rand (technically as a description of her work, but I recognize the inference). It is the least attested wording of all the choices attempted, so I don't think it is out of line for me to prefer one of the others. But MilesMoney isn't having any of that. The discussion around "amateur" has followed an interesting path:

• MilesMoney first said that the article should not falsely claim Rand was an academic philosopher. To my knowledge the article has never said this, and I replied noting that.
• Miles then inserted "amateur" as a qualifier for "philosopher" in the lead, claiming that I had agreed to such an insertion. Note that at this point there is no source for the term; it's just MilesMoney's own conclusion.
• I reverted the addition due to lack of any source for it.
• Miles then found one source and reinserted the term into the lead. At this point he also notes that the same source could be used to justify the term "popular", although he doesn't prefer that term. Supposedly it is OK if I look for sources supporting other terms -- "amateur" is just a "placeholder".
• I notice that the phrase "popular philosopher" is already used in the body of the article, and already has a source there. I also find it in other sources. And as Miles had said, the source he used for "amateur" also supports "popular". With one term we can make the same point about Rand's status, encompass more sources, and comply with the WP:LEAD rule that the lead summarize material that is in the body of the article. Perfect! So I switch the term and supply the relevant source that was already in the body.
• Nope, it has to be the term that Miles decided on before he even had a source. Maybe it isn't a placeholder after all.
• Now the insults begin. I'm not competent, and finding sources that use a different term is "original research".
• Thinking that I wasn't clear enough that there are several sources supporting the term "popular", I add more of them to the article and supply even more on the talk page.
• Nope, it has to be the term that Miles decided on before he even had a source, regardless of how many sources use the other term instead. Clearly this was no placeholder.
• Somehow, using the exact wording from multiple sources is claimed to be "misinterpretation" and "original research". However, supposedly alternatives are still acceptable, just not the word "popular". "Non-academic" is one that Miles would be "happy" to accept.
• OK, I propose that we accept the alternative Miles suggested and use "non-academic". I also suggest some other wording improvements based on what I've found in my research of multiple sources.
• Miles likes most of what I suggest (maybe I'm not incompetent?), but implements it with one exception: the term "amateur" has to stay, not the supposedly acceptable alternative "non-academic".
• I switch to the supposedly acceptable alternative of "non-academic" and add multiple sources that support that specific term.
• Nope, it's got to be the term Miles decided on before he even had a source.
• I'm open to any neutral term that is supported by multiple sources. I do not, however, agree with the particular way Miles wants to interpret some of the sources.
• The insults start up again: I'm "sloppy" and "can't read", as well as being biased and incompetent. Or maybe I'm "lying". If I don't respond within hours to every specific point Miles makes in multiple threads across two different talk pages, I'm secretly in agreement with his position and I'm "refusing to engage". My replies are "bogus" and "evasive, dishonest or incompetent" and thus not to be considered as replies at all! Ad nauseam. Similar insults are repeated on other pages, even on my own talk page.

So, I ask Dimadick and any other viewers, what am I supposed to think of this? I accept alternatives suggested by Miles, and I provide multiple sources in support of these alternatives. But every time I am reverted and heaped with abuse because I don't agree with the specific term that he decided to use before he had even looked for a source. Does that seem like collegial editing or an attempt to follow the sources? Is this how we come to content decisions now? --RL0919 (talk) 19:00, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

RL, you gonna be surprised when I say that I don't think your summary is accurate? I'm not gonna spend the rest of my life correcting each mistake, but the big one is your misrepresentation of what our sources say. Remember, you insist that you don't understand what "popular philosophy" means, which means you are in no position to evaluate our sources. On the other hand, English is one of my native languages, so I got no problem understanding simple words and phrases. I also understand that the Oxford Companion is much more reliable than any cherry-picked secondary source, and that none of those secondary sources disagree with the statement that Ayn Rand's philosophy is amateur.

So, when it comes down to it, you wasted a big chunk of your life cranking out a summary that's not only wrong but entirely misses the point. Bet you wish you hadn't done that now. MilesMoney (talk) 03:41, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I know you have been around these pages long enough to be a little more robust than implied by your comments above. The argument against non-academic and popular have been made above. Ignore any assumed insult and focus on the content issue. ----Snowded ^TALK 19:05, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

As one who neither knows nor much cares about Ayn Rand, I agree with Snowded's remark. This is really not a big deal of an issue but various editors appear to feel they WP:OWN this article or its subject matter. On the content: It's not a big deal of an issue because the text of the article cites various RS that make clear that Rand was no philosopher. In fact the whole discussion only arises because unlike L. Frank Baum, whose Wizard of Oz has inspired hundreds of millions, Rand has a group of followers who apparently are highly concerned that she be labeled a philosopher. That dubious title, not the substance of Rand's writings, is in dispute. Now, looking at text of the article, it seems to provide considerable well-sourced detail as to why "philosopher" is not the best label for her, but even if it were the best it would only be a label. The solution to this contentious dispute will come through further development of the article text on Rand and her work. I can't see that anything useful will come from arguing it in the abstact, certainly not before some uninvolved editors arrive on the scene. At some point the lede will be edited to reflect whatever stable content emerges in the article itself.

Meanwhile, if any of you can't let go of this, why not post for additional input on the WP Projects listed at the top of the talk page. SPECIFICO talk 19:20, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I constructed the timeline above to show precisely that I have repeatedly focused on content and replied to substantive issues, so I'm not clear on why I would need to be advised to do that. I will open an RFC if needed, but in the meantime, here's some more content for you: I've updated User:RL0919/Randbox with dozens of quality sources calling Rand "philosopher" with and without various modifiers. Some are cited in the article already, others aren't. The phrase "amateur philosopher", which some editors are so eager to impose, is not among them. There are several alternatives to pick from that are better supported, with multiple reliable sources. --RL0919 (talk) 21:00, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

The fact that we've had several earlier debates on "amateur" in this article's talk page (see/search the 46 archive pages), plus a debate at Talk:Objectivism (Ayn Rand)#Amateur, and an extensive Ayn Rand ArbCom discussion indicates using the term "amateur" is controversial within Wikipedia itself. (I would think there are other debates on this particular topic outside of WP.) There are even more talkpage discussion to be found in the archives regarding the word "popular". With this in mind, editors ought to seek a consensus for a re-write of the first sentence of the lede, and give a brief mention of the "controversial" aspects (e.g., the amateur status) of her philosophy later down in the lede. So, here are some suggestions:

1. "...was a Russian-born American novelist, playwright and screenwriter, and developer of the philosophical system she called Objectivism."
2. "...was a Russian-born American novelist, playwright and screenwriter, and developer of a philosophical system she called Objectivism."
3. "...was a Russian-born American novelist, playwright and screenwriter, and founder of the philosophical system she called Objectivism."
4. "...was a Russian-born American novelist, playwright and screenwriter, and founder of a philosophical system she called Objectivism."
5. "...was a Russian-born American novelist, playwright and screenwriter, and developer of Objectivism."
6. "...was a Russian-born American novelist, playwright and screenwriter, and the founder of Objectivism."
7. "...was a Russian-born American novelist, playwright and screenwriter, and essayist in philosophical subjects."
8. "...was a Russian-born American novelist, playwright and screenwriter, and essayist in Objectivism."
9. Add your suggestion here

Of course there are other possibilities. Develop one, pick one, and then avoid another go-round the mulberry bush. – S. Rich (talk) 23:44, 27 August 2013 (UTC)00:22, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Why not just drop the term "philosopher" altogether? It's not at all clear that she was a philosopher. Some RS say she is but others certainly would not. She was openly dismissive of the philosophical tradition since Aristotle (and contemptuous of Hume, Kant and basically all other enlightenment thinkers) and the philosophers returned the favor. Her philosophy is (unlike that of Robert Nozick, who developed (though later repudiated) similar ideas but actually made an effort to examine and respond to opposing arguments in the philosophical tradition) not taken seriously among academic philosophers. Steeletrap (talk) 00:10, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

We'd be lying if we just said she was a philosopher without explaining what kind she is. MilesMoney (talk) 03:43, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Why would we drop a term that is used for her in dozens of sources, including all the sources used to support "popular philosopher", "non-academic philosopher", etc.? --RL0919 (talk) 00:18, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Because we also have dozens of RS that explicitly say she isn't one. Steeletrap (talk) 01:42, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Really, dozens? This subject has been debated here for years and I don't recall these dozens of explicit sources being cited or quoted. Perhaps you could produce some examples so we can compare their content and quality with the sources that call her a philosopher. --RL0919 (talk) 06:03, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

None of these are any good because they don't mention that Objectivism is an amateur philosophy and Ayn Rand is an amateur philosopher, which is what our sources say. Try again, only stick to the sources. MilesMoney (talk) 03:43, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

The treatment of Objectivism & Rand as amateur can be/is/should be handled in the Objectivism article and lower in the lede/Ayn Rand (this) article. Any one of these suggestions would work (IMO) as the introductory sentence for the lede. The lede, as stated, should mention controversies. But should not do so in the opening sentence. WP:BALANCE must be considered and observed. The RS, pro-amateur and anti-amateur, gets treated later on. – S. Rich (talk) 04:28, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

No, the moment we call her a philosopher without saying what kind, we've screwed up. There's no controversy here: she was an amateur. Feel free to provide any reliable source at all which said otherwise. MilesMoney (talk) 04:37, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

None of the/my proposed first sentences uses the term "philosopher". Please endorse one version, or propose your own. Either way, let's move on, reach consensus, and finally get away from this Great Taste ... Less Filling! discussion. No matter what, insisting on "amateur" in this debate will not help build WP. – S. Rich (talk) 04:51, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

We face the problem that is that it appears to be an article of faith in Randian circles that she is a Philosopher (with a capital P etc. etc). We also need to avoid confusing Objectivism, Objectivism in the Randian sense and Rand. To many in the US there are the same but not so in a wider community. Objectivism has a long history before Rand. Objectivism in the Randian sense has professional and respected Philosophers such as Nozick in its modern tradition. Mind you they all tend to apologise for Rand as a 'philosopher'. RL0919, am I correct that you are responsible for one of the Ayn Rand think tanks or associations? I know you are normally careful to pay attention to sources but here I do think we have cherry picking. Dropping philosopher completely but saying that as a writer she was in part responsible for a recent philosophical position called objectivism is possible (none of the phrases do this and she is not solely responsible). If we use the term philosopher then amateur is the best qualifier ----Snowded ^TALK 04:55, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

No, I do not run, work for, or hold membership in any "Ayn Rand think tanks or associations". I do have a website (not updated in the last few years) of information about Rand and Objectivism -- lists of books on the subject, links to online criticisms, etc. The link is on my user page. As for the content of the article, "amateur" is one of the least-used modifiers for "philosopher" in sources discussing Rand. There are several alternatives that are better attested in sources. If I am "cherry-picking", then it should not be terribly difficult to come up with a list of sources using the phrase "amateur philosopher" to describe Rand, just as I have produced lists of sources using other phrasings. --RL0919 (talk) 06:03, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the honesty. So what do you think of the alternative below? It avoids a choice between 'popular' and 'amateur' but links to the philosophical movement for which she was the starting point. ----Snowded ^TALK 06:18, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

If you mean the one you suggested immediately below, then I prefer the current wording over it. I think we should note her mid-life career change (a point overlooked in the lead until the recent discussions), and numerous sources identify her as some sort of "philosopher", even if it sometimes attached with a qualifier or critique, like the guy who called her "the worst philosopher in the history of Western Civilization". Even if you think the spade is blunt and rusty, you still call it a spade. --RL0919 (talk) 06:48, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

A variation:" ...was a Russian-born American novelist, playwright and screenwriter whose views gave rise to Objectivism" ----Snowded ^TALK 04:58, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Snowded, I like your commentary and suggestion. But "Objectivism" in the WP sense is tied in directly with Rand. E.g., we have Objectivism (Ayn Rand), not Objectivism (pre-dating Ayn Rand). What can we do in this regard? – S. Rich (talk) 05:06, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

The way it is normally handled is through the dab link. We have faced attempts in the past to change the name of that article to Objectivism rather than Objectivism (Ayn Rand) but todate they have failed despite an off-wiki campaign and meat puppetry ----Snowded ^TALK 05:16, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Objectivism is in fact a disambiguation page, as it should be. --RL0919 (talk) 06:03, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Srich, all of your suggestions are unacceptable for the same two reasons. They either call Objectivism a philosophy (without mentioning that it's amateur) or they don't identify it at all, leaving the reader guessing (and probably guessing wrong).

Snowded is right that objectivism is something that's been around long before Rand, but Objectivism (note the capital) is Rand's own amateur system of philosophy, which she claims to be solely responsible for.

Mainstream academic philosophy qualifies "objectivism" by saying what in specific is objective, such as metaphysical objectivism or ethical objectivism. Rand combined all of the above, and then some, into something of her own. Rand's Objectivism is therefore not a philosophical position, but a system that includes many positions that are supposedly linked. Essentially, it's whatever Rand believed, plus any authorized changes by her "intellectual heir" (originally Branden, but then Peikoff).

This is a bit hard to grasp for people educated in academic philosophy, particularly the idea of owning a system and authorizing its contents, but it is what it is. MilesMoney (talk) 05:25, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I think you might be going a little far there. Objectivism (Ayn Rand) does have several professional philosophers and also political scientists engaged. I have a personal opinion that it is amateurish in respect of science and perverted in terms of ethics and aesthetics, but that is a personal opinion and it has no place in the article. Yes while she was alive (and with some of her adherents) the attempt to control was problematic but it didn't work. Hence my use of 'gave rise to', to indicate that she did not own or control what happened although I am happy to hold her responsible! ----Snowded ^TALK 05:30, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Not to downplay the idea of phrasing this with "system of", perhaps we are getting too hung up on "philosophy" and/or "system of philosophy" terminology. Compare, we have systems of law, religion, mathematics, measurement, etc.. Is one these any more professional or amateurish than the other? But when we seek to say "my system of...." is valid/professional/academic etc. and your "system of ...." is invalid/amateurish/plebeian etc ... and here is the RS that backs up my view!, we are ignoring the fact that these philosophies, religions, beliefs, views, etc. are non-empirical. What do we have to back up our views? Nothing more than the views of others. As Wikipedians we set aside these views and present the material as objectively and non-partisanly as possible. – S. Rich (talk) 05:57, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

SRich, it depends on the expectation of professionality in the field. I joked about the amateur gynecologist, but the core of truth is that we expect doctors to be professionals as part of the definition. In other areas, amateur versions exist, but we'd default to an expectation of professionality. For example, if someone who has no training as a lawyer writes essays on legal theory, we might consider them an amateur lawyer. Philosophy is somewhere in between; there is such a thing as an amateur philosopher, but unless we're told otherwise, we're going to assume it's not an amateur. That's why we have to head off the foreseeable misunderstanding by calling her a philosopher (which, in some sense, she clearly is) but not JUST calling her that.

Snowded, there are some pro philosophers who are either associated with an Objectivist organization or at least write about Objectivism. If we said otherwise, we'd be lying. But if we made it sound as if it was anything but rare, we'd also be lying. We have to avoid making overstatements but also avoid leaving too much unsaid. It's a tough balancing act.

Even though a few pros are involved, Objectivism is still not a professional, academic philosophy. It is an amateur, popular philosophy that has caught on with a few pros but is mostly the domain of amateurs and laymen. MilesMoney (talk) 04:49, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

It's a little more complex than that. We have for example Tara Smith is tenured in a Philosophy Department, but of course it takes funding from a Randian Foundation. Money can always buy pseudo-respectibility. It's is clearly very minor, cult like etc but we can't call the whole Philosophy amateur ----Snowded ^TALK 06:31, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Sure, a little more, but not by that much. In the spirit of intellectual honesty, lemme start off by giving you some ammo to use again me, though.

