Talk:Ayn Rand

Randism vs Physics

For anyone interested in more on Objectivist hostility towards modern physics, I this hilarious web-series by the Objectivist Mr.Cropper: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6pwf-fp0aE&feature=channel. CABlankenship (talk) 12:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

There is a criticism of Objectivism article for this purpose; discussion here should be limited to the improvement of the Rand article. Regards, Skomorokh 13:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

A bit more context could be given for Rand's hostility towards modern science. CABlankenship (talk) 14:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree the section is a little short on context. Do you know of any reliable sources that discuss Rand's attitude toward modern science? Skomorokh 14:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

No. There's not really much to discuss. She seemed to take a dim view of modern science, and many Objectivist sources are quite hostile to physics. It's interesting, and I wasn't really sure how to present these facts. Thank you for improving the entry. CABlankenship (talk) 15:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem, and sorry for the unnecessary tone of my edit summary (it'ssometimes difficult to entirely assume good faith around here). I find the idea that Rand had issues with modern science quite interesting considering her rationalist pretensions, and am disappointed not to see the issue get further investigation. If we come across some coverage of this from a third party source it would be most welcome, but until then the current paragraph must suffice I suppose. Regards, Skomorokh 15:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Your edit summary was accurate, and fair. My entry was sloppy and lacked neutrality in tone. Here is another link on this subject that I found interesting: http://www.capmag.com/objective-science/articles/ts_math_vs_matter2.htm. There seems to be a pretty strong current of hostility towards modern physics from Objectivists. Though I guess it would be more appropriate to post these links for consideration under the Objectivism article. CABlankenship (talk) 15:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Let's ignore Cropper and return to Our Subject. The issues are with *interpretations* of modern physics, not the physics itself. There is a distinct Kierkegaardian note to the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM (see Murdoch, "Neils Bohr's Philosophy of Physics"), which of course Objectivism would criticize. And what of the ego in the Many Worlds Interpretation, where will becomes redundant as every decision is decided in every possible way? Maybe Objectivism favors the Transactional Interpretation of QM, or it may lead to the development of an Objectivist Interpretation of QM. Then there are Einstein's infamous rants against induction, against all Aristotelian philosophies, Objectivism included. In all cases, Objectivism of course holds the physics, the reality, as a given, and criticizes only interpretations.

And again we have CABlankenship grasping at straws to justify his ongoing vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.17.99 (talk) 17:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. TallNapoleon (talk) 18:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The issue is that many of the interpretations of data which Objectivism criticizes are held in near-universal consensus by experts. Among these are particle-wave duality, black holes, and the Big Bang. This is notable, but perhaps not in this article. CABlankenship (talk) 21:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is strange. Who is Cropper? Why should we care? Why is he representative of Rand or her views? Cropper looks like a random unimportant person with a webcam to me. If this topic is important we should be looking at the opinions of Rand herself or perhaps those close to her. Can someone point to a source for Rand's views of physics? None (!!) are references in discussion. Even if there were such references, is Rand really known for her views on physics (be they good or bad)? I think no. So why anyone should care, even if her views are as bad as CABlankenship says, needs to be explained. --68.44.133.14 (talk) 02:49, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

To the extent that science is part of epistemology, Rand's views on it would matter for the purpose of this article. Cropper's would not. TallNapoleon (talk) 03:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Talk:Ayn Rand/Sandbox

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

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

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

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

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

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

Moving on

My understanding is that the only big issue that we have left to resolve on this article is the philosopher debate. I propose the following:

1. We move the philosopher debate to the NPOV noticeboard to get wider community input, as well as some more experienced editors involved.

2. In the meantime, we put this article up for Peer Review. There's a number of small issues that probably need to be addressed, and frankly, I think its a shame that an article as detailed as this one is not a Good Article. We could probably resolve the "non-philosopher" issues fairly quickly (especially now that we have a Sandbox to work with) and get this article up to where it should be.

What do you guys think? Idag (talk) 14:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the Peer Review suggestion is an excellent suggestion, and have had similar thoughts re: GA status. I wouldn't have very high hopes for NPOVN. I agree that the philosopher debate has been the main bone of contention, but the last sentence of the lede summarizing the positive and negative aspects of Rand's legacy has long been contentious and will probably continue to be. I don't have an easy answer to the philosopher issue, other than agreeing on something that is somewhat acceptable while a comprehensive analysis of the sources is undergone. I think moving on is a good suggestion. Skomorokh 15:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

From what I read here, I think that editors have had more significant concerns than just the philosopher issue. A Peer Review would help uncover others, which would be useful however, and bring in some new voices. I do have one specific suggestion for removing half the problem regarding the endless philosopher debate. Delete the info box, leaving just the picture. --Slp1 (talk) 15:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd have no problem with that. If we dont' want to delete the entire infobox, we could also simply delete the "Occupation" field from it. Idag (talk) 15:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