If you're saying we can call Objectivism a philosophy without qualifying it (as amateur, popular, non-academic or something else), then I disagree. If you're saying there's been a somewhat successful attempt to legitimize it as philosophy, then I concede as much. I think we all agree that Objectivism started off as an amateur philosophy, was mostly ignored in academia while Rand lived, and has only belatedly and half-heartedly been allowed any purchase within academia since, although it is still more a negative example -- a target for worthy criticism -- than a positive one.

Does that make it a semi-amateur philosophy? An amateur philosophy that is a bit less amateur now? Semi-pro? Pro-am? I don't think we should be judging this. Do we have any reliable sources that touch on it? And, by reliable, I specifically mean neutral sources, not people like Sciabarra who've made their career out of Rand and have a strong motive to bias them on this exact issue. MilesMoney (talk) 18:57, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Just to show you that I'm not crazy biased against Sciabarra, here's a quote from that article I linked to, with original emphasis: "in the wide scheme of things, I'll still take any mention of Rand I can get if it brings attention to her life and work."

The article lists examples of Rand being mentioned academically (like the Oxford Companion to American Literature, a fine place for a novelist), but it doesn't list conspicuous absences (like the Oxford Companion to Philosophy, which explicitly chose to exclude her from the ranks of notable philosophers). It's more rah-rah-rah cheerleading than an honest, balanced argument for the professional status of Objectivism today. That's why I don't see Sciabarra as neutral. MilesMoney (talk) 19:03, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Scibarra is a cultist, I wouldn't count that as ammo! Negative evidence (ie not being mentioned) is problematic on WIkipedia but being specially excluded (which we now have) is stronger. Otherwise I agree its an idea that would have died without the cult followers and money from the Anthem Foundation and others. But it is a philosophy, albeit largely ignored, contradictory, poor logic etc. etc. ----Snowded ^TALK 19:08, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Who is Scibarra? Please provide a link. Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 19:19, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Given how vehemently Rand opposed homosexuality, for Sciabarra to be a Rand cultist would be like Herman Cain joining the KKK. Or has Objectivism softened up so much since Rand's death that such self-contradictions are now possible?

Regardless, the hard problem here -- and I don't think we're in any position to really solve it -- is how many adjectives it takes to undermine the noun. An "amateur gynecologist" is no gynecologist at all. An amateur carpenter may well be competent, even if falling somewhat short of the range and reliability of a pro. A (modern) amateur philosopher is somewhere in between, but I would say closer to the gyno because there's so little call for (or value to) amateurism in the field.

In hindsight, dying was the best thing Rand could have done for Objectivism, because she was holding back its spread by being so harsh in its defense and obstinate about defining its boundaries. But has Objectivism grown and changed since she died or has it just gotten a bit more credible? Is it still amateur or has it evolved into something truly professional?

Compare Kant, who was wrong about so many things, yet always interestingly and meaningfully so. He was highly influential and respected, even among his critics, and his ideas have born much fruit, even if he would have rejected some of it. But Rand's legacy is bipolar; either you love her and fawn over her exact gospel words or you hate her and pretend she's not worth spitting on. I'm strange because I'm somewhere in the middle, so each side sees me as the enemy for not being in their extremist camp. I think she's sometimes worth listening to and other times at least worth spitting on.

Bottom line is that the best we can do is try to focus on our best sources and try to cover the range of opinions honestly. MilesMoney (talk) 19:21, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Who is Sciabarra? Don't you mean, who is John Galt?

Chris Matthew Sciabarra is the author of this, as well as an actual academic philosopher who writes about Rand. MilesMoney (talk) 19:24, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Rand's stuff is "a philosophy" but it's not "philosophy", i.e. what philosophers do. We have the same issue on many of these cult articles, for example many of the figures associated with the Mises Institute to whom their fans refer as "economists" and many of the Tea Party "social theorists" such as (amateur?) gynecologist Ron Paul, ophthalmologist Rand Paul and Paul Ryan, bachelor of arts, and stockbroker Peter Schiff. Eventually these things get sorted out or one concludes that the labels matter far less than the description of their views from RS sources. SPECIFICO talk 19:25, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I can't speak to Ron Paul, etc., but I'm comfortable that there are academic philosophers studying and debating Objectivism. Sciabarra is a relatively weak example, actually, because I'm not sure he has ever gotten tenure. Better examples include Tibor R. Machan, Tara Smith, Fred Miller, Allan Gotthelf, Douglas B. Rasmussen and James G. Lennox. Presumably when these folks write journal articles or books published by academic presses, they are doing "what philosophers do" even by the most academy-focused standards. --RL0919 (talk) 20:04, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

As I said, this is not an area in which I'm knowledgeable, but that sounds great. Could you add a group of RS sourced discussions of the philosophical details, issues and contributions of Rand's work? If a significant body of such work is incorporated in the article, these abstract questions as to labeling will go moot. SPECIFICO talk 20:10, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

That would be a significant project for which I have not volunteered. However, those who want to look for material can check Bibliography of Ayn Rand and Objectivism for sources. Most such content should presumably go in the Objectivism (Ayn Rand) article rather than in Ayn Rand. --RL0919 (talk) 20:23, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I hope some future editor will feel disposed to undertake that improvement. In the meantime, in the absence of that new content, do you agree she should not be called a philosopher? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO (talk • contribs) 21:37, 29 August 2013‎

Of course I don't agree with that. We have many sources already cited in the article that call her a philosopher. Why would we ignore those? --RL0919 (talk) 21:54, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I do not see any source in this article which calls her a philosopher. As noted, "popular philosopher" is not a "philosopher" just like "hot dog" is not a "dog." Until the article provides clear RS statements that she is a philosopher, how can WP call her a philosopher? I don't think there's any rationale for that. SPECIFICO talk 22:16, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I gather then that you have not read the sources as there are several that call her "philosopher" without modification (some counts of sources calling her "philosopher" with and without various modifiers can be found here). However, I think we my be talking past one another here. I am not opposed to having the article refer to her as "modifier philosopher" as long as modifier is well-supported in reliable sources. "Popular philosopher" is well-supported and I would be fine with that; however, some others have objections to it. --RL0919 (talk) 22:36, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Please stop pointing people to your Randbox, because it's completely dishonest. It brags about Routledge calling her a philosopher, but the actual entry is insulting and dismissive of her. If we're going to use that as a source, we'll have to use "bad philosopher". MilesMoney (talk) 22:52, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Brags? That emotional coloring is your own invention; the page is lists of sources that use particular terms to describe Rand. The exact sentence in this case is, "Ayn Rand was a Russian-born US novelist and philosopher who exerted considerable influence in the conservative and libertarian intellectual movements in the post-war USA." If he then goes on to criticize her, I don't see how that changes his use of the term. If we can use a term that both supporters and critics use, and thus avoid unnecessary WP:POV wrangles, then all the better. --RL0919 (talk) 00:04, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I will frame my response in the form of a comedy skit:

Albert: Maude, did you read the review? It's wonderful!

Maude: What do you mean, Al? She said you were the worst actor ever to stink up a stage.

Albert: Yes, yes, but she called me an actor!

Get it? MilesMoney (talk) 01:09, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing the basic descriptions used for classifying someone ("actor", "philosopher") with critical reception. They are not the same thing. For example, the article about Ed Wood first describes him as "an American screenwriter, director, producer, actor, author and film editor." Then it explains that he is considered an especially terrible director. By the way, I took your suggestion and searched for sources that might have referred to Rand by the term "bad philosopher", but the results would disappoint you. --RL0919 (talk) 01:22, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Its getting very difficult to work with you if you misinterpret sources and comments in this way.

Albert is handsome, funny, and charismatic, but he just doesn't understand the craft of acting. He doesn't know which side "stage left" is. He forgets his lines, misses his cues and faces away from the audience when speaking. It's not that he has any shortage of the raw talent that could one day make him an actor, even a great one, but that he doesn't have the training, so he's not really an actor at all. He's just an amateur who's trying and failing to act. When this failure is referred to as bad acting, it's granting him too much because it's not even the same sort of badness that you'd get from a competent actor who's doing a poor job. Albert isn't even good enough to be bad correctly! He's bad in the sense of not being good enough to be an actor at all, not in the sense of not being good enough to be a good actor.

Even Rand's harshest detractors grant that she was brilliant, passionate and earnest. She threw herself at philosophical problems and tore at them, but she didn't have the background to understand where she failed. She suffered from the Dunning–Kruger effect. Rand lacked rigor, substituted polemics for analysis, and was dangerously overconfident. She was often right but couldn't credibly explain why. And where she was wrong, she was oh so very wrong.

Where academics address other academics and hedge their claims in careful language, she brought philosophy to the people. She didn't expect readers to first gain a deep understanding of the history of philosophy, because she didn't have any such thing. She was on the same wavelength as laymen, so she connected with them, convinced them, inspired them. In this she was a great success: she brought many to philosophy by teaching that this field was actually important. The problem was that, despite touting the value of philosophy, she was herself an amateur in the field, justly disregarded by academia for her novice errors and her arrogance.

So is Ayn Rand a philosopher? No, not without adjectives to warn that she wasn't qualified to do philosophy but stumbled through it anyhow. MilesMoney (talk) 02:35, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Two straightforward quotes from our reliable sources guideline: 1) "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article"; and 2) "any statement in Wikipedia that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors." You keep saying that I "misinterpret" when I directly quote the exact thing that a source says, but you are the one who just made his case with five paragraphs of unsourced personal opinion. In this entire discussion, I've never tried to argue about what my opinion is of Rand, because the personal opinions of Wikipedia editors are not the proper basis for article content. --RL0919 (talk) 03:27, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think MilesMoney is proposing that those opinions should be in the article, although I wish they were published as they seem pretty accurate to me. The point is we have to reflect the balance or weight of sources and in an author such as Rand whose circle of appreciation is narrow and cult like that is difficult. So the fact she is ignored and deliverately excluded by the some key sources is significant. I'm loosing track of what we are arguing about however and this section starts of with a long list of complaints which need to be collapsed. I suggest you start a new section with a statement of what you would like changed and why ----Snowded ^TALK 05:51, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

There is only one complaint: an editor who appears to have a predetermined agenda is aggressively pushing the use of a specific phrase, "amateur philosopher", which is less supported in sources than alternative phrases for describing Rand. I have offered both "popular philosopher" (used in a bunch of sources) and "non-academic philosopher" (not as common as "popular", but unambiguous and totally lacking any positive or negative connotations) as better-supported choices. What I want is shown here. --RL0919 (talk) 13:59, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

RL, Snowded asked you to state your preference, not to make a preemptive change to the article text. That edit should be reverted. This talk page discussion clearly does not support your change to "non-academic philosopher", in fact the consensus here is against your view. Please undo your change to the lede and -- if you wish -- respond to Snowded here on talk. SPECIFICO talk 14:16, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

If I thought my opinion should be in the article, I wouldn't have posted it on the talk page. Besides, I wasn't sharing my opinion for the sake of doing so, I was summarizing what our sources say so that we can make a decision about what to call Rand. You have repeatedly failed to understand both the content and purpose of my comments, which limits your ability to usefully contribute to this article.

It's also very embarrassing for you to single me out as having a "predetermined agenda" when this term would fit you even better. You have made a concerted attempt to bias the article in favor of Rand, even when that goes directly against what the totality of our sources say. You have acted as if you WP:OWN it, editing directly against consensus. You should not be calling the kettle black.

As I've explained many times, each reference to Rand as a "popular philosopher" supports calling her amateur. That's because our best, clearest sources call her popular and specify that this means amateur. You cannot ignore these sources, and you certainly cannot expect us to. That's the bottom line. MilesMoney (talk) 14:28, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

We do not have consensus to use "amateur" in the first line of the lede. While the current version has the word, we are still in the discussion phase of WP:BRD. Further changes should not be made until we reach an acceptable version. Perhaps we can post this as an RfC, which gives us a 30 day open discussion period by default. (And I do not think amateur is appropriate in the first sentence as using the term is a contentious issue.) – S. Rich (talk) 15:11, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Post an RfC if you like. You have a single editor against consensus to the contrary. There's really no dispute here, just polite acknowledgement of a solitary dissenter. SPECIFICO talk 15:16, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

To address the claim above that sources who say "popular" mean "amateur": This is unsupported outside of one source (Quinton) that classifies "amateur philosophy" as a subcategory of "popular philosophy". We cannot assume that any other source makes that same classification when they don't state it themselves. "Amateur" means either done as a pastime rather than professionally, or inept. Popular means either directed at the general public rather than specialists, or widely liked. They can overlap in who they apply to, but they aren't the same thing. Perhaps an editor might prefer "amateur" because of the dual meaning that suggests ineptness, or prefer "popular" because of the dual meaning that suggests being liked. Ambiguous terms that include POV meanings carry that risk. That's one reason I prefer the entirely unambiguous and neutral term "non-academic", which suggests no such biases. The "bottom line" is that only one source has been offered for "amateur philosopher", so it is very strange to see such a militant preference for it from a few editors -- unless it is for personal POV reasons that should not be the basis for our content. --RL0919 (talk) 16:00, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Misleading "reaction" section

The section regarding the reaction to Rand's work from the academic community is misleading at best and biased at worst. It mentions that Rand's work received "increased attention" following her death, but it does not describe the nature of this attention. To be sure an increasing (though still remarkably small) number of academic philosophers did "convert" to Randianism after her death; but most of this "increased attention" afforded objectivism was criticism and even ridicule. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy bluntly notes that even today, "only a few professional philosophers have taken her work seriously." (1) This context needs to be provided in the section. Steeletrap (talk) 06:49, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I think it is quite objective to find that attention increased. The phrase follows a paragraph describing that only two academics, Nozick and Gladstein, devoted much attention to her work while she lived. Then we have paragraphs with multiple academics either teaching her work or criticizing her work, and a political scientist arguing that she failed to acknowledge further philosophical influences on her work. This seems to be a quite striking indication that attention has increased.