We should probably leave the birth and death dates and the two novels listed, but I think deleting the occupation and influence sections of the infobox may be a good idea. TallNapoleon (talk) 17:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Should we pursue Slp1's good-faith suggestion (and let me be clear that I respect Slp1 greatly), a few serious questions arise: First, what is to stop heretofore-banned editors from re-emerging after the stipulated time frame and simply "re-adding" the infobox, the "occupation" field or any other attempt at a current compromise? My suspected answer, barring a definitive Arbcom ruling on this and related matters, is "nothing." No one owns the article. Consensus can always change. Editors come and go. And sadly, good-faith interpretations of policy, if this page is any solid guide, are fairly wide-ranging. The second issue is procedural. Skomorokh, to his credit, is trying to force the issue at ArbCom with a definitive ruling on what is more than just a simple good-faith content dispute about Rand's occupation. I suspect that he won't succeed, thus forcing this headache to re-emerge six months to a year from now once the individual bannings expire. In my view, therefore, the only workable alternative is to list *all* reliable sources that literally state Rand's occupation by name and their passages on a separate talk page, tally up the results, including (but not limited to) other negative evidence and present to a serious committee for extended review and consultation in accordance with WP policy on undue weight. Of course, this is no small exercise. It would take quite a while (READ: weeks) for me, for example, to literally type out every single citation from LexisNexis and elsewhere. Is it worth it? And with that, I really don't have an answer. It's frustrating and interesting at the same time. J Readings (talk) 17:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the solution would be the Mediation Committee. Hopefully if this becomes an issue again we'll go there rather than to ArbCom. TallNapoleon (talk) 19:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with TallNapoleon. While consensus can always change, if there is an extended discussion on this topic with wide community involvement, I think we can get a consensus that's going to be as permanent as something can be on Wikipedia. Idag (talk) 20:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

J Readings speaks of "heretofore-banned editors" and "individual bannings." Which editors are being referred to? What bannings? J Reading, are you talking about the decision that ArbCom has NOT yet made? --Steve (talk) 03:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, yes. "Proposed ArbCom bannings." J Readings (talk) 05:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

As to Slp1's suggestion, it is a good approach to a compromise, but it won't work for the same reasons that now have us in ArbCom. If a ruling goes one way, the info box or the occupation part of it will be gone, or the occupation will be "writer" or some such. But if the ruling goes another way, it will be occupation = philosopher and the info box will be the more detailed one for philosophers. --Steve (talk) 03:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

If you get a consensus here that the infobox and all or part of its contents should be removed because it is more trouble than it is worth, then if a new editor tries to readd "occupation" or whatever then you delete it pending a new consensus on the talkpage, taking it to mediation etc if necessary. I doubt there would be much toleration from admins for any topic-banned editor returning to edit war the same issue on this article, in any case.

There are lots of editors who dislike infoboxes in principle because you often end up having to shove square pegs into round holes, causing pointless problems. See this dispute on a similar issue [1]. If Ayn Rand's "occupation" isn't a simple issue (and it obviously isn't, as she clearly spent her time and earned her money in multiple ways), then leave it out and have people read the article to find out the details.--Slp1 (talk) 20:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Rand and the Tradition, § edit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Philosophical criticism section

The philosophy criticism section is weak sauce.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vandalism

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

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

Philosopher

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Remain controversial where studied"

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

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

Smoking

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

Semi-protection

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The God of the Machine

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

If you want to make a section out of it go ahead. Also why wasn't it already mentioned? I mean the book was one of the very first influences on Rand & her brand of individualism. I mean there is faint to not in the passing mention of Paterson in the article now. As Cato is all about it [2]. LoveMonkey (talk) 19:44, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Professor Sciabarra

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lossky

The Nikolai Lossky article contains the following passage:

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

This is supported by the following reference:

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

Yes I am all for it!

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yevgeny Zamyatin

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

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

Sandbox

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

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

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

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

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

Getting comical

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

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

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

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

How can we move past the Philosopher debate?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pat Boone Anthem reference

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

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

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

Ignored by academia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Books Ranking

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

p. 704 in a section by Quinton on "Popular Philosophy" and specifically about the kind of popular philosophy that is the "amateur consideration of the standard, technical problems of philosophy;" p. 703. "In this century, amateur systems increasingly fail to find their way into print: most languish in typescript and photocopy. One arresting exception is the "Social Contract of the Universe", by C. G. Stone a most ambitious piece of deduction. There are also the works of LL White and George Melhuish, and in the United States, Ayn Rand, strenuous exponent of objectivism and self-interest." It is available on Amazon's look inside, [3]. --Slp1 (talk) 13:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

That seems a strange statement given that Quinton specifically uses the term amateur twice. Amateur does not imply payment/non-payment; as an adjective it means something coming from a non-professional and/or one lacking in experience or competence.[4]. --Slp1 (talk) 14:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now on Wikipedia Review

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

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

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

removing more rubbish

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

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

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

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