The problem is that the section fails to indicate the reasons behind this increased attention, and that little to no attention is actually paid to either the works or the arguments of her defenders and critics. Dimadick (talk) 16:17, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

• I am almost tempted to add "Ayn Rund Cult by Jeff Walker to the sources. A work critical of the cult-like mentality of Randian "Objectivists",equating their adoration for their founder to "guru-worship". Walker argues that their overrating of Rand's quality as a writer is quite "comical". He cites for example Nathaniel Branden's claims that Atlas Shrugged is "the climax of the novel form" and "the greatest novel that has ever been written", John Ridpath's belief that Rand was an "infallible" genius, and Edwin A. Locke's claim that Rand managed to solve a philosophical problem, that puzzled lesser philosophers "for 2,500 years", "with half an hour's thought". Dimadick (talk) 16:51, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Dima, those seem to be interesting sources, why don't you add some content to the article based on their analysis? SPECIFICO talk 16:55, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

These are reliable sources. As for philosophers "converting", a lot of them are so young that it seems more likely they found Rand first and only went into academic philosophy because of her. This is actually common; what's comparatively rare is for them to remain attached to Rand after becoming educated. MilesMoney (talk) 04:40, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Self-professed

I wonder if self-professed would be better? non-academic is far too complementary given her lack of credibility, amateur might also suffer that way. Just an idea to try and break the log jam ----Snowded ^TALK 15:25, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Did she in fact call herself a philosopher? If so, that suggestion sounds good. SPECIFICO talk 15:28, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

That term goose eggs on the Google book and scholar searches, so sourcing would be a problem. How is "non-academic" complimentary, exactly? --RL0919 (talk) 16:03, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

What term? If she calls herself a philosopher then she'd a self-professed philosopher. You're straining AGF here, frankly. SPECIFICO talk 16:10, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I was looking for sources that describe Rand using this way. Someone who calls themselves anything could be said to be "self-professed" as that thing, but surely that alone isn't enough to use the term in an article. If it were, then we could say Barack Obama is the "self-professed" president of the US. But no one would do that, because the implication of the term "self-professed foo" is that there is no other basis for calling the person "foo". To say that requires sources. --RL0919 (talk) 16:20, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Looking at my own notes, I did run across the synonym "self-styled" in The Oxford Companion to Twentieth-Century Literature in English, edited by Jenny Stringer, p. 559. So that's one. I'm still curious to hear what makes "non-academic" a compliment rather than neutral description. It is found in more sources than either "amateur" or "self-styled". --RL0919 (talk) 16:26, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Great. Let's go with "self-styled" I like that even better. Are you OK with that one? SPECIFICO talk 16:30, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

No, for the exact same reason that I have been objecting over and over to "amateur" -- one source for a term, especially a term with POV implications, is not enough for inclusion in the lead. We have several possible terms that are found in a bunch of sources: "philosopher", "popular philosopher", "non-academic philosopher", even "novelist-philosopher" and "public philosopher", although these last two don't seem particularly helpful for readers. If we were going to use just one source as the basis for characterizing Rand's relationship to philosophy (which we should not, but if), then The Oxford Companion to Philosophy (the source for "amateur") seems more relevant than their volume on literature. --RL0919 (talk) 16:40, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

"Self-proclaimed" SPECIFICO talk 17:10, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

At a purely specific level, that phrase doesn't seem to be used. I do accept "self-professed", "self-styled" and "self-proclaimed" as all being true synonyms (unlike "amateur" and "popular", which have different meanings), so what counts for one counts for all, but so far "self-styled" looks to be the only one in (rare) use. I would still like a more expansive response on what is objectionable about "non-academic". If the only problem is that some think it isn't explicitly negative enough, then surely the critical response to Rand can be described later in the lead without trying to force it into the basic opening-sentence description. Freaking Adolf Hitler gets an opening sentence that describes him in neutral terms. --RL0919 (talk) 17:22, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything negative about not being a philosopher. In fact, I think that's a positive on her resume. Off, topic, but this seems to come up on various articles, for example pundits who wish to be called economists, climate scientists, or psychologists. I think it's kind of defensive. Surely Rand achieved notability for her work and doesn't need to be adorned with a title which ironically is legitimately accorded to many long-gone-and-forgotten academics. SPECIFICO talk 17:28, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Right, I don't see anything particularly favorable or unfavorable in whether she is called a "philosopher". My concern is about how she is described in sources, so we can match to that. There are a number of sources that do call her "philosopher", so using that word in some way seems justified unless there are other sources explicitly denying that the term applies. You might expect there would be, considering all the talk about how despised she is, but actually there is a lack of sources making such explicit denials. There are those that don't talk about her at all, but turning such silences into article content is difficult under our sourcing rules. Now, there is a very good point that she had an uncommon (in her time) status for a "philosopher", that she was not an academic and pitched her message to popular audiences, not specialists. (She did appear at a few symposiums, and carried on some personal correspondences with academics, but that's about it.) Sources do support that, and use various phrasings to characterize her status. "Popular philosopher" is one relatively common one; "non-academic" is not as common but still found in several sources. "Amateur", despite all the effort spent to promote it here, is very uncommon in sources, and so far it looks like "self-styled" is in a similar boat. Some of these terms also might be interpreted as non-neutral, depending on exactly what meaning a reader thinks is intended. So, trying to be more descriptive but still neutral, I've aligned to "non-academic", although I'm open to something better if someone can think of another well-sourced and neutral alternative.. --RL0919 (talk) 18:29, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Please don't take this as a personal insult, but none of what you said about sourcing is true. You're not even doing a good job summarizing what you disagree with. Unless you do a better job, I'm not going to bother explaining this to you anymore. I'm just going to recognize that you seem not to be capable of understanding these issues and move on. If moving on looks a lot like rolling over you, well, that's just how it looks, not how it is. MilesMoney (talk) 01:30, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Claiming misrepresentation without providing any specifics, when I have posted detailed lists of sources with many quotes, is not much of an argument. Anyhow, this discussion doesn't seem to be getting anywhere, with the same claims being made repeatedly. I'd love to find a better wording, but it may take an RFC to shake it loose. --RL0919 (talk) 00:08, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

The objection to 'amateur' is that it does not reflect the fact that she is largely ignored. Hence the suggestion of self-professed, or self-styled which has no implications and leaves it to the readers judgement. I\m surprised you have not take this up as its an obvious compromise and well summarises the sources (including the nul records)----Snowded ^TALK 05:34, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

That is your objection to "amateur". Mine is the relative lack of sources for it as compared to other choices. As you've noted yourself in the past, inferring meaning from what sources don't say is a problem on Wikipedia -- original research, to be precise. Besides, when dozens of sources refer to her as a "philosopher" of some kind, "self-professed" seems a bit odd. --RL0919 (talk) 16:40, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Not just my objection I think and it is the same issue with non-academic. Our job is to represent the various sources (and absence of sources) and that requires us to come up with a form of words in the lede that represent those per WP:Weight so it is not just a number count on references. The other option is just to drop the term. ----Snowded ^TALK 18:32, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

E.g., drop any and all of the qualifiers for "philosopher"? (And perhaps adopt one of my proposed first lines above?) If you (two) will agree to do so, I will happily reward (bribe) you with the coveted Half Barnstar! – S. Rich (talk) 19:27, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

@srich - Please read the thread and respond to the proposal which Snowded has raised directly above. There has been no discussion of your list. As to the alternatives being discussed, I would be fine leaving the word philosopher out of the lede or I would be fine with "self-professed", "self-styled" or "self-proclaimed" as well. SPECIFICO talk 19:39, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Despite the inline comment in the article, various editors have recently altered the text under discussion, most recently to "a philosopher", which clearly is not the current sense of the group. Please leave the text in place until it can be rewritten with whatever consensus we reach here. SPECIFICO talk 20:43, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

As you say, the best course of action is to leave the text in place while discussion is on-going. So why did you revert my edit? I had restored the version because of the change which an IP had made. – S. Rich (talk) 20:55, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

"Philosopher" (unmodified) was the text since at least ealrly 2009, until MilesMoney added "amateur" two weeks ago. That is what the hidden note was added for, not the word "amateur", which has never been the consensus wording. --RL0919 (talk) 21:20, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

@RL, I understand that, however the reverts came from editors who should have seen and respected the current discussion in which constructive discussion is taking place. There is clearly no consensus for "philosopher" alone at this point, so the reinsertion of that word without meaningful participation in the discussion here does not advance our thinking. @srich Please be careful to review context before using "undo" on recent edits. You've made similar errors on recently on several articles where it appears you either did not read the sources or familiarize yourself with the content and talk page history. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 21:47, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

MilesMoney made the last, un-consensus edit, and has since retired from WP. It was properly reverted by the earlier IP. The later IP apparently had not read the discussion or the editor comment. Again "leave the text in place" is an admonition that should be respected from before MilesMoney's edits. I have not made an error here. – S. Rich (talk) 22:07, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually you've made two errors, the first was your decision not to familiarize yourself with the threads of article text and talk page discussion before edit warring. The second, if you care about this issue, was your failure to contribute to the discussion here. SPECIFICO talk 22:19, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I've just come across this debate. I don't want to get into a lengthy argument, but I will say that the article shouldn't call Rand a "self-styled" philosopher. It sounds awful, and it's incompetent writing. If some object to calling Rand a philosopher without qualification, then I suggest "amateur philosopher" would be better (NB, I am not an Objectivist, and I personally couldn't care less whether Rand is simply called a "philosopher" or not). FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:40, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't know why you say it sounds awful or is bad writing. Is there a better way of saying she calls herself a philosopher but others apply qualifications to this? How about self-avowed? MilesMoney (talk) 01:36, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

"Amateur philosopher" is a clear, simple, perfectly good term to use if one doesn't want to call Rand simply a philosopher. I would have hoped that I could avoid comment on these other terms ("self-styled philosopher" and "self-avowed philosopher"), but apparently I cannot. They're bad writing firstly because they're cumbersome expressions, and secondly because they come across as obviously biased. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:17, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, I support "amateur" because it's the exact word that one of our best sources uses. I don't see anything biased about it. Then again, I don't see anything biased (or cumbersome) about "self-styled" or "self-avowed". What matters is that we have plenty of sources that are skeptical of Rand's status as a straight-up, no-modifiers philosopher, including the editor of the Oxford Companion commenting that he intentionally excluded her from the huge tome of philosophers. We have to mention that she was some sort of philosopher, but we can't just say she was a philosopher. MilesMoney (talk) 06:31, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Obviously Wikipedia can call Rand a philosopher if sources call her that; it's repeatedly been pointed out that such sources can be found. I didn't say "amateur" was biased; I pointed out that it was an acceptable term. I'm not going to bother to argue with you about "self-styled"; if you can't see what's wrong with it, then that's too bad. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:36, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

We've got reliable sources calling her amateur, popular, self-styled and all sorts of things, so we can't just ignore them and go with the raw noun. Besides, it's just plain dishonest and misleading to say she was a philosopher without qualifying that statement with some modifier. Remember the case of the amateur gynecologist? MilesMoney (talk) 13:49, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

You may think that remarks like that are very clever, but I assure you, they'll damage your position. I doubt this discussion is worth continuing. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:19, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Hey, I can't force you to support your views, I can only ask you to. If you don't wanna, that's your call. But please don't bash me for having a sense of humor about all this. MilesMoney (talk) 04:13, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

MilesMoney appreciates humor, as should we all . So once editors take a (long) look at WP:HUMOR, we can get back to the discussion about how to improve the article. – S. Rich (talk) 04:41, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Your comment is not helpful. Please focus on the issues. MilesMoney (talk) 14:01, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Opinions are never put in the lead sentence. If any reliable sources term Rand a philosopher, then for the purposes of the lead sentence, she is a philospher. Opinions about the kind of philospher, whether the opinion that she was an "amateur", "self-styled", "self-professed", etc. go in the body of the article where they can be properly cited to sources, compared and contrasted. Such opinion words do not belong in the lead sentence. A statement that there are a variety of opinions about her philosophy could be added, but we shouldn't be promoting one subset of opinions over another. That's pretty much required by WP:NPOV. Yworo (talk) 21:44, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

You are forgetting WP:WEIGHT and we have sources which deny her that status as well as many which just ignore her. So it is equally an opinion to assert she is and it is promoting one subset of opinion over another. Of course we could just get rid of the word. ----Snowded ^TALK 22:04, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

What do we do when sources differ on other things? Suppose we have two birth dates for a person, how do we usually present that? Yworo (talk) 02:18, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

The key source – link to the OCP material

The heart of the debate over "amateur" is an entry in the Oxford Companion to Philosophy. On the one hand, this is an extremely high quality source. On the other, it's so high quality that almost nobody can read it, because only academic philosophers have ready access to it. Until now!

Under fair use, I've extracted and reproduced the key article here for you to read for yourself. Until you do, anything you say on this topic is rooted in ignorance. MilesMoney (talk) 15:54, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

comments regarding thread placement – not part of the discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
MilesMoney, I recommend you post this remark up in the on-going discussion. A new section is appropriate for new issues. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 16:12, 26 September 2013 (UTC) You do it, so nobody can complain. MilesMoney (talk) 16:34, 26 September 2013 (UTC) Done. As you can see it is now a sub thread to the OCP discussion. With a clarification on what you have provided. – S. Rich (talk) 16:46, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

NPOV check

An opinion about Rand as a philosopher, namely the word "amateur", has been added to the lead sentence. "Amateur" is an opinion word, and not all sources agree on it. The lead sentence should give the nationality and profession(s) of the subject. It should not introduce opinions which are not held by all sources. The rest of the article should be checked for the misuse of editorial opinions. Yworo (talk) 22:09, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Then it should not call her a Philosopher as that opinion is not held by all the sources either - see extensive discussions above ----Snowded ^TALK 22:12, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

That's simply not true. Many sources give one of her professions as "philospher". That's not an opinion, it's a description. You seem to be a bit misguided about what the lead sentence is for. By the way, I am not a fan of Rand's. But if any number of reliable sources call her a philosopher, we also call her a philospher. Picking and choosing what sources are "better" or "more accurate" is a form of original research. The correct way to do this is to detail the range of opinions in the body of the article along with who holds each opinion. If this is done, then the word "philosopher" can be qualified by "according to some sources". We don't pick the opinion which best matches our own and try to push it. That's POV-pushing, and there are Arbitration enforcements in effect against that for this article. Be careful, Snowy. Yworo (talk) 22:17, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I have no objection, in principle, to calling Rand an amateur philosopher, but if you look you'll probably find that most sources do indeed simply call her a "philosopher." So it's not much use to insist that she cannot be called just a philosopher. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:23, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

)Some sources describe her as a philosopher, others as as an amateur philosopher, others specifically exclude her from that title. The quality and origin of the sources also counts. So the decision to exclude her from a major international dictionary of Philosophy is significant. Our job is to balance those sources and come up with some that reflects the balance of the sources. To do so is to demonstrate proper care. If you (Yworo) bother to check above you will see various suggestions including self professed. You can of course participate in that discussion or you can make silly threats and use childish abbreviations of user names. Your call ----Snowded ^TALK 22:25, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Does any source other than the Oxford Companion to Philosophy call Rand an amateur philosopher? The other terms that have been proposed, including 'self-professed', are quite unacceptable. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:32, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

You are incorrect, Snowded. It is not our job to judge or balance the sources other than to make sure that they fit the criteria of reliability. To do so is to engage in original research. What our job is to do is to present what the sources say, in detail. Where they disagree, we detail who says what. But we don't do it in the lead sentence - we summarize it in the lead section. "Amateur philopher" is not a summary of what the sources say, it is the choosing of one opinion from among several, and we should not be doing this. Period. Yworo (talk) 22:35, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

In addition, the exclusion from a "major international dictionary of Philosophy" is actually moot. Because an international dictionary of Philosophy is a tertiary source, which we are actually supposed to be avoiding in preference for using secondary sources. So, your argument is simply a bad one that ignores several different policies and guidelines about sourcing and how to deal with ranges of opinion when sources differ. Including opinion in the lead sentence is not something that can be done by "consensus", so the long and tedious discussions you refer to above are also moot with respect to this issue. Yworo (talk) 22:40, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

IN fact a whole bunch of major sources where she should be mentioned if she was considered a philosopher ignore her completely. You can't say that if there is one source that says something that established it when calling her a philosopher is controversial. That would mean that the lede was taking one perspective only. I am not wild about 'amateur' as it doesn't reflect the rejection of any claim both stated and defacto by significant authorities. So if it is to be in the lede there has to be an accurate summary of the position. So we need to explore options rather that write 'Period' at the end of our posts as if that somehow or other conferred them with special authority. We could just leave it out, or that say its controversial or say that she has been called, or called herself a philosopher. What we can't do is to assert a controversial title without qualification. ----Snowded ^TALK 22:47, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

That some works of reference dealing with philosophy don't mention Rand at all is totally irrelevant. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:52, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

But again, you only know this because you are doing original research. Not permitted. Period. RFC opened below on the topic. Let's get some real biographers in here instead of the usual collection of pro- and anti-Rand people sniping at each other. From Wikipedia POV, it's only "controversial" if you have one or more reliable sources that directly state that it is controversial. Do you have such sources? If you did, then you wouldn't be relying on synthesis and original research. Wikipedia policy does not allow us to conclude anything by doing original research to compile a dubious "list of sources she would be in if she were really a philospher". That's utter crap as a research technique. Yworo (talk) 22:49, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh my God, more 'periods' and the odd swear word. If someone is a philosopher one would expect to find him or her in the major dictionaries and encyclopaedias on the subject. Its a bit like pseudo-science articles. If a few sources say its objective but the majority of sources simply ignore it then we take the weight of sources into account. We also have sources which reject or qualify the word. You seem to be assuming that one position (that she is) should be in lede despite the fact that the designation is controversial. I think that puts you onto one side of the 'usual collection' ----Snowded ^TALK 23:18, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's not acceptable reasoning. The absence of a particular person from an encyclopedia or dictionary of philosophy doesn't mean that the person in question isn't a philosopher - it may mean that they are a philosopher, but that the editor or editors of the work didn't consider them an important enough philosopher to be worth including. In any case, the simple absence of someone's name from such works doesn't cancel out statements by other reliable sources that the person is a philosopher. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:38, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment: Qualifying "philosopher" in the lead sentence

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Ayn Rand is described by multiple reliable sources as a "philosopher". Some, but not all, of these sources qualify this by adding opinions such as "amateur", "self-styled", etc. Is it appropriate to include any of these opinions in the lead sentence, or should they rather be discussed and compared in detail in the body of the article without including any of the qualifiers in the lead sentence? Yworo (talk) 22:47, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

The opening statement by Yworo is neither neutral nor factually correct, therefore this RFC is invalid. They key source, which it does not appear anyone actually read, is here. 16:03, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

If I call someone an amateur gynecologist, I'm not sharing my opinion of them, I'm qualifying the designation to highlight the fact that they're not actually licensed to practice medicine. In the same way, if we call Ayn Rand a philosopher without qualifications, we would be implying that she has the academic background and standing in the field. This is flatly false: the consensus of actual philosophers pointedly excludes her from their ranks.

The question is not whether she is some sort of philosopher, but precisely what sort she is, hence what sort we must describe her as. MilesMoney (talk) 03:31, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of reverting your striking of Yworo's comments. Please do not do that kind of thing. Alter the RfC if need be, but don't do it that way. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:00, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Alter it how, then? I didn't want to remove the dishonest framing because then I couldn't point out its dishonesty. MilesMoney (talk) 04:23, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Alter it as I have now altered it. Remember that the revision history of the talk page stores all past versions of it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:32, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I've altered it. They can go look at the history if they're curious. MilesMoney (talk) 04:58, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

You are not permitted to modify anyone else's talk page comments. I started and framed this RfC, you do not get to change it. That's standard talk page rules. Don't you or anyone else do it again. Yworo (talk) 22:24, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Do you need a license to be a philosopher? Is there an expectation that a philosopher has a license? -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 04:04, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

You do need a degree or equivalent knowledge to be anything but an amateur philosopher. Rand had neither, as our sources confirm. MilesMoney (talk) 04:23, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

She is a trained philosopher, she studied Philosophy in the University of Petrograd, I think this case is closed, we can remove qualifiers like amateur, self-styled etc --DagonAmigaOS (talk) 08:15, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

That's like saying that if I took woodworking for shop in primary school, I'm a carpenter. We don't get to do such original research; we have to trust our sources when they say she's not trained at the level expected for a professional. If they call her an amateur -- and they do -- then we must. MilesMoney (talk) 12:40, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

How about, if you make things out of wood as your occupation, then you're a carpenter. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 14:48, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

How about that's not what our sources say about Rand so we have to go with our sources. Making stuff out of wood, even if you get paid for it, doesn't mean you work at the level that professional carpenters do. Professional carpenters get to evaluate your work and decide if they also consider you a professional, if they accept you as one of them based on your abilities. That's how it works with philosophy, anyhow, and it's why Rand is an amateur. MilesMoney (talk) 16:14, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

That's interesting. "Amateur" has more than one meaning. One of them is purely factual: in that meaning, the person pursues an avocation without pay or professional position. This is somewhat true of Rand (she did get paid for her philosophical writings, but did not have any formal position). The other meaning is an opinion about the quality of the person's work: it means inept or lacking in skill. If Quinton (the author whose article you consistently cite as the source for "amateur") classified Rand as "amateur" because he evaluated her work as lacking, then that is his opinion of her and should be attributed as such in the article. (See the policy at WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV.) For instance, in the section on academic reaction, it might say, "Philosopher Anthony Quinton described her philosophy as "amateur" in an article for The Oxford Companion to Philosophy." Such an opinion should not go into the basic description of the person, although if it were shared by enough sources (more than one actual, explicit source, not just referring to one source as "our sources"), then it might be mentioned somewhere later in the lead. --RL0919 (talk) 16:54, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you know what an opinion is. MilesMoney (talk) 17:03, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• No qualifiers in lead. Discussion about ranges of opinions of a biographical subject belong in the article body. No one of several conflicting opinions should be arbitrarily be chosen to qualify a profession in the lead sentence. That is a direct violation of WP:NPOV. Yworo (talk) 22:58, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

This view is refuted by the problem of the amateur gynecologist. If we wait until the body to mention that he's not actually a trained, licensed gynecologist, we mislead the many people who never make it out of the lede. The term, without qualifiers, is not accurate, so we have to use qualifiers from the start. MilesMoney (talk) 12:58, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

• Maybe - It all depends. Some terms ("self professed", or "self styled") are so obviously biased that we couldn't use them. In other cases, such as "amateur", they might be acceptable, but it depends on exactly what the sources say. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:02, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
  • If all the sources agreed on a single term, sure. But if they don't, we can't make it "as if" they did. Yworo (talk) 23:04, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
    • By the same logic, since they don't agree that she is, in the unqualified sense, a philosopher, we can't call her that. MilesMoney (talk) 04:31, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
      • Based on what RL0919 has said below, I am changing my vote. Exclude qualifiers from the lead. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:12, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't base anything on what RL0919 says. Go read the source for yourself. MilesMoney (talk) 16:05, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• Wrongly phrased but has to be qualified given evidence - the designation philosopher is controversial so its use is problematic (and a violation of WP:NPOV without either qualification in some way or as an alternative removal from the lede. ----Snowded ^TALK 23:21, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

• Needs qualification - We have many sources which qualify her brand of philosophy as "popular", "amateur", "self-styled" and "self-professed", while others intentionally exclude her from the list of philosophers. This includes the Oxford Companion to Philosophy, which is over a thousand pages long and has plenty of room for a paragraph or two on her, yet the editor stated that he chose not to include her. We cannot call her, without qualification, a philosopher. We have to use "amateur" or "self-styled". MilesMoney (talk) 03:31, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
  • We can't use "self-styled" - it's a blatantly biased, unencyclopedic term. It wouldn't be NPOV to use it in the lead, just as it wouldn't be NPOV to use a term like "fraudulent so-called philosopher", even if it did appear in a reliable source. Regarding the Oxford Companion, what edition are you talking about? What does the editor actually say? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:27, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

The current edition, which is to say the second. I quoted from it above; go look. MilesMoney (talk) 04:23, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

The second edition excludes Roger Scruton as well. He is well known as a philosopher, and had been included in the first edition. Obviously one can't use exclusion from that volume as evidence that someone isn't a philosopher. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:27, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

The second edition identifies Rand as an amateur philosopher, and it goes out of its way to say that it rejected an article on Rand, along with one on "marital act", because they "did not penetrate [the editor's] fortress of philosophical principle". Sounds pretty clear; she's not a philosopher in general, she's am amateur philosopher. MilesMoney (talk) 04:40, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't use Scruton as an example because, while he doesn't have a biographical article, he is referenced as a source over half a dozen times. Rand is mentioned twice, both times dismissively, and never as a source. MilesMoney (talk) 04:44, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

What exactly does it say about her? Could you please quote the relevant passages? (I looked at your comments above, but there weren't any direct quotations, as far as I could see). FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:51, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Please take a look near the bottom of Talk:Objectivism. Search for 762, the page number. MilesMoney (talk) 05:00, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I looked, but I didn't find anything. Is that the right page? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:32, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, that's the disambiguation page. It should be Talk:Objectivism (Ayn Rand). Again, search for 762. MilesMoney (talk) 05:43, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, I found it. But it doesn't really answer what I wanted to know - does the work use the specific expression "amateur philosopher" to describe Rand? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:53, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

No, it does not. The entry is titled "popular philosophy", which the author breaks into three subgroups, one of which is "amateur philosophy". In the discussion of this subgroup, the author states, "In the twentieth century amateur systems increasingly failed to find their way into print..." The author then lists some exceptions, one of which is "Ayn Rand, strenuous exponent of objectivism and self-interest." The exact phrase "amateur philosopher" is not used in the article to describe anyone. --RL0919 (talk) 12:20, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

You tried this before, and I asked you what sort of philosopher makes an amateur philosophy. You were unable to come up with any way to avoid the obvious answer: an amateur philosopher. Basic English comprehension is required. MilesMoney (talk) 12:43, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Your comments are just an excuse for engaging in original research. It simply isn't appropriate to call someone an "amateur philosopher" if there is no source that actually uses that expression to describe her. I will be changing my vote to exclude the qualifiers from the lead - and I thank RL0919 for explaining what the Oxford Companion actually states. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:01, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

There's no original research in understanding basic English. Someone who makes an amateur philosophy is an amateur philosopher. This is uncontroversial and obvious, but RL0919 put his little spin on it. MilesMoney (talk) 16:18, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

You are of course free to conclude whatever you want from the Oxford Companion, but WP:NOR is a very strict policy. If the sources don't call someone an amateur philosophy, then we can't do so either. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:15, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

You need to actually read WP:NOR before you say stuff that's not true. What it actually says is:

"Best practice is to research the most reliable sources on the topic and summarize what they say in your own words, with each statement in the article attributable to a source that makes that statement explicitly. Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication"

Like I said, you can't argue that this summary changes the meaning, unless you can somehow explain how a professional philosopher makes an amateur philosophy. You can't, of course, so you're misinterpreting policy to avoid accepting what our source say. This makes you opinion incorrect. MilesMoney (talk) 04:20, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• No qualifiers - You don't need a license/degree to be a full-fledged philosopher any more than you need one to be a full-fledged author or painter. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 04:06, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

According to our sources, creating a philosophical system while lacking a degree or equivalent knowledge makes you an amateur philosopher. MilesMoney (talk) 04:24, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Where do they say that? -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 04:30, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

One place is page 762 of the Oxford Companion to Philosophy, which is an extremely high quality source. MilesMoney (talk) 04:37, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

The Ayn Rand Society is affiliated with the American Philosophical Association which hosts talks about Objectivism with Academic speakers i.e. Fred D. Jr. Miller (Bowling Green State University), Robert Mayhew (Seton Hall University), Christine Swanton (University of Auckland), Lester Hunt (University of Wisconsin–Madison), William Glod (Institute for Humane Studies), Allan Gotthelf (University of Pittsburgh), Gregory Salmieri (University of North Carolina–Chapel Hill). It appears that in the USA Academia it is recognized as a philosophy with no qualifiers. --DagonAmigaOS (talk) 20:01, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your original research, but it's irrelevant. The ARS is a group of actual philosophers, but Ayn Rand is their inspiration, not a member. Think this through and follow our sources, not your heart. MilesMoney (talk) 16:22, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Good catch, Miles. What these philosophers study is obviously not Ayn Rand's philosophy, but her hair cut.(/s) μηδείς (talk) 20:18, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Rand is dead, so Objectivism is no longer hers alone. If they wish to rescue it from amateur status, they're free to try. MilesMoney (talk) 04:20, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• No qualifiers is my first choice, simply because it is clear from the past weeks of debate that any qualifier will be perceived as POV by some group of people. This was also the stable wording for several years before the current dispute. I had proposed "non-academic" as a neutral qualifier that is supported by several sources, but apparently some think this is somehow too flattering. "Amateur" and "self-styled" are obviously negative POV and only rarely used in sources -- note that one editor keeps referencing one source for "amateur", and it doesn't even use the specific phrase "amateur philosopher". "Popular" is used in a number of sources but could be interpreted as positive POV. Another phrase used somewhat commonly is "public philosopher", but this doesn't seem to offer any information beyond the plain term "philosopher". I have worked up a list of sources using various phrasings here. --RL0919 (talk) 12:20, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for showing us that you don't understand WP:NPOV. Neutrality means following our sources, not avoiding those which might make her look good or bad. Your evaluation of the positive or negative connotations of these terms is wrong in the details, but it's wrong-headed to begin with. The unquestionable fact is that academic philosophers generally have a very low opinion of her qualifications. Is that "negative"? We don't care. We just report what our sources say, even if some of her fans are offended. MilesMoney (talk) 12:45, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

And you don't understand WP:NPOV either. We don't put such opinions in the lead sentence. We detail them, with sources, in the article body. Yworo (talk) 22:14, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

As I explained in the stuff you erased, this is not an opinion, it's a qualification. If I say someone is a Russian author, the "Russian" is a qualification of "author", so that you don't mistakenly assume they wrote in English. It's a fact, though, not any sort of opinion. Likewise, we have to call Rand an amateur philosopher, qualifying it so that nobody mistakes her for an academic philosopher. MilesMoney (talk) 16:01, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

If we don't want anyone to mistake her for an academic philosopher, the most direct qualifier to use would be "non-academic". That's undoubtedly neutral, since it doesn't have the alternate negative meaning of "inept" (as "amateur" does). It is also used to describe Rand in several peer-reviewed sources -- more than use the term "amateur". --RL0919 (talk) 16:11, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

No, non-academic is incomplete. The OCP article mentions non-academic philosophers who are nonetheless not counted as amateurs, but counts Rand as an amateur. As for the negative connotation, so what? Even if it's true, it doesn't matter; the negative connotations are accurate according to our sources. MilesMoney (talk) 16:26, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Source. You keep citing one and referring to it with the plural. It's interesting how some folks are OK with a negative connotation supported by one source, but a term used by many more sources ("popular philosopher") is unacceptable to them because it might be interpreted with a positive connotation. Anyhow, if a source (or sources where multiple exist) expresses an opinion about the quality of Rand's work, then it needs to be characterized as such rather than presented as an undisputed fact. --RL0919 (talk) 16:54, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

The problem with "popular" is that it's doubly-ambiguous, not that it's positive or negative. It's ambiguous in that the OCP offers three definitions, applying only one to Rand. It's more ambiguous because the common meaning is that she's popular, which is uncontested but also irrelevant to this issue. You claimed that you didn't understand what "popular" meant, so we narrowed it down to the specific intended meaning: "amateur". Deal with it. MilesMoney (talk) 17:13, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

The problem with this interpretation is this one OCP article is the only place where "amateur" is a subset of "popular". In standard usage the two don't mean the same thing, so unless someone specifically references the OCP article or gives a similar explanation to it, there is no reason to think they mean "amateur" when they say "popular". "Popular philosopher" in most cases is going to mean "philosopher who writes for a general, non-specialist audience". (In a few cases regarding Rand it clearly means "she's popular" because the text is explicit about it.) That person might or might not be an amateur. Mortimer Adler, for example, was a popular philosopher who was also a trained professional. --RL0919 (talk) 17:26, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

That's why it's misleading: she's not a trained professional who writes for a general audience. She's someone who bypassed the training, bypassed writing for academia and wrote only for the general audience. That's what makes her an amateur. MilesMoney (talk) 17:41, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• No qualifiers - You don't have to be a card-carrying philosopher to be a philosopher, but in any case, Rand has a card - from the University of Petrograd. The addition of various qualifiers, invariably with negative connotation, is a blatant NPOV violation. To argue that using a neutral term is guilty of positive POV is disingenuous to say the least.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 13:34, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your original research, but that "card" was viewed and rejected by the experts, so we have to go with their view, not yours. Calling her "amateur" is factual. If you dislike the term itself, come up with a better one. People have tried: "self-professed", "self-avowed". MilesMoney (talk) 15:59, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Original research!! How, might I ask? There are numerous high-quality sources which use the term without qualification, and numerous more which verify her education. Yes, there are other high quality sources which explicitly disagree with that view. In the case of numerous, high-quality sources which are in disagreement, the correct course of action is to use the most neutral term in the lead (unqualified) and then detail the controversy, such as it is, later in the body. Your insistence that a non-neutral term is needed to reflect what your perceive as a majority POV is a severe misinterpretation of WP:NPOV.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 05:47, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

There are numerous sources that call Canseco an athlete, yet we have to mention baseball. MilesMoney (talk) 05:57, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Your example is NPOV. Your proposal is not.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 07:36, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

You're offering a conclusion without reasoning. That's not persuasive. MilesMoney (talk) 19:45, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I'll spell my reasoning out for you: I find the sources sufficiently reliable to verify Ayn Rand's unqualified status as a philosopher.I don't think I've ever had an editor so barefacedly refuse to engage - please Miles, take a step back and consider your behaviour. -Yeti Hunter (talk) 23:05, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Nowhere in there do you explain why we should ignore the Oxford Companion to Philosophy. MilesMoney (talk) 00:11, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't for a moment think we should ignore the OCP. It is an excellent ref for the controversy over Rand's status. However it does not negate the numerous RSSs that do consider her a philosopher. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 03:58, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Everyone considers her to be some sort of philosopher, but the idea that she's a regular philosopher is directly contradicted by our sources, and I don't just mean OCP. We've seen her philosophical status qualified with a variety of terms, from "popular" to "self-avowed" and, yes, even "amateur". With all this, we can't just call her a philosopher because it would be misleading. We have to say that she "wrote philosophical essays" or "created an amateur philosophical system", both of which are verifiable. MilesMoney (talk) 04:03, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Amen, brother! "Everyone considers her to be some sort of philosopher" - I couldn't have said it better myself.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 04:43, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, some sort, but not a regular philosopher. That's why we have to specify that she's not a regular philosopher, just some sort of one. MilesMoney (talk) 05:42, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• No qualifiers as she is known mainly for her philosophy and such terms as "amateur" and "self-styled" are inappropriately biased against her views.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:09, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

She's known for her Objectivism, but not for being a proper philosopher. We call her an "amateur" because that's the neutral, accurate term. It doesn't matter if it offends her fans. MilesMoney (talk) 15:56, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• Qualifier needed Philosophers overwhelmingly rejected her philosophy as preposterous. Many RS qualify her as an "amateur" or "popular" philosopher. She held no academic position or formal training in philosophy. Steeletrap (talk) 05:00, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
  • How do you know this? Did someone survey philosophers worldwide, to find out what they think of Rand? I would be surprised if most philosophers had expressed any opinion about her at all. Some philosophers outside the Anglo-Saxon world probably haven't even heard of her. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:23, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
    • But that is the point, she is ignored because nearly all serious philosophers who even look at her realise quickly that she wasn't one. Its far from clear that she even read Kant despite criticising him. We now have specific evidence of rejection as well as de factor so its perverse to deny it. The odd source making a claim against the weight of evidence would skew a lot of wikipedia pages----Snowded ^TALK 06:34, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
      • It's pointless to debate why most philosophers don't mention Rand (though I suspect most philosophers pay little attention to anyone, besides a handful of recognized major figures, outside their own specialities). The more important issue is that, despite assertions to the contrary, there doesn't seem to be a source that specifically calls Rand an "amateur philosopher". FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:28, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
        • Pointless if you don't want to deal with evidence maybe. Your suspicion is a complete nonsense if you do the most basic research on some of the very minor figures included in the major dictionaries of Philosophy. The fact she is excluded and adversely commented on even by objectivists in respect of her abilities is significant. Its something her fans don;t like but it is a simple fact that her status as a philosopher is controversial ----Snowded ^TALK 08:05, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
          • I've asked you about this before, do you have a source that says that "her status as a philosopher is controversial"? Because that's what Wikipedia needs if you want to present it as "controversial". You can't just say "the sources disagree" if the only way you know that is by doing original research. Yworo (talk) 08:56, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
            • If you go back into the history, her exclusion from the Oxford companion, the statement that she had not read Kant, the major objectivist philosopher who questioned her ability. The talk pages of this example a littered with examples over the years. Given that we have to summarise what the weight of the sources say. To do so is not original research, the idea that every statement has to be directly sources is a common error of naive editors; if we followed that all articles would simply string together quotes. What we are not allowed to do is draw a conclusion not present in those sources. If you take that attitude vast swathes of the article have to be deleted. ----Snowded ^TALK 09:39, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
              • WP:OR is pretty explicit: To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented. Yworo (talk) 10:01, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
                • And explicitly not including her in a list of philosophers is directly related ----Snowded ^TALK 14:28, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• No Qualifiers Very few professions require a specific acedemic degree to be recognized in that field. You must have an accredited medical degree to call yourself an MD, but others, like Nate Silver are called Statisticians without the appropriate acedemic degree. Rand is known for promoting Objectivism, a philosophical system. To say that you can't call her a philosopher would be as stupid as saying you can't call Socrates a philosopher because he didn't have a PhD, yet he is credited with philosophy. Arzel (talk) 16:00, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your original research, but the source that calls Rand an amateur does not consider Socrates one. Again, we have to go with our sources, not your beliefs. MilesMoney (talk) 16:11, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for completely missing the point. Your source, by the way, would consider Socrates an Amatuer. Arzel (talk) 17:02, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

You mean the source that says "Amateur philosophy as a genre is really a creation of the nineteenth century with its mass literacy and self-education"? Thanks for playing. MilesMoney (talk) 17:10, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Your basic argument is that you need to have an acedemic degree to be called a philosopher. Based on your own logic, several well known historical philosophers fail. You lose your own game. Arzel (talk) 17:31, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

You are mistaken: that is not my argument. The OCP is very clear on the possibility of someone lacking a degree but not being an amateur. I suggest you read the OCP article and re-read what I've been saying, because you're showing a lack of understanding. It's not that we disagree, but that you're mistaken about what the issues are. MilesMoney (talk) 17:43, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

These are your words. In the same way, if we call Ayn Rand a philosopher without qualifications, we would be implying that she has the academic background and standing in the field. You stated them at the top of the RfC. Clearly this is your primary objection. If this wasn't an issue for you than you should not have made this statement. Arzel (talk) 20:45, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry you misunderstood, but my words don't mean what you'd like them to. You should learn to read more carefully, and maybe you should ask questions instead of jumping to assumptions. MilesMoney (talk) 00:47, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Not sure how it is possible to misunderstand when you made them so clearly. In the future don't make arguments that you can't defend without saying that the other party didn't understand your porly written argument. Arzel (talk) 15:04, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how to answer this without, in effect, calling you stupid, so let's move the focus away from your error and back to the topic at hand. Regardless of what you imagined my argument to be, it's not what you said. Where does that leave you? MilesMoney (talk) 15:13, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

You have no defense for your argument so you resort to personal attacks. I would say this is pretty standard for your MO. Arzel (talk) 16:07, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

You invited me to personally attack you, but I declined. You have successfully attacked an argument I never made, then fallen flat on your face when the straw-manning was pointed out. Is this your standard MO? MilesMoney (talk) 16:16, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Great response, so you are saying that you would call me stupid but that would be a personal attack so you won't call me stupid. In effect you did call me stupid. And you continue to deny you plainly stated words, plus you have used that same reasoning several times against other editors. I would call you a liar, but that would be a personal attack, so I won't call you a liar. Arzel (talk) 13:41, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Bringing this back to the topic, I'm gonna point out your error. No amateur philosopher has a degree in Philosophy, but not everyone lacking such a degree is an amateur. Rather, some people have equivalent knowledge, so they're not amateurs regardless of education. Rand, however, is an amateur because she has neither the degree nor the equivalent knowledge (says OCP). Now that your error has been made clear, you conclusion has been invalidated. Nice chatting! MilesMoney (talk) 04:28, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually all you did was invalidate your own argument. Good Job! Also, your understanding of set theory is lacking. Arzel (talk) 15:05, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

You should know by now that bald conclusions are unpersuasive. As far as I can tell, your unsupported statement just means you didn't understand what I said. If you have a concrete argument, rather than an unexplained rejection, you're still free to share it. In its absence, I don't know what else to say other than I've shown you to be mistaken. Have a nice day. MilesMoney (talk) 16:07, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Then why do you continue to make them? I am not sure why you continue to deny what you have said. It does you no good to refuse to accept your own words. That you are unable to understand your own words is no fault of mine. In the future don't make arguments you don't understand. Arzel (talk) 16:52, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Your comments are neither accurate nor relevant to this discussion. I find them counterproductive and counsel you to reconsider your actions. MilesMoney (talk) 19:33, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• No Qualifiers the wording is not only obviously from a hostile POV, it is simply false. She did her senior oral exam on Plato. Any qualifications belong in the text, not the lead. μηδείς (talk) 19:23, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Hostility is not a disqualifier. Consider that an article on Creationism is going to describe the scientific consensus even though it's "hostile" towards the subject. It is a simple fact that Rand is not highly valued within academic philosophy, and yet it's academic philosophy that sets the standards for professionalism and therefore gets to judge Rand an amateur. In short, your argument is based on a false premise -- that we can dismiss the consensus due to "hostility" -- so the conclusion doesn't matter. Not that it matters, regardless, as this RFC is invalid due to the biased opening statement. MilesMoney (talk) 19:28, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

That's just silly. You admit hostility plays a role yet say we should ignore that? The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and The New York Times call her a philosopher, a chair at Austin studies her philosophy, there are dozens of books written on her philosophy, her books are shelved in the philosophy section of bookstores and libraries, there's no such thing as being a licensed philosopher, yet she is not a philosopher because....why, exactly? Can we have the exact reason why she, as opposed to the playwright Sartre, is not a philosopher? μηδείς (talk) 04:24, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

What's silly is that the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy says outright that academia is hostile towards her, but you want us to ignore that. She's not an unqualified philosopher because, according to philosophers, she doesn't have the training or equivalent knowledge. Instead, she is acknowledged as an amateur in the field. It is our job to reflect our sources, and if they're dismissive and hostile towards her, so be it. We are not their censors. Why don't you go complain that Adolph Hitler makes him sound like a bad man? MilesMoney (talk) 05:04, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

if the "Freaking Adolf Hitler gets an opening sentence that describes him in neutral terms. --RL0919" I don't see why Ayn Rand can't get a neutral opening. In the Standford encyclopedia and other encyclopedias gets a neutral opening she must get a neutral opening in the wikipedia too. Some philosophers are critical to her not all of them as the sources I gave you before point out and the space to point it is the criticism section. --DagonAmigaOS (talk) 11:07, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

No, we don't hide criticism in its own section; the WP:LEDE is expected to "summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies." Your attempt to bury the controversy is part of a pattern of consistent bias on your part, and it is counterproductive.

As for Hitler, look at what it says about him as a painter. He was a "professional" in that he sold a few paintings, but he was ruled as an amateur by the organization capable of giving him professional status. Ayn Rand was a philosopher the way Hitler was a painter; they both made stuff, sold it, but were considered amateurs by the pros. MilesMoney (talk) 14:56, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

There is no consensus by the "pros", there are "professional" philosophers in the USA that consider her a philosopher. The Standford Encyclopedia of philosophy is a highly respected source and refers to her as a philosopher without adjectives. At best you could write in a paragraph in the lead section that most of the British "pros" consider her as an amateur philosopher. The lead should start with a NPOV description like "Ayn Rand was an American novelist, playwright, an essayist and a philosopher" --DagonAmigaOS (talk) 15:41, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

In the SEP bio that everyone's always pointing at, it says, "Contemporary philosophers, by and large, returned the compliment by dismissing her work contemptuously, often on the basis of hearsay or cursory reading." Note that this is not restricted to the UK. The pair of sentences before that explain why she was dismissed: "Her views of past and contemporary Anglo-American philosophy, however, seem to have been based largely on summaries of philosophers' works and conversations with a few philosophers and with her young acolytes, themselves students of philosophy. Unfortunately, this did not stop her from commenting dismissively, and often contemptuously, on other philosophers' works." In other words, she criticized philosophers without a basic understanding of their views, which explains why the OCP calls her an amateur.

Regardless of the word "amateur", the lede absolutely must make it clear that she was dismissed by philosophers. MilesMoney (talk) 16:21, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

We have a deal then :) Start the lede with the NPOV "Ayn Rand was an American novelist, playwright, an essayist and a philosopher" and then put on your own words and sources this fact. --DagonAmigaOS (talk) 13:24, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm not authorized to make "deals" that violate policy. MilesMoney (talk) 19:10, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

She is listed in The Dictionary of Modern American Philosophers which is an indispensible reference work for scholars. Nowhere in this source is she mentioned as an amateur philosopher or with any other kind adjective. In fact it says "Peikoff is the preeminent interpreter of the ideas of the novelist-philosopher Ayn Rand." pp 1889 novelist is no adjective, it is just her other vocation. We follow the sources and we stick with a NPOV description of her. --DagonAmigaOS (talk) 15:55, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

No, a novelist-philosopher is a writer of philosophical novels, such as "Atlas Shrugged". It's yet another qualified subset of "philosopher". Speaking of which, I'm going to gently point out that you're an WP:SPA, so your opinion should be taken lightly. MilesMoney (talk) 04:30, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

You obviously ignore her philosophical essays like Introducing Objectivism, The Objectivist Ethics, Collectivized “Rights”, The Nature of Government and books like the Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, The Virtue of Selfishness, Philosophy Who Needs It etc. Leave the Ad hominem arguments and stay on the sources that I present like the Dictionary of Modern American Philosophers etc If she only had philosophical novels on her resume then you may had a point (even though you don't need to leave written text in order to be a philosopher, i.e Socrates) but she was both a novelist and a philosopher and she has the books to prove it, and philosophers that are objectivists, and sources that refer to her as a philosopher without adjectives --DagonAmigaOS (talk) 11:34, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

You'd think that a single-purpose account like yours would at least be good at that one purpose, but you keep making the same mistakes. Mostly, you just don't read. As the SDP article points out, her essays did not stand alone; they quoted from and required knowledge of her novels. Even when writing philosophical essays, she took the novelist's approach!

I've pointed out a few times that the OCP article directly excludes ancient philosophers from amateur status, but you keep bringing up Socrates as if he matters. It also doesn't matter if some sources call her a philosopher; we need to reflect all of our sources, and give more weight to higher-quality ones. We can't call her a philosopher because we have too many sources that qualify this term in various ways. That's the bottom line argument that you cannot refute. MilesMoney (talk) 16:13, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Stay on topic and leave the personal attacks out of this discussion. Many of her books stand alone without any knowledge of her novels, your source is British and just one, my sources are of high quality and American like Ayn Rand was and that's the place where she developed her philosophy. As I said The Dictionary of Modern American Philosophers is an indispensible reference work for scholars as is also the Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. In Britain Objectivism never took off and we can't take Oxford Companion book as our primary source. No offence to British, I'm not American, I'm European but that can't be the primary description, only a criticism --DagonAmigaOS (talk) 21:07, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I looked it up: I'm allowed to mention that you're an SPA; it's not a personal attack. And I'm allowed to criticize your argument for being so weak; also impersonal. You don't deny what I said about Socrates being excluded, so you're the one ignoring the points being made. Does that mean you accept that you're wrong about that? If so, say it.

This is Wikipedia, not Amurkapedia; we don't exclude sources for being British, or even for not speaking English at all. It's also a big fat lie to suggest that Rand was loved by the American philosophical establishment while Britain spurned her. Everywhere around the world, professional philosophers mostly ignore Rand, and when they don't, they most typically express extreme unhappiness with her. I'm not American, either, and I can tell you that my non-American intro-to-philosophy professor immediately shut down the poor Objectivist who spoke up and supported Rand. This is normal! Whatever merit her work had, it has not made much headway in academia.

Quinton used "amateur" matter-of-factly, not simply as an insult. He didn't single her out as being bad, he just recognized that her work wasn't up to professional standards, yet it got published. We have other sources admitting this even while defending her (see below).

So, in the end, you didn't even tackle some of my points but I refuted everything you said. Try not to take this as a personal attack, but for someone whose sole purpose on Wikipedia is to defend Rand, you could do a lot better. For one thing, you could actually address your opponents' arguments while defending your own. MilesMoney (talk) 22:06, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

So, is that what this is all about, your anti-Amurkan bigotry? Seriously? μηδείς (talk) 22:13, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I'm going to have to insist that you redact your personal attack. I am not a bigot. I was arguing against the notion that we should exclude non-American sources. MilesMoney (talk) 22:24, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• No qualifiers I am reminded of this dialogue: "We," said Majikthise, "are Philosophers." "Though we may not be," said Vroomfondel waving a warning finger at the programmers. "Yes we are," insisted Majikthise. "We are quite definitely here as representatives of the Amalgamated Union of Philosophers, Sages, Luminaries and Other Thinking Persons, and we want this machine off, and we want it off now!" "What's the problem?" said Lunkwill. "I'll tell you what the problem is mate," said Majikthise, "demarcation, that's the problem!" Warden (talk) 10:04, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

It does not appear that your reasoning has anything to do with Wikipedia policy or the content of the sources. It seems like original research. MilesMoney (talk) 19:46, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

• No qualifiers. As proposed, I find this lacking in neutrality. There are better ways to describe this controversy, such as Rand faced opposition from academics who viewed her as an amateur. This can be stated in the lead, outside of the first sentence. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:22, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not against a more balanced lede, overall, but why start by misleading (no pun intended), only to correct later? MilesMoney (talk) 16:13, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• Alternative – describe her as a "philosophical essayist". This term has not been suggested in any of talk, here or in the archives. – S. Rich (talk) 16:06, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

That's better than claiming she's a philosopher. MilesMoney (talk) 19:27, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok, here's some direct support, from SDP:

"She wrote polemical, philosophical essays"

I think this is both clear and unassailable. MilesMoney (talk) 19:49, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but making up special terms like that is called wikipedia:synthesis. You won't find 1/100th the number of sources calling her a "philosophical essayist" than you will denying she's a philosopher, let alone the sources calling her a philosopher. μηδείς (talk) 21:47, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

With all due respect, you are showing your ignorance on the facts. "Philosophical essayist" is no more a "special term" than "amateur philosopher", and has a least as much support when applied to Rand. More to the point, it may be a way out of the current debate over "amateur". Your comments are out of touch with reality and highly counterproductive. MilesMoney (talk) 22:12, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

"Philosophical essayist" is no good. It's just a fancy euphemism for "philosopher." FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:27, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

And she's not a philosopher, at least not a regular one, right? But this actually sidesteps the problem. Whether she's qualified as popular, amateur, non-academic or whatever, nobody denies that she wrote philosophical essays. MilesMoney (talk) 22:31, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

The point is that calling someone a "philosophical essayist" cannot mean anything different from calling them a "philosopher." So there is no possible advantage to using such a term. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:09, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

That's not an objection if you believe she should be called a philosopher. MilesMoney (talk) 23:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes it is. "Philosophical essayist" means the same thing as "philosopher", but it's a bad way of saying it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:37, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• No qualifiers. Best explained in the body for many of the reasons given above. Jason from nyc (talk) 13:41, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
• Solution! Take a look at the second paragraph of Journals of Ayn Rand#Contents. We see her describing herself – in early years – as an amateur philosopher. Thus we add "in early years she described herself as an amateur philosopher". If this quote (in the Journals article) is correct, then it satisfies the Less Filling faction because it uses that particular term, and the More Taste faction gets their way because the article does not go on to keep the "amateur" moniker as the be all and end all descriptive. – S. Rich (talk) 22:32, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, while she recognized that she started as an amateur, she was convinced that she'd become trained herself out of it. Hwoever, According to Quinton, she didn't stop being an amateur until 1982-06-03. MilesMoney (talk) 22:38, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RFC wording

Yworo, if I were you, I would simply accept the rewording of the rfc. There's not much point in complaining about whether it is "permitted" for someone to alter the wording, if altering the wording has the effect of making the rfc more neutral. Why insist on a slanted wording, when it could be neutral? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:29, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I will not permit it to be changed. Period. Don't like it, wait until the RfC is over (one month) and start your own. Yworo (talk) 22:31, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Changing it indicate that you also don't know how RfCs work. The wording of the originator may be picked up and used elsewhere, such as on a list of RfCs. This is an RfC I wrote, neither you nor anyone else get to change it. Yworo (talk) 22:34, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Also, the changes made the presentation less neutral, not more. Yworo (talk) 22:35, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Neither the original wording nor the revised were neutral. They just slant in different directions. In theory it should be worded neutrally, but in my experience it doesn't make much difference what the slant is as long as it is obvious. --RL0919 (talk) 22:37, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that changing it clearly violates WP:TPO and also means that the various respondents are responding to different questions, queering the outcome. Nobody gets to change other people's comments, even an RfC, even if they think it is "non-neutral". Sheesh. Idiots. Yworo (talk) 22:41, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Yworo is behaving foolishly. He was obviously biased in how he framed the rfc, and now he can't or won't admit this. His comments really aren't worthy of any further reply - and I do have better things to do than to discuss this with him. (Maybe he should be reminded about WP:NPA, however?) FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:44, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

The revision history of this talk page shows that Yworo directed an obscene comment at me, then immediately removed it. This is unambiguous vandalism. I hope that the user won't continue such infantile behavior. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:08, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Yworo, you won't permit your biased opening statement to be changed? Well, you can either have your cake or eat it. If you change the statement to something neutral, then you might get enough people unfamiliar with the issue to support you, or you might not, but the results would be binding for a time. But if you leave it biased, then RFC as a whole is compromised and therefore invalid. Nobody has to follow an RFC that's based on a biased opening statement, and nobody will. So you decide which way you want it, but you can't have it both ways. MilesMoney (talk) 15:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

It would be refreshing (and helpful) to see actual suggestions for a revised RfC statement. Consider, this is a debate about the best way to resolve another debate. To complicate matters we see violations of NPA and AGF. – S. Rich (talk) 16:04, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I already provided a revised RfC statement, but Yworo won't "permit" it, as if they have any say in it. MilesMoney (talk) 16:09, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Of course I have a say in the matter, per WP:TALK. And WP:RFC doesn't give anyone authority to override WP:TALK. It says that I may ask for help if I want. If I did want, I wouldn't ask you. Your "revision" was at best equally biased in the opposite direction (that's being extremely generous), and in my personal opinion was way way more intentionally slanted to get your desired result than is my rendition. (Especially since I don't actually give a rat's ass about Rand, I just saw a sitation where I believe that other editors were being repeatedly browbeaten by a couple of forceful personalities using bad arguments and mostly intimidation. Not naming any names, but if the shoe fits, feel free to yowl!) Yworo (talk) 15:40, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

RFC's are not personal property; they're meant to organize the community into a productive discussion. According to policy, you're obligated to:

"Include a brief, neutral statement of the issue in the talk page section, immediately below the RfC template."

By no means was your opening statement brief and neutral, so what you've created is an RFC in name only, and no more binding than any other fraud. Based on the examples, you should have written something like:

"Should we refer to Rand in the lede as a philosopher or should we modify this with a qualifier?"

Then we could have each given our arguments and debated them on neutral terms. An RFC like that would actually count for something and I would abide by its results, however grudgingly. Your "RFC" is halfway between an insult and a joke, and your insistence on owning it is ridiculous and contrary to policy. You show a strong WP:BATTLEFIELD mentality that makes it very hard to work with you. MilesMoney (talk) 03:23, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I think it is an overreaction to suggest the question is biased. Certainly not so biased as to invalidate the RFC, or influence it's outcome in any way. It is factually accurate - "some but not all". If you wanted to be really really balanced, you might add that there also exist some sources which deny she is a philosopher altogether. But that would begin to make the RFC wording clumsy, and in any case the point has been made many many times in the discussion. I suspect a refusal to accept what is looking like a quite decisive outcome in this RFC will not be looked upon forbearingly. -Yeti Hunter (talk) 23:02, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Personally, what we think personally is a lot less important than what policy says, and policy says this is a fake RFC. Read the policy and see for yourself. There's a reason why RFC's require a neutral framing: when they're biased, we get meaningless results. It doesn't help that so many participants are actively ignorant of the relevant sources and policies, and are instead going on gut feeling alone. MilesMoney (talk) 03:23, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I see nothing at WP:RFC which suggests that the RFC above would be invalid. The phrasing is at least close to neutral, certainly not blatantly and shockingly biased as your protestations imply. The suggested change you give above is fine, but only really a less wordy version of yworo's. I have seen many far more long-winded RFCs. While the guideline (not "policy") does suggest that the initiating editor may modify the question at the suggestion of others, they are under no compulsion to do so. You could have suggested a modified opening statement either privately or in a threaded discussion; instead you chose to edit war, cry foul when you were reverted, and respond to every contrary opinion with hostility and condescension. Please - lower the temperature a bit. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 14:27, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to take responsibility for Yworo's absolute refusal to change his long, biased and inaccurate opening statement. He's the reason the RFC is dead in the water. MilesMoney (talk) 16:13, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

That's your opinion. I don't think there is a consensus that it is, and unless there is a consensus that it's invalid, then it's perfectly valid. It's the respondants to the RfC who get to judge this, by consensus, not you alone. You've have your big bold say about it, and hardly anyone responding to the RfC agrees. Yworo (talk) 16:13, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you understand the role of consensus here. Please re-read the policy. MilesMoney (talk) 17:53, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, the RfC has been closed in my favor, with a thoughtful analysis, so I think it must be you lacking the understanding and who has been editing disruptively as well as generating more smoke than light on this talk page. Yworo (talk) 17:58, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

The only thing that makes an RfC valid is its adherence to the rules. This one violated them from the start, so being "closed" by a non-admin who doesn't appear to understand the basics of WP:RFC carries no weight. On the positive side, it does end the farce, since we no longer have to pretend to have an RfC. On the negative, you're going to claim victory and continue to edit war. MilesMoney (talk) 18:02, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Page protection requested

I've requested at WP:RPP for the article to be full-protected again, since it appears folks just can't let the RFC play out. At least one editor is already at 3RR and a couple of others are at 2RR. Also, anyone who perhaps missed the notice at the top of this talk page should be advised that this page is subject to discretionary sanctions, so please be on your best behavior. --RL0919 (talk) 00:04, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Holy crap, just LOOK at this page. This is what drives people away from editing. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 00:17, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Nothing like an RfC to bring a bit of order out of chaos. I am wondering how long it will take the regular editors to propose actual workable third and fourth compromise options, which seems to have eluded them in spite of such a lengthy prior discussion. Yworo (talk) 02:09, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I offered up a compromise. It just wasn't good enough. Agreed on page protection until disputes are resolved. I want to emphasize that I have not engaged in, nor do I intend to engage in any edit wars. Nonetheless, I cannot in good conscience walk away from what I perceive to be a violation of NPOV and source policy. Adam9389 (talk) 02:20, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Key source for RFC

Before participating in the invalid RFC, you should read the key source here MilesMoney (talk) 18:52, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

How many threads are you going to start on this? You are being disruptive rather than admit consensus. μηδείς (talk) 04:28, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Which consensus is that? The "consensus" of opinions from people who are huge fans of Rand and don't understand what our sources say? MilesMoney (talk) 05:05, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't want this to get lost, so I'm reposting it here:

"It is unfortunate that Ayn Rand’s ideas have not been taken seriously by many professional philosophers. I would like to suggest that readers view Rand’s potential contributions to philosophy as analogous to those of the German writers Goethe and Schiller. Neither of the latter was a professional philosopher—both were poets and playwrights—yet they did write philosophical essays that have been taken seriously by philosophers. Similarly, Ayn Rand was a novelist who wrote philosophical essays that should be taken seriously by philosophers."

Montessori, Dewey, and Capitalism, Educational Theory for a Free Market in Education, Jerry Kirkpatrick, p. 83, http://www.tljbooks.com/MDC.pdf

This is a fine example of someone supporting Rand while still admitting she's not a professional philosopher. She was some sort of philosopher, but not a straight-up one, as this confirms. MilesMoney (talk) 19:41, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

If we want to judge Rand by the same standard as Goethe --their bodies of work-- then Rand is no philosopher at all. Goethe was a polymath and, as with artists then and now, his wide-ranging body of work was his credential. Rand really has no such body of work; she was to philosophy what Richard Feynman was to art: both produced a small body of work that was narrow in scope and not of high quality when judged dispassionately, but is nevertheless appreciated by those with an emotional reason to do so.

The late Eric Hoffer's wiki article begins Eric Hoffer (July 25, 1902 – May 21, 1983) was an American moral and social philosopher. It's a good description. I don't care for his work, but one comes away from it with the feeling that he spent a lot of time thinking deeply, which is pretty much the definition of a philosopher.

Rand could perhaps be described as "a socioeconomic polemicist" or "socioeconomic essayist", but to use the word "philosopher" is at best an undeserved courtesy (note that Sciabarra is described in his article as a "political theorist", not a "political philosopher"). Reading her work, and about her life, strongly suggests to me, a clinical psychologist, that she was little more than a borderline-diagnosable opportunistic narcissist who realized she could make money appealing to others of her kind. 98.118.26.43 (talk) 13:40, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

We definitely have sources that speak of her polemical writings. In the general public, she is best known for her political philosophy, which is to say her support for what everyone but her called libertarianism -- and not for her insights into epistemology. In academia, the situation is often reversed: her political philosophy is treated like garbage, while the more technical material is picked over carefully before ultimately being rejected.

It would not be at all difficult to find sources calling her a narcissist, both in the casual and clinical sense. Keep in mind that her close associate (read: ex-lover) Nathaniel Branden has been instrumental in the pro-narcissism "self-esteem" movement in psychiatry, so it all fits together.

The second-hardest thing is finding reliable sources to support these phrases. By far the hardest is to get them into the article against the wished of her ardent fans. It has been a slog. MilesMoney (talk) 14:56, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 26 September 2013

Remove word "untrained" from lead sentence. It is false. Rand studied Philosophy at University of Petrograd and did her senior oral exam on Plato. [2] So "untrained" is simply not true and should be removed. Furthermore the current consensus in the RfC is not to use any qualifier in the lead sentence. Yworo (talk) 22:43, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I object to this, of course. While I don't think "untrained" is the ideal word, calling her a philosopher without qualifying it appropriately would violate policy by going against our sources.

FWIW, Yworo is factually wrong. Rand took a couple of undergrad classes, but she was by no means a trained philosopher. She has no degree in philosophy, and we have sources calling her self-styled, self-professed and amateur. Yworo quotes a fan site, but the more neutral Standford Dictionary of Philosophy says: "She majored in history, but the social science program in which she was enrolled at Petrograd State University included philosophy, law, and philology." She then went on to attend the State Institute for Cinematography, you know, like any philosopher.

Having said this, I'm not particularly fond of "untrained", even though I'm the one who came up with it as an attempt to compromise. For one thing, the fact that she has any academic exposure, however minor, gives people like Yworo something to complain about. I also considered "undertrained" and "slightly trained", but these aren't so great, either.

I'd be fine going back to "amateur" or "self-avowed". I'd also be ok with leaving it alone for now. MilesMoney (talk) 00:58, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Agreed with Yworo, although I think snow closing the RfC and opening the article is a better solution, with blocks for further disruption by the sole editor here causing it. μηδείς (talk) 04:31, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Is it true that I'm the only editor pushing for qualifying what type of philosopher she is in the lede? No, it is not, so you lied. Is it true that I am the only editor who has restored such qualifications in the article? No, it is not, so you lied. Is it true that you lied? Yes, yes it is. MilesMoney (talk) 05:07, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit protected}} template. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:54, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Consensus has been clearly established above in the RfC for no qualifiers. Consensus does not mean that everybody agrees with it, but there is a clear and snowy majority for removing any and all qualifiers. Yworo (talk) 20:27, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

What exactly is the rush? Putting on my admin hat for a moment, I would say two things: 1) the RFC results so far favor a particular conclusion but are not what I would call "snowy", so (assuming I were an uninvolved party) I would not close it early; and 2) as long as the RFC is still open, I would decline this edit request (again, if I were an uninvolved party). When the RFC closes, an appropriate edit can be made based on how it closes. --RL0919 (talk) 20:38, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Just objecting to the reason the edit was not done. Perhaps the next admin to reply could give a reason that's actually true. Yworo (talk) 20:45, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The RfC was initiated 22:47, 24 September 2013, and 30 days from 24 September 2013 is 24 October 2013. Besides which, there are several other threads subsequent to that where disagreement exists; and on this thread there have been comments from five different people (myself included) which are not in harmony. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:49, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

If that's true, you are "involved" and should be letting another admin respond to this. Sorry, reopening. Should be handled by an uninvolved admin, and if you were an admin who had volunteered for recall, I'd be asking you to exercise it based on this admitted violation of the standard that only uninvolved admins should answer requests. Yworo (talk) 20:56, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

What? Because I declined it once already, I'm now involved? On that basis, no admin could answer the same request more than once, and this request would be waiting for somebody else. No, by placing {{edit protected}}, you are asking that an admin should judge the circumstances, and then take some action - which might be to explain why the request should not be carried out. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:12, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Hey, you were the one who stated that you had an opinion: "comments from five different people (myself included) which are not in harmony". I would have had no idea if you hadn't mentioned it. And yes, now that you mention it, I think it would be good policy for admins not to respond to reopened requests which they handled the first time. The whole point of reopening is frequently to get a second opinion, certainly not to be quickly shut down by the same admin who made first denial. Yworo (talk) 21:23, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Comments are not necessarily opinions one way or the other. By "not in harmony" I was pointing out that not all of the comments were of the same opinion. In my first response, I pointed out that there was no consensus - by which I meant that the original request had been objected to - but apparently, by not agreeing with the OP (you), that automatically means that I took sides with the first objector (MilesMoney). The world isn't black-and-white. Also, please note that it is not only admins who are permitted to decline {{edit protected}} requests: Wikipedia:Edit requests uses the phrase "responding editor", not "responding admin". --Redrose64 (talk) 22:00, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Despite Yworo's, uhm, inflexibility, I think the rest of us are actually making some headway towards consensus. The key may be in avoiding her status as a "philosopher" and instead focusing on her output, which consisted of "philosophical novels and essays". The former gets a lot of heat because one side sees any qualifier as an insult while the other sees the lack as a lie. But by focusing on the paper, not the person, we might get past this. I'm certainly willing to compromise to make the article better and end this bickering. MilesMoney (talk) 22:28, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

The best way to end the bickering would be to accept the sources that call Rand a philosopher and leave it at that. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:03, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

You know we can't do that because it's just not true and we know that because our sources contradict it. She's not a philosopher, pure and simple. At most, she's a philosopher, impure and complex. Her status as a philosopher must be qualified to avoid lying to the readers, who would otherwise think she was a regular philosopher, not a writer who lacked the training or knowledge to be accepted as a professional philosopher. MilesMoney (talk) 23:18, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Nonsense, of course we can do it. If most sources that deal with the question of Rand's being a philosopher call her a philosopher, then a philosopher she is. A small number of sources saying otherwise doesn't negate that. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:42, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

That's not how it works. I've been reading WP:RS, WP:NPOV and the rest. They all say that sources are unequal, with tertiary sources worth more than secondary, and primary being risky. More than that, we don't look at a flat majority and ignore the rest. Instead, we seek out the sources which tell us what the mainstream view is and make sure that's given the most emphasis. In this case, the mainstream view is that Rand does not meet the standards for being considered a professional academic philosopher, which is why we're trying to find a nice way to say that she did work in philosophy but it's not directly comparable to what someone might expect from the unqualified term, "philosopher". MilesMoney (talk) 00:22, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, Miles, you are excluding sources based on your particular presuppositions and opinions. Everyone can see it. Please remember that compromise is required to achieve consensus. You seem to me to be being fairly uncompromising, and it's not really source-based and we all know it. Yworo (talk) 14:27, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Per policy, I don't reject, I prioritize. Sources like the OCP are worth a dozen lesser sources. As for your intimations and personal slights, I find them insulting and counterproductive. MilesMoney (talk) 03:26, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Miles you rejected previous compromises. You wanted a qualifier, you accepted novelist-philosopher as per Dictionary of Modern American Philosophers. This qualifier describes precisely what kind of philosopher she was, she is the novelist-philosopher par excellence. Κατ' εξοχήν novelist-Φιλόσοφος ;-) So how do we proceed now if there are no objections from others? --DagonAmigaOS (talk) 00:22, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I say we proceed by creating a binding RFC, unlike Yworo's. MilesMoney (talk) 03:26, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

"Trained" is generally taken to mean a terminal credential, not anything less, so "untrained" is appropriate. 98.118.26.43 (talk) 16:14, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm the one who added that word and I stand by its accuracy. Unfortunately, there is a lot of pressure from people whose love for Rand exceeds their understanding (or loyalty to) Wikipedia policy. There's no other way to say it than that. MilesMoney (talk) 17:07, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Puppets

Anyone looking at the history of this article will find a series of concerted meat puppetry sites as well as the normal set of socks. Everytime there is a controversy on the page you can guarantee that there will be new pro-Rand SPA accounts created. I'm not sure if there is a wikipedia procedure for a mass check on sock puppets or a bad on newly created editors taking part on RfCs etc but if there is we need it, if not it should be created. If any passing admin has any ideas ....----Snowded ^TALK 03:02, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure you're right, but it shouldn't make any difference. No matter how many "different" people repeat the same view, none of them have the weight of policy and facts behind them.

The RFC is a huge joke because of the biased opening, and the comments are mostly "I love Rand so let's not say anything bad about her, no matter what our sources say". Nobody but nobody has come up with any sort of reasonable basis for calling her a philosopher without qualifications.

I don't see any comment like "I love Rand" what I see is comments like mine with sources like the Dictionary of American Philosophers that call Ayn Rand a philosopher without any adjectives. --DagonAmigaOS (talk) 21:08, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Tell me, if I visit my library and look this up, what will I really find? MilesMoney (talk) 21:22, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

You don't have to, go to the Amazon site and click to look inside. For example in page 1889 she is called novelist-philosopher, nowhere does she have an adjective. You think that novelist-philosopher is a type of philosopher and not two vocations? Fine by me. You wanted the exact type of philosopher she was, there you have it. Are we ok now? --DagonAmigaOS (talk) 21:31, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm ok, but your argument just fell apart. The article not only limits her philosophy with a qualifying term -- "novelist-philosopher" -- but it explains exactly what it means: "Rand worked primarily as a novelist and her philosophy is found in a variety of places, including novels, essays and monographs, but she never wrote a step-by-step explanation of her philosophy as a whole". In other words, she's not a novelist/philosopher, which is someone who is both; she's a philosopher through her novels, not through peer-reviewed papers, like regular philosophers. Your own citations shows that we must qualify "philosopher" when applying it to Rand. MilesMoney (talk) 22:22, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

If you are ok, I'm ok and if there is no objection from any other editors lets proceed with the novelist-philosopher. --DagonAmigaOS (talk) 01:20, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

There are objections. MilesMoney (talk) 03:28, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

So, sure, it does look like there's a lot of fakery, but even if it wasn't the case, they still lose. Well, unless they can trick some admin into doing a quick count and not looking at the details. But that wouldn't be WP:COMPETENT. MilesMoney (talk) 03:06, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

The Rule of Law: 1. If the facts are against you, argue the law. 2. If the law is against you, argue the facts. 3. If the facts and the law are against you, start a new thread with vague accusations. μηδείς (talk) 04:42, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Another way of putting this: 1. If the facts are against you, you pound on the law. 2. If the law is against you, you pound on the facts. 3. If the facts and law are against you, you pound on the table. – S. Rich (talk) 04:47, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Ah, well, then that explains why the two of you are pounding on the table so loudly. MilesMoney (talk) 04:56, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

And the facts of the case (check the archives) are that several editors have been banned for meat puppetry on this article, and new SPAs emerge every time there is a controversy. THe law (in so far as Wikipedia has them) ban this type of activity. I'll leave you to complete that for the third item ----Snowded ^TALK 08:20, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Checking the user contribs, I spot only one blatant SPA on the RFC thread above. By all means point it out, but it does not appear that puppets are seriously influencing the debate. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 12:53, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't matter, because the RFC is framed dishonestly with a deeply biased opening statement, so it's worthless. It doesn't help that the comments are a repetition of "But I like her!", and do not address policy and sources. Nobody will be bound by the results of this fake RFC. MilesMoney (talk) 19:43, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Best I can tell, there are only two editors participating in the RFC who have accounts less than three months old or less than 1000 edits, and those two are on opposite sides of the argument. Most participants have accounts over 3 years old with 10,000+ edits. If these are socks, then they are incredibly well-cultivated. Meatpuppetry is not easily disproved since we don't have access to everyone's off-wiki communications, but I have not seen any positive evidence for it either. More realistically, it seems like some editors are positioning themselves to reject the likely outcome of the RFC. That's unfortunate. --RL0919 (talk) 16:19, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't matter; the RFC is a joke. The OP insists that nobody is allowed to fix the biased statement and has edit-warred to keep it (and the biased subject line) intact. No matter what comes out of it, it does not represent any sort of consensus. MilesMoney (talk) 16:20, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

You may not believe it represents any sort of consensus, however it does. Just becuase you don't like the results does not invalidate the process. You may want to drop the WP:STICK. Arzel (talk) 16:59, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Imagine this:

Request for Comment: Arzel, burn as a witch or drown as a witch?!

Would you say than an RFC framed like this would be valid? Also, which of the two do you prefer, witch? :-) MilesMoney (talk) 19:37, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I would prefer is you are going to make some lame analogy that it have some logical thought behind it. Arzel (talk) 14:33, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

However we frame the RfC it is absurd to insist that the editors responding are confused, tricked, or not making their informed opinions perfectly clear. I am reminded of a friend from junior high who would invite us over to play scrabble, then overturn the board when loss was inevitable. μηδείς (talk) 21:41, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Sound like you're talking about Yworo's refusal to allow his hugely biased and factually inaccurate opening statement to be corrected, although comparing him to a child is probably a personal attack on your part. And if framing didn't work, millions wouldn't be spent on it. MilesMoney (talk) 23:20, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Close and Implement RfC

Can someone who knows how to go about such things get an admin to close and implement the RfC? μηδείς (talk) 18:22, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

The 'default' for RfCs is 30 days. (Please note, the "is/is not" discussion at Talk:Ayn_Rand#Again.2C_not_a_philosopher started 6 August and picked up in earnest on 21 August.) Perhaps WP:SNOW can be applied. So you might look at WP:ANRFC. Otherwise, the show must go on. – S. Rich (talk) 18:40, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I thought it was seven days. Roseanne Roseannadanna. μηδείς (talk) 20:43, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

See WP:RFC#Ending RfCs. 'Default' means the RfC gets dropped off the noticeboards after 30 days. Not that they do or should continue for 30 days. – S. Rich (talk) 20:48, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

If there had been no new input for a while then an early close might be justifiable, but the discussion in this one is active, with new participants expressing preferences as recently as yesterday. I realize the discussion is somewhat one-sided (as of this posting, 10 participants favoring "philosopher" with no qualifier, 3 wanting a qualifier, and 1 suggesting alternative wording), but that alone isn't ground to close it now. WP:SNOW is for even more egregious situations, such as lone proponents pushing items that have been recently rejected in a lopsided way. That's something that might happen after this RFC, but it isn't the situation at the moment. Better to let the discussion run its course and then have it cleanly closed by a neutral party. --RL0919 (talk) 21:18, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Agree that having a neutral party close is a good idea. Arzel (talk) 00:28, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Can't close what was never opened. However, an invalid RFC can be retracted and replaced with a legitimate RFC which consists of a brief, neutral question. That's my suggestion. MilesMoney (talk) 03:32, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

The internet equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and screeming "La la la la la la la" is not going to improve your argument. Arzel (talk) 14:36, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

You're right, I'm not listening to you; I'm following policy. MilesMoney (talk) 16:14, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

You are still standing here reading my comments, but you are definately not following policy. At least you give the impression that you will not follow policy when the RfC is closed. Arzel (talk) 16:32, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Policy says that this wasn't a legit RFC. MilesMoney (talk) 18:12, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Why the RfC must be closed as invalid

1. WP:RFC requires the opening statement to be neutral and brief. Yworo's started with two sentences selling his desired conclusion by inaccurately summarizing and framing the issue. This directly violated both requirements.

Much of the bias came from omission, such as failing to mention that every tertiary source goes on to explain that Rand was not a philosopher in the plain sense of the word, since she had no academic standing and was not accepted by academia.

Some of the bias came from the use of "opinion" to describe these qualifiers, when they are not opinions at all, but facts. For example, it is an uncontroversial and incontrovertible fact that Rand is a non-academic philosopher.

As a result of the bias in the opening statement, editors coming to this RfC started off with a biased understanding.

2. WP:RFC suggests that the opening statement is not owned by anyone and is subject to correction. It recommends asking someone else to write the statement for you if you aren't sure you can be neutral, or just doing your best and then inviting others to improve upon it.

When I tried to correct the bias in both the opening statement and the section header, Yworo edit-warred to retain the biased version. He then falsely accused me of violating WP:TPO, which explicitly allows changing text that is not owned by any editor.

As a result, the initial bias could not be corrected.

3.WP:RFC states that RfC's which are relevant in multiple categories are to be listed in all of them. Despite this, the RfC was listed only with WP:Requests for comment/Biographies, not WP:Requests for comment/Religion and philosophy.

This omission meant that the RfC was advertised to editors with no particular interest in or knowledge of philosophy, meaning that they were not likely to understand the technical issues relevant to whether Rand could be called a philosopher. Instead, they were taken from the group that deals with WP:BLP issues and could be counted on to be particularly sensitive to the appearance of disparagement. (Not that BLP applies to dead people or that the suggested qualifiers were disparaging.)

As a result, the RfC was not brought to the attention of those most qualified to deal with it.

These are severe errors. Because of them, the attempted RfC excluded the editors most likely to be able to understand the technical issues in favor of those concerned with avoiding defamation, misinformed and biased those who came here, and therefore does not represent the consensus of a meaningful cross-section of editors. This can be confirmed by reading the stated reasons behind each vote and noting how many of them are inconsistent with policy.

I made a concerted effort to fix these errors so that we could have a meaningful RfC, but Yworo prevented me from doing so. As a result, all that remains is to declare this RfC invalid due to non-compliance with policy and start over again, only following policy this time. MilesMoney (talk) 09:12, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Three sentences is brief enough. Numerous RFCs have longer openings than that. Your own revision of the statement was even longer, and more augmentative. The only mild bias in the initial wording was in referring to the qualifiers as "opinion". That's hardly enough to throw off the many experienced editors participating in the RFC, especially when you have personally responded to every single participant (save one) who did not endorse your position, often engaging in extended discussions with them. You cannot plausibly claim they are giving their opinion based solely on the RFC opening statement. As to topic placement, that was easy to fix, but you didn't even try to. The RFC is only half over, so I guess we'll see if the additional topic placement has any material impact. You are also free to notify various wikiprojects (if you can muster a neutral notification per WP:CANVASS), but have not. Regardless, it isn't particularly relevant to complain about your changes being reverted when they didn't address any of the concerns you think "invalidate" the RFC: they didn't make the intro shorter or less biased (just biased in a different direction), and they didn't add it to any more topics. Basically you've just used the reversion as a justification for ignoring the opinions of the majority of participants in the discussion. --RL0919 (talk) 15:46, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

RL, it would be very easy for me to debunk your comments. For example, if you thought my version went too far in the opposite direction, why didn't you make it neutral as opposed to restoring the original? Yeah, hard question and you have no answer. I'm willing to discuss all of my points with an admin who's here to close down this mess, but I don't believe it would be productive to keep on repeating myself with you. MilesMoney (talk) 17:53, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

To declare the RfC invalid, you will need a consensus of respondants saying so. You ain't got that, and never will. You need to get a new hobby other than attempting to force this article to your preferred wording. I'm sure there are plenty of other articles waiting for your expertise, Miles. Yworo (talk) 16:15, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

No, actually, we don't. Please read policy. MilesMoney (talk) 17:53, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Please include some mention of the opening of "Anthem" in New York, September 2013.

Altho the main article may still be in dispute, I truly hope the dominant editors of Wikipedia will allow some mention of the play, "Anthem", opening in New York in September 2013. Tripodics (talk) 03:46, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I've played a role in the article being locked down so I apologize for the inconvenience that it's caused you. It's absolutely reasonable to give the new "Anthem" staging a sentence, perhaps near the end of Ayn_Rand#Popular_interest. What you could do is write up that sentence here, including a citation to confirm it, and we can ask for it to be inserted into the article. How does that sound? MilesMoney (talk) 03:55, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Frank O'Connor

I noticed that Frank O'Connor, Ayn Rand's husband, does not have his own article on him. (However, he does on Simple English Wikipedia, which is interesting.) Even if his acting career was not significant enough to grant him a separate article, he did illustrate the original cover of Atlas Shrugged, which is a pretty notable feat. Anyone else have thoughts? Michipedian (talk) 06:58, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Poor Frank. I feel sorry for him, sometimes. Sure, he's notable enough for his own article, but there's just not a lot to say. I read that small article, but if you write it in typical English, it gets even smaller. If you take out the duplication with this article, it's barely a stub. Still, it's a completely reasonable idea and you're welcome to try. Maybe you could find some material about how he reacted to the Branden affair; there's plenty from Barbara's POV but Frank had to have said something, right? MilesMoney (talk) 14:40, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

There is actually an "article" page for him, but currently it redirects to this article. This was decided after a discussion in 2009 about whether he was truly notable. Notability is not inherited, and as far as anyone was able to determine, all discussion of him in sources stems from his relationship to Rand. Historical discussions at Talk:Frank O'Connor (actor)#Notability and Wikipedia:WikiProject Objectivism/Cross talk/Archive 5#Inherited notability. --RL0919 (talk) 14:52, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Poor Frank, always the third wheel. MilesMoney (talk) 14:59, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Ending the War on Philosophy.

At some point, the RFC will expire and it's going to lead to a mess. Since its opening statement directly violates WP:RFC by being long and prejudicial, it's not going to be universally accepted as binding, which will put us right back where we began. We can expect the article to be frozen on and off for extended periods, stymying all our efforts to gradually improve it.

In the meantime, Rich and I brokered an alternative that finally puts an end to years of fighting that stems from calling her a philosopher in the lede. It would look something like this:

Ayn Rand (/ˈaɪn ˈrænd/; born Alisa Zinov'yevna Rosenbaum; February 2 [O.S. January 20] 1905 – March 6, 1982) was an American novelist, playwright, and screenwriter, who later in her career wrote philosophical essays aimed at the general public.

Nobody denies that she wrote these essays, but this wording avoids deciding whether writing them makes her a philosopher, an amateur philosopher, a popular philosopher, a novelist-philosopher, the best philosopher ever, or the second coming of Hitler. It's neutral, it's factual, it's uncontroversial. It's a compromise that doesn't please everyone, but avoids the RFC mess entirely and lets us get back to work. I endorse it. MilesMoney (talk) 14:34, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Your proposed wording is preposterous. I am utterly opposed to it. It's simply another misguided effort to avoid calling Rand a philosopher, and it's downright bizarre - there is no meaningful sense in which writing "philosophical essays" is not the same as being a philosopher. The proposed wording is not even factually accurate - Rand undoubtedly wanted both the general public and professional philosophers to read her work. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:45, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I've written philosophical essays, even polemical ones, but it would be preposterous to call me a philosopher. Maybe I'd qualify as an amateur philosopher, but that's stretching it a bit. MilesMoney (talk) 21:17, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Try addressing the issue seriously. It's not relevant what you have or haven't written (and your opinion that something you wrote qualifies as a "philosophical essay" may not necessarily be shared by others). FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:33, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm using myself as an example to prove a point: just writing a philosophical essay doesn't make someone a professional philosopher. Having it published by a peer-reviewed periodical might be an indicator, but I think we both know that Rand was ignored by academia during her lifetime. MilesMoney (talk) 01:02, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Additionally, that lead sentence does not mention Objectivism, which seems to be rather significant. Michipedian (talk) 13:14, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok, that's a fair criticism. We should definitely mention Objectivism prominently. Let's try:

Ayn Rand (/ˈaɪn ˈrænd/; born Alisa Zinov'yevna Rosenbaum; February 2 [O.S. January 20] 1905 – March 6, 1982) was an American novelist, playwright, and screenwriter. Later in her career, she extended the political ideas in her novels into polemical philosophical essays aimed at the general public, which formed the basis for Objectivism.

There's room for improvement here, but I think it satisfied your requirements. MilesMoney (talk) 14:46, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I think that's on the right track, although Objectivism entails considerably more than the political ideas in her novels. It also fails to encapsulate the movement behind Objectivism, with which Rand is very much associated. I think something like this may be better:

Ayn Rand (/ˈaɪn ˈrænd/; born Alisa Zinov'yevna Rosenbaum; February 2 [O.S. January 20] 1905 – March 6, 1982) was a Russian-American novelist, playwright, screenwriter, and essayist. She is most widely known for her two best selling novels, The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, and for developing a philosophical system that she called Objectivism.

I'm not sure how Objectivists would feel about this intro, but I think that from a WP:NPOV, it works. Michipedian (talk) 19:42, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

It's an absurd, tortured attempt to avoid the obvious. The RfC will close soon, we'll revert to going by the sources, and this incessant disruption will cease. μηδείς (talk) 19:47, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

There is no RFC. There was never an RFC. MilesMoney (talk) 21:11, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I completely endorse the comment by Medeis above. Pretending there is no RFC won't help. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:12, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

What makes something a binding RFC is that it follows WP:RFC. From the start, it violated these rules, and my efforts to fix this were refused. As a result, what remains fails to meet the requirements for an RFC. If you disagree, explain how even the opening statement is consistent with what that policy requires. MilesMoney (talk) 08:03, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

We don't actually have to care how they feel so long as those feelings conflict with policy. It looks fine. MilesMoney (talk) 21:11, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Cool. One thought I had was that we could include the fact that some consider her a philosopher while others do not. I feel that a sentence in the lead that addresses this would be helpful as it characterizes the divide in public opinion of her. Michipedian (talk) 21:25, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't disagree, and in fact have supported similar changes, but it's something you can expect her fans to fight to the last. A few of them piled on here and refused to accept that we have extremely good sources that call her an amateur philosopher. Now consider how they'll react to her not being called a philosopher at all.

My view is that she's "some sort of" philosopher, but not simply a philosopher, the way someone with a proper degree might be. I'm ok with calling her a philosopher so long as we qualify it, and I'm ok with avoiding the issue through sentences like the ones you suggested. I just don't want to lie to readers by making them think she was a philosopher in the plain sense of the word. MilesMoney (talk) 21:29, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with all of that. The problem with descriptive words like "amateur", "untrained", or "non-academic" is that they come off as belittling. I think being honest about the fact that her status as a philosopher is contested may be the fairest way of writing the lead. Maybe with a sentence like:

Many consider her a philosopher, although some contest this title as she was not an academic.

Just a thought. Michipedian (talk) 21:47, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not convinced they're belittling, but even if they were, there's actually no prohibition against that. If anything, our requirement for neutrality is defined with regard to mainstream sources, and since academic philosophers routinely belittle her as incompetent or worse, we are obligated to reflect their views.

However we phrase it, we must make it completely clear that she was not a philosopher in the sense that someone might expect if we just used that word alone. She had no training, nor equivalent knowledge, and she was rejected by those in the field. There's no way to say this without offending some of her fans, but we're not here to lie about her to make her sound better than she was. MilesMoney (talk) 22:03, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Good point. Is there a way we could get an official definition of "amateur philosopher" on Wikipedia? Then people will know this is a factual designation and will not be constantly at risk for being edited. Michipedian (talk) 22:07, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, what's needed is a strong reliable source, and we have one. I've copied and pasted the relevant part here.

There was some disagreement over whether we could call Rand a "popular philosopher", where my concern was that the term was ambiguous. Besides its technical meaning, it could very easily be misunderstood as saying she was popular, which is true but irrelevant. Even its technical meaning, which is what that article I linked to is about, admits to three different senses of the term.

According to the article, the sense that applies to Rand is that she's an amateur. The summary of why amounts to what I said earlier: she lacks the training or equivalent knowledge, and is not accepted as a professional philosopher by professional philosophers. But read for yourself. MilesMoney (talk) 22:21, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, according to that definition, Rand was certainly an amateur. I'm not sure about including this in the lead though because one might ask why we don't call Descartes and Hume amateur philosophers in their introductions. Michipedian (talk) 00:21, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

The OCP article explains why the category wouldn't apply to them:

"amateur philosophy, presupposes the existence of professional philosophy to define itself against [...] In that last gap all notable philosophers, from Descartes to Hume, were, formally, amateurs. Amateur philosophy as a genre is really a creation of the nineteenth century with its mass literacy and self-education."

They're only amateurs formally, whereas Rand's amateur status is not just a formality. MilesMoney (talk) 00:30, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Ah, you're right on that point. Well I think that is a pretty solid definition. It should be clarified though that if her views were ever to catch on in academia, she may be at the ranks of simply a philosopher, as the article you cited clarifies for Coleridge. That being said, with her current status, she should not be called a philosopher without qualification.

This then raises the question of whether or not Objectivism be considered an amateur philosophy. Albeit few, there are professional philosophers who fully advocate for Objectivism. (Leonard Peikoff, for example.) Does that qualify her philosophy as professional? Michipedian (talk) 00:49, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Rand will remain an amateur, regardless, because she's not going to get a doctorate from beyond the grave. Objectivism started as an amateur philosophy made by an amateur philosopher but it can be plausibly argued that Peikoff and others have since renovated it until it meets the basic standards for a philosophical system that can be addressed by academia. This is what I most recently wrote for the lede of Objectivism (Ayn Rand). MilesMoney (talk) 03:33, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Please note that this classification is the opinion of one source. There are many sources, including other encyclopedias of philosophy, that call her a philosopher without any "amateur" designation. (See the lists here for multiple references.) Promoting the opinion of one source in the lead as if were simple fact is not appropriate, as the clear majority of participants in the RFC have affirmed. --RL0919 (talk) 01:02, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Ah, did not know about that. I don't know. Michipedian (talk) 01:50, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Mich, meet RL. He's a great big fan of Rand; even runs a web site that's a shrine dedicated to her memory. He has strong opinions about all things Rand, yet these sometimes deviate from reality. For example, he's wrong about this issue.

Yes, some other sources do call her a philosopher, but they typically go on to explain that she's not a philosopher in the plain sense of the word. Academic philosophers also tend to judge her very harshly, due to issues of basic competence.

I alluded to this earlier, in the context of how she's often called a "popular philosopher", which we can now decode to mean amateur. RL doesn't like it, but he can't deny that it's well-sourced.

As always, I recommend testing all claims that you find suspect, and even some you don't, just to keep everyone honest. MilesMoney (talk) 03:33, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, checking the other sources is a good idea. I've included a number of quotes. She certainly wasn't an academic or writing primarily for academic audiences, and no one claims she was. So an acknowledgement of that in the lead, through a term such as "popular philosopher" or "non-academic philosopher" would be fine with me, but Miles and others in the RFC minority have repeatedly denounced such phrasings as being too flattering to Rand. She is in fact called a "popular philosopher" in a number of sources. 'Popular' doesn't mean 'amateur' in general parlance -- it would mean either "targeting a general audience rather than specialists" or "widely liked". The source that brings the two terms together is the same one being relied on for the "amateur" designation in the first place. So we're back to the problem of promoting the views of one source in the lead. --RL0919 (talk) 15:34, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I think "non-academic philosopher" is pretty fair. It doesn't have any confusing connotations (like "amateur" and "popular"), and it is clear what it means. It seems that people on both sides of the debate would be OK with this, as well. The lead sentence would then start out with something like:

Ayn Rand (/ˈaɪn ˈrænd/; born Alisa Zinov'yevna Rosenbaum; February 2 [O.S. January 20] 1905 – March 6, 1982) was a Russian-American playwright, screenwriter, novelist, and non-academic philosopher. She is most widely known for her two best selling novels, The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, and for developing a philosophical system that she called Objectivism.

Thoughts? Michipedian (talk) 04:55, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

As I've pointed out previously, the OCP article distinguishes between the non-academic and the amateur. It offers examples of non-academics who are nonetheless professional. It then pointedly excludes Rand from this list. I don't see why we should ignore this reliable source by using a term that is more ambiguous. MilesMoney (talk) 05:16, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

The problem with the amateur distinction seems to be the lack of reliable sources that use this term. Do you know of other sources that have the amateur classification? Michipedian (talk) 05:29, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Don't let RL convince you that the bar is impossibly high. Nowhere in policy does it say that we need more than one reliable source using a specific word in order to include it. In fact, we don't need any at all.

Editors are free to accurately summarize these sources, as opposed to quoting them. Plenty of sources say, in a variety of ways, that Rand is not an academic philosopher both because she lacks the education and the associated skills. For example, the SEP says:

"For all her popularity, however, only a few professional philosophers have taken her work seriously. As a result, most of the serious philosophical work on Rand has appeared in non-academic, non-peer-reviewed, journals, or in books, and the bibliography reflects this fact."

I would say it is entirely fair to summarize this as "amateur". MilesMoney (talk) 08:01, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I can't say that I agree with that, honestly. Why are you opposed to using something less controversial, like "non-academic"? It seems like "amateur" is technically true according to this one source but has insulting connotations. "Non-academic" does not have bad connotations, is factually true, has a clear definition (unlike "amateur", which would most likely require people to view the source to understand what it means), and pro-Rand people have accepted it. Michipedian (talk) 09:08, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

There are also multiple sources for it, unlike the single source Miles so strongly emphasizes. Funny thing is, it's not even that great of a source for information about Rand. Sure, it's generally of good quality: a reference work from a respected academic publisher. But the specific article isn't from an expert on Rand. Quinton has never written a book or article about her, not even the one cited -- it's an article about "popular philosophy" that mentions Rand in half a sentence. It's also a tertiary source. Tertiary sources can be particularly useful when they explicitly summarize what is generally believed in a field, but this particular article doesn't claim to do that. Otherwise, secondary sources are the most preferred for Wikipedia sourcing. WP:RS and WP:NOR are both explicit about that. If we turn to peer-reviewed secondary sources from academics who have expertise on Rand but have no personal association with her -- basically the gold standard for WP sources -- then you find statements such as the following:

• "...this book is devoted to an assessment of Ayn Rand the philosopher. All the contributors to this volume agree that she is a philosopher and not a mere popularizer." (Den Uyl & Rasmussen, The Philosophic Thought of Ayn Rand, p. x)

That is just one example, which I note is from academics who are not Objectivists, so critics can't dismiss them as biased "cultists". There are more from other sources that just call her 'philosopher' without qualifiers. Of course there are secondary sources that do refer to her with various qualifiers before 'philosopher', although 'amateur' isn't typically one of them. For example, looking for "nonacademic", one could find this:

• "Arguably the modern thinker who best represents the egoistic stance in ethics has been the popular writer Ayn Rand (1905-1982), Russian immigrant turned novelist and nonacademic philosopher." (John C. Merrill, "Ayn Rand: Rational Self-Interest" in Ethical Communication: Moral Stances in Human Dialogue, p. 86)

There are a few others with 'nonacademic'/'non-academic' (although not as many for that as for no qualifier or for some others). I'm not going to repeat every source I already assembled in a separate list, but basically there are enough to overwhelm the one source that Miles is promoting in terms of quantity, relevance, and author expertise on the subject. --RL0919 (talk) 13:42, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 8 October 2013

Remove the word "untrained" from the lead sentence, per closed RfC above. Yworo (talk) 18:04, 8 October 2013 (UTC) Yworo (talk) 18:04, 8 October 2013 (UTC